Amtrak moving forward to stop all, most LDT

[Ryan]

I understand why Amtrak management wants to focus on adding corridors. But there’s an obvious flaw in this - why should the federal government divert money from the long distance routes to pay money to setup corridors for states who refuse to invest in them when you have other states who are willing to setup corridors and provide the funding and are doing so now?

Thanks for posing the question this way - it's finally got my head around what bothers me in this situation, but haven't been able to articulate in a reasonable fashion (and I may not be, but here goes).

I don't see anything in any of Anderson's (or others at Amtrak) written or spoken comments that indicates that they are seeking to *divert* money from the LD trains.

My take is that there are two separate things at play here, first that Anderson and Amtrak are saying to Congress (correctly, IMO) "If you want LD trains to continue, you are going to have to commit to funding them in a way that we can continue to run them". You see this highlighted in one of the pitches that talk about a potential Superliner replacement and the fact that the window to ordering replacements is coming soon.  This has been a request of Amtrak's since the Boardman era.

What has changed is the second bit, Amtrak starting to hype up expanded corridor service as a means to system expansion.  If there are states that aren't willing to pony up the money for decent transit, I'm perfectly OK with my federal dollars going to support such a service.  Let's throw the 750 mile rule away, and see where service can establish itself.  More Amtrak (be it in the form of LD, state-funded corridors, or federal-funded corridors) is a good thing and helps to defray the massive capital costs that come with running a railroad.  From what I've seen, Amtrak would be perfectly happy with a "both and" endgame, not the "either or" that rail fans seem to ascribe to Amtrak in general (and Anderson personally).

Why these two fronts for discussion have been merged into one and turned into a fabricated "war on LD trains" is a mystery to me.  From what I can see of it, personal animosity towards an executive with airline and health care backround replacing a beloved railroader is rather a large part of it.

 

[bretton88]

Here's my thought on corridor trains. Intrastate trains (VA, CA, IL, etc) should be the state's responsibility. Interstate trains should be Amtrak's (or some other federal entity) responsibility. We have too many examples of state's not being able to cooperate or cooperation quickly falling apart to trust them to make something like an ATL to Charlotte corridor happen.

 

[bretton88]

Thanks for posing the question this way - it's finally got my head around what bothers me in this situation, but haven't been able to articulate in a reasonable fashion (and I may not be, but here goes).
I don't see anything in any of Anderson's (or others at Amtrak) written or spoken comments that indicates that they are seeking to *divert* money from the LD trains.
My take is that there are two separate things at play here, first that Anderson and Amtrak are saying to Congress (correctly, IMO) "If you want LD trains to continue, you are going to have to commit to funding them in a way that we can continue to run them". You see this highlighted in one of the pitches that talk about a potential Superliner replacement and the fact that the window to ordering replacements is coming soon.  This has been a request of Amtrak's since the Boardman era.
What has changed is the second bit, Amtrak starting to hype up expanded corridor service as a means to system expansion.  If there are states that aren't willing to pony up the money for decent transit, I'm perfectly OK with my federal dollars going to support such a service.  Let's throw the 750 mile rule away, and see where service can establish itself.  More Amtrak (be it in the form of LD, state-funded corridors, or federal-funded corridors) is a good thing and helps to defray the massive capital costs that come with running a railroad.  From what I've seen, Amtrak would be perfectly happy with a "both and" endgame, not the "either or" that rail fans seem to ascribe to Amtrak in general (and Anderson personally).
Why these two fronts for discussion have been merged into one and turned into a fabricated "war on LD trains" is a mystery to me.  From what I can see of it, personal animosity towards an executive with airline and health care backround replacing a beloved railroader is rather a large part of it.

What caused those fronts to be merged was how Amtrak handled the SWC. Basically proposing to replace it with a series of corridors. That definitely gave the impression of a war on LD trains. Amtrak does appear to have tweaked their messaging a bit after that. Anderson himself seems to be somewhat open to keeping LD trains but not in it's current unsustainable form. Gardner on other hand seems to have little or no use for them.

 

[Ryan]

The anti-Anderson bandwagon started long before that.  These posts on the day Anderson was named makes reference to people on social media already losing their minds:

 

[Thirdrail7]

Thanks for posing the question this way - it's finally got my head around what bothers me in this situation, but haven't been able to articulate in a reasonable fashion (and I may not be, but here goes).

I don't see anything in any of Anderson's (or others at Amtrak) written or spoken comments that indicates that they are seeking to *divert* money from the LD trains.

My take is that there are two separate things at play here, first that Anderson and Amtrak are saying to Congress (correctly, IMO) "If you want LD trains to continue, you are going to have to commit to funding them in a way that we can continue to run them". You see this highlighted in one of the pitches that talk about a potential Superliner replacement and the fact that the window to ordering replacements is coming soon.  This has been a request of Amtrak's since the Boardman era.

