"Amtrak Reform" on C-SPAN

[saxman]

Did anyone else catch the CSPAN braodcast of the Transportation Policy involving Amtrak? I caught the last 30 mins. and thought I would put out some highlights.

The hearing involved some of Amtraks harshest critics, Wendel Cox, and Joe Vranich. Also there was Peter Armstrong, who leads a tourist agency in Canada promoting railway tours.

The issues were Amtrak funding, Amtrak and freight relationships, the possibility of privatization of routes, and a few other things.

Questions from the audience included, the Istook "pulling the pork" from liberal Republicans who support Amtrak. Cox stated he agreed with Istook's action, and wished he had "pulled more pork." "There is not much money to work with, and why should their district get Amtrak or transit funding from the Feds, when no one else cares about your little district?" was pretty much Cox's reasoning.

Also came a question from a NARP representitive (don't think it was Capon)

He corrected some of Cox's and Vranich's remarks about whether Amtrak was for liesure travelers or not. Cox wanted to debate about that, but time was low. Also NARP mentioned, about how most travelers don't go all the way from one coast to another, but use the dozens of stops in between. I wish there were more time for debate, but there wasn't. The hearing was concluded by Armstrong, stating that, VIA's transcon service was meant strictly for tourists, and that was his business. He said to ask any Amtrak passenger about weather they were going just to see the scenery or actualy going somewhere. He stated that most are going for leisure. He also didn't mention that VIA only runs that route 3x per week.

When I travel, I may be going for leisure, but I just happen to be taking the train to get there. So I guess its the fine line between what leisure travel on the train means. I may take the train to the see the sights, but I still need to get to where I'm going. Thats my opinion.

I'm sure if you can watch the C-SPAN broadcast at all, but I'll keep checking.

Any comments?

Chris

 

[EmpireBuilderFan]

Well, you know, we should probably expect the roads to pay for themselves since I'm sure that there are lots of people who drive for leisure -- it's called going on a road trip. Also, I'm sure that lots of people use a car to get to their vacations. Likewise, lots of people fly to their vacation spots.

When I travel, I like to enjoy the trip as much as getting to the destination. When I drive on the (government funded) highways, I usually find the drive to be a leisure activity for me. Same thing when I take the train. I'm going to a specific destination for a vacation and I'm enjoying the trip in the process. That doesn't make my trip any less important than the serious business traveller. Oh, and I would respond to the Canadian tourist agent by saying, "I'm taking the train to get somewhere. Why I'm going there is irrelevant."

Has Wendel Cox or Joe Vranich ever asked anyone in Montana, North Dakota, or other rural areas about their views on Amtrak? For me to fly home in December, it would have cost a minimum of $500 round trip, assuming that the weather holds out to allow the plane to land. On the other hand, Amtrak cost a little over $200 and most likely will get me there, regardless of the weather. Driving across North Dakota in the winter is completely out. Let's have Mr. Cox or Mr. Vranich live on a student's income and try to get to small-town America without Amtrak. It's almost impossible without help from someone with more income.

 

[saxman]

Has Wendel Cox or Joe Vranich ever asked anyone in Montana, North Dakota, or other rural areas about their views on Amtrak?  For me to fly home in December, it would have cost a minimum of $500 round trip, assuming that the weather holds out to allow the plane to land.  On the other hand, Amtrak cost a little over $200 and most likely will get me there, regardless of the weather.  Driving across North Dakota in the winter is completely out.  Let's have Mr. Cox or Mr. Vranich live on a student's income and try to get to small-town America without Amtrak.  It's almost impossible without help from someone with more income.

Well said Empire Builder fan. I'm am a fellow college student myself here in North Dakota. I'll be driving home to Texas in a couple weeks, in the middle of winter. I have to because I need the car. I know quite a few college students here at my school that take the train home to Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Montana. We have quite a few guys from the Seattle/Portland area. Many say they don't know how they would get home if it weren't for Amtrak.

I remembered some more things that Cox and Vranich said, and thought I would mention them as well......

One guy mentioned the building of a commuter rail line in the Dulles to DC area and how they want it stopped. Cox said building any rail line like that costs more than if they were to buy a luxery car for all the riders. I don't know why critics mention this, when the point is to get the cars off the road, not back on. I don't know how true this statement is....

