Chicago Tribune article

[Allen Dee]

Here's a link to the article:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columni...ll=chi-news-col

I fired off a nasty letter to the editor. The rest of you should too after reading

this piece of crap.

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

He makes some interesting points a couple which are true, but he puts his foot in his mouth when it comes to comparing us with the other infrastructures! Getting rid of Amtrak will save us sooooo much money out of the budget each year? Yeah right! Nobody would notice because 1.2 billion is such a small amount compared to the total budget? Yeah true, but Amtrak regular riders would know as soon as the train stopped running! If Amtrak got half of what the airline infrastructure gets, my word, one would be amazed at what the rail infrastructure would be! The freights will act when the money is swung in their faces, and it can benefit their business as well as Amtrak's! DUH!! OBS....

 

[PRR 60]

If Amtrak got half of what the airline infrastructure gets, my word, one would be amazed at what the rail infrastructure would be!

Other than the revenue from the taxes and fees paid on airline tickets and fuel, aviation is budgeted for about $1.4 billion next year. So, would Amtrak do well with $700 million?

By the way, how much is the federal tax on Amtrak tickets? Did I hear zero?

 

[IceColdMintJulep]

If I remember correctly, the Tribune is a conservative/republican newspaper and thus it is not suprising they would hold a stance similar to Bush's.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Who was it back in 1998 that declared Amtrak would be profitable? No wonder congress is confused.

Again, this writer, like too many, doesn’t understand that Amtrak plays a small role in U.S. transportation, because it is not funded to do anything else. I read this kind of thing in the media all the time. On the other hand, there is probably some truth to the rumor that the voices from “rail buffs” are too loud; they tend to make Amtrak look like some kind of exercise in nostalgia.

How much money do state and local governments spend on airports each year?

 

[Trogdor]

By the way, how much is the federal tax on Amtrak tickets? Did I hear zero?

So?

A tax only serves a purpose if it comes from many different sources and gets redistributed. If Amtrak's tickets were taxed, with the money going directly to Amtrak, it would be essentially the same as if Amtrak charged it all in fare to begin with (with the exception being that there's one more level of bureaucracy for the money to go through before it gets back, and the theoretical possibility that the money doesn't even get back to Amtrak, making its financial situation that much worse off).

By the way, outside the NEC (and possibly, *possibly* the Michigan and St. Louis corridors), what is the federal investment in rail infrastructure?

Did I hear zero?

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

If Amtrak got half of what the airline infrastructure gets, my word, one would be amazed at what the rail infrastructure would be!

Other than the revenue from the taxes and fees paid on airline tickets and fuel, aviation is budgeted for about $1.4 billion next year. So, would Amtrak do well with $700 million?

By the way, how much is the federal tax on Amtrak tickets? Did I hear zero?

I guess I should have been more specific! If Amtrak got half of the "bail-outs" which some of the airline companies do when they are on the edge of bankrupsty................ We have multiple airline companies still, but only one long distance rail provider! I am sure each one of them gets their share of government money.

And keep in mind all the money which has been pumped into the airline infrastructure as a whole over the years, I am sure it outwieghs what the rail infrastructure as a whole has recieved over the last thirty years! OBS....

 

[Amtrak OBS Employee]

By the way, outside the NEC (and possibly, *possibly* the Michigan and St. Louis corridors), what is the federal investment in rail infrastructure?Did I hear zero?

I did!! I second that!! OBS.........

 

[AlanB]

After a brief surge, ridership dropped back to its normal low level. As Joseph Vranich notes in his 2004 book "End of the Line," Amtrak carried fewer passengers in 2002 than it did in 2001.

This is perhaps one of the silliest statements in the article, not to mention Vranich’s book. First, Amtrak carried 100,000 less passengers in 2002 than it did in 2001. That’s a drop of less than .5%, note the decimal place in front. And most of that decrease wasn’t due to new passengers abandoning Amtrak, it was simply the fact that people were afraid to travel. Had those new riders from 9/11 abandoned Amtrak, then it’s loss of ridership would have been much larger.

Now to put this in perspective, go ask the airline industry or even anyone in the hotel industry, how much their sales went down in 2002 from 2001. According to FAA stats, 16 million fewer people boarded planes in 2002 than 2001 for a decrease of 2.4% in ridership. So again Amtrak’s loss is miniscule by comparison and it has continued to increase every year since. It was actually 25 million last year, not 24 as reported.

