Amtrak Debate

[jphjaxfl]

It sounds like the VP Candidates will have some discussion of Amtrak tonight.

 

[amamba]

Where did you hear that?

 

[jis]

Getting those post count numbers up, to become an Engineer sooner

 

[PPorro]

Privatize? I'll watch the debate and hope they cover something about Amtrak but this comes from another forum, photographers not rail.

For your interest: Privatization of the railway system wasn't a complete success in Germany.
Yes the Deutsche Bahn got profitable again' date=' but train frequency in less populated areas decreased (some stations got closed). So did service on the train itself and i think they are less often on schedule... There's also issues with maintenance.

There are competitors now to the former public service, but only on the main routes. Many things have been outsourced, which as a side effect broke the union contracts, resulting in the workers only getting minimum or very low wages.

[/quote']

To add to that: it's a complete disgrace in The Netherlands. It used to be the case that everything (the rails, the trains, the stations) was in the hands of one (partially government owned) company divided into several different parts, thus making it easy to fix problems centrally, whereas now everything is divided into several different companies. (clipped)

So my idea of the East West auto train (had to get that in here?) and private companies taking over routes, may not be as much of a good answer as it appears on the surface.

I have a friend who goes to London, and then smaller locations, fairly often and he says, the London trains are expensive (now private) but he has choices and they run on time.

If they do get into it on the debate, I'll be interested in seeing what the party line is. This isn't personal, I'm sure that both of them have speaking points and have been coached on what to say.

My opinion is the only way to save American rail is kill Amtrak and start over again, private, independent, regulated corporations. It may cost us more for a ticket and the Govt. could still subsidize to make it work, but not a 100% public funded operation. Someone correct me if this is wrong: Amtrak only owns the rolling stock and stations, not an inch of track? (Some of the freight lines that own track do own part of Amtrak?)

 

[yarrow]

i doubt "amtrak joe" will bring it up. ryan might. a discussion of amtrak would have to be nuanced and deal with several factors at once. not the romney/ryan strong suit imho

 

[Trogdor]

My opinion is the only way to save American rail is kill Amtrak and start over again, private, independent, regulated corporations.

"Saving" passenger rail (why does it need saving? It's doing quite well now, despite all the factors stacked against it) in the US will not be related to whether we keep or get rid of Amtrak. It will have to do with having an honest public discussion about the merits of rail without all of the political slander, as well as putting passenger rail on an equal footing with other modes of transportation (whether that means funding rail to the same extent as other modes, or stopping subsidizing the other modes and making everybody pay the true cost of their own transportation needs).

Amtrak is merely a sideshow in the above.

It may cost us more for a ticket and the Govt. could still subsidize to make it work, but not a 100% public funded operation.

Amtrak is not a 100% public funded operation. A good 70+% of the funds come from passenger fares. A "private" entity probably wouldn't do considerably better with cost recovery overall.

Someone correct me if this is wrong: Amtrak only owns the rolling stock and stations, not an inch of track? (Some of the freight lines that own track do own part of Amtrak?)

That is incorrect. Amtrak owns several hundred miles of track, primarily in the northeast, but also in the state of Michigan, around Chicago Union Station, and in New Orleans. Further, Amtrak actually owns relatively few stations (I don't know how many).

Amtrak owns most of the rolling stock, but some of it is owned by the states themselves.

I don't recall where the ownership issue last stood. Private railroads "bought into" Amtrak in 1971, but my understanding is that they were bought out, with one exception, during the 1990s or early 2000s. I believe there's one private owner of Amtrak stock left, but it is nonvoting stock and essentially worthless, but for whatever reason that owner refused to sell those shares back to Amtrak when the buyout was offered some years ago.

 

[WICT106]

After what we have experienced in Wisconsin, I think the smart play would be to avoid mention of Amtrak. One can predict the statements regarding Amtrak from someone like Ryan, who has never had any reason to take the train between CHI, WAS, and WI. Some folks want to get rid of passenger trains because they don't imagine any situation in which they would take a train, ever, and they don't know anyone who has taken a train. It's simple to get rid of a service which one has grown up without, and sees no need.

