Folly of State Financed "Nationalized" rail.

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lets talk history. When Amtrak started in 1971, there were only a few Corridors included. The Penn Central system (Washington/Philly/Harrisburg/New York/Albany/Boston/Springfield/Buffalo) had huge ridership and as such was maintained. Same with the San Diegans. Detroit's political power as result of it being an economic engine got it two daily trains to Chicago. The Milwaukee corridor was profitable, and so operation continued. A pair of trains ran from Milwaukee to St. Louis, but there were no direct Chicago-St. Louis trains.

Otherwise, the rest of the system consisted of long distance trains. The ONLY St. Louis - Kansas city train ran all the way to New York, the Spirit of St. Louis, later renamed the National Limited. That was what Amtrak was supposed to run. Most of the rest of it was considered to not be Inter-City rail and as such continued to be operated by the freight roads.

Included in the bill was a provision to operate trains at the funding and request of states, as well as power for Amtrak to experiment with trains to see if they could be operated profitably and sensibly. For a system signed into law with the intention of failure, it was really a very sensible layout.

I only saw one glaring problem, and that was the systems operating within a state for that state. They should have always been, from day one, state funded. The Empire corridor, Keystone Corridor, Detroit corridor, Milwaukee corridor, and San Diegan corridor should have all been state funded. They are not national routes. They are state routes. Amtrak was supposed to be a system to benefit national connectivity. State infrastructure on all levels should be state directed.

I feel that way for all kinds of things, not just trains. I think that state taxes should be higher, Federal taxes lower, and the concept of federal "booster" funding for state projects should be thrown on to a scrap heap labeled "bad ideas". National taxes should be paid for national benefit. State taxes for state benefit. Federal funding of state trains made no sense in 1971, and it makes no sense now.

In the years that followed, though, as should be expected, Politics has been a double edged sword for Amtrak. It has kept it alive. And on life support. Given a dedicated funding source and no congressional intervention, Amtrak may well have been able to flourish and build a nice national system. But it wasn't to be so. Look at all the garbage that grew on the Amtrak system like Kudzo throughout the 70s. I mean, dear god. The Shenandoah, the Mountaineer, the James Whitcomb Riley, the Hilltopper, the Beacon Hill, the Michigan Executive, Praire Marksman, and the North Star. None of them had good ridership, yet all ran daily. Of them, only the James Whitcomb Riley survives as the Cardinal.

Amtrak should be allowed to have the Federal government fund long-distance routes as makes sense. I don't like that the feds are unwilling to fund them, although I keep hearing very solid discussion of a restored Broadway Limited coming out of Mass. Avenue. But all of those state trains? They benefit the state, and only the state. And the state can bloody pay for them.
 
Amtrak should be allowed to have the Federal government fund long-distance routes as makes sense. I don't like that the feds are unwilling to fund them, although I keep hearing very solid discussion of a restored Broadway Limited coming out of Mass. Avenue. But all of those state trains? They benefit the state, and only the state. And the state can bloody pay for them.
And that is why Amtrak and American passenger railroading will stay in the dark ages. All of those state trains that 'only benefit the state' will connect with LD trains and you have a 'network', more connections equal more journey opportunities and increased ridership, take them away and you are left with not much.

Pretty lame attitude from one that claims to be a supporter of rail travel.
 
I am a supporter of rail travel, and I think it would work best if the states took to learning the advantages of funding rail travel.
 
I'm not arguing that the federal government should fund all Amtrak routes. If a state wants a new route that doesn't have national importance, they should pay for it. I just think that some areas are dramatically under-served by rail, and fixing that ought to be a national concern.

You can't have a national network without regional corridors feeding into it.

I understand that federal money is tight. But Congress has found a way to keep Amtrak alive now for almost 40 years, and the federal government has more financial flexibility than the states.

For every pro-rail state like North Carolina or California, there are many others that will never even consider funding rail. With all the states that are already shutting down parks and schools, it's hard for me to envision most states paying Amtrak to run trains.
 
Interesting reading and thoughts. I still think the biggest driver in any of this is the public's willingness to have ANY sort of rail services.
How many people do you know in this country who have never, ever ridden a train? They simply do not envision the advantages of rail service which obviously people HERE think exist..or would exist. Too easy to get into your car or hop on a plane for many folks and until that vast swell of public opinion changes I honestly don't foresee a bright future.