Democracy is supposed to let the majority decide what it wants. But Amtrak supporters have a different formula: They're such a tiny minority that it's hardly worth anyone's time to resist them. Next to the mammoth task of revamping Social Security, tackling Amtrak should be easy. But President Bush may find it harder to swat a fly than to corral an elephant.

Well according to a Gallop poll from October 1997, finding that 69% of Americans think government support should continue -- even 62% of those who said they would not be personally affected by the total end of Amtrak service felt that funding should continue, so I guess that democracy is working just fine.

 

[Tanner929]

:angry: Listening to what where and when Amtrak makes money loses money and who is riding the rails is almost like listening to Major League Players Unions and Team Owners. Democrates have tried to save it, Repuplicans have tried to save it or killed it. Like Soc Sec we need real ideas and solutions. To me it is Regional Railroads with Amtrak linking areas outside the systems. If the regional commuter lines were clean comfortable and reliable more people would see trains as the way to go. Commuters trains offer riders flexibility. Boston is funding improvements for a private and amtrak partnership to improve lines from Boston to Springfield. States along the NEC should and i believe will put up money with perhaps a pvt management company. This will give a more accurate financial picture for the 46 states Amtrak goes through. I have riden outside the NEC and to tell you the truth I find you would really have to travel by train to use Amtrak. I'm not talking about comfort and the route, I love watching scenery through the train, but it is the lack of flexibility with scheduling options I believe this is has kept people from seriously considering taking the train. Please don't bite my head of in response, I think a quasi privitization has merit and state matching funding can work. These "3-Year" plans have got to stop.

 

[AlanB]

Boston is funding improvements for a private and amtrak partnership to improve lines from Boston to Springfield.

Boston isn't working with Amtrak for that, they only want to pay CSX to improve the tracks between Back Bay and Worster, so that they can run more trains. And unless something has changed, that's only a proposal at present. I haven't seen anything that indicates that the Governor has actually funded the project.

States along the NEC should and i believe will put up money with perhaps a pvt management company.

First, are you aware that most states still require Federal help to subsidize their local mass transit? NY, NJ, California, Texas, Illinois, Utah, and many others all received federal monies in the last few years to help local commuter, light rail, and subways. The states themselves cannot cover the costs needed to build, maintain, and run local mass transit.

So they aren’t going to be able to find additional monies to fund Amtrak or some semblance of Amtrak or a private company. I can promise you that NY will not only be unhappy to pay for Amtrak, it will be unable to do so. Even right now, despite the Governors dreams of expansion of the NY City area system, his budget under funds the MTA’s needed budget by almost 10 Billions dollars. So they just raised fares on the commuter trains, the subways, and the toll bridges in NYC. And even that won't cover the expansion dreams, it barely keeps things running.

Neither NY and/or NJ will be able to find the needed monies to keep the Northeast Corridor operational, which will create a huge disaster far beyond the loss of the 60,000 people a day that Amtrak brings into NYC. The LIRR will find itself cut off from Penn Station, stranding 300,000 people per day. New Jersey Transit will find itself cut off from Penn Station, stranding another 180,000 or more people per day. Plus two of NJT’s major routes will cease to exist, further stranding even more people.

I don’t say this to scare people into saving Amtrak. But I live in NYC and I’m fully aware of these funding issues and despite the fact that NY State has the highest taxes in the nation; I can assure you that we don’t have the money to pay for the loss of Amtrak.

The states of Michigan and Missouri, which already do contribute to Amtrak to help provide service are having a very hard time finding the needed monies to keep funding those services. Even California is considering cutbacks to the current Amtrak and local mass transit budgets. California certainly does not have the money to realize its desperately needed expansion dreams.

Even now the monies that California currently pays to Amtrak, won’t keep all of the current Amtrak services in California running. Amtrak does own some of the equipment, while the state owns some of the equipment. However, the California routes only get charged a portion of the overhead costs of running the system. Part of the problem with why the Long Distance trains loose money, is thanks to how Amtrak allocates its expenses.

