House Passes 2015 THUD ... $1.4 billion for Amtrak

[Paulus]

Hey, I ask under the "when is a route not a route" logic. If Amtrak could skirt an (incredibly stupid) axing of the SL by managing to only cut the SAS-NOL leg, it would limit the cities with cut rail service to...effectively just Houston.

It doesn't call out the Sunset by name, mere referring to the worst performing route.

 

[neroden]

The amendment specifies the route which is worst-performing based on specific PAST years' performance, so we know which route it is, and it's the Sunset Limited.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

You know, it wouldn't be the worst performing route if Congress did something to improve it. This is what happens when you ignore a problem, it doesn't go away. Trying to make it go away won't solve anything either, you're only making trains less available to places that need them. Then it becomes a headache to bring it back, especially if it's the only train that goes through the area.

 

[edjbox]

anyone know when the Senate will go into conference? anything we can do to stop these amendments?

 

[tonys96]

I understand none can be spent on the SL, and none on food service. Is that correct?

 

[Ryan]

That's what is in the House Bill. It still had to go to the conference committee, which is where this crap can be gotten rid of.

Here's the amendment text:

Sec. 417. None of the funds made available by this Act

shall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highest

loss, measured by contributions/(Loss) per Rider, as based on

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years

2013-2017 Five Year Plan from May 2013.

 

[tonys96]

That's what is in the House Bill. It still had to go to the conference committee, which is where this crap can be gotten rid of.Here's the amendment text:

Sec. 417. None of the funds made available by this Actshall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highestloss, measured by contributions/(Loss) per Rider, as based onthe National Railroad Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years2013-2017 Five Year Plan from May 2013.

Thanks. What about no money for F&B? I heard that was there too.......

 

[Ryan]

The Sunset Limited was a Sessions amendment.

The food and beverage amendment was by Gingrey (GA) and (surprise!) Mica:

Sec. 417. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used in contravention of section 24305©(4) of title 49,

United States, Code.

Here's the relevant part of title 49:

© Miscellaneous Authority.— Amtrak may—

(1) make and carry out appropriate agreements;

(2) transport mail and express and shall use all feasible methods to obtain the bulk mail business of the United States Postal Service;

(3) improve its reservation system and advertising;

(4) provide food and beverage services on its trains only if revenues from the services each year at least equal the cost of providing the services;

(5) conduct research, development, and demonstration programs related to the mission of Amtrak; and

(6) buy or lease rail rolling stock and develop and demonstrate improved rolling stock

According to Gingrey's remarks, this has been in there since 1981:

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to offer an

amendment to H.R. 4745. This amendment would prohibit funds from being

used to subsidize Amtrak food and beverage service.

As my colleagues know, Amtrak operates at a loss every year,

partially due to millions lost in the food service cost. In 2012,

Amtrak lost $72 million

[[Page H5229]]

on its food and beverage service, and that loss is just one in a

consistent series of losses. This loss on its own would be cause for

concern, but even more concerning is that the loss directly violates

the law.

Madam Chairwoman, in 1981, Federal law mandated that Amtrak break

even on its food and beverage service by the following year, 1982.

Despite this, Amtrak not only failed to break even, but it contracted

with high-end chefs to develop gourmet recipes for Amtrak meals, to the

tune of more than $905 million in the last decade.

Heavily subsidized routes feature dishes such as lamb shank and

Atlantic salmon, and Amtrak has a Culinary Advisory Team to develop new

high-end recipes. In 2012, a hamburger cost Amtrak $16.15, with riders

paying $9.50. This means that we, the taxpayers, are forced to pick up

the tab for the remaining $6.65 through subsidies provided to Amtrak.

On some routes, first-class passengers are offered complimentary

cheese, wine, and champagne. While the passenger may enjoy these luxury

items, it is not fair that the taxpayer is forced to subsidize these

extravagances.

