If anyone believes that Amtrak is in jeopardy think again

The topic of defunding Amtrak regularly comes up on this forum but I've always said that it will never happen.

In the last 70 years America has become extremely dependent on the Automobile, so much so that some families have four or more cars in their driveway. Recent world events have pushed the price of oil over $100 per barrel and no one knows exactly how high it will go. With $4, $5 or even $6 per gallon gas will the America people keep joy riding and using their Automobile for the slightest purpose or will financial concerns cause them to turn to public transportation? A fillup with $5 per gallon gas will now cost $125. I only fill up twice a month but I know some people that fill up twice a week. Five dolar per gallon gasoline will have a huge impact.

The price of gasoline will do what no one in politics has done and that is to cause the Amtrak system to grow. Ridership has the potential to grow significantly in 2011 and 2012.

When traveling from city to large city (or when visiting NY or Phila on a day trip) I always take to the rails. It convenient, saves a considerable amount of money (especially in coach), its restful (not being in stop and go traffic),and stops me from supporting the Shieks at the gas pumps.

It may be true that the American people haven't gotten the message so far, but as time goes on and they see how much their driving costs have risen, they have to realize that passenger rail is the only answer. Its about time that the American people wake up and stop being held hostage to the oil barons. Am I wrong about any of this?

In equally shocking news, the sun rose in the East this morning and is expected to set in the West later today.

Its about time that the American people wake up and stop being held hostage to the oil barons.

Click to expand...

I think the American people are awake.....but we need to wake up the politicians..... :lol:

dlagrua said:

The topic of defunding Amtrak regularly comes up on this forum but I've always said that it will never happen.

Click to expand...

If there's anything I've learned in life, it's never say never. I agree that it's unlikely Amtrak will lose its entire budget in the next couple years, but I don't think a wholesale defunding is required to cripple current operations over the long term. Even if Amtrak never loses a single dime in funding it will continue to lag further and further behind many other industrialized countries as their speeds increase while our speeds hold steady or even decrease. Amtrak's continued longevity has surprised both proponents and detractors, but in my view the trend lines and widespread growth of staunchly anti-rail politicking imply we are likely to experience rougher times ahead. It's this new political volatility that has me more concerned than the market forces you discuss in your post. Even without politics to worry about, many working age/class folks won't use Amtrak even at current funding levels and with today's gas prices. The trains where I live are simply too slow and too infrequent to be seen as a good value by most of the folks I know. Slow speeds and costly sleeper tickets are fine for rail fans and retirees but many working folks are unreceptive to slower-than-vehicular travel over long distances for costs at or greater than flying. I know at least a hundred people who hate flying but do it anyway because it's a necessity in their view. I don't know even one single person who hates trains but rides them anyway. The folks I know who ride trains on a regular basis do so because they were willing and able to seek them out and adjust their schedule and their budget to match the train. That says a lot to me about Amtrak's current relevance in the mind of the American public. The recent wave of newly elected anti-progressive politicians are quickly leveraging that former indifference into serious distrust today. How that eventually plays out is anyone's guess, but I believe we are potentially squandering the current window for serious improvement. Seeing states refusing even 90% federal funding for improved or expanded passenger rail service is a worrying sign of just how much worse our situation has become in the last year alone.

Ryan said:

In equally shocking news, the sun rose in the East this morning and is expected to set in the West later today.

Click to expand...

Yes but the sun will also rise in the East and set in the West next year. In contrast world events will be changing rapidly and not for the better in the next two years. It will make the great depression look like the good times. Instead of a sarcastic remark why don't you make a contribution and give us your opinion on how you see it.

Because I don't see the need to make comments to point out the blindingly obvious. I agree with Dax that "never" is an awfully strong absolute that should be avoided, but the chances of Amtrak closing up shop are pretty darn small.

Sadly, many americans may decide instead that the high price of oil means we need more exploration and drilling in the US (rather than looking for oil alternatives like public transit or solar, wind, etc).

While Amtrak will patronage will likely improve if oil prices grow (and their is no guarantee it will not go down like every other time)

It will have a larger effect on local transit and the adoption of fuel efficient vehicles and electric cars.

To chime in with Dax Amtrak funding can be fixed at the same level it is today and that would cause a disaster 20 years from now as most railcars will reach their operating lifetime.

Without a massive order of railcars in the next 10-20 years Amtrak will have to look at cutting routes instead of adding to them. :unsure:

I look at the increase in passenger rail in more absolute terms. As oil prices climb to $5.00 gallon, the American people might look at rail travel as a necessity and not an alternative. They just won't be able to afford to keep filling up at $125 a pop and will need to do something.

