Amtrak Cascades Faces an Uncertain 2013
- Thread starter CHamilton
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
amtrakwolverine
Engineer
All amtrak trains under 750 face a uncertain 2013. This is the chance for the anti-rail governors to get rid of Amtrak in their state once and for all.
NorthCoastHiawatha
OBS Chief
So what trains are most at risk, Hoosier State seems like a likely cut. From what I understand the Carolinian is only funded by the state of North Carolina, would the other states it runs through chip in? I would assume Northeast service, Illinois and Michigan service is pretty safe at this point. California looks pretty safe, Cascades are probably ok (but with the mudslides service north of Seattle I don't know much about the Heartland Flyer.
Also what would have to happen for the BC government to chip in some money for its share of the service?
Last edited by a moderator:
OlympianHiawatha
Engineer
I believe the Heartland Flyer will be safe because Oklahoma fought hard to get this train and so far no one grouses about supporting it; I'm not so sure about the Texas end of the package.
If I'm reading things right, Texas & Oklahoma will have to find around $3.8 Million between the two of them to cover what Amtrak currently takes as a loss on that service. Both states currently do support the train; the question is will they be willing to find the additional monies?
I'm happy to live in California.
Yes, I suspect that the Hoosier is dead.
The Carolinian should be more than safe, since according to the reports in 2012 the fares & NC's funding more than covered the costs, with the train actually turning a small operating profit as far as Amtrak is concerned. Oddly enough the Piedmont came up short, although very marginally. To the point where simply redirecting some of the excess from the Carolinian would be enough to level the playing field.
I still have some concerns about NY, although I believe that they'll work things out. And I worry about the Pennsylvanian as I haven't heard anything out of PA that would indicate that funding for that train has been found in Harrisburg. And I haven't heard anything from Missouri regarding the River Runner. Looks like they'll need to find another $2 Million or so to keep that service going. My guess is that they'll find the money though, despite the efforts of some to shut it down.
Finally, I have a bit of concern with Michigan. Yes, they've been very pro Amtrak of late, even buying the NS line to increase HS running within the state. But still, they currently only fund the Blue Water & Pere M and both still cost Amtrak $3.3 Million in 2012. On top of that, they now have to find about $20 Million to cover the loses on the Wolverines, which they don't currently fund at all. So they're looking at coming up with a big chunk of change there. Should be doable, provided that they don't end up with the type of gridlock we currently see in DC at the Federal level. But still, it could be interesting!
Even California has a fair amount of money to find to keep current service levels. In 2012, the Surfliners came up short by $27.3 Million, the San J's came up short $17.3M, and the Capitol's came up short by $15.5M for a grand total of $60.1 Million that California will have to find to keep current service levels.
MikefromCrete
Engineer
Hoosier State seems to be only the train in real danger.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
I hope PA can find some more money not just for the Pannsylvanian, but to get back some public transit that was recently discontinued. More tolls?
Quite true. My comment was more to the belief that Sacramento will move mountains to maintain funding, whereas other states might be more inclined to say "meh."
East of the Appalachians, the only trains that seem in reasonable jeopardy are the Pennsylvanian and possibly an Empire frequency or two downstate. The VA trains are making money, while the NC trains have compliant agreements, and the Carolinian is close to break-even as well.
In the Midwest, the Hoosier State is toast, but that's been a given. IL's trains seem safe, and I suspect the Hiawatha is safe as well. I'd be hard-pressed to see the MI services cut back much for reasons discussed already, and ditto the River Runner considering what the state has been pumping in there. I also agree that the Heartland Flyer is likely to stay.
Which leads us to the West. I personally suspect that the money will appear to cover the Cascades' operations, but there may be a fare increase push. In CA, there's a good chance that the Surfliners, etc. will face a schedule rework of some kind as well, but aside from that I cannot see the state cutting those services too badly. To be fair, if I were Amtrak I'd use this as a chance to try and get at least the Surfliners, if not to all-reserved, at least to "more reserved" status.