What has changed is the second bit, Amtrak starting to hype up expanded corridor service as a means to system expansion.  If there are states that aren't willing to pony up the money for decent transit, I'm perfectly OK with my federal dollars going to support such a service.  Let's throw the 750 mile rule away, and see where service can establish itself.  More Amtrak (be it in the form of LD, state-funded corridors, or federal-funded corridors) is a good thing and helps to defray the massive capital costs that come with running a railroad.  From what I've seen, Amtrak would be perfectly happy with a "both and" endgame, not the "either or" that rail fans seem to ascribe to Amtrak in general (and Anderson personally).

Why these two fronts for discussion have been merged into one and turned into a fabricated "war on LD trains" is a mystery to me.  From what I can see of it, personal animosity towards an executive with airline and health care backround replacing a beloved railroader is rather a large part of it.

I fully disagree with you, my friend.

Unless Congress allocates enough money for long distance AND new corridor service,  there will obviously be a choice between LD and corridor service. Since the 750 rule exists, it is quite clear that Congress is only so interested in funding corridors.

So, why the hype for corridor service? Why the exploration for as service that you weren't really asked to provide?

More importantly, where is the exploration of the PIPs for the LD network?  Where is the expansion of the LD network? Where is the conversation about feeding the LD network?

This statement says it all:

We are developing a long-range plan to grow the network across the nation in the corridors we think offer the most promise.”

If Amtrak would be happy with a "both and" end game, they wouldn't have proposed eviscerating the Southwest Chief by breaking in thirds. Additionally, even if we are to continue to ignore the obvious, where is the plan for the long distance network? What are your goals? Where are your improvement plans. We've heard a lot of chatter about the NEC, which is about to receive YET ANOTHER dedicated set (that's two since the majority LD network has received equipment) and now we're hearing about corridor service.

Where is the commitment and conversation regarding your EXISTING network? Before you start taking on new things, shouldn't you take care of what you already have?

Unless, you are indeed planning to cut it.

 

[daybeers]

So...what can we do to kick Gardner out?

 

[frequentflyer]

I fully disagree with you, my friend.

Unless Congress allocates enough money for long distance AND new corridor service,  there will obviously be a choice between LD and corridor service. Since the 750 rule exists, it is quite clear that Congress is only so interested in funding corridors.

So, why the hype for corridor service? Why the exploration for as service that you weren't really asked to provide?

More importantly, where is the exploration of the PIPs for the LD network?  Where is the expansion of the LD network? Where is the conversation about feeding the LD network?

This statement says it all:

If Amtrak would be happy with a "both and" end game, they wouldn't have proposed eviscerating the Southwest Chief by breaking in thirds. Additionally, even if we are to continue to ignore the obvious, where is the plan for the long distance network? What are your goals? Where are your improvement plans. We've heard a lot of chatter about the NEC, which is about to receive YET ANOTHER dedicated set (that's two since the majority LD network has received equipment) and now we're hearing about corridor service.

Where is the commitment and conversation regarding your EXISTING network? Before you start taking on new things, shouldn't you take care of what you already have?

Unless, you are indeed planning to cut it.

Whats left to say about the LD trains or how to improve them financially? Higher yields.  Have you seen the sleeper prices in the summer time? Better  on time performance. The RRs are going to want higher user fees.  The closest LD trains came to breaking even was the Express business. Which would have been successful if Amtrak didn't go overboard (beyond baggage cars) and started tacking on boxcars and messing up the time scheduling. 

 

[jis]

It would have been nice to learn whatever happened to the PIPs, and also if claims of profit/loss were made based on more credible accounting instead of harping the same BS. The current analysis based on GIGO P/L accounting is just that GIGO.

 

[jebr]

If Amtrak would be happy with a "both and" end game, they wouldn't have proposed eviscerating the Southwest Chief by breaking in thirds.

I think this is the key, especially without ever seriously proposing a reroute with some sort of caveat. It'd be pretty easy to present it as though "We can't afford to maintain the Raton route for two trains a day. However, we'd like to reroute the train over the southern transcon, with a station stop in Amarillo, with a bus service connecting stations that we'll have to bypass. In order to do this, we need to get BNSF on board." Considering BNSF is the one that decided to downgrade the Raton route, it seems fair to call them out if they're not allowing a reasonable reroute on their southern transcon, and likely would have made a lot fewer enemies.

It should be plainly obvious to an airline CEO that people want direct service and will pay more to do so, and that too many transfers will kill much of the market no matter what the price is. There is a bit of a difference where nonstop is the main key for airline service, whereas limited stops usually aren't a big issue for passenger rail service (the penalty per stop is a couple minutes versus roughly an hour with a larger jet at larger airports) but the concept of having to get off a vehicle, get onto another vehicle, then board yet another vehicle a few hours later would be unpopular, especially if you're completely eliminating the through option for everyone.

