Is Amtrak LD Truly Relevant

[George B]

More routes are needed and more equipment and the service needs to be run on time and it needs to be a real service. Not some govt employees just trying to get through so they can get paid. The markets are there for the picking. But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.

Explain to me how Amtrak is supposed to do all of this with existing capital and equipment? And, let me tell you, employees in the private sector are also “just trying to get through so they can get paid”. Customer service in the airlines is rotten, in case you have forgotten.

The only reason Amtrak runs trains, or even exists at all is for political reasons. It doesn’t make sense to run LD passenger trains anymore. So, making comparisons to the airlines is senseless, as the differences are obvious. Everything is against Amtrak’s existence. Either a person makes peace with this and takes LD train travel for what it is, or chooses not to ride LD trains. I make peace with it and enjoy train travel while we still have it.

 

[TVRM610]

But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.

henryj, I notice you are from Houston TX, so perhaps things are very different in that area, but here on the East Coast I have seen completely the opposite! Since the beginning of the year I've ridden the Crescent twice, the Carolinian twice, the Silver Meteor twice, the Silver Star twice and the Piedmont once, in addition to NE/Acela trains. The only significant delay was once on the Crescent when a locomotive had to be taken off in Atlanta. Even then we weren't more than an hour late into NYP, and that was with the switching in ATL, fueling the locomotive in the middle of the night (since it was using more fuel with the extra work), and slightly slower speeds in the mountains. I've been more than impressed with the Amtrak trains in this area lately, maybe I just have amazingly good luck.

Seriously, your "only railfans" comment is completely unrealistic.

 

[AlanB]

Wildcat,

One of the biggest reasons that we have Amtrak today is because the government interfered in the Free Market. Passenger trains used to be run by private industry years ago. While there were several factors in private industry dumping passenger service, the biggest one was the fact that government started subsidizing roads & planes. In recent years the subsidies to planes have come down, although the amount last year was still more than Amtrak got from the Fed. But road subsidies are higher than ever. In fact, just in the last 3 years the Fed alone has dropped more than $62 Billion into highways not paid for by us drivers. That's more money than Amtrak has received in its 40 years of existance.

The only way to send passenger service back to private ownership is to drop all subsidies to planes & roads. And you won't like the results of that experiment.

You get what you pay for, or don't as in this case. Want better trains, let your Congress reps know that you want higher subsidies for Amtrak. Want fewer delays, make sure your Congress reps know that too!

 

[AlanB]

To everyone else,

I've had to clean up some posts in this topic and delete a few too. While you may not like the subject, the staff will still requests that you please keep things civil. Post with name calling will be deleted or modified as we see fit.

Please feel free to bash away with facts, but again, please let's be civil and respectful!

Thanks!

 

[Bob Dylan]

Congressman Mica, welcome aboard!

:lol: :lol: :lol: With enemies like this guy, Amtrak needs all the friends it can get! Amtrak Joe needs to get to work!!! :help:

 

[TraneMan]

coach fares that often exceed the cost of an airline ticket. I have also traveleled by sleeper in the past, but the fares have gotten so ridiculously expensive that I won't consider it now.

I find prices are about the same..

For an example, I priced out tickets next week to Whitefish MT.

Amtrak w/ roomette- $1,500.80

Flying in coach- $1,747.82

Next June.

Amtrak w/ roomette- $868.40

Flying in coach- $1,202.00

I think it's cheaper to take the train out, than flying. I've had good service on Empire Builder. The 24 hours is my vacation while I am going to my vacation spot.

 

[Anderson]

More routes are needed and more equipment and the service needs to be run on time and it needs to be a real service. Not some govt employees just trying to get through so they can get paid. The markets are there for the picking. But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.

Explain to me how Amtrak is supposed to do all of this with existing capital and equipment? And, let me tell you, employees in the private sector are also "just trying to get through so they can get paid". Customer service in the airlines is rotten, in case you have forgotten.

The only reason Amtrak runs trains, or even exists at all is for political reasons. It doesn't make sense to run LD passenger trains anymore. So, making comparisons to the airlines is senseless, as the differences are obvious. Everything is against Amtrak's existence. Either a person makes peace with this and takes LD train travel for what it is, or chooses not to ride LD trains. I make peace with it and enjoy train travel while we still have it.

I have to break Amtrak into three groupings:

1) The NEC and other short-haul hubs that can be run at a profit or fairly close to one fairly easily (and which have a number of routes "on the bubble": I count 5 non-NEC corridor routes with better than 90% CR, 3 more between 80% and 90%, 5 between 75% and 80%, and 3 more between 70% and 75%).