Air travel will be a recipient of increased passenger business but the Amtrak day and overnight runs may become more attractive. Amtraks business could be booming. I doubt if the longer runs will see the same increase in traffic but it should be noted that not everyone who uses the CZ, EB, SFC and SL takes it from beginning to end. They have passengers that take trips along these routes that take a few hours and one overnight as well.

BTW, does anyone have the figures on Amtrak ridership during the past fiscal year? Lets compare these to this years numbers and see what we have. My guess that if gas prices keep climbing, a 10% increase in ridership will result. If that happens the politicans will be forced to a better understanding of the importance of the US Passemger rail system. All of this is certainly just my opinion but I do not believe that I'm that far off the mark.

Look at Amtrak's Monthly Performance Reports (available here: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245669222).

They list year on year performance metrics (including ridership) for each train individually and in aggregate. Amtrak carried 4.6% more people in December 2010 than they did in December 2009.

If even one of the Republican Congressmembers proposing to rescind the unspent rail stimulus money* (1) openly changes his or her position and (2) admits they're doing so because gasoline prices are rising, I will eat my hat with barbecue sauce in Chicago's Daley Plaza at noon.

Amtrak's ridership has been rising for the last few years, including repeated double-digit percentage increases on several routes. Those increases predate the anti-rail and anti-Amtrak rhetoric that has heated up since the stimulus law passed. The rhetoric came anyway.

Passenger rail in the U.S. can yet be killed or crippled so long as Congress's view of passenger rail or Amtrak changes slower than the public's view changes. And the speed of Congress's change of view, like the speed of a WWII convoy, is that of the slowest members. hboy:

In other words, facts are stubborn things but ideologues can be stubborner. :giggle:

*I consider this a touchstone or test of Congressional rail support or opposition even though the rail stimulus funds are not the same as general Amtrak funding because the stimulus already survived a vote in Congress, and individual projects had to have the active support of a state government to be awarded funds by the federal Dep't of Transportation. The state support -- and the fact that California's and Florida's true-HSR plans don't involve Amtrak -- means this isn't a "vote of confidence" (or lack thereof) on Amtrak as an organization.

dlagrua said:

I look at the increase in passenger rail in more absolute terms. As oil prices climb to $5.00 gallon, the American people might look at rail travel as a necessity and not an alternative. They just won't be able to afford to keep filling up at $125 a pop and will need to do something.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly where the line is but I'm pretty sure America will be one of the very last societies to give up on oil burning automobiles. Seeing as how countries far less enamored with oil burning vehicles are more than willing to pay in excess of USD$7 per US gallon I don't think we're anywhere near the cut-off point yet. My personal guess would be somewhere around $10 per gallon, but even that might not be high enough to wean Americans off oil based transport.

dlagrua said:

My guess that if gas prices keep climbing, a 10% increase in ridership will result. If that happens the politicans will be forced to a better understanding of the importance of the US Passemger rail system.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt that Amtrak may have another round of substantially improved ridership numbers on the way, but I haven't seen anything to imply the growing anti-rail political pressure would be swayed by improving ridership or revenue.

Until the late 1990s, the greatest year for rail since Amtrak took over was 1979. Towards the conclusion of 1979, Amtrak lost a dozen routes, had huge service cut backs, and in general was gutted. 1980 produced the lowest train ridership in a century.

Do not assume, irrespective of anything that makes sense, that Amtrak will be funded this year, or next year, or any year.

We sit around and tell ourselves Amtrak this doesn't make sense, and Amtrak that doesn't make sense. Congressional mandate X makes no sense, Congressional mandate Y makes no sense.

But Congress will never defund Amtrak this year because that would make no sense.

I'll go out on a limb... I think the logic has a flaw somewhere.

daxomni said:

I'm not sure exactly where the line is but I'm pretty sure America will be one of the very last societies to give up on oil burning automobiles. Seeing as how countries far less enamored with oil burning vehicles are more than willing to pay in excess of USD$7 per US gallon I don't think we're anywhere near the cut-off point yet. My personal guess would be somewhere around $10 per gallon, but even that might not be high enough to wean Americans off oil based transport.

Click to expand...

I have a feeling that Americans' true tolerance level is much lower (around $5-6/gallon) but the size and layout of our country makes personal travel all but a necessity. Unless you are looking at turning all of suburbia into ghost towns, or transit companies implementing thousands of new, electric-powered transit routes so that everyone is less than 1/4 mile from a bus stop.

