Folly of State Financed "Nationalized" rail.

[Larry H.]

Well, its bound to start with more regularity soon.. The whole idea of shifting the cost to states for what should be Amtraks National Rail Service is about to come under great strain. Our system and ability to travel is being held hostage to Amtraks goal of transferring as much of the cost to states as possible. Yesterday Missouri's Governor announced plans to cut the rail service between Kansas City and St. Louis to one train each way a day instead of the current two which makes possible round trips to one or the other point possible for many riders and well as connections to long distance trains without over night lay overs on each end.

If Amtrak was formed to provide and sustain a national rail system, then this business of saying they will only operate trains when a state pays much of the cost is shifting the responsibility and creating a situation where passengers are once again going to be at the mercy of ever less service. The whole reason Amtrak was formed in the first place, which seems to have been totally forgotten by most who operate it or voted for it.

I can see with the budget mess we have in Illinois or in California the elimination of other routes that have proven so successful. The chickens may come home to roost on this theory soon.

 

[Tony]

There are several routes around the USA which Amtrak runs on the behalf of states, and with the states covering at least some of the costs. If those states later have second thoughts, IMHO, it isn't Amtrak's responsibility to shift the cost over to themselves, and continue the specialized service.

 

[Guest]

The Missouri River Runner is not a national route at all. It doesn't even go outside of the state of Missouri.

 

[Larry H.]

Great arguments of course. But the only reason states are providing these services is because Amtrak either abandoned the services or refused to provide them in the first place. Anyone who thinks that a trip between to major points connecting service so that the passengers wouldn't have to travel nearly two days out of their way at great expense simply to connect to a 'nationalized route" is nuts in my book. These lines were never thought of as State obligations until Amtrak refused to provide a service that always existed before in many cases. Yes some are more frequent than some older lines provide such as the Illinois routes but St. Louis To Kansas City an points west was always a major route until abandoned. That does not make it a local only concern in my book.

 

[Larry H.]

As you can see by this Amtrak Map the route from St. Louis To Kansas City was a part of the system to operated as a part of a National System.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?...mp;#entry166637

For any passenger wishing to travel "nation wide" from St. Louis to California and other points west this service should be a must. Only those who don't have to pay to ride five hours north east and then spend half the day only to pay once again to return to a point that should have been a direct route, can think that this is not a part of a national system. Its only due to passenger demand and amtrak's refusal to provide service they inherited that states are in the position of having to pay for rail service. Too me it would be comparable to forcing cities to pay all expenses to operate the Flight Controllers that are part of a national system.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The provision in the Amtrak law to allow states to fund local trains has been there since Day 1, I believe. The Illinois Zephyr dates to Amtrak's first or second month. So state-sponsored trains are nothing new. The current thinking that anything new has to be sponsored by the states is very limiting. Actually, there's a new portion of the Amtrak law that will require states to fund any in-state runs of less than 750 miles.

Those routes that are of local interest should continue to be funded by the states, but there are a number of proposals that should be "national" trains. Of course, Congress will have to be convinced to fund such operations.

 

[saxman]

States paying for rail service is nothing new. I think we all know that. But it's the fact that Amtrak runs an unfair system. Many corridor routes are part of the national system and the state DO NOT pay for them. This is true for the Empire Service, the entire NEC, the Wolverines, and maybe one or two more. (Keystones?)

So why does Upstate New York and Michigan get to have 'free' Amtrak service while every other state has to pay for it. This is exactly what they are doing with the Sunset east. It was part of the national network and now for some reason they say the state should pay for it, when Amtrak itself was already paying for it. I have a bad feeling they are going to come to Texas and Louisiana and ask that they pay for the new SAS-NOL stub train. I think this whole Sunset fiasco was part of Amtrak's plan in the first place, push it all to the states, IMHO.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The Missouri River Runner is not a national route at all. It doesn't even go outside of the state of Missouri.

When Amtrak started in 1971, St.Louis to Kansas City was part of the Washington-Kansas City route of the National Limited. Because the tracks were in bad shape in Ohio and Indiana, the train was often very late and west bound service from St. Louis to Kanas City was very upredictable. They were alot of complaints. When the National Limited was discontinued between Pittsburg and St. Louis, a through Chicago - St. Louis-Kansas City train was started. Eventually Missouri did help fund that train and an additional train. So the St. Louis - Kansas City route was originally part of a national route.