One can look at the numerous themes in the criticism leveled at the Madison Hiawatha extension, and see the criticisms that will come from individual Elected Officials such as Ryan.

 

[afigg]

That is incorrect. Amtrak owns several hundred miles of track, primarily in the northeast, but also in the state of Michigan, around Chicago Union Station, and in New Orleans. Further, Amtrak actually owns relatively few stations (I don't know how many).

Amtrak owns most of the rolling stock, but some of it is owned by the states themselves.

I don't recall where the ownership issue last stood. Private railroads "bought into" Amtrak in 1971, but my understanding is that they were bought out, with one exception, during the 1990s or early 2000s. I believe there's one private owner of Amtrak stock left, but it is nonvoting stock and essentially worthless, but for whatever reason that owner refused to sell those shares back to Amtrak when the buyout was offered some years ago.

I'm not going to get too involved in another privatization and Amtrak politics thread, because I would not expect nuanced discussion in a Vice-Presidential debate. Biden knows more about Amtrak at a user level than Ryan ever will, but both will be primed to hit the main talking points fed to them by the campaign staffs. But I will throw in some facts to ground any discussion here.

Amtrak owns 363 miles of the 456 mile NEC (NY/Metro-North, CT, MBTA owns the rest), the Keystone East and New Haven-Springfield corridor for the primary track holdings. It also owns 96 miles of track in MI and IN for the Michigan service trains and a number of short segments in NY, IL and so on.

For stations, ownership can get complicated in some cases. The platforms may be owned by the railroad, but Amtrak or a local government authority may own the station. Quoting from the 2010 ADA Compliance report which had a detailed breakdown of ownership of the stations to get a handle on who might be responsible for upgrades to achieve ADA compliance:

"Based on the latest data, there are now 482 Amtrak-served stations that are required to be ADA compliant, the vast majority of which are not owned by Amtrak. Of the 482 stations, Amtrak solely owns 61 (13%) of the 459 station structures; 45 (9%) of the 482 platforms; and 33 (7%) of the 453 parking facilities. (Not all stations have structures and parking facilities.)"

 

[Anderson]

My understanding is that all of the private owners (BNSF via BN, CN via Grand Trunk Western, CP via MILW, American Premium Underwriters via the Penn Central) refused the buyout...which to be fair, was for a negligible amount (something like $100,000 split four ways to several major corporations). To sum up what I suspect their position is: "Well, they're offering us next to nothing for the stock...what the hell, if we never get anything then so be it, but we may as well hold out. The risks are negligible versus both the infinitesimal chance of it being worth something on the one hand and the writedown we'd probably have to take on the other."

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Where did you hear that?

It is/was "headlines" over on CNN.com just an hour ago. :blink:

Amtrak in the crosshairs for VP debate

 

[Meat Puppet]

Biden has 7900 round trips from Wilmington to Washington. How many AGR points does he have?

 

[Texan Eagle]

Biden has 7900 round trips from Wilmington to Washington. How many AGR points does he have?

Zero, most likely.

 

[TimePeace]

I can't watch the debate... will someone please post a re-cap (of any Amtrak discussion) in this thread after it's over?

 

[PPorro]

I'm not going to get too involved in another privatization and Amtrak politics thread, because I would not expect nuanced discussion in a Vice-Presidential debate. Biden knows more about Amtrak at a user level than Ryan ever will, but both will be primed to hit the main talking points fed to them by the campaign staffs. But I will throw in some facts to ground any discussion here.

Amtrak owns 363 miles of the 456 mile NEC (NY/Metro-North, CT, MBTA owns the rest), the Keystone East and New Haven-Springfield corridor for the primary track holdings. It also owns 96 miles of track in MI and IN for the Michigan service trains and a number of short segments in NY, IL and so on.