Each spring, Amtrak brings together some of the best chefs in the

country for a retreat of sorts. These chefs--several of them, of

course, award-winning--come together for what The Washington Post has

called ``an intensive 3-day session of cooking and brainstorming.'' At

last year's gathering, chefs tasted more than 100 offerings. Of the

recipes tested, including recipes for braised pork chop and a spinach

and mushroom frittata, several will be deemed unsuitable for offering

on Amtrak either due to kitchen limitations or due to a lack of

cohesiveness with the rest of the menu.

Madam Chairwoman, I ask you: When the average American is struggling

to make ends meet, why are we throwing away money at Amtrak for these

luxuries, especially when Amtrak consistently operates at a loss?

If a private company wants to host a brainstorming weekend for top

chefs, that is its prerogative, but the taxpayer should not be on the

hook for a getaway focused on developing lavish meals for Amtrak

passengers.

Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize Amtrak, and they

certainly should not be forced to cover tens of millions of dollars in

costs to pay for gourmet meals and first-class service on Amtrak.

Amtrak's food and beverage losses violate the law. Yet this is

flagrantly disregarded. Rather than taking steps to correct the

problem, the service goes after more upscale options.

We must end this cycle of wasteful spending and enact real change to

get our fiscal house back in order. With a national debt of more than

$17 trillion, we cannot afford to keep throwing money away,

particularly on luxuries such as gourmet meals on a federally

subsidized train service.

For that reason, Mr. Mica and I are offering this amendment to

prohibit funds made available by this act from being used to subsidize

Amtrak food and beverage service. I urge my colleagues to support the

Gingrey-Mica amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

 

[Ryan]

More reading, if you like to dig into primary sources:

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4745/amendments

Edit: And here's the Senate bill. According to this, it hasn't gone up for a vote yet.

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2438/all-actions/

 

[afigg]

That's what is in the House Bill. It still had to go to the conference committee, which is where this crap can be gotten rid of.

Here's the amendment text:

Sec. 417. None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highest loss, measured by contributions/(Loss) per Rider, as based on

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation Fiscal Years 2013-2017 Five Year Plan from May 2013.

So the amendment is based on projections issued by Amtrak last year in the FY13 Five year plan. Odd thing for Sessions to pick put, but he probably had a staffer grab Amtrak documents and that is what the staffer selected. The biggest loss by rider in that FY13 projection is by far the Sunset Limited.
The amendment says that no funds go to support the route with the highest loss, effectively among the 15 LD trains in the tables in the Five Year plan. My interpretation is that if the amendment is not thrown out in the conference committee - I expect it will be, but that is not certain - nothing in that wording would prevent Amtrak from extending the Texas Eagle as the TE to Los Angeles and cutting back to 14 named LD trains. But that could be seen as defying the House and I suspect Boardman and the Amtrak board would avoid doing so.

If the TE is extended, Amtrak could ask TX and LA to support a corridor service between New Orleans and San Antonio, but the odds of a positive response in the near term given the politics of the 2 states are poor.

 

[CHamilton]

The larger picture: is compromise out?

Will Cantor's loss push congressional Republicans to balk on transportation compromise?

Cantor's loss makes this summer's looming congressional fight over transportation funding all the more unpredictable....

Transportation wasn't a major issue in Cantor's election, but ... that will push every other House Republican away from compromise in general, and grind whatever progress Congress was making on anything to a halt....

Transportation funding was a non-partisan issue in the 20th Century. Every six years Congress would pass a transportation bill with broad support from both parties. But in recent years, amid declining gas tax revenue and increasing need for supplemental funding, transportation has become a partisan spark.

Congress seemed primed to act, but now it's an open question

Up until Cantor's defeat, the general assumption in the transportation world has been that Congress would do something this summer. "Something" might mean a long term solution like a new bill and new taxes. Or it might mean a band-aid, like an extension of MAP-21 with an infusion of federal general fund dollars. Either way, Congress appeared to be making some progress.