 

[Guest]

The Missouri River Runner is not a national route at all. It doesn't even go outside of the state of Missouri.

When Amtrak started in 1971, St.Louis to Kansas City was part of the Washington-Kansas City route of the National Limited. Because the tracks were in bad shape in Ohio and Indiana, the train was often very late and west bound service from St. Louis to Kanas City was very upredictable. They were alot of complaints. When the National Limited was discontinued between Pittsburg and St. Louis, a through Chicago - St. Louis-Kansas City train was started. Eventually Missouri did help fund that train and an additional train. So the St. Louis - Kansas City route was originally part of a national route.

That has no affect on the fact that currently right now the MRR is not a national route. The MRR is not the National Limited.

 

[Eric S]

The Ann Rutledge (Trains 303 & 304) was part of the "national system" or at least the portion between CHI and STL was. I believe the Lincoln Service Trains 303 & 304 still are, as Illinois only funds 3 of the 4 daily Lincoln Service roundtrips. Are both Missouri River Runner roundtrips (including Trains 313 & 314, the former Ann Rutledge STL-KCY) funded by Missouri, and not part of the national system?

 

[Larry H.]

The Missouri River Runner is not a national route at all. It doesn't even go outside of the state of Missouri.

When Amtrak started in 1971, St.Louis to Kansas City was part of the Washington-Kansas City route of the National Limited. Because the tracks were in bad shape in Ohio and Indiana, the train was often very late and west bound service from St. Louis to Kanas City was very upredictable. They were alot of complaints. When the National Limited was discontinued between Pittsburg and St. Louis, a through Chicago - St. Louis-Kansas City train was started. Eventually Missouri did help fund that train and an additional train. So the St. Louis - Kansas City route was originally part of a national route.

That has no affect on the fact that currently right now the MRR is not a national route. The MRR is not the National Limited.

If amtrak had not discontinued the service Missouri would not have to be running it in the first place. To those along its route it was and is a part of the national system. Who thinks that feeder trains, if you must call it something less than a "national" line, are not a factor in loads provided to the Long distance trains. All this conversation is a smoke screen for the fact that amtrak is trying to stick the states with more and more cost and that is going to lead to problems for the traveling pubic, which by the way is what I thought this was all about?

 

[Larry H.]

The Ann Rutledge (Trains 303 & 304) was part of the "national system" or at least the portion between CHI and STL was. I believe the Lincoln Service Trains 303 & 304 still are, as Illinois only funds 3 of the 4 daily Lincoln Service roundtrips. Are both Missouri River Runner roundtrips (including Trains 313 & 314, the former Ann Rutledge STL-KCY) funded by Missouri, and not part of the national system?

Well I would say they are, its a word game to pretend that the lousy system amtrak has foisted on us is some kind of shell game of who runs the railroads. I don't think someone who buys a ticket in Jefferson City Mo for Los Angeles thinks they are not riding on part of a national system.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The Missouri River Runner is not a national route at all. It doesn't even go outside of the state of Missouri.

When Amtrak started in 1971, St.Louis to Kansas City was part of the Washington-Kansas City route of the National Limited. Because the tracks were in bad shape in Ohio and Indiana, the train was often very late and west bound service from St. Louis to Kanas City was very upredictable. They were alot of complaints. When the National Limited was discontinued between Pittsburg and St. Louis, a through Chicago - St. Louis-Kansas City train was started. Eventually Missouri did help fund that train and an additional train. So the St. Louis - Kansas City route was originally part of a national route.

That has no affect on the fact that currently right now the MRR is not a national route. The MRR is not the National Limited.

The St.Louis-Kansas City Route was part of Amtrak's original national network effective May 1, 1971. Some other services such as the Illinois Zephyr were started as part of the State funding of passenger train routes. Missouri did fund 2 additonal trains on this route, but the one train each way from St. Louis to Kansas City should be funded by Amtrak.

 

[dart330]

This cut couldn't come at a worse time for MODOT. They have done such a good job of getting additional sidings built, making these trains run above 90% OTP, and total ridership increase of 16% for 2009. Just a few months ago they were talking of hoping to add additional frequencies to this route in the near future, which would only drive ridership higher and reduce the need to widen I-70 across the state.