For stations, ownership can get complicated in some cases. The platforms may be owned by the railroad, but Amtrak or a local government authority may own the station. Quoting from the 2010 ADA Compliance report which had a detailed breakdown of ownership of the stations to get a handle on who might be responsible for upgrades to achieve ADA compliance:

"Based on the latest data, there are now 482 Amtrak-served stations that are required to be ADA compliant, the vast majority of which are not owned by Amtrak. Of the 482 stations, Amtrak solely owns 61 (13%) of the 459 station structures; 45 (9%) of the 482 platforms; and 33 (7%) of the 453 parking facilities. (Not all stations have structures and parking facilities.)"

Thanks for the specifics.

As for my personal viewpoint of "saving Amtrak", and I'm not taking a political stab at anything, I see three basic ways things could proceed. 1) We could continue to subsidize the trains for $500 million in losses a year. I find that a bit wasteful. 2) We can kill it and we'd have no passenger trains. That won't happen and shouldn't. 3) They/we can reformulate much like the airlines, with independent, private carriers, running as a business. Continued subsidies but not the 100% as now. If Amtrak needs to run some of the lines to keep them operational, then we cover those. But try to make something work, instead of just throwing money at it.

I can't see how losing $500 million a year can be "Amtrak is not a 100% public funded operation. A good 70+% of the funds come from passenger fares." 70% of what funds, it's operating at a 100% deficit. Losing $32 per passenger, isn't anything I'd consider funding 70% of anything.

I should have called it saving long distance public rail service and not used the word Amtrak at all. :blush:

 

[Eric S]

I'd be surprised if Amtrak gets much more than a passing mention. That CNN video/story just pointed out that Amtrak received greater federal funding than PBS and that Romney has mentioned cutting both Amtrak and PBS, not that either Biden or Ryan intend to bring up/debate Amtrak funding.

 

[Eric S]

As for my personal viewpoint of "saving Amtrak", and I'm not taking a political stab at anything, I see three basic ways things could proceed. 1) We could continue to subsidize the trains for $500 million in losses a year. I find that a bit wasteful. 2) We can kill it and we'd have no passenger trains. That won't happen and shouldn't. 3) They/we can reformulate much like the airlines, with independent, private carriers, running as a business. Continued subsidies but not the 100% as now. If Amtrak needs to run some of the lines to keep them operational, then we cover those. But try to make something work, instead of just throwing money at it.

I can't see how losing $500 million a year can be "Amtrak is not a 100% public funded operation. A good 70+% of the funds come from passenger fares." 70% of what funds, it's operating at a 100% deficit. Losing $32 per passenger, isn't anything I'd consider funding 70% of anything.

I should have called it saving long distance public rail service and not used the word Amtrak at all. :blush:

I believe Trogdor was saying that Amtrak covers 70-some-odd percent of its costs. And, loss per passenger is an almost meaningless statistic, only used by anti-rail folks to try to make Amtrak seem like a wasteful operation. Loss per passenger mile would be a more useful metric to use.

Now, looking at the $500 million - whether that portion of federal funds goes directly to Amtrak, or whether a similar amount goes to multiple different passenger rail operators, how does that make any difference?

What does your option number 3 really mean? Instead of having Amtrak run the services, are you suggesting contracting them out to some "private" operator, and then covering the losses of that private operator?

 

[the_traveler]

[Moderator’s Note]

Although it hasn't become one yet, let not have this become a Republican vs Democrat thread!

 

[yarrow]

[Moderator’s Note]

Although it hasn't become one yet, let not have this become a Republican vs Democrat thread!

but, let's have free discussion. romney, i believe, wants to eliminate amtrak or the federal subsidy at any rate. obama, i believe, wants to increase funding, at least for high speed rail. although, as frequently pointed out, congress passes appropriations it may well matter who is in the white house as far as the direction for amtrak and passenger rail

 

[alanh]

Amtrak and PBS make easy targets because they may have relatively small constituencies, but also make up a very small part of the budget, and pretending that eliminating them will help balance the budget is just dishonest.