2) A subset of the longer-haul Eastern trains and some other Regionals which I believe could be run, if not at a profit, then with CR figures more commensurate with the current "corridor" routes (i.e. with an eye towards 70% CR). I would put a better-run Silver Service in this category, as well as the Cap and the Lake Shore (both of which I think are harmed by the lack of an option to get folks back into NYC before dinner time); I would also put in some "feeder" services (the Keystone, for example) which dump traffic onto the NEC and/or feed one another (a good example here is the Lincoln Service vs. the MORR/Mule: The Lincoln doesn't do so hot on CR, but the Mule does very well...yet I think they definitely feed into one another).

3) The Western money hole trains, which I think we can agree aren't going to turn a profit (or even come close) anytime in the foreseeable future. Maybe if oil goes to $200 next week and the airline industry goes insolvent, but even then it would be a stretch.

#2 might potentially include parts of #3, such as the CZ going to Denver and the EB going to Minneapolis, but the overall western operation is a mess. I think that it serves a role as part of a national system (and I would point out the relative utility of large sections of several interstates out in Flyover Country, too), but the financial side is a mess and not improving. Likewise, #3 would probably include the Cardinal in its current form (as opposed to a dailified version that was rescheduled to hit Cincinnati at a sane hour).

There's very little talk about axing #1 while most of the criticism focuses on #3 and, I believe, conflates #2 and #3.

 

[jis]

By Amtrak's own admission none of the CR figures include any allocation of capital cost or depreciation. So using those numbers to claim something can be run profitably or not is a bit unconnected with reality. At best, if one can assume that the impact of those additional items are equally spread out among all, then those numbers can be used for comparing one service line against another. but even that has been repeatedly challenged by many, including many state ARPs and URPA. Only NARP, which gets a bit of funding to carry out some marketing functions for Amtrak, appears to not want to even ask Amtrak to fix that problem in their performance story.

One of the biggest problems in all this is that unlike the rest of the Amtrak system, the separation of infrastructure from operations on NEC is pretty fuzzy at best. Thus, typically Amtrak is unable to provide a meaningful "track charge" method of charging for infrastructure to its trains using it. It is also alleged with good reason, that even the transit agencies pay track charges that are well below any sustainable level for keeping the NEC infrastructure in operable shape. OTOH, it is also an acknowledged fact that the track charges that Amtrak pays private RRs is artificially low when compared to reasonable market prices for the same. So the whole accounting is still a bit of a mess, and there is quite a bit of apples to oranges comparisons going on when those Amtrak performance numbers are used.

So the story of profitability of NEC operations is based on a set of assumptions that can be adjusted as needed to produce the desired result at the other end. That of course does not lead to good analysis. That is why many friends of Amtrak were appalled when Boardman categorically stated to the Congress that Acela is profitable while LD trains can never be so. And to some extent they were right to do so.

 

[henryj]

But I doubt if there are that many repeat riders after one horrible Amtrak experience after another. Only railfans will put up with what is going on right now.

henryj, I notice you are from Houston TX, so perhaps things are very different in that area, but here on the East Coast I have seen completely the opposite! Seriously, your "only railfans" comment is completely unrealistic.

I would like to take the train more often......but we don't have any. Amtrak just doesn't like Texas. The East Coast is a diff market and one that even LD trains should be able to suceed in. But out West it is different. Except on the West Coast where the states have stepped in, Amtrak has basically ignored the area. For example, Chicago to Denver only the CZ where there used to be many options, and it's never on time. Chicago to MSP. Wow just think how many trains plied this route in the past and many posted speed records for decades....now only one train a day, the LD EB and it's rarely on time. The SWC, if put back on it's 39 3/4 hour schedule could compete with airlines for traffic since it only costs you one day of travel. But it would have to run on time and be reliable. And there is certainly room for more than one train on the route. Here in Texas we had the Eagles, the Twin Star Rocket, Texas Chief, Sunset Limited, Texas Zephyr, California Special, etc just to name a few LD trains plus the intrastate connections. Now just a wandering Eagle and a 3 times a week Sunset. People in Houston don't even know we have rail service. With options like these few people ride trains or even think about it. If the remaining rail service in Texas disapeared tomorrow no one would miss it or even know it was gone. Houston's two airports board over 50 million passengers a year, Amtrak just 15 thousand.

Talk about privatizing airports and highways is a good idea. The first interstate like highway was the Pennsylvania Turnpike opened in 1940 as a toll road. It is still a toll road today. Make the rest toll also. Eliminate subsidies to the airline industry. Put everything on the same page and just let the chips fall where they may. It would be interesting to see what happens then. Really, I don't see anything changing in our lifetime except fewer and more poorly run trains.