The problem is that there is no real alternative in the US. HSR is great, but there are a finite number of places to put it. Mass transit is great, but if Diesel fuel is $10.00/gal, you ain't paying two-fiddy to go across town. As for personal transportation alternatives, all of the ones that have come out of the gate have shown themselves to be unfeasible or obscenely priced. CNG? In order to have a normal fuel range, you'd need to have tanks that fill the trunk. Hydrogen? Just no (too many reasons to explain here). And electric cars? Well, they sound great, except for the fact that I don't want to have to stop for the night to recharge when driving from my home in the Philly suburbs to school at Penn State. I feel that if someone comes up with a reasonable, cheap, and efficient alternative to gasoline, it will be adopted by the majority of Americans within 15 years. But until that time comes, we will remain "addicted" to oil.

Nickrapak said:

And electric cars? Well, they sound great, except for the fact that I don't want to have to stop for the night to recharge when driving from my home in the Philly suburbs to school at Penn State.

Click to expand...

I think that the Chevy Volt is the first step in that direction. No gas use for around town trips, and a gas generator to fall back on once out of town. The gas pwered generator will morph into a generator powered by fuel cells in the future, I think.

Nickrapak said:

Unless you are looking at turning all of suburbia into ghost towns, or transit companies implementing thousands of new, electric-powered transit routes so that everyone is less than 1/4 mile from a bus stop.

Click to expand...

Why not?! There are plenty of ghost towns in rural areas, and have been for a century or more. More to the point, the effect of the post-war highway boom that created the present state of things was to render many inner cities ghost towns or close to it, with block after block of what had been middle-class and upper-working-class neighborhoods partially depopulated and totally run-down. Someone owned that land and those buildings and lost their shirt on them when cities became passe and the suburbs became all the rage. I could say turnabout is fair play, but I won't. :giggle:

Not all of suburbia would have to become a ghost town under $6+ gas. Subdivisions of houses on half-acre lots with no sidewalks and only one access to the rest of the road network weren't always that way and don't have to stay that way. Row after row of three-story office buildings set back a half-block from a sidewalkless highway and surrounded by acres of parking don't have to stay that way either. "Adapt or die" is not at all the same as "just die."

There are already suburbs of rail-transit-served metro areas -- the Dallases and Denvers and Salt Lake Cities of the nation, not just the Bostons and Chicagos -- that have more urbanish densities and development patterns centered around the rail stations.

The same kinds of redevelopment can occur in non-rail metro areas: electrified rail transit (subway, light rail, or commuter, depending on the circumstances) can be built on existing rail lines and rights-of-way, or electric-power rights of way, or the medians or sides of Interstates. The rail stations would be connected to surrounding areas by feeder or circulator buses. Transit lines, whether rail or bus, don't have to go from every possible origin to every possible destination directly (thousands of routes, as you put it) if there are convenient transfer points and frequent service.

Areas within a walk of a train station will be worth more and get redeveloped at the highest uses. Areas connected by bus to train stations will be worth a bit less and stay somewhat less dense, getting less dense the farther you get from the station. Areas too far from a rail station to be feasibly served by bus will go down in value significantly, and the land market will respond accordingly by putting the noxious or less-desirable land uses there. None of this is new or particularly revolutionary: it happened first when the railways were built, and again -- with a reshuffling of land values -- with the highway boom, substituting Interstate exits for stations and feeder roads for feeder buses.

Tumbleweed said:

Its about time that the American people wake up and stop being held hostage to the oil barons.

Click to expand...

I think the American people are awake.....but we need to wake up the politicians..... :lol:

Click to expand...

At the risk of putting words in Diagrua's mouth, I think he is talking about a lifestyle choice. When you mention politicians are you suggesting they stop subsidizing sprawl, or you simply looking for another entitlement, to cheap gasoline, that is.

I have a feeling that Americans' true tolerance level is much lower (around $5-6/gallon) but the size and layout of our country makes personal travel all but a necessity.

Click to expand...

I was was going to try to rebut this, but John Bredin did a better job than I could.

I would only add that what Nickrapak calls necessity is the result of a free choice. When it came to making decisions, the cost of gasoline didn't enter into the equation. He is also discounting the free enterprise system. If enough people don't want to drive 10 miles every time they have to blow their nose, someone will fill the demand.

On the other hand, if history repeats itself, the price of gasoline will drop a slight bit, Americans will readjust, and all will be forgotten, until the next run-up anyway.

dlagrua said:

Recent world events have pushed the price of oil over $100 per barrel and no one knows exactly how high it will go. With $4, $5 or even $6 per gallon gas will the America people keep joy riding and using their Automobile for the slightest purpose or will financial concerns cause them to turn to public transportation?