Some months ago there was a LOT of talk about alternatives when gasoline was above $4.00 per gallon..talk about rail services, public transport expansion, more fule efficient cars, etc. And then the prices fell....
The problem, of course, is that it's difficult to convince people to ride trains if there aren't any trains for them to ride.

I live in a city with ample Amtrak service, and nearly everyone I talk to here has taken the train.

When I talk to people outside the northeast, few people have even thought about traveling by train. It's hard to convince someone of the benefits of rail travel when the only time you can board a train in your town is 2:00 am. I've always found that people are very open to traveling by train, but only if it's convenient and quicker than driving.
 
I'm mostly in favor of federalizing the system more, not less. Why is there no Amtrak in the nation's fifth largest city? Because it has Jon Kyl and John McCain for senators, that's why. There should be high speed rail between Atlanta and Charlotte, but there won't be. Why? because some of those states are pretty Republican and philosophically opposed to HSR---at least for now.

The more federal the sytem, the less you have to kowtow to parochial interests. Our gas pipelines are sited more at the national level. Electrical lines at the local level. Ever heard of a "constrained pipeline situation" during inclement weather?
 
Last time I looked Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas City were not in the same state either but it hasn't prevented amtrak from putting the operation on the local states instead of the national system where it belongs.
yeah but don't some states pay for intercity service for some LD trains.
 
Last time I looked Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas City were not in the same state either but it hasn't prevented amtrak from putting the operation on the local states instead of the national system where it belongs.
yeah but don't some states pay for intercity service for some LD trains.
That is his point, and yes some do as even I pointed out, and it is their choice to do so. Afterall no one is going to say that a state or a combine of states is not allowed to run a train even when they are willing to fund it.

Look, it is upto us to get Congress to change the current mandate on Amtrak to something more reasonable. Of course they are pushing back on such because they don;t really know how to find the money necessary through the Rube Goldberg budgeting process that they have. What was said in 1971 has close to zero relevance today when the reality of budgets has hit.
 
I'm mostly in favor of federalizing the system more, not less. Why is there no Amtrak in the nation's fifth largest city? Because it has Jon Kyl and John McCain for senators, that's why. There should be high speed rail between Atlanta and Charlotte, but there won't be. Why? because some of those states are pretty Republican and philosophically opposed to HSR---at least for now.
Did Jon Kyl or John McCain write a law banning Amtrak in the city? Did they stand in front of the bulldozer trying to build a station? Maybe they stood in the track as Amtrak tried to run an engine up to the platform?

No, the reason there's no Amtrak (or other train service) in the city is because the locals don't want it badly enough to shoulder the cost. And what's wrong with that? The people it would serve don't want to pay for it, so they don't get it. All's right with the world.

That's what you get when the states have to share in the cost: those who want to pay get it, those who don't want to pay can put their funds toward something they want more instead. It's not the strangest notion ever, is it?

Kyl and McCain didn't cause there to be no Amtrak. If anything you can put the blame on the simple fact that stuff costs money.
 
2013

Its an Federal Law. The states will pay or they will not have the trains.

Mr Boardman made it very clear. "I will follow the Law"

I ask about New York. NYC to Albany, Albany to Niagara. He stated it that New York will pay. This was an multi-question topic during the Amtrak / Trains Town Hall meeting in Chicago.

I personal think that is going to be an major problem. I do not think the community of rail supports have yet to realize what is going to happen in the next few years. This is not Amtrak, this is an Federal Law.

I hope that we do not lose any trains, but to say that everything that is out there today, will be there tomorrow (2013) would be so wrong.

:huh:
 
I'm mostly in favor of federalizing the system more, not less. Why is there no Amtrak in the nation's fifth largest city? Because it has Jon Kyl and John McCain for senators, that's why. There should be high speed rail between Atlanta and Charlotte, but there won't be. Why? because some of those states are pretty Republican and philosophically opposed to HSR---at least for now.
Did Jon Kyl or John McCain write a law banning Amtrak in the city? Did they stand in front of the bulldozer trying to build a station? Maybe they stood in the track as Amtrak tried to run an engine up to the platform?

No, the reason there's no Amtrak (or other train service) in the city is because the locals don't want it badly enough to shoulder the cost. And what's wrong with that? The people it would serve don't want to pay for it, so they don't get it. All's right with the world.

That's what you get when the states have to share in the cost: those who want to pay get it, those who don't want to pay can put their funds toward something they want more instead. It's not the strangest notion ever, is it?