 

[Ispolkom]

coach fares that often exceed the cost of an airline ticket. I have also traveleled by sleeper in the past, but the fares have gotten so ridiculously expensive that I won't consider it now.

I find prices are about the same..

For an example, I priced out tickets next week to Whitefish MT.

Amtrak w/ roomette- $1,500.80

Flying in coach- $1,747.82

Next June.

Amtrak w/ roomette- $868.40

Flying in coach- $1,202.00

I think it's cheaper to take the train out, than flying. I've had good service on Empire Builder. The 24 hours is my vacation while I am going to my vacation spot.

Sure, the Empire Builder still makes good economic sense if you're going to small cities whose airports are monopolized by one airline (hi, Delta!). I'd never fly from Minneapolis to Minot, N.D., for instance, since I have flown to Europe for the same amount. Between large western cities, though, Amtrak rarely makes much sense financially. Chicago to Denver is $84 on Southwest on a randomly selected date in September, while #5 is $106 for coach.

 

[Bob Dylan]

To the "Free Market Micas" of this Country:Yeah, let's Privatize ALL Transportation, Commuter, Busses, Trains, Planes and Highways! It's the American Way1 :excl: :excl: :excl:

Enjoy your $500 Toll Drive to Grandmas House, your $75 commute on the Bus, Lightrail or Subway to work,your $2000 Airline ticket to Denver and your $1,000 Ride on Acela from WAS-NYP!!Hyperbole, No! Most Americans don't have a clue how much ALL Corporations are subsidized (it's called Welfare when it goes to the Poor!), especially Transportation entities!!

Little known Secret: Amtrak has received the Least Amount of Government Support of any Transportation system and Falls farther behind all the time as Prices rise while Ridership multiplies! The answer: Fire the Idiots in Congress and elect some people that are Honest, have Common Sense, will come home and not spend their life in Washington getting Rich, and will work together to provide for the Common Good! :wub: Thats the American Way! Gordon Gecco was NOT right, Greed is NOT Good!! Power to the People! :help:

 

[NY Penn]

Does anyone have concrete figures?

For example:

• Ridership of Amtrak
• Subsidies of Amtrak
• Ridership of airlines
• Subsidies of airlines

It's not fair to claim that airlines are more subsidized if they have a smaller subsidy per passenger.

 

[jis]

Does anyone have concrete figures?

For example:

• Ridership of Amtrak
• Subsidies of Amtrak
• Ridership of airlines
• Subsidies of airlines

It's not fair to claim that airlines are more subsidized if they have a smaller subsidy per passenger.

Why compare Amtrak to all airlines together, commuter and mainline? Perhaps a more apt comparison would be all rail travel vs. all air travel. IMHO the only one that can be meaningfully computed on an apples to apples comparison. As soon as you split each into subcategories you run into the problem of across sub category cost/subsidy allocations and even revenue allocation.

 

[NY Penn]

How about LD trains vs. non-commuter airlines?

 

[CT guest]

Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/table_04.html

I think subsidies to airlines might have increased after 9/11.

 

[chandj]

As a tax payer, I'm happy to subsidize LD trains--a lot happier than I am about some other things I'm subsidizing. I will ride LD's as long as they run and I am able, but I'll be riding for fun, not to get to a business meeting on time in Sacramento when I live in Pittsburgh. Doesn't bother me at all that LD's are subsidized even though most people don't use them. My tax dollars help subsidize a lot of parks and monuments that I'll never even see, but I'm okay with that and not about to suggest that we sell them off to private companies in hopes they'll be improved.

 

[NY Penn]

Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:

http://www.bts.gov/p...l/table_04.html

I think subsidies to airlines might have increased after 9/11.

Thank you. This chart (although a bit dated) shows that even after 9/11 (see 2002), airlines are subsidized LESS per passenger-mile than Amtrak.

 

[jis]

Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:

http://www.bts.gov/p...l/table_04.html

I think subsidies to airlines might have increased after 9/11.

Thank you. This chart (although a bit dated) shows that even after 9/11 (see 2002), airlines are subsidized LESS per passenger-mile than Amtrak.

Note that this counts only federal subsidy. It is not surprising therefore that road comes out ahead, since most of the hidden subsidy for roads is from states not the feds. Also of necessity, state subsidies for tax abatement for transport facilities used by air transport is not accounted for. So this at the end of the day is close to meaningless if one is interested in getting the true overall subsidy figure. Just because a subsidy burden has been shifted from federal to state level or local level does not mean it is not still a subsidy.

At the federal level I would just treat them as an interesting set of numbers, noting that it does not give a good overall picture.