 

[TiBike]

Unless Congress allocates enough money for long distance AND new corridor service,  there will obviously be a choice between LD and corridor service. Since the 750 rule exists, it is quite clear that Congress is only so interested in funding corridors.

So, why the hype for corridor service? Why the exploration for as service that you weren't really asked to provide?

More importantly, where is the exploration of the PIPs for the LD network?  Where is the expansion of the LD network? Where is the conversation about feeding the LD network?

-- snip --

Where is the commitment and conversation regarding your EXISTING network? Before you start taking on new things, shouldn't you take care of what you already have?

Unless, you are indeed planning to cut it.

I think that's exactly what's going on. The way I read the article with Gardner and Anderson's testimony to congress, there's clear intent to reduce long distance service, and to change they way they spend "the scarce public dollars" they receive. Gardner, particularly, is talking down long distance service and talking up corridor service. It's clear corporate-speak (not to be confused with clear English) and it's been consistent since Anderson took over.

Yes, spending federal money on corridor service means changing the rules. Amtrak needs to ask congress to do that and Gardner is signalling that they will do so, if they haven't already.

 

[bmjhagen9426]

So what should we do to slow or prevent Gardner's dream from coming true? I'm assuming that there are those who oppose his intents. Sure, millenials may be the largest single customer base segment, but you need to factor in GenX'ers and pre-Boomer generations, and the sum of Boomers, GenX'ers, and Boomers themselves outnumber millenials. And of course, some millenials prefer sit-downs rather than grab-n-go and are able to afford sleeper trips. Most of the millenials do not.

 

[tricia]

So what should we do to slow or prevent Gardner's dream from coming true? I'm assuming that there are those who oppose his intents. Sure, millenials may be the largest single customer base segment, but you need to factor in GenX'ers and pre-Boomer generations, and the sum of Boomers, GenX'ers, and Boomers themselves outnumber millenials. And of course, some millenials prefer sit-downs rather than grab-n-go and are able to afford sleeper trips. Most of the millenials do not.

In addition, people's needs and preferences change as they age. What many millenials want/need now is likely different from what they'll want/need in years to come, just as Boomers' preferences have changed over decades of their lives. 

Dismantling a national network that won't be feasible to re-build, to meet the current preferences of any age cohort, would be insanely short-sighted. 

 

[jis]

I am yet to see any credible controlled study of the Millenials preference on this matter. So far it has been a case of "proof by repeated assertion" by a few, for whatever is their pet theory.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

For those that still don’t think Anderson:Gardner are working for Elaine Chao and the Trump admin today’s WSJ online has details on Trumps 2020 Amtrak budget. Replace LDTs with buses is this years proposal. The administrations budget mirrors Gardner’s flawed goals.

 

[bmjhagen9426]

For those that still don’t think Anderson:Gardner are working for Elaine Chao and the Trump admin today’s WSJ online today has details on Trumps 2020 Amtrak budget. Replace LDT with buses is this years proposal. The administrations budget mirrors Gardner’s flawed goals.

What are the odds that Admin proposal (stopping all 15 LD routes) and Gardner's goals being approved, considering a split congress and a handful pro-Amtrak congressmen and senators, and reauthorization being around the corner? Looks like a battle from without and within. Speaking of buses, they are more risky than trains (I ride municipal buses often, and there were many close calls, with crashes being averted with a split-second to spare). I rarely ever look at WSJ Online that often, as they built a wall to protect their articles.

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

What scares me is the ultimate reauthorization request Amtrak does submit. Amtrak management has never asked for the right to  shut down half the system before. As irrelevant as the Trump budget is they are asking for the same thing. How many uninformed members of Congress will go along  thinking hey that’s what Amtrak says is good for the system, it’s fiscally prudent? How many GOP Senate members will go along because they don’t want to cross Trump?

Dont me wrong I think it will work out but this is turning out to be Amtrak’s darkest years in spite of record funding. All self induced by a cancerous management that needs to be removed.

 

[MARC Rider]

I'm curious what amenities are stocked on the average motor coach that Amtrak doesn't have, especially in the NEC! Their market research also seems quite off if the other advantage is "suburban boarding points" - if anything, that's a detraction for access at the destination, and only somewhat of an advantage at the origination point if there's cheaper/more-subsidized parking at the suburban boarding point.

Assuming both the train and bus run to a particular destination, price and schedule are what drives me to the bus versus the train. Amtrak is more comfortable and has better amenities (sure, the bus has wi-fi, but it's so slow as to be worthless.) However, when my only option is a single train a day, often at 4-6x the price of a booked-well-in-advance Megabus ticket, I'll take the Megabus with my preferred schedule and deal with the lower comfort levels.

That said, if Amtrak thinks moving from center city to suburbia is going to help their ridership, they have more of a car-centric mindset than any public transportation company should ever have.