When traveling from city to large city (or when visiting NY or Phila on a day trip) I always take to the rails. It convenient, saves a considerable amount of money (especially in coach), its restful (not being in stop and go traffic),and stops me from supporting the Shieks at the gas pumps.

Am I wrong about any of this?

Click to expand...

Well Yes you are wrong. You live on the East coast apparently where there ARE trains. Here in Texas we have precious few. So no one is going to take to the rails when they don't exist. And there is no plan for them to exist in the near future. It would take years for some kind of corridor service to be developed. People here in the largest cities will take to public transit more, mainly buses, but not Amtrak. And I should remind you that Europeans have been living with $8 a gallon fuel for decades and they still own cars and use them whenever they can. If you have been over there then you know that the roads are just full of cars and trucks. And these people have probably the finest passenger rail system in the world. So the difference will be more use of local public transit, more fuel efficient cars and less long distance trips. People will just fly and rent a car when they get there, probably a small one. If high oil prices stick for an extended time, then it may have an impact on Amtrak funding and service, but most of these spikes don't last long enough to have any economic impact and when they go away everyone just goes back to doing what they always did..........drive. The current spike in oil prices is just speculation anyway as there is plenty of oil out there on the market and the Saudis have stated they can make up any shorfall easily.

Now if the Saudis fall all bets are off. lol.

In all this, let us not forget that a lot of our electricity is produced by burning oil. A lot is also produced by burning coal, but it is not coal that powers the trains that haul the coal to the power plants, it is oil.

If we want to unplug ourselves from dependence on oil, we must first and foremost figure out a way to generate massive amounts of electricity withou oil being any part of the process. And, by massive, I do not mean a bunch of cutesy windmills or coverning the landscape with solar panels. Solar panels make make sense to feed the air conditioner load in the daytime in the southwest, but the last time I noticed, they don't do much at night.

I see nothing wrong with bringing back nuclear. Remember the Three Mile Island "disaster"? Here we had a disaster in which no one was killed or even hurt. Chernobyl? Situation not applicible.

Another potential source would be geothermal. For Hawaii, at least, they should be able to produce 100% of their electric needs of the volcanic heat, and not have to drill very deep into the ground to use it. There are a lot of hot spots in the Continental US, as well. There seems to be a total non-enthusiasm in this area. In all the wonderful things we can do to wean ourselves off oil, this seems to get little or no mention at all.

Short term, why not drill more wells here? Right now we are sending huge bundles of money on a one way trip out of the country, much of it going to support many of the most repressive govenments on the planet.

I was about to say something important, but then the internet gave me the finger by accidently deleting my paragraph...

It's a little thing about what I call the "Peak Energy Mitigation Paradox"

I'll skip to what I was going to say afterwards...

IMO, when gas gets to extremely high prices, do you think people are going to take their vacation by bus or train instead of car or plane, or will the not take the vacation at all, even if they do have a choice?

Do you think people would want to invest in building a rail line so they can take their vacation when gas is super expensive, or do you think they'll just stay home?

Most times, people will choose the latter in both situations.

Sigh...

GlobalistPotato said:

IMO, when gas gets to extremely high prices, do you think people are going to take their vacation by bus or train instead of car or plane, or will the not take the vacation at all, even if they do have a choice?Do you think people would want to invest in building a rail line so they can take their vacation when gas is super expensive, or do you think they'll just stay home?

Most times, people will choose the latter in both situations.

Sigh...

Click to expand...

Vacation travel will be one of the first things to go. For many people by the time they get through spending the extra on necessities that expensive transportation will cause, they will not be taking any trips of any kind that they do not regard as necessary or near necessary. The investment in rail lines is not about and never has been about making vacations easier, with the exception of such things as the line to las Vegas. It is about the "normal" business and personal travel.

I think the answer is "both": There will be cutbacks in overall trips, but of those trips made, the method of travel will shift where possible. Let me point out a couple of short intercity runs around Virginia:

-NPN-RVM, March 23: $17 up, $17 back. $34 total. One train available (track work has also forced them to move the NPN departures to 6 AM...which is, ironically, early enough to get someone to DC for a lunch meeting and then back home by evening, something not normally available)

-RVR-WAS, March 23: $23 up, $23 back. $46 total. More expensive trains are available (3 at $31 each way, and the Silver Meteor is at $44 each way), but there are 5 at the $46 price. Add $5 for parking at Staples Mill station for the day, for $51.

-NPN-WAS, March 23: $33 up, $33 back. $66 total. One train available per NPN-RVM.