 

[Larry H.]

The Missouri River Runner is not a national route at all. It doesn't even go outside of the state of Missouri.

When Amtrak started in 1971, St.Louis to Kansas City was part of the Washington-Kansas City route of the National Limited. Because the tracks were in bad shape in Ohio and Indiana, the train was often very late and west bound service from St. Louis to Kanas City was very upredictable. They were alot of complaints. When the National Limited was discontinued between Pittsburg and St. Louis, a through Chicago - St. Louis-Kansas City train was started. Eventually Missouri did help fund that train and an additional train. So the St. Louis - Kansas City route was originally part of a national route.

That has no affect on the fact that currently right now the MRR is not a national route. The MRR is not the National Limited.

The St.Louis-Kansas City Route was part of Amtrak's original national network effective May 1, 1971. Some other services such as the Illinois Zephyr were started as part of the State funding of passenger train routes. Missouri did fund 2 additonal trains on this route, but the one train each way from St. Louis to Kansas City should be funded by Amtrak.

I do agree with your basic premise, in some ways. However, most of us here would welcome a expanded rail system, and many here constantly tell us that by adding a second long distance train a day to the primary routes that it would be a big help in passenger connivence and loads. We can't allow our selves to slip into the thought process that the minimum system is all that amtrak should be responsible for. A real national service would include lines to many more places and with more frequent service.

I don't recall anyone thinking that the hourly service on the east coast should be only run by amtrak a few times a day and the states the rest unless I have missed something.

It should all be a part of the national system, its only our twisted political system that somehow ends up with amtrak not being the national provider at all levels, which I still contend is why they were created in the first place?

 

[Larry H.]

Here is an interesting press release at the time of the inception of amtrak. Notice that the operation of all rail services as well as a standard of improving the amenities onboard were all a part of the original mandate. It doesn't say anything about passing the buck to states for rail service.

http://www.amtrakhistoricalsociety.org/bah.htm#intro

Larry

 

[Tony]

So why does Upstate New York and Michigan get to have 'free' Amtrak service while every other state has to pay for it.

Doesn't New York State, itself, chip in for the running of the Adirondack which goes thru upstate NY?

 

[amtrakwolverine]

Michigan does not get its trains for free either saxman we have to pay for the blue water and pere Marquette only the wolverine is free

 

[AlanB]

So why does Upstate New York and Michigan get to have 'free' Amtrak service while every other state has to pay for it.

Doesn't New York State, itself, chip in for the running of the Adirondack which goes thru upstate NY?

It does, but that's the only train that NY helps to pay for.

And they've been talking about cutting the funding for even that one train.

 

[StevenBDel]

To me, it makes no difference that Kansas City and St. Louis are in the same state. They are two very large cities that should be connected by frequent rail service.

Even small communities in the Northeast are served by 50+ Amtrak trains daily, and are not being asked to pay for them. Meanwhile, large cities throughout the midwest get hardly any Amtrak service at all, and are often asked to pay for any service they do get.

If the goal is to have a national rail network, the current way of doing things seems seriously flawed. Rail travel will be in trouble as long as Amtrak keeps up this "states must pay" mindset. Most states lack both the money and the political will to pay for rail service.

 

[MikefromCrete]

To me, it makes no difference that Kansas City and St. Louis are in the same state. They are two very large cities that should be connected by frequent rail service.
Even small communities in the Northeast are served by 50+ Amtrak trains daily, and are not being asked to pay for them. Meanwhile, large cities throughout the midwest get hardly any Amtrak service at all, and are often asked to pay for any service they do get.

If the goal is to have a national rail network, the current way of doing things seems seriously flawed. Rail travel will be in trouble as long as Amtrak keeps up this "states must pay" mindset. Most states lack both the money and the political will to pay for rail service.

Well, let's write our congressmen and say we want the federal government to pay for all Amtrak services. All it would take is a vote by Congress, appropriation of the funds and approval of the national budget. Might work under the current passenger rail friendly administration we have now, but it certainly wouldn't have worked under all the previous admistrations, both Democratic and Republican, we've had since 1971.