Kyl and McCain didn't cause there to be no Amtrak. If anything you can put the blame on the simple fact that stuff costs money.
Respectfully, do you really think that when Amtrak was formed the Cities in this country or states for that matter thought "they" were going into the passenger rail business. Amtrak was formed to let the Freight Railroads off the hook but since passenger service was deemed a necessity to many the government figured a way to keep it running. I don't think a thing was said about passing the buck to someone else. Surly they knew when they decided to do it that passenger service didn't make a return on its money of if it did, not much.

Here is where the idea than by giving passengers an incentive to travel by rail instead of telling them to be happy with what ever the government deems as enough, comes into play. We have already said that the successful trains all had more than just a set of cars, it had an advertised "improved atmosphere" which in turn meant the best revenue. Needless to say that fact is being sadly dismissed or misunderstood by todays managers of amtrak and the congress as well.
 
Lets talk history. When Amtrak started in 1971, there were only a few Corridors included. The Penn Central system (Washington/Philly/Harrisburg/New York/Albany/Boston/Springfield/Buffalo) had huge ridership and as such was maintained. Same with the San Diegans. Detroit's political power as result of it being an economic engine got it two daily trains to Chicago. The Milwaukee corridor was profitable, and so operation continued. A pair of trains ran from Milwaukee to St. Louis, but there were no direct Chicago-St. Louis trains.
Otherwise, the rest of the system consisted of long distance trains. The ONLY St. Louis - Kansas city train ran all the way to New York, the Spirit of St. Louis, later renamed the National Limited. That was what Amtrak was supposed to run. Most of the rest of it was considered to not be Inter-City rail and as such continued to be operated by the freight roads.

Included in the bill was a provision to operate trains at the funding and request of states, as well as power for Amtrak to experiment with trains to see if they could be operated profitably and sensibly. For a system signed into law with the intention of failure, it was really a very sensible layout.

I only saw one glaring problem, and that was the systems operating within a state for that state. They should have always been, from day one, state funded. The Empire corridor, Keystone Corridor, Detroit corridor, Milwaukee corridor, and San Diegan corridor should have all been state funded. They are not national routes. They are state routes. Amtrak was supposed to be a system to benefit national connectivity. State infrastructure on all levels should be state directed.

I feel that way for all kinds of things, not just trains. I think that state taxes should be higher, Federal taxes lower, and the concept of federal "booster" funding for state projects should be thrown on to a scrap heap labeled "bad ideas". National taxes should be paid for national benefit. State taxes for state benefit. Federal funding of state trains made no sense in 1971, and it makes no sense now.

In the years that followed, though, as should be expected, Politics has been a double edged sword for Amtrak. It has kept it alive. And on life support. Given a dedicated funding source and no congressional intervention, Amtrak may well have been able to flourish and build a nice national system. But it wasn't to be so. Look at all the garbage that grew on the Amtrak system like Kudzo throughout the 70s. I mean, dear god. The Shenandoah, the Mountaineer, the James Whitcomb Riley, the Hilltopper, the Beacon Hill, the Michigan Executive, Praire Marksman, and the North Star. None of them had good ridership, yet all ran daily. Of them, only the James Whitcomb Riley survives as the Cardinal.

Amtrak should be allowed to have the Federal government fund long-distance routes as makes sense. I don't like that the feds are unwilling to fund them, although I keep hearing very solid discussion of a restored Broadway Limited coming out of Mass. Avenue. But all of those state trains? They benefit the state, and only the state. And the state can bloody pay for them.
flawed, flawed, flawed. Do U honestly think that zero pax on these "state routes" stepped off the "state trains" and did NOT get on another train that was part of the "national system"?
 
flawed, flawed, flawed. Do U honestly think that zero pax on these "state routes" stepped off the "state trains" and did NOT get on another train that was part of the "national system"?
:blink: So, just as a random example, because significant number of passengers use NJTransit as a feeder into Amtrak trains the federal government should require that NJT and Amtrak merge then, or at least NJTransit be fully funded in the federal budget? I am afraid I don't understand your line of reasoning. :unsure:
 
flawed, flawed, flawed. Do U honestly think that zero pax on these "state routes" stepped off the "state trains" and did NOT get on another train that was part of the "national system"?
:blink: So, just as a random example, because significant number of passengers use NJTransit as a feeder into Amtrak trains the federal government should require that NJT and Amtrak merge then, or at least NJTransit be fully funded in the federal budget? I am afraid I don't understand your line of reasoning. :unsure:
I wouldn't say that its rocket science to realize that there is a difference in a rail system basically reaching out from and providing access to workers that live within commuting distance, which by the way is what these are.

