House Passes 2015 THUD ... $1.4 billion for Amtrak

[Ryan]

Not me, obviously!

That's great news if that's how it works!

 

[Bob Dylan]

Second on the members from Iowa and Arizona standing up for Amtrak against the budget bullies!

And since we haven't mentioned him in awhile on AU Amtrak Joe is still Vice President and presides over the Senate where any of this kind of nonsense will be killed!

 

[jis]

Well, again as was explained to me, never count your chicken until they all hatch. Conference is an unpredictable thing, and depending on what bigger axes are there to grind some minutia may drop through the cracks. I am sure NARP and Amtrak will be busy busy marshaling the Senate participants in the Conference when they are announced to make sure that these things don;t fall through the cracks. As a matter of fact, apparently even the total amount is not fully secure until it is in the conference report. So go figure.

It stands to reason that when both bodies come in with the same top line number it is less likely to change, but it is not impossible that such could happen.

 

[crescent2]

Thanks, Tom.

In case anyone is too lazy to click through, here's the important bits:

No political mentions, references, insinuations, or likenesses permitted in forum signatures, avatars, or user names. I don't care if the person or party SUPPORTS Amtrak with a given policy -- just forget about it.

Any post that expresses favor or preference for or against a specific politician, political candidate, or political party, or what they stand for, may be deleted at any staff member's discretion. The goal here is to protect the good-natured civility we all enjoy here on the forum. Common sense will dictate whether a post is likely to provoke other members. If we are lucky, the member will exercise such common sense before posting, and no intervention will be required.

Any post that expresses favor or preference for or against another member's political views will be deleted.

Any thread that continues to attract posts of an overly subjective political nature will be locked, pruned of offending material, or in some cases, completely deleted.

If you disagree with a moderation decision made by a forum staff member, take it up with that person (or an Administrator) in a private message, NOT in public.

There are political statements in this forum all the time. Fine with me, but they are quite common despite the quoted policy. "Staff member's discretion" seems to be the key.

 

[the_traveler]

Just as an FYI: The "staff member's discretion" is not taken lightly by any of us. Yes we can delete, but it is much more likely that we discuss it with other staff members first before any deleting is done. It's not a "I'm against this poster/politician/idea/etc... so I'll delete it".

 

[tonys96]

Just as an FYI: The "staff member's discretion" is not taken lightly by any of us. Yes we can delete, but it is much more likely that we discuss it with other staff members first before any deleting is done. It's not a "I'm against this poster/politician/idea/etc... so I'll delete it".

I have had posts deleted in the past, and after reflection, I think I would agree with the moderators that they should have been deleted, or modified....except once.

All in all, a good policy policed by good people, IMHO.

 

[jis]

Not me, obviously!

That's great news if that's how it works!

The guy who was telling me could equally be wrong. So we just don;t know for sure. In such cases always assume the worst. So until we hear definitively otherwise, I'd consider the Sunset amendment to be standing.

 

[William]

I used to be an Amtrak hater, but after beginning to use it on a frequent basis (to go home from college on some weekends), I've realized that it is an important part of the infrastructure. I've taken several long distance trains in the last year (CZ, CL, and Cardinal), and have learned to appreciate those too.

How I see the situation of the underperformance of the long distance routes is pretty simple. I don't think that there will ever be a way to make these routes profitable. Perhaps they can break even, or at least have lessened loses, but I don't think that it is realistic to expect a miracle from these types of routes. The best thing that can be done for the LD trains is to try to make them as efficient as possible (without having to bring your own lunch or sleep in a box car), and to invest in non-LD routes (Acela, NR, etc) that are profitable, or come very close. It seems to me like it is much easier to improve the financial outcomes of shorter routes than longer ones. The money made on those routes can then be used to offset the losses of the LD routes (as Amtrak already tries to do).

In terms of the Sunset Limited, my opinions are a bit split. I definitely understand the rationale for keeping it, but at the same time, it really is the worse performing route in the entire system. According to the Brookings Institute, it barely breaks 100,000 riders a year, whereas most of the other LD trains each approach 500,000 a year. It also, proportionally, loses a lot more money. I think that everything possible should be done to keep it, but the option to eliminate it should be kept on the table, if only to satisfy some members of congress and hopefully take some of the political pressure off of Amtrak as a whole.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/01/amtrak-loses-a-ton-of-money-each-year-it-doesnt-have-to/

The other possible solution to the losses of the LD trains is to more effectively engage the states that have them within their borders. If Amtrak could get the state legislatures to at least provide a minimum support for these routes, it would boost the overall political viability of them. It would also open the door for future cooperation between Amtrak and the states for new short distance and corridor routes (which there definitely seems to be a demand for). This is especially true for states whose only service is provided by LD trains.

Let me know what you guys agree/disagree with. I'm always open to the opinions of others.

 

[jis]

William, I generally agree with your position.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Ditto for me!

 

[Caesar La Rock]

I agree with your post William. Good points made.