California will be forced to find much more than the 10 Million they currently invest in Amtrak, to keep the trains running. With no Amtrak, they’ll need managers to administrate things. They’ll need to bear the full cost of the maintenance & repair crews, along with the cleaning crews. Finally they’ll need to setup & install a ticketing system, as Amtrak’s will be gone. All of these costs are currently divided amongst all of Amtrak’s routes and very little of those costs are actually being paid for by the State of California.

Amtrak may only carry 25 Million people per year, but that’s 25 million people who aren’t vying for your seat on an airplane. That’s 25 million people who aren’t on the same highway or street you’re on. And there are millions more who depend on Amtrak’s existence for their own commuter trains, who would be left with no choice but to get in a car if Amtrak bites the dust. Finally, if the Fed shouldn’t invest in Amtrak, then it certainly should not invest in local commuter and city transit operations, which don’t cross state lines and therefore are not even the domain of the Fed.

So bottom line, without federal funding, there will be no Amtrak or any shadow of it, the states simply can’t afford it. None of them can afford it. And millions of people will be inconvenienced in all states served by Amtrak, even if they don’t actually ride Amtrak themselves.

I'm not talking about comfort and the route, I love watching scenery through the train, but it is the lack of flexibility with scheduling options I believe this is has kept people from seriously considering taking the train.  

Here I won't argue with you at all. If Amtrak was actually given enough money to run greater frequencies of those long distance trains, ridership would increase significantly. One only needs to look at the large increase in Ridership that the Texas Eagle saw, when it went from running 3 days a week to 7 days. It gave people more choices and they responded by riding.

Doubling the number of trains per day on all of the exisiting long distance lines and putting back some of the now defunct routes, might actually help to get Amtrak closer to a goal of covering operating expenses.

These "3-Year" plans have got to stop.

What 3-year plan? :unsure: Amtrak gets its money one year at a time. It's very hard to plan anything that way. Nonetheless Amtrak's President did come up with a 5-year plan that he'd like to see. A plan that Congress has ignored.

 

[PRR 60]

We have multiple airline companies still, but only one long distance rail provider! I am sure each one of them gets their share of government money.And keep in mind all the money which has been pumped into the airline infrastructure as a whole over the years, I am sure it outwieghs what the rail infrastructure as a whole has recieved over the last thirty years! OBS...

Bail outs? The last payments from the 9-11 "bail outs" (actually called stabilization grants) were in October, 2003. The total of the three payments (2001-2003) was $4.6 billion (of $5 billion allocated). From 2003 on: no bail outs. The airlines are on their own now. (An irony: for those few airlines like Southwest which retained profitability throughout, the “bail-out” grants were taxable income. So they cashed the grant check and then sent part back to feds).

Infrastructure? Since 1971 (coincidently the first year of Amtrak), all (as in every penny) of federal support for aviation infrastructure (airport grants, ATC equipment, FAA R&D, etc.) has been funded from airline ticket taxes, fees, and fuel taxes. Not some, not most, but all. The only federal general tax support for aviation is partial funding of FAA operations. Next year, that support is to be about $1.4 billion, although, like the zero-out proposal for Amtrak, that is subject to change.

All this has nothing to do with whether Amtrak deserves funding. But, the honestly felt belief of many rail fans that aviation get globs of federal dollars while Amtrak is stuck begging for scraps is not true. In many ways, that last thing Amtrak would need is to be funded on a par with commercial aviation. Then times would really be tough on Amtrak.

 

[PRR 60]

By the way, how much is the federal tax on Amtrak tickets?  Did I hear zero?

So?

A tax only serves a purpose if it comes from many different sources and gets redistributed. If Amtrak's tickets were taxed, with the money going directly to Amtrak, it would be essentially the same as if Amtrak charged it all in fare to begin with (with the exception being that there's one more level of bureaucracy for the money to go through before it gets back, and the theoretical possibility that the money doesn't even get back to Amtrak, making its financial situation that much worse off).

By the way, outside the NEC (and possibly, *possibly* the Michigan and St. Louis corridors), what is the federal investment in rail infrastructure?

Did I hear zero?

You’re exactly right. An Amtrak ticket tax would make no sense, and that was my point.