But now? House Republicans might very well cease all legislative activity, and hope to ride out the rest of election season without upsetting their conservative base.

Polls show that raising money for transportation is popular, and voters rarely punish officials for doing so. But that may not matter to Republicans concerned about attacks from the extreme right....

On the other hand, maybe the Republican establishment will take this as a call to arms, and moderate legislators will become more powerful. But that seems unlikely... after the biggest tea party victory of the season.

 

[Paulus]

Would someone mind explaining to me why Amtrak should fight to the death to keep the Sunset Limited?

 

[Ryan]

The same reasons we should fight to save Amtrak as a whole?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They shouldn't. If it's constituents don't want it, and they don't, there are other riders who would benefit from the Sunsets equipment being freed up.

 

[CHamilton]

I don't have any inside information, but it appears that NARP is taking the position that these are just more attacks on the national system. Which makes sense to me. Take a bunch of "death by a thousand cuts" amendments, and add the "we will never compromise" mentality, and you get a classic domino theory situation: today the food and the Sunset, tomorrow ... what, sleepers and the Cardinal?

 

[tonys96]

I don't have any inside information, but it appears that NARP is taking the position that these are just more attacks on the national system. Which makes sense to me. Take a bunch of "death by a thousand cuts" amendments, and add the "we will never compromise" mentality, and you get a classic domino theory situation: today the food and the Sunset, tomorrow ... what, sleepers and the Cardinal?

Exactly correct. There were many here who had no problems with the first round of amenity cuts......look where that is now headed. The same slippery slope is here with this. Cut lowest performer now, again cut lowest performer next year, and so on.....in 14 years there is no LD service at all.......

 

[Paulus]

The same reasons we should fight to save Amtrak as a whole?

Amtrak as a whole is not threatened except perhaps by the insistence of various advocacy groups that it continue to run highly expensive long distance trains with minimal ridership or value as rural transportation. Heck, the Coachella Valley thruway bus, which requires a train connection (probably the reason it ends in Fullerton rather than LA), has at least 20% of the ridership of the entire Sunset Limited route. Why should Amtrak fight to retain the Subset Limited instead of offering to use its equipment for a state supported Coachella Valley rail corridor (which CA wants)?

 

[Bob Dylan]

A short run Bus Route as a Substitute for the oldest continually operating LD Route in the US! You can't be serious!!!

 

[tonys96]

A short run Bus Route as a Substitute for the oldest continually operating LD Route in the US! You can't be serious!!!

Unfortunately I believe he is..............

 

[Paulus]

A short run bus as a Substitute for the oldest continually operating LD Route in the US! For real????

No, a rail corridor from Los Angeles to Indio, currently served by the Sunset Limited at "How stupid do you think we are?" hours and by a Thruway service at rather more reasonable hours. As it is, the Sunset Limited is nothing more than a waste of money and equipment; so what if it is the longest continually running LD route? That's not a reason to keep it running.

 

[tonys96]

A short run bus as a Substitute for the oldest continually operating LD Route in the US! For real????

No, a rail corridor from Los Angeles to Indio, currently served by the Sunset Limited at "How stupid do you think we are?" hours and by a Thruway service at rather more reasonable hours. As it is, the Sunset Limited is nothing more than a waste of money and equipment; so what if it is the longest continually running LD route? That's not a reason to keep it running.

I don't think it is a waste to those who board along the route........

 

[afigg]

Amtrak as a whole is not threatened except perhaps by the insistence of various advocacy groups that it continue to run highly expensive long distance trains with minimal ridership or value as rural transportation. Heck, the Coachella Valley thruway bus, which requires a train connection (probably the reason it ends in Fullerton rather than LA), has at least 20% of the ridership of the entire Sunset Limited route. Why should Amtrak fight to retain the Subset Limited instead of offering to use its equipment for a state supported Coachella Valley rail corridor (which CA wants)?