"Suburban boarding points?" 

What are New Carrollton, BWI Airport Station, Aberdeen, Newark (DE), Metropark, and Route 128, chopped liver?  Oh, and Croton-Harmon, Paoli, and Exton, too.  Plus the zillions of commuter rail stations in the northeastern metro areas that directly connect to Amtrak corridor and long distance service.

 

[jis]

Add to those Alexandria, Yonkers, New Rochelle and Stamford. Also around Chicago, Naperville, Sturtvent and a few others. All that is before we hit California

Who said anything about moving out of city centers anyway?

 

[Thirdrail7]

I think that's exactly what's going on. The way I read the article with Gardner and Anderson's testimony to congress, there's clear intent to reduce long distance service, and to change they way they spend "the scarce public dollars" they receive. Gardner, particularly, is talking down long distance service and talking up corridor service. It's clear corporate-speak (not to be confused with clear English) and it's been consistent since Anderson took over.

Yes, spending federal money on corridor service means changing the rules. Amtrak needs to ask congress to do that and Gardner is signalling that they will do so, if they haven't already.

I'm reading it the same way as you, TiBike.  Additionally, this is pretty much what you and I said juuuust over a year ago in the Richard Anderson replacing Wick Moorman as Amtrak CEO thread:

We may find out soon enough. My prediction is a push to corridor type trains, financed by the states. We may not have a choice. If that fails, you'll see a nod to sustaining the system by running a perfunctory train with minimal amenities and a puny consist. The rest of the equipment will be diverted to other places in the system to feed corridor type service. Again, this may NOT be the end of the world, depending on how it is accomplished.

I agree with you completely, TR7, about where things are likely headed. Expanded corridor service and skeletal, non-daily service elsewhere seems to fit both Anderson's vision of the business (transportation, not entertainment) and the mood of the administration. You have a far better grasp of the railroad business than I do, and I believe you when you say it's more complicated, in many respects at least, than airlines. But I'm betting that long distance service as we know it is not one of the choices on the table. It's either solve the problems and reshape service and schedules to maximise revenue/minimise empty seat-miles, or walk away from some routes completely.

I still don't believe the states are going to want to foot the bill for the vast majority of their operations. This is especially true with trains that cross state lines and one state doesn't find it favorable. 

Let the games begin..

 

[neroden]

Why these two fronts for discussion have been merged into one and turned into a fabricated "war on LD trains" is a mystery to me.

The repeated accounting fraud used to claim that the long-distance trains cost far more money than they really do?  The idiotic bustitution proposals?  The ham-handed, non-data-driven changes to food service?  The erratic and random removal of sleepers from the Boston section of the LSL?

 

[neroden]

It would have been nice to learn whatever happened to the PIPs, and also if claims of profit/loss were made based on more credible accounting instead of harping the same BS. The current analysis based on GIGO P/L accounting is just that GIGO.

This is what we have to tell Congress.

Amtrak is lying to Congress about the numbers.

 

[neroden]

So...what can we do to kick Gardner out?

I'd suggest digging up specific examples of Gardner personally using the faked/falsified numbers in public: i.e. catch him red-handed committing fraud.  I think there were some.

 

[neroden]

Ummm...isn't it pretty obvious what is happening here? Gardner, the man that  came from Congress, had a hand in crafting PRIIA and has risen to the top ranks of the corporation is probably lining up to be the next CEO.

Gardner's a fraudster who has flatly violated the PRIIA order to provide avoidable-cost accounting.

He's lying to Congress and they don't like that.

If you come to RPA's Day on the Hill, tell your Congressman's staff member that Stephen Gardner is flat-out lying about the costs of long-distance trains; that he's committing fraud, and that you have an outside audit to prove it.  Leave it at that.  Should be enough.

 

[neroden]

So what should we do to slow or prevent Gardner's dream from coming true?

Contact your Congresspeople -- Representative and Senators.  Tell them that the so-called long-distance trains are essential to you. Tell them that Amtrak, particularly Stephen Gardner, is lying to them about the costs of these trains -- in reality, several are profitable, most are cheap -- and that there is an outside audit (cite RPA's white paper) showing this.  Tell them that Amtrak, particularly Stephen Gardner, has for 10 years ignored and violated Congress's instruction to provide real accounting. 

Suggest that:

(1) Amtrak be prohibited from discontinuing any rail service until 6 months after Amtrak provides Congress with avoidable-cost route-level accounting, with no allocations.

Congress doesn't like being lied to and it doesn't like it when Amtrak refuses to follow the law, so y'know...

 

[neroden]

Add to those Alexandria, Yonkers, New Rochelle and Stamford. Also around Chicago, Naperville, Sturtvent and a few others. All that is before we hit California

Who said anything about moving out of city centers anyway?

Gardner.