 

[tonys96]

I could agree with William, in principle, but logisticaly this cannot and would not be feasible. As a for instance:

The Texas Eagle travels through many states, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. So, if Illinois, Missouri and Texas all agreed to toss in some extra $$$ (unlikely, but for this example, let's play "what if") and Arkansas simply refused......what would happen to the Eagle? Would it cease to exist? Look for a way to skip around Arkansas? Continue and let Arkansas get a "free" ride?

This same scenario exists on all of the LD routes. More than one state is involved.

William's proposal looks good on paper, and sounds good, but just would not work in the real world.

Just one guy's opinion...........

 

[Anderson]

Well, do consider that the Sunset only runs 3x weekly, so a strict comparison with the other trains is not quite fair. The Cardinal is in the same boat.

The Sunset had just under 103k riders last year, which translates into roughly 240k riders for a daily train. Given the well-documented effects of less-than-daily trains in terms of losing riders through inconvenience (not being able to pick one's day of travel); I would peg ridership on a daily Sunset somewhere around 275k. A daily train would almost assuredly also add riders to the Texas Eagle (if only because you would have the through cars running daily as well). By the same token, a daily Cardinal would simply multiply out to 264k (vs. 113k now), but you'd probably end up somewhere in the 350k range due to an increase in ridership on the eastern end (assuming space was made available).

Trying to get states to kick in is a politically tricky proposition. PRIIA 209 was tough enough...I don't want to imagine the fight over trying to get, say, VA/NC/SC/GA/FL in on the Silvers (let alone the allocation formula fight there).

There are some exceptions (such as the three West Coast states plausibly kicking in for some share of service on the Coast Starlight), but those are the exception and not the rule.

Edit: One other point...most of the LD trains are running into capacity issues as much as anything. This is particularly the case on the sleeper side of things, but a lot of trains could do with additional capacity on both sleepers and coaches. The Meteor easily leaps to mind on this front, as does the LSL.

 

[edjbox]

If politicians win and kill the sunset ltd, they won't be satisfied, they will ask for more cuts the next year because they're thirsty for amtraks blood. That's why we need to support existing service, because once it's gone it's hard to bring back.

Also can anyone confirm that the sunset ltd amendment is dead? Don't see anything on NARP

 

[neroden]

Well, again as was explained to me, never count your chicken until they all hatch. Conference is an unpredictable thing, and depending on what bigger axes are there to grind some minutia may drop through the cracks. I am sure NARP and Amtrak will be busy busy marshaling the Senate participants in the Conference when they are announced to make sure that these things don;t fall through the cracks. As a matter of fact, apparently even the total amount is not fully secure until it is in the conference report. So go figure.

Yes, I can think of multiple historical examples of a bill having identical funding in both houses and suddenly changing in conference.

 

[henryj]

We have been down the road of discontinuing a LD train to save the rest many times before and it only results in more trains off and the overhead being distributed to the other routes. Trains I can think of include the Pioneer, Desert Wind, Lone Star, National Limited, Broadway Limited and Floridian plus some others. The Sunset only posts those stats because it's a three times a week train and Amtrak refused to press for daily operation with the UP. It actually loses less money overall than many other LD trains. The figure that the politicians key on is the loss per passenger and that is just a result of Amtrak's cost allocation process.

 

[Ziv]

William, I agree with you about the utility of the LD routes and the difficulty in expecting them to achieve profitability. One thing that would in many cases allow them to lose less money would be for them to have more cars, both coach and sleepers, on the routes that would support additional capacity. And the point of state support kind of falls into line with that.

It would be great if Montana could buy a pair of sleepers and paint a subdued but noticeable "Visit Glacier Park" logo on them with a picture of Lake McDonald or Sperry Chalet painted on them. Ditto for other states, all buying sleepers or coaches for the routes that run through their states in a one time purchase after making an agreement with Amtrak that that rolling stock would be used on the routes going through their states and IN ADDITION to the previous consist.

But, in the real world, I doubt the states could find the money and I also doubt Amtrak would want those kinds of limits to be placed on their ability to adjust the consist size. One can wish though.

One way to make each train cost less to run is to increase the amount of trains per day through each station, thereby decreasing the fixed cost per train. But it is questionable whether there is enough passenger demand to run another CZ or CS every day.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Excuse me, Henry, but it was UP who refused to enter into good faith negotiations.

 

[Ryan]

I think the reality of the situation is far more complicated than both of you are claiming.

 

[me_little_me]

It would be great if Montana could buy a pair of sleepers and paint a subdued but noticeable "Visit Glacier Park" logo on them with a picture of Lake McDonald or Sperry Chalet painted on them. Ditto for other states, all buying sleepers or coaches for the routes that run through their states in a one time purchase after making an agreement with Amtrak that that rolling stock would be used on the routes going through their states and IN ADDITION to the previous consist.

Why would a state want to limit their advertising to the one route? How often do you see states advertising in national magazines? I'd suggest that Montana would find it in their best interest and would love to have that car be seen around the country (assuming they think that paying for the car was a good idea).

Then again private companies might be willing to pony up the cash so you too could ride in the McDonalds Car or worse, the Ty-D-Bowl Car.

The Sunset had just under 103k riders last year, which translates into roughly 240k riders for a daily train.