A line that reaches 300 or more miles across one or more states is not a commuter line but a piece of a national rail system. Really that can't be so hard for so many to see?
 
flawed, flawed, flawed. Do U honestly think that zero pax on these "state routes" stepped off the "state trains" and did NOT get on another train that was part of the "national system"?
:blink: So, just as a random example, because significant number of passengers use NJTransit as a feeder into Amtrak trains the federal government should require that NJT and Amtrak merge then, or at least NJTransit be fully funded in the federal budget? I am afraid I don't understand your line of reasoning. :unsure:
I wouldn't say that its rocket science to realize that there is a difference in a rail system basically reaching out from and providing access to workers that live within commuting distance, which by the way is what these are.

A line that reaches 300 or more miles across one or more states is not a commuter line but a piece of a national rail system. Really that can't be so hard for so many to see?
So what is the distance rule for something to cease to be a commuter line and become a national railroad? ;) Would you consider that the 125 or so miles of the Montauk Branch of the LIRR should be run as part of the national railroad (about the same distance as Los Angeles to San Diego)? Do you believe that only "workers" whatever they are, are the users of the local railroads? Do said workers also use short Amtrak routes? Should the 84 mile Chicago to Milwaukee route therefore not be run by Amtrak? I am just trying to understand what consistent set of rules to apply to decide what is national railroad and what is not, and trying to brush it off using terms like "rocket science" is not really addressing the issue. ;)
 
Respectfully, do you really think that when Amtrak was formed the Cities in this country or states for that matter thought "they" were going into the passenger rail business. Amtrak was formed to let the Freight Railroads off the hook but since passenger service was deemed a necessity to many the government figured a way to keep it running. I don't think a thing was said about passing the buck to someone else. Surly they knew when they decided to do it that passenger service didn't make a return on its money of if it did, not much.
You're ignoring a fact of history, Larry. Amtrak was born to fail. Amtrak was born to prove that passenger trains could not make money. It was born to be dead by the mid 70s. It was an experiment intended to fail. Were it not for the fuel crisis, Amtrak would not have survived. Hell, if it wasn't for 9-11, Amtrak would have died 9 years ago.

Amtrak was, in essence, the ultimate passing of the buck. Passing of rail travel to an operation that couldn't possibly be more competent than the freight railroads at operating trains. Hell, the commuter rail organizations of the northeast weren't formed to promote rail travel. They were bluntly created to ensure an orderly shut down and dismantling of the systems that most of them still serve.

Amtrak was born of political compromise. It lives on political compromise. In the future, when it dies, I have no doubt it will be a matter of political compromise. Amtrak operates a lot more short distance service than it was ever intended to. They were the states prerogative. I see shouldering a few routes that should never have been nationally funded off on the states that use them as making a lot of sense. Its making the people who primarily use certain trains bear the brunt of paying for them. Its a simple accounting concept called the matching principle.

flawed, flawed, flawed. Do U honestly think that zero pax on these "state routes" stepped off the "state trains" and did NOT get on another train that was part of the "national system"?
Of course not. Hell, I've walked a mile from my house, gotten on an NJ Transit bus to Red Bank, taken an NJ Transit train to New York, and then taken a Amtrak train to various places many times. Its a matter of primacy. NJTransit probably is responsible for a few thousand Amtrak transfers a day. However, NJT carries about 400,000 rail passengers each day (I know the total, including busses, is 980k) within the state of New Jersey and into New York City. It primarily exists to serve New Jersey, and New Jersey pays for it.

The Mo River Runner serves Missouri primarily. Sure, it serves connections and so on, but I'd bet 90% of its passengers are Missourians heading to places within Missouri. It is silly for people on a national level to pay for it. The Empire Service serves New York. Nobody but New York. National funding for it has been a fraud perpetrated upon the people of the United States for the past 35 years. I'm glad its over.
 
I wouldn't say that its rocket science to realize that there is a difference in a rail system basically reaching out from and providing access to workers that live within commuting distance, which by the way is what these are.
A line that reaches 300 or more miles across one or more states is not a commuter line but a piece of a national rail system. Really that can't be so hard for so many to see?
Tell that to all of the people that commute on amtrak on the NEC. Lots of people on the 66 from PVD-BOS (rhode island to mass) and on the 67 from places in Delaware and Maryland to Washington, DC. But that is a train that is certainly over 300 miles long and crosses many states - MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, DC. It serves multiple purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top