The purpose of the taxes and fees on airline tickets and fuel is to build a trust fund that is then used to support air travel. If the taxes were eliminated and the airlines assumed the funding burden directly, the investment decisions would be made on what was commercially beneficial the airlines, not what is best for air travel. So, the feds collect about $11 billion each year from airline passengers and the airlines, and then give the money back to aviation as grants and services (ATC). Too often rail fans simply look at the total amount of federal funds granted to aviation (about $13 billion in 2005) and conclude that the airlines are getting a windfall. But 80% to 90% (depending on the budget year) of those federal grants and federally funded operations are paid by ticket and other taxes and fees. Depending on segments and base cost, the federal levies on a airline ticket can easily top 30% of the cost of the ticket. By the way, airline tickets are taxed more heavily than cigarettes and liquor in many states.

Amtrak has no ticket tax for the simple reason that, as you stated, it would be stupid to levy a tax on Amtrak and then simply give all the proceeds right back to Amtrak. So, whatever funding Amtrak can squeeze from their riders, they do it directly through fares. Whatever else they need has to come from general tax revenue. The point of all this is that the accurate comparison between Amtrak and commercial aviation is between the relative levels of general tax support, not the often publicized total support of aviation that includes the trust fund revenue. NARP consistently uses that wholly invalid comparison.

Your statement about federally funded rail infrastructure improvement is true as it relates to intercity rail. There are numerous examples of federal grants for rail transit and commuter rail nationwide. Of course, since Amtrak only owns significant infrastructure in northeast, it does not seem extraordinary that most or all of their infrastructure expenditures would be in the northeast.

 

[Tanner929]

What would Amtrak do with 700 Million? would they KNOW? If more trains linked major cities riderships will go up wouldn't be better to have a scheduled like the Springfield to New Haven schedule running between say Harrisburg to Philly or Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, what is the point of a train schedule from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh once a day that arrives in Pittsburgh at 10:30 pm if lucky. Has Amtrak ever really moved beyond the mission of taking over a passanger system the old railroad companys found was no longer viable.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak has no ticket tax for the simple reason that, as you stated, it would be stupid to levy a tax on Amtrak and then simply give all the proceeds right back to Amtrak.  So, whatever funding Amtrak can squeeze from their riders, they do it directly through fares. Whatever else they need has to come from general tax revenue.  The point of all this is that the accurate comparison between Amtrak and commercial aviation is between the relative levels of general tax support, not the often publicized total support of aviation that includes the trust fund revenue.  NARP consistently uses that wholly invalid comparison.

I'm not so sure that it would be stupid. The taxes and fees on airline tickets do hurt Amtrak in one way. That is the fact that the average person doesn't consider those fees when booking their fares. Most people just look at the price for the plane and never stop to consider those addon fees. So they feel better about the price of the plane ticket and are even happier when they get a sale ticket.

Amtrak sadly doesn't have that luxury of raising money through trickery. Many people already complain that Amtrak tickets, especially for sleepers, cost way too much right now. So it's hard for Amtrak to raise fares in an effort to be profitable. If there were a tax, most people would simply accept the overall increase without batting an eye.

On the other hand, if the airlines were forced to raise their fares to compensate for the loss of the taxes and fees, while still paying the monies over to the government, people would scream bloody murder at the increased price. Yet doing so would lesson the constant criticizm that it would be cheaper to buy everyone an airline ticket, rather than subsidize Amtrak. It wouldn't be cheaper, or at least not as cheap, if the fees were in the real price of the plane ticket.

 

[AlanB]

What would Amtrak do with 700 Million? would they KNOW?

Yes, they know. They'll shut down with 700 Million and strand millions, if not a billions, of travelers. Anything less than 1.1 to 1.2 Billion will force Amtrak to shutdown and file for bankruptcy.

If more trains linked major cities riderships will go up wouldn't be better to have a scheduled like the Springfield to New Haven schedule running between say Harrisburg to Philly or Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, what is the point of a train schedule from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh once a day that arrives in Pittsburgh at 10:30 pm if lucky.

The point is that initially someone has to pay to run a bunch of trains, until such time as the riders realize that they are there and that they are a viable alternative. To date, no one has even given Amtrak the needed funds to try such an idea.

Has Amtrak ever really moved beyond the mission of taking over a passanger system the old railroad companys found was no longer viable.

No they really haven't. But then that was their mission and they aren't authorized to move beyond it. They aren't allowed to say for example, start running a bus company and that assumes that they could find the money to buy a bus company.