I think Vranich compared in his book, "End of the Line: The Failure of Amtrak Reform," that in one day Amtrak carries 66,000 pax, which is comparable to Phily Airport which handles the same amount. First your comparing apples to oranges. Phily doesn't even serve alot of the same markets, Amtrak might.

The last thing that sticks out is how someone asked if Amtrak were to shut down all of it NY to FL routes, the I-95 corridor would become a parking lot. Cox reiteraited he had conducted a "study" on Amtrak's busiest route, NY to Phily. If there were no train here, this would add one car passing a certain point every 1 minute and 20 secs, between NY and Phily. Again no, basis for his argument was given.

More comments please

Chris

 

[Trogdor]

While you may be able to use some twisted logic to figure that it's cheaper to buy everybody a car than to build a rail line, what they don't say is that the added highway infrastructure to accommodate those cars would probably cost at least 10 times (probably more) the cost of the rail line.

One thing to note is that, here in Southeast Wisconsin, there is a plan to spend $6.5 billion to rebuild 127 miles of highway in the region. That's more than enough money to pay for the entire 3000-mile Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, with change left over for several dozen miles of rail transit in the Milwaukee area.

 

[AlanB]

Well Cox just loves to spout numbers, even if there is no merit or backing for them. Then when confronted with the truth, he runs and hides behind his favorite statement, "People are just slinging mud at him because they don't like him". He sees any criticizm as an endorsement of his policy ideas.

Wendel Cox just out and out hates any form of train transit and has never once had a kind word for the steel wheels. He won't even acknowledge the success of the NYC Subway system, although he doesn't criticize it. But you'll never once hear him say that it is a success, this despite the fact that NYC could not exist in its present form without the subway.

Wendel loves to hear himself talk and loves to try and whip up anti-rail support. He's dangerous if left unchecked, but he also has no concrete numbers to support any of his claims. Many of the newest transit systems that he predicted would fail, have instead done wonderfully thereby proving him wrong.

Vranich on the other hand is typically only unkind to Amtrak. He does usually support rail transit in general. Now while I will agree that some of his past statements and remarks about Amtrak are indeed on target, many of his remarks are not.

What one needs to understand here is that Vranich used to work for Amtrak. Note that I said used to work for Amtrak. It wasn't his choice to leave either, he was asked to leave. Like many ex-employees, ever since that time he's never had a good word for Amtrak.

 

[battalion51]

I just caught the full segment on CSPAN. I have to say, I feel bad for the NARP guy being in a room full of anti-rail people. I'm going to keep this short because I'm really tired. But, Amtrak serves the people who won't fly or drive, a lot of small towns, and while we could try privatization, I just don't see it working. It might have worked in England, but England is a lot smaller, and has a lot more tracks to fix up than the U.S. does.

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

As I am reading the remarks from many I consider to be well informed nd educated in this particular thread, the following may be irrevelent to this discussion as a whole. But I would like to publically share some of my thoughts pertaining to Amtrak. First off, the loss of Amtrak may not be the end of the world (other than my having to find other employment), but it may cause major inconvenience in the lives of others! For example as one poster mentions, those on an extremely tight budget, and those who depend on Amtrak's existance to get where they need to go or be able to get what they need (such as those who live in small communities across the West, etc)! Personally, I see unforseen problems to arise if that were to come to pass.

But for me (inside and outside my working relationship with Amtrak), it would mean the loss of an era! From what I can gather from many of the passengers I speak with as well as the elders of my kin folk, travel in my opinion, was always supposed to be part of the adventure in getting "there!" I really can't see in any other mindset to describe the passengers outside of having to be somewhere due to a family emergency or commuting to work! As one poster previously mentioned, many of us like to take a leisurely road trip when we drive. Taking a plane can be leisurely experience such as going to an exotic island for vacation! And many of those folks who are on the train I speak with are actually riding the train for the experience (either their first time or repeating it), and the lower price in some cases. But the majority of folks I speak with are riding because "they want to take it easy, and have a good time" getting to where they are going! And they deserve to do it and be on time while provided at good service levels! I personally believe most first time travelers aboard Amtrak usually for the most part enjoy their trips entirely! If the experience turns out to be something which is not for them, then they have made their decision prior to, or by the end of their trip. It is impossible to please everyone all the time. But I believe we have loyal travelers on our long distance trains (on all of them)! Amtrak could do so much more than anyone can realize if our government would properly fund it!