In the Midwest, the Hoosier State is toast, but that's been a given. IL's trains seem safe, and I suspect the Hiawatha is safe as well. I'd be hard-pressed to see the MI services cut back much for reasons discussed already, and ditto the River Runner considering what the state has been pumping in there. I also agree that the Heartland Flyer is likely to stay.
Which leads us to the West. I personally suspect that the money will appear to cover the Cascades' operations, but there may be a fare increase push. In CA, there's a good chance that the Surfliners, etc. will face a schedule rework of some kind as well, but aside from that I cannot see the state cutting those services too badly. To be fair, if I were Amtrak I'd use this as a chance to try and get at least the Surfliners, if not to all-reserved, at least to "more reserved" status.
No. The start date for the requirement for state subsidy is October 1, 2013, the start of federal fiscal year 2014. What I am not clear on is whether the state absolutely has to agree to provide the determined state subsidy by that date or if there is wiggle room with a transition period. My guess is that Amtrak could keep service operating at the current frequencies so long as they are still negotiating with the state government. The amount of subsidy required is always going to be guesswork even with an agreed to formula, so there have to be provisions to allow for adjustments in the subsidy after the end of each fiscal year.
However for the Cascade service I would not be too concerned. WA and OR have invested substantial state funds for track work, station upgrades, purchase of rolling stock, and operating subsidies over the past 10 years. They are getting over $800 million in HSIPR funds for upgrades to the corridor and stations. They are not going to let the service get shut down because of haggling over an additional $10 million in annual subsidy. Small potatoes in a state budget for WA and OR.
NC has deferred adding the 4th Charlotte-Raleigh frequency (i.e. the third Piedmont round-trip) to 2017. Supposedly it's to wait for the completion of double track between Charlotte and Greensboro. But I suspect that the real reason is uncertainty about 2013, in combination with a newly elected Republican governor -- albeit one that was favorable to mass transit when he was mayor of Charlotte -- and a NC General Assembly controlled by Republicans in both houses for the first time in 100 years. The legacy of former Democratic Governor Jim Hunt's push for 90 mph service between Charlotte and Raleigh goes only so far.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
I support making more trains reserved. It will eliminate those times when the PS is packed to the brink.
E
Eris
Guest
A lurker coming in to second this. Having regularly traveled for the past several years on the Surfliners during the really insane period in July when the Del Mar races and Comic-Con in San Diego converge, anything to lessen the 'sardine can' atmosphere of the northbound evening trips would be a godsend!
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Making corridor trains all reserved is in general a terribly bad idea. Some amount of reserved inventory is good. But making things all reserved makes the service generally less convenient. This point was made loud and clear at the NEC Future Workshop last month.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
It has not been particularly successful in creating a massive shift from auto to rail either. By world standards it is just a boutique service.
(null)
(null)
That's why I mentioned the "mostly reserved" point. Basically, start moving a few more seats into reserved inventory in coach but keep a lot of unreserved capacity around and/or restrict things for peak-of-the-peak trains due to crowding. Granted, the answer in some cases may be an extra 2-3 coaches on that peak-of-the-peak train...
On the NEC, on the other hand, I do wish there was an unreserved option to work with as well. Granted, you can basically walk up and buy a ticket most of the time...but I'm not opposed to reserving X cars and having X more cars as unreserved walk-in-with-a-validated-ticket cars.
Jis: Was there a serious proposal that came from the point you just mentioned at the meeting?
Last edited by a moderator:
Out-of-the-box thinking (KILL IT WITH FIRE!!) buuuut...
A hybrid system of reserved and unreserved seats on one single train is one idea that could work on a line with multiple frequencies. Pay $XX for a reserved space on one particular train, then pay a slightly higher rate for a ticket that is "open" and valid on all trains running that route as a flexible fare.
A hybrid system of reserved and unreserved seats on one single train is one idea that could work on a line with multiple frequencies. Pay $XX for a reserved space on one particular train, then pay a slightly higher rate for a ticket that is "open" and valid on all trains running that route as a flexible fare.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
Acela 21 (Avelia Liberty) development, testing and deployment (2Q 2024)- Latest: JuniusLivonius
-
A couple of questions from a first time future train traveler- Latest: Just-Thinking-51
-
-
-
-