Now they have moved beyond taking over the freight passenger system in some sense, in that they now run commuter ops for many states. But again, Amtrak is in business to run trains. They can't legally own other companies and diversify like many private companies. Amtrak's owner is the Federal Government. The DOT holds 90% of all outstanding shares of stock, and they own the only shares that really matter.

 

[Steve4031]

I just canceled lmy subscription to the Chicago Tribune. Any remaining issues that I recieve will go straight to the kitty litter box. I will make sure that Chapmans face is where the cats make their commentary on his stupidity.

 

[saxman]

Shutting down Amtrak would actually cost more. Amtrak is in debt. Who pays for the debt? Congress. Also liabilities will go to the freight RR's, further burdening them. If you were to run Amtrak, the Northeast Corridor alone would cost $1.2 billion. Thats for 600 miles of track, and 30% of Amtrak's passenger miles. Now we can also add the other 22,000 miles, including the Mid-west, California, and the Northwest, can be done for a mere $300 million, for 70% of the passenger miles. So you tell me...2/3rds of the passenger miles for less than 1/3rd of the price, sure sounds like a deal to me. Now lets add some frequencies. Now we can operate for less, by attracting more passengers.

There are so many people, that don't seem to understand this concept, thinking the long distance cost so much money. Many just think, the route needs to be packed with passengers before adding another freq. You think an airline can make money by flying one trip a day between two major cities. No one would be flying that route, I can tell you. But that airline is able to survive because it has a network.

The author boasts the airlines carrie 93 times more of the passenger miles. Hmm I wonder why, seeing how they cover thousands of markets, cris-crossing the country, in most cases not serving the same markets as Amtrak. Thats like comparing my deadend street, to the interstate highways. I don't think Greyhound is planning on expanding, by cutting service to about 250 cities. And whose gonna ride a bus across the country? I've done it, and have vowed never again. I don't think many will miss Greyhound, however I think it needs to be around still.

PRR60 is right about airports pretty much being self-sufficient. But they didn't become that-way on their own. Back in the early 20th Century, feds, towns, and counties scrambbled to build their airports.

Chris

 

[Allen Dee]

Hmmm! Quite some thread I started here: 172 reads and 17 replies.

However, rather than just posting here, the Trib needs to hear from us.

The problem is that too many of the people in this country believe everything they read in the newspapers.

Steve Chapman's article was just over the top, in my opinion.

 

[saxman]

Hmmm! Quite some thread I started here: 172 reads and 17 replies.
However, rather than just posting here, the Trib needs to hear from us.

The problem is that too many of the people in this country believe everything they read in the newspapers.

Steve Chapman's article was just over the top, in my opinion.

I was going to say the same thing, but I forgot to mention it. It's easy to believe anything you read. We're all guilty of that. I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote, and if it gets published, Allen Dee. As they said at the NARP meeting a couple weeks ago, "we need to bombard them with our letters, phone calls and emails," whether it be to Congress or the press. Now I can write my Congressmen 10 times, but it's better if 10 of us write just one letter. Sure we can discuss this issue to death here in the Amtrak Forums, but how many normal people come here. I kinda doubt there's an anti-Amtrak forum out there.

 

[PRR 60]

Sure we can discuss this issue to death here in the Amtrak Forums, but how many normal people come here.

Maybe we need a new poll.

"Do you consider yourself normal? Yes or No"

 

[MrFSS]

"Do you consider yourself normal? Yes or No"  

Tell me what normal is and then maybe I can answer.

 

[Tanner929]

This is like the Soc Sec debate or lack there of debate. What would happen if Amtrak shut down? Would people still find a way to get where they are going? Yes, would a private concern step in? most probably, if not trains some other mode. Are there ways to improve train service yes. But cancelling subcriptions and stating doom and gloom scenarios for towns along the tracks this isn't the 1870's where the value of the land is tied to where the railroads are going to lay the track. I bet if the type of coach seats and leg room on the Amtrak trains would be standard on commuter trains riders would increase. If people are uncomfortable being on a train for an hour why would they perceive a long distance trip be a enjoyable experience. The states with heavy commuter rail systems need money and commitment to upgrade the infrastructure but as it was in the 1940's the mission is still just keep the trains running.