The only way to cut the budget in a significant way is to cut one of the big categories: Medicare/Medicaid, military, or Social Security. Those (plus interest on the debt) makes up 74% of the budget. In other words, if you got rid of every single cent of spending on everything outside those categories... we'd still be running a deficit.

Ron Paul was the only candidate who had a proposal for real budget cuts. He'd totally eliminate Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and most of the military, restricting it to defending immediate US borders. That really would balance the budget and allow big tax cuts as well. Good luck getting that passed, though.

 

[Gingee]

I have it on now and nothing so far.

 

[Nathanael]

As for my personal viewpoint of "saving Amtrak", and I'm not taking a political stab at anything, I see three basic ways things could proceed. 1) We could continue to subsidize the trains for $500 million in losses a year. I find that a bit wasteful. 2) We can kill it and we'd have no passenger trains. That won't happen and shouldn't. 3) They/we can reformulate much like the airlines, with independent, private carriers, running as a business.

The current airplane business model is to declare bankruptcy intermittently, cheat the workers of their promised pay, and foist the costs on the government-funded Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. And that's before we get into the post-9/11 airline subsidies.

I wouldn't copy that. The government subsidies are large, and the business model is just *nasty*.

Continued subsidies but not the 100% as now.

Please learn math. If Amtrak receives 70% of its funds from passenger fares that means it is 30% subsidized.

 

[Nathanael]

Amtrak and PBS make easy targets because they may have relatively small constituencies, but also make up a very small part of the budget, and pretending that eliminating them will help balance the budget is just dishonest.

The only way to cut the budget in a significant way is to cut one of the big categories: Medicare/Medicaid, military, or Social Security. Those (plus interest on the debt) makes up 74% of the budget. In other words, if you got rid of every single cent of spending on everything outside those categories... we'd still be running a deficit.

Ron Paul was the only candidate who had a proposal for real budget cuts. He'd totally eliminate Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and most of the military, restricting it to defending immediate US borders. That really would balance the budget and allow big tax cuts as well. Good luck getting that passed, though.

There's actually pretty big support for cutting military spending (the US now spends more than every other military in the world combined, and more than 10 times as much as China -- seems a bit excessive, no?) but somehow it has been unable to get traction in Congress.

 

[the_traveler]

1349998049[/url]' post='398911']

1349992737[/url]' post='398904'][Moderator's Note]

Although it hasn't become one yet, let not have this become a Republican vs Democrat thread!

but, let's have free discussion. romney, i believe, wants to eliminate amtrak or the federal subsidy at any rate. obama, i believe, wants to increase funding, at least for high speed rail. although, as frequently pointed out, congress passes appropriations it may well matter who is in the white house as far as the direction for amtrak and passenger rail

I'll allow that comment, but consider that EVERY President and Presidential candidate (of both parties) has wanted to eliminate Amtrak, and some have even proposed a $-0- budget for Amtrak!

 

[Eric S]

[Moderator's Note]

Although it hasn't become one yet, let not have this become a Republican vs Democrat thread!

but, let's have free discussion. romney, i believe, wants to eliminate amtrak or the federal subsidy at any rate. obama, i believe, wants to increase funding, at least for high speed rail. although, as frequently pointed out, congress passes appropriations it may well matter who is in the white house as far as the direction for amtrak and passenger rail

I'll allow that comment, but consider that EVERY President and Presidential candidate (of both parties) has wanted to eliminate Amtrak, and some have even proposed a $-0- budget for Amtrak!

Um, what? Every president and presidential candidate, Democrats and Republicans, have wanted to eliminate Amtrak?

 

[Ryan]

I can't watch the debate... will someone please post a re-cap (of any Amtrak discussion) in this thread after it's over?

Not a peep, all night.

I'll allow that comment, but consider that EVERY President and Presidential candidate (of both parties) has wanted to eliminate Amtrak, and some have even proposed a $-0- budget for Amtrak!

That's just patently untrue.