Interesting proposed corridor service to bring up. Would there be much support for a Coachella Valley corridor service if the Sunset Limited had been canceled decades ago? If there had been no train service for decades, would the local politicians and business leaders even be considering pushing for a corridor train service to LA? In the east, would the Lynchburg Regional service been added if there was no Crescent running over the route demonstrating that there was a demand for more train service in Lynchburg and Charlottesville?
The existence of the SL in the Coachella Valley is the foundation on which a Coachella Valley corridor service can build on. The LD trains have kept passenger train service alive to many communities, even as a 3 day a week service. if the SL goes away, 2 of the largest cities in the US, Houston and the Phoenix metro region, would have no intercity train service at all. And there would be a huge gap in passenger train service across the southern perimeter of the continental US.

Instead of more retreat, fight to keep what remains of the intercity passenger train system intact, as it far more difficult to restore service where there is none, than where there are still passenger trains running.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

There will always be a worst performing route that folks like Paulus will hand over without a fight. After the Sunset it will be another route and another after that. If you keep lopping off the weakest route eventually you end up with no routes. I seriously doubt Amtrak will get stronger as the network fractures into isolated routes that can't connect to each other.

 

[neroden]

The food service attack is idiotic and frankly if it doesn't get thrown out in committee, which it should, I would be inclined to respond by assigning a portion of coach ticket revenues to food service on every single train with service. People who don't buy food on the train still make the choice to ride because they know food is available if they need it.

It's interesting to see that the original version of the attack on food service was actually done by the Reagan administration.

I am not as concerned about the Sunset Limited. I would like to keep it, but really, anything less-than-daily is not doing anyone any favors and exists only as a placeholder for future improvements. In this case, the original sin is the actions of the ICC in permitting the route to go less-than-daily back before Amtrak. (In the case of the Cardinal, it's actually Amtrak's fault, as the Cardinal route *used to be daily* under Amtrak.) I would hope that Boardman would have the sense to promptly replace the SL with a daily Texas Eagle to LA and tell Congress "See, we didn't spend money on the Sunset Limited. This is a different, better, DAILY train."

 

[Paulus]

Amtrak as a whole is not threatened except perhaps by the insistence of various advocacy groups that it continue to run highly expensive long distance trains with minimal ridership or value as rural transportation. Heck, the Coachella Valley thruway bus, which requires a train connection (probably the reason it ends in Fullerton rather than LA), has at least 20% of the ridership of the entire Sunset Limited route. Why should Amtrak fight to retain the Subset Limited instead of offering to use its equipment for a state supported Coachella Valley rail corridor (which CA wants)?

Interesting proposed corridor service to bring up. Would there be much support for a Coachella Valley corridor service if the Sunset Limited had been canceled decades ago? If there had been no train service for decades, would the local politicians and business leaders even be considering pushing for a corridor train service to LA? In the east, would the Lynchburg Regional service been added if there was no Crescent running over the route demonstrating that there was a demand for more train service in Lynchburg and Charlottesville?

Probably, look at the continued support for some sort of passenger rail connection to Las Vegas (which brings to mind the question: Why did the Desert Wind die and the Sunset Limited live when the Wind had much better ridership and lower losses?). The Capitol Corridor was three decades after the last local train on the route (though with the Starlight going through in the middle of the night). Support for passenger rail service isn't based on the absolutely pathetic performance of the Sunset Limited in the region, but more of an evolving need for transportation along that route and "Hey, we have a rail line, let's use it!"

The existence of the SL in the Coachella Valley is the foundation on which a Coachella Valley corridor service can build on. The LD trains have kept passenger train service alive to many communities, even as a 3 day a week service. if the SL goes away, 2 of the largest cities in the US, Houston and the Phoenix metro region, would have no intercity train service at all.

Yes, and? Let them fund their own corridor services if they want intercity rail service.

And there would be a huge gap in passenger train service across the southern perimeter of the continental US.

I don't see a problem with this.