In addition, as you will notice I am a skeptic par excellence when it comes to any statistics sans explanation of how they were arrived at. Specially when statistics collates information from multiple sources, it is extremely important to understand how source skew caused by differing definitions and assumptions are accounted for.

 

[Anderson]

Well, and I think the railroad figures improved markedly as the Acela took off, and then again with the recent (i.e. 2008-present) spike in gas prices.

 

[CT guest]

Those figures also exclude state subsidies for Amtrak services.

Numbers can be skewed in a way to prove anything and also to prove nothing.

Trying to have a meaningful conversation about Amtrak subsidies is impossible on a pro-Amtrak discussion board.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I'm a big believer in privatization rather than government subsidy; if it's time for Amtrak LD trains to be gone, I'd try to privatize them and see what happens.

I'm all in favor of that too as long as we're also privatizing all other modes of transportation. Highways? All toll. Local roads? All toll. City downtown areas? Congestion charges. Want to get your car from the highway to your driveway? That'll be 50 cents please.

The fastest way to sink the airlines (or make air travel only for the super rich) would be to make them pay the FULL cost of the air traffic control system, the TSA, and airport construction. The TSA budget is $8.1 billion for FY2012. Let's privatize that and put the entire burden on the airlines (who will of course pass the costs on to you).

So, yes. privatize away.... just make sure you are consistent and privatize ANYTHING that gets government subsidy.

 

[AlanB]

Here are the graphs showing how rail is subsidized on a passenger-mile basis compared to commercial air travel:

http://www.bts.gov/p...l/table_04.html

I think subsidies to airlines might have increased after 9/11.

Thank you. This chart (although a bit dated) shows that even after 9/11 (see 2002), airlines are subsidized LESS per passenger-mile than Amtrak.

Note that this counts only federal subsidy. It is not surprising therefore that road comes out ahead, since most of the hidden subsidy for roads is from states not the feds. Also of necessity, state subsidies for tax abatement for transport facilities used by air transport is not accounted for. So this at the end of the day is close to meaningless if one is interested in getting the true overall subsidy figure. Just because a subsidy burden has been shifted from federal to state level or local level does not mean it is not still a subsidy.

At the federal level I would just treat them as an interesting set of numbers, noting that it does not give a good overall picture.

In addition, as you will notice I am a skeptic par excellence when it comes to any statistics sans explanation of how they were arrived at. Specially when statistics collates information from multiple sources, it is extremely important to understand how source skew caused by differing definitions and assumptions are accounted for.

And to add one further point to Jishnu's, those numbers are a snap shot of just one year. It took years of much higher subsidies to get the airlines to the point where much of the overhead expenses could be covered by user fees & taxes. There is also no accounting for the hidden subsidies, things like pilots that learn to fly in our military and then migrate to commercial airlines.

The simple reality is that there is no easy way to get a meaningful comparison of subsidies per passenger mile. And that has nothing to do with the fact that this board might be pro-Amtrak.

 

[AlanB]

Talk about privatizing airports and highways is a good idea. The first interstate like highway was the Pennsylvania Turnpike opened in 1940 as a toll road. It is still a toll road today. Make the rest toll also. Eliminate subsidies to the airline industry. Put everything on the same page and just let the chips fall where they may. It would be interesting to see what happens then. Really, I don't see anything changing in our lifetime except fewer and more poorly run trains.

Henry,

I wouldn't argue what you said in your first paragraph, which I didn't quote here. And I wouldn't argue much of what you said in the paragraph that I did quote. However, I'd have to insist on one small change to what you've said. After years of throwing big dollars at roads & planes, in order to truly see what forms of transportation would sink or swim, we need to increase significantly the subsidies to rail for the short term even as we start decreasing the subsidies to roads & planes. Right now rail does not have an equal footing thanks to the Government's interference in the free market. Therefore dropping all subsidies would give roads & planes an unfair advantage in a truly "free market". Rail must be given some help first to restore things to a level playing field; then and only then can we pull all subsidies and see what the free market decides for the future.

 

[leemell]

Looking at LD on-time statistics, I really don't think Amtrak is vaguely relevant. [snip]

Anybody else notice wildcat posted his provocative message, looked in once about an hour later and has not been back since to view the flamefest he started? He has not posted another thing in the three years he has been an AU member. Curious.

 

[henryj]

Rail must be given some help first to restore things to a level playing field; then and only then can we pull all subsidies and see what the free market decides for the future.

Yes Alan, I agree with that. It's hard to put all your thoughts in one or two little paragraphs. What I am for is reasonable competition, be it Federal subsidies or privatizing or something in between.