I don't foresee Amtrak to ever be weaned from "politics" so to say! It was created by politicians if we get down to it. It would be nice if all our present politicians would get up off their butts, and do the right thing! And again, that is quit bickering, and fund Amtrak properly! I personally believe Mr Gunn will take care of Amtrak for as long as he is at the helm. I have seen a lot in my short few years of employment, the first of it I really wondered why I left my previous employer. But my job is fun at Amtrak for the most part. When it starts to not be anymore fun, I'll move on.

But back to the subject, I see a different scenario playing out at Amtrak. I don't agree with management for the most part, but someone's doing something at least half way right! I mean this year we as employees were spared haveing to see Amtrak publicized where we were out of money before the close of the fiscal year! That tells me something at the least. But, it's not over yet. I am not happy with many changes which have been made, however, I am still living! So Amtrak management will be the one who will have to shoulder the burden they carry for these stupid politicians (those who are so critical of our existance)!

So in closing, I pray for our "company!" I pray that more folks of the type many of you here in the forums who are in support of Amtrak, will simply come out of the woodwork. And send a clear and simple message to our leaders. And if they don't follow through, hopefully the One in charge will bless Amtrak in His own way! Thy will be done, and the truth will be known whether I (or anyone else) like(s) it or not! OBS.......

 

[WICT106]

it never cease to disappoint me to discover that there are those whose ideology blinds them to practical solutions, or to reality. There was one board member who compared Amtrak, and trains (which are mobile vehicles) to airports (ie, buildings). Can you say "Apples to Oranges" comparison, anyone? Apparently not that board member. Then there is the criticism regarding passenger trains being used heavily for leisure travel. Guess what many tourists use our national highways for? Care to guess how many others fly in order to get to places like Florida and Hawaii? As if people moved around only for business related needs.

Another flaw in their comparisons was the failure (deliberate or otherwise) to take into account that trains provide their usefullness and make their business on the middle points of the routes, not just the end-points alone. Airlines, OTOH, make their business based upon the end destinations of a given route.

A thrid flaw in the arguements presented was the failure to mention that airlines, highways, and railways, can all compliment each other in the total transportation network. Passenger rail can achieve economies of scale in the middle-distance & commuter-distance routes of between 45 - 450 miles' length. Air travel can be allowed to achieve its' economy of scale by concentrationg on the long-distance routes. If passenger rail in the US were able to get its own form of long-term, sustainable funding (akin to the Highway and Air Travel Trust Funds, only for passenger rail) it would have the possibility of taking the place of the less-economical "commuter" flights that go to the smaller, regional airports. This, in turn, would free up additional space at the larger airports so they could run more long-distance flights, and get more bang for the buck, and add more capacity to the overall system.

/sarcasm/ Oh, excuse me, that would make sense. Heaven forbid we should have that.

/endsarcasm/

 

[Trogdor]

I'd like to know why passenger rail's economy ends at 450 miles.

 

[PRR 60]

I'd like to know why passenger rail's economy ends at 450 miles.

Viability of rail verses air is time related, not distance related. The faster the train, the longer the distance a trip can be and still be competitive with air travel.

The rail verses air “rule of thumb” is three hours. Any rail trip of three hours or less is time-competitive with air and will be commercially viable as a primary transportation mode. Any train trip over three hours will have an increasingly large time penalty as compared to air and, with most travel being time sensitive, will very quickly lose its baseline commercial viability. This is the route development model from the French TGV and it works. For TGV, three hours is about 450 to 500 miles. That covers most of France out of Paris. Sadly, for Amtrak, three hours is a much shorter distance and does not even cover the NEC out of New York.

Acela is a perfect example. Between Washington and New York (226 miles), Acela operates at just about the three hour mark and it does quite well against the competing air shuttles. But between Boston and New York (231 miles), Acela is scheduled at 3 hours, 30 minutes (and actually takes about 3 hours, 40 minutes) and it has been much less successful in competition with air. And, for true end-point travel Washington to Boston, where Acela takes about seven hours, the train offers no competition to air at all.

Bottom line is that once a train trip exceeds three hours, time sensitive passengers will go elsewhere and the train will only appeal to a minority of the travel market. Although that minority may include you and me, it is not and never will be large enough to develop any significant market share. There is nothing that can be done to change that basic formula.