Having states pay for strictly local services seems a good idea to me. If the states want the services, they have the right to add any number of routes. If the states don't want service, they don't have to have it. That's why there's five trains a day between Chicago and St. Louis and only one between Chicago and Indianapolis. (Although three of those St. Louis trains are part of the national budget, with the other two strictly funded by Illinois).

Now, interstate trains are another concept all together, but additional interstate trains would have to be paid for under the national Amtrak budget, which would have to be increased for each additional train. Let Congress vote on a train by train basis. If the Sunset East is to be restored, let's add the appropriate funds to Amtrak's national budget.

The northeast corridor argument is as old as Amtrak, but remember all the states between Boston and Richmond, also pay for (in most cases) extensive commuter rail services.

I'm not sure where I going with this, but let's say, funding for rail passenger services is a complicated issue, and the desire for such services varies greatly around the nation. If you have a philosophical problem with Amtrak runnng services for individual states, then the actual operation of such local service could be contracted out to commuter authories, private companies or even the freight railroads. It still won't mean that every place will have service, because the interest (or political will, I should say) just doesn't exist in some places.

 

[jis]

Michigan does not get its trains for free either saxman we have to pay for the blue water and pere Marquette only the wolverine is free

And the Wolverine is actually an interstate train since Chicago is not in Michigan the last time I checked.

 

[Larry H.]

Last time I looked Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas City were not in the same state either but it hasn't prevented amtrak from putting the operation on the local states instead of the national system where it belongs.

 

[jis]

If the goal is to have a national rail network, the current way of doing things seems seriously flawed. Rail travel will be in trouble as long as Amtrak keeps up this "states must pay" mindset. Most states lack both the money and the political will to pay for rail service.

Let's face it. There is no huge pot of money in Washington DC to fund trains, or planes or roads any more either, as we head into uncharted territories of national indebtedness. I think Amtrak is in trouble, period. And we sitting and bitching here is not going to change anything one whit.

The only thing that will make a difference is to mobilize public support and get the elected representatives to fund Amtrak for running the interstate network and the states to fund trains within the states. There has got to be a consolidated plan that is funded by both the nation at the federal level and by the states, and potentially bring in private funding through private-public partnerships as has been successfully done elsewhere in the world.

If one looks at the whole picture, New York State, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia etc. for example, actually funds a huge amount of passenger rail that runs within the state and a few that cross state boundaries too. It happens so that much of that service is not run by Amtrak. Similarly MO can set up Missouri Trak to run their intra-state trains, or they could contract with Amtrak to run it. California already does something like the latter with Amtrak California. North Carolina runs a pretty successful program with Amtrak as the contractor. And in addition all get the inter-state service that is of course run by Amtrak. Some states choose to run trains funded by them through another state to connect to what they consider an important destination. It is their decision to do so.

Along this line of thinking I agree that New York should be funding the operation of the Empire Corridor except the Maple Leaf, Lake Shore Limited and the Adirondack. But due to a historical anomaly New York State funds the Adirondack and the rest of the Empire Corridor is funded by Amtrak. Historically Amtrak used to run the Clockers which mostly served NJ even though they did travel to Philly. Within the last decade NJ picked up those operations and an unfortunate consequence of that was that the service to Philly on those trains ended. But since such service happened to be more useful to Pennsylvania than New Jersey, such has now partly been restored by Pennsylvania funded Keystones.

This is generally true of almost all NE states that get NEC service. So playing this NEC vs. the rest game isn;t going to be a productive direction for anything and the passenger rail system will simply wither away while we are busy pissing at each other.

So the picture is not as black and white we vs. they as some make it out to be, and positing it as such is the quickest way to ruin for all.

 

[Bootman4U]

Last time I looked Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas City were not in the same state either but it hasn't prevented amtrak from putting the operation on the local states instead of the national system where it belongs.

Interesting reading and thoughts. I still think the biggest driver in any of this is the public's willingness to have ANY sort of rail services.

How many people do you know in this country who have never, ever ridden a train? They simply do not envision the advantages of rail service which obviously people HERE think exist..or would exist. Too easy to get into your car or hop on a plane for many folks and until that vast swell of public opinion changes I honestly don't foresee a bright future.

Some months ago there was a LOT of talk about alternatives when gasoline was above $4.00 per gallon..talk about rail services, public transport expansion, more fule efficient cars, etc. And then the prices fell....