Now, let's compare some cost assumptions:

-Parking will be held steady at $15 for the day. This is actually charitable in DC, but it's not too far off for a day in Richmond in many lots.

-Mileage will be per GMaps. Thus:

Newport News-Richmond: 81 miles*2=162 miles

Richmond-Washington: 107 miles=214 miles

Newport News-Washington: 179 miles=358 miles

At 20 MPG and $3 a gallon gas, Newport News-Richmond runs $24.30 for gas plus $17 for parking, or $41. Richmond-Washington runs $32.10+$17, or $49. Newport News-Washington runs $53.7+17, or $70. As you can see, with lousy gas mileage the train is already ahead on cost in most cases (if your meeting is downtown, and in most cases the difference is more than the cost of a short off-peak metro ride), the exception being with parking at RVR. Yes, I know, most cars get over 20 MPG (my 2001 Ford Crown Victoria gets between 20 and 25, depending on the mix of highway and city driving, etc.). At 30 MPG (more common mileage these days), this doesn't hold for $3 gas, but it holds again over $4.50.

The point of this exercise is that higher gas prices will tend to push the train into being a viable option for trips that would normally be driven these days. I think it will also make a substantial impact on air travel (the cheapest flights to/from RIC/JFK "around" the 23rd, that is 22nd up and 24th back, run $275. The cheapest morning up/evening back flights are, in addition to being rather masochistic, the same; I do not think I need to expound upon travel within the NEC), and indeed I think it already has.

I do have to admit that for me, the one thing that makes taking the train to NYC a bit of a bear is the lack of good overnight options. It's a long trip from Hampton Roads up to NYC (eight hours), and given the option, I would gladly take a sleeper for the trip (and drop $200-250 each way for the accommodation charge...and at $200, it would be cheaper than a Holiday Inn booked nearly a month out to boot!). But that's another topic for another day.

Back to the topic at hand, I think it's fair to say that "expendable" trips will get dropped while "essential" ones (and I'll broadly include highly occasional vacations in this) will get shifted over where it's practical to do so.

daxomni said:

I know at least a hundred people who hate flying but do it anyway because it's a necessity in their view.

Click to expand...

They're going to have to figure something out, because in the long term, air travel is the one form that doesn't have any way to power it in a post-petrolium world. That means that those flights are going to get more and more expensive, and drive people to trains and behicles.

George Harris said:

If we want to unplug ourselves from dependence on oil, we must first and foremost figure out a way to generate massive amounts of electricity withou oil being any part of the process. And, by massive, I do not mean a bunch of cutesy windmills or coverning the landscape with solar panels. Solar panels make make sense to feed the air conditioner load in the daytime in the southwest, but the last time I noticed, they don't do much at night.

Click to expand...

I agree in general, but don't knock wind. Some of the wind farms coming on line right now can provide 1/2 to 3/4 of the electric power generated by a modern nuclear reactor, with the added benefit that they're a heck of a lot faster and cheaper to build and maintain, and don't create any long term toxic waste disposal problems. I agree that nuclear power is going to play a large role in energy generation in the future, but wind power is going to play a significant role as well.

Short term, why not drill more wells here? Right now we are sending huge bundles of money on a one way trip out of the country, much of it going to support many of the most repressive govenments on the planet.

Click to expand...

Because taking a longer term view of things, that oil is going to get more and more valuable. We're not going to be ready/able to go 100% petroleum free anytime soon (see: Air Travel). Saving it for then oil sells for $500 a barrel or $1000 a barrel makes more sense.

I think that they can generate a lot of electricity with the proposed wind farms off Cape Cod or Rhode Island - I wouldn't put it in the "cutesy windmills" category.

Ryan said:

Because taking a longer term view of things, that oil is going to get more and more valuable. We're not going to be ready/able to go 100% petroleum free anytime soon (see: Air Travel). Saving it for then oil sells for $500 a barrel or $1000 a barrel makes more sense.

Click to expand...

Well, the problem is: who's going to buy oil when it's that high? The only buyers I can see is the Federal Government and the Military.

And if oil is that high, then there's probably shortages going around. Gas pumps empty, people can't drive their cars, a gas tanker is worth its weight in gold (pre-1971 gold, that is ) .

Storing a bunch of oil is going to seen as "hoarding" at that point, and holding on to it may be almost as expensive as the price of the oil. You're going to have thieves who'll try to steal the oil (or blow it up because they see you as a hoarder).

In addition, there's likely going to be rationing, and hoarding oil could be illegal. Federal Government your only consumer? Federal Government wants you to give over the oil back when it was $300/barrel.