 

[GG-1]

I'd like to know why passenger rail's economy ends at 450 miles.

Viability of rail verses air is time related, not distance related. The faster the train, the longer the distance a trip can be and still be competitive with air travel.

Bottom line is that once a train trip exceeds three hours, time sensitive passengers will go elsewhere and the train will only appeal to a minority of the travel market. Although that minority may include you and me, it is not and never will be large enough to develop any significant market share. There is nothing that can be done to change that basic formula.

Aloha

Not sure I totaly agree. Some years ago I worked a traveling show where the Performers contract dictated travel time. The limit on ground transportation was 6 hours, if longer we flew. During the 10 mo. tour each time we flew the travel day was over 8 hours.

Reason group pickup at hotel 1 hour, Travel to airport 30 min. to one hour, Group checkin 1.5 hours, flight adverage 3hours, group bagage claim .75 hours, group travel to hotel 1 hour.

I would have prefered ground, these ground trips were a mixture of train and buss. Even in 1976 the Canadian rail service was better

 

[Trogdor]

I'd like to know why passenger rail's economy ends at 450 miles.

Viability of rail verses air is time related, not distance related. The faster the train, the longer the distance a trip can be and still be competitive with air travel.

The rail verses air “rule of thumb” is three hours. Any rail trip of three hours or less is time-competitive with air and will be commercially viable as a primary transportation mode.

Interesting rule of thumb, but trains don't compete with airlines. The primary competition is the automobile.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/pdfs/MRR12n3.pdf has some good info, especially pages 6 and 7.

While a 450-mile route may be a three-hour trip for people riding end-to-end, it doesn't address the 450 miles covered from the middle of the route to 200 miles beyond the endpoint (or the 450-mile route starting at the other endpoint, and going further).

Meanwhile, the automobile, as slow and uncomfortable as it is, has about half the market for trips 500-1000 miles, a distance that is clearly longer than three hours no matter what freeway you use.

I'm sick of rail travel being compared and contrasted with the airlines, when it's clearly the automobile that will be the greatest source of potential riders if we could have even a halfway-decent rail network in this country.

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Fortunately for rail, the post-9/11 security delays and hassles at airports make flying less attractive and more time-consuming, and have probably increased the passsenger-capture time somewhat beyond three hours because of the additional "stand and wait while being security-hassled" time at airports. In fact, I would think that since I keep hearing "two hours" as the amount of time you should arrive at the airport pre-departure, I wonder if we're not already to a four-hour window. I think Amtrak could also stand to do some ads that point out how much more convenient it is to catch a train. For-instance, it is only about 10-15 minutes from my house to the WPK station by private car, versus 45 minutes (or more at rush hour) to MCO jetport. Then I park (FOR FREE) at WPK, and walk about 50 to 100 feet to the station door (if I need to talk to the station agent to pick up a ticket or check baggage), or perhaps 75 to 100 feet directly to the tracks from my car if I have the ticket and don't have baggage to check. Compare that to the half-mile (OR MORE) walking that you have to do at an airport, and the King's ransom it will cost you to bail out your car from the overpriced parking garage when you return. If they could put some of that into the ads, it might really strike a chord with travelers who are sick and tired of all the stuff they go through at airports. Maybe a split-screen, the Amtrak traveler on the left, the air traveler on the right, with an elapsed-time clock, showing the Amtrak pax on the train and on his way, in the diner eating lunch, at a table, with china and stainless flatware, before the airline pax is even parked at the airport (or something along those lines).

 

[saxman]

rmadisonwi

I am in the process of reading your link. It truly makes me understand passenger rail or any intersity transit, including highways, airways and busways.

Of course I'm sure Wendal Cox will refuit with his lame arguments that we can buy everyone a nice car for the cost of this and that...

How can you live your life trying to decide which mode of transportation is a boondoggle to our society. I'm sure if there were only a few airport around the country, people would try and say how flying is not worth it.

We need a system that works together with all modes. Seems like alota the rest of the world is getting along with their transportation system.

I once read a study, by O'toole, who "analyzes" all the rail systems in America. Pretty much for each city, he says they're a "disaster, because they gained rail passengers but lost many bus passengers, how it costs alot and how buses are safer than trains and all that BS. It even mentions the NYC subway as a failure, as well as Chicago, and Boston. I'll post a link here.

Great Rail Disasters