You mean there were 239,998 additional passengers on our train last month? Wow! must have all been in coach.

I could agree with William, in principle, but logisticaly this cannot and would not be feasible. As a for instance:

The Texas Eagle travels through many states, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas. So, if Illinois, Missouri and Texas all agreed to toss in some extra $$$ (unlikely, but for this example, let's play "what if") and Arkansas simply refused......what would happen to the Eagle? Would it cease to exist? Look for a way to skip around Arkansas? Continue and let Arkansas get a "free" ride?

This same scenario exists on all of the LD routes. More than one state is involved.

William's proposal looks good on paper, and sounds good, but just would not work in the real world.

Just one guy's opinion...........

Could minimize or just eliminate the stops in Arkansas is one possibility - or just charge a supplement to anyone going to/from those stations. Of course, that would cause additional problems and animosities. Amtrak needs to sell itself to state legislatures as they try to sell themselves to Congress.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I think the reality of the situation is far more complicated than both of you are claiming.

The reality was more complicated, and now it could be more promising.

When UP basically refused to take the daily train, it said to Amtrak,

You want it, you pay for the track. And suggested half a billion or so

in needed upgrades.

Since then, the UP itself has double-tracked most of its route thru

California, Arizona, and New Mexico. (East of El Paso the main line

freight route splits, one goes to Dallas, the other, less busy one

goes to San Antonio.)

Meanwhile Amtrak and UP agreed to adjust the Sunset's schedule.

It got a faster trip time (saving 9 hours,iirc) that required one less se

Coast Starlight in L.A., and better times on the segment L.A.-Tucson.

The Sunset's now -surplus equipment was immediately reallocated

to other routes short of cars, or put into the pool like the locomotive.

Where is that equipment now? It got soaked up like stray raindrops

hitting the sand in the Sonoran Desert, because all of the Western trains

are desperately thirsty for equipment.

How Amtrak was supposed to get two iirc more train sets to offer daily

service involved messing with the Texas Eagle, aborting the Sunset at

San Antonio, running a kind of shuttle San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans.

I was never convinced.

On the other hand, the PRIIA study forecast that daily service would at

least double the total yearly passengers, to about 250,000. Of course,

Amtrak's forecasts seem to be low-balled. See the Lynchburger for

the most notorious misunderestimate. (I believe low-ball forecasts of

ridership have become the standard now, because if initial ridership

fails to meet the forecast, the haters shout about the failure for the

rest of their lucrative careers.) So it could easily turn out to be more.

A daily train offers much more convenience to travelers, of course.

For some city pairs it allows same-day round-trips. More commonly

it allows trips that only require an overnight, instead of two-night or

three-night stays necessary with a train that does not run at all

four nights a week.

Meanwhile a 3-days-a-week train has very wasteful use of crew. While

they wait to work the train departing two days later, they must be housed

and paid "away pay" if I got the correct term. So putting the crews on

a regular schedule instead means that the additional labor costs of a

day train are low "compared with" one 3-days-a-week. (It also adds to

the difficulty for employees to be away from home for days at a time.)

With much of the route now double-tracked, the main thing Amtrak

might need to take the Sunset daily would be more equipment. Isn't

that in the Fleet Renewal Plan for 2020 or so?

 

[Eric S]

Could minimize or just eliminate the stops in Arkansas is one possibility - or just charge a supplement to anyone going to/from those stations. Of course, that would cause additional problems and animosities. Amtrak needs to sell itself to state legislatures as they try to sell themselves to Congress.

Definitely a challenge when trying to rely on state funding for multistate trains. If we assume that all the other states (IL, MO, TX, perhaps all the way to CA) contributed "their" share, but AR decided not to, I would imagine that the train would still be better off financially by making the stops (or at least some of the stops, at least Little Rock if nothing else) in AR rather than running nonstop through AR. Sort of a free rider problem, I suppose. And, if AR receives service without contributing, why should MO (or another mid-route state, or potentially any individual state) contribute. It's hard to imagine many, perhaps any, long distance trains (or even corridor states involving many states) existing without some degree of federal/national funding.

I suppose charging a supplemental fare/surcharge would be an option, but if you're already looking to maximize revenue (minimize loss), should you already be charging (roughly) as much as possible.

It seems that the more that states step up to support current and expanded corridor operations, that support should provide at least incidental benefits to long distance trains, and probably represents a much easier "sell" to the various states than actually getting ongoing operating support for long distance trains.

 

[Paulus]

On the other hand, the PRIIA study forecast that daily service would at

least double the total yearly passengers, to about 250,000. Of course,

Amtrak's forecasts seem to be low-balled. See the Lynchburger for

the most notorious misunderestimate. (I believe low-ball forecasts of

ridership have become the standard now, because if initial ridership

fails to meet the forecast, the haters shout about the failure for the

rest of their lucrative careers.) So it could easily turn out to be more.

It also said that total losses after avoidable costs on the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle would rise by 16%. Given that, it's really not surprising that Amtrak isn't all that interested in going daily.

 

[Ryan]

I think the reality of the situation is far more complicated than both of you are claiming.

The reality was more complicated, and now it could be more promising.
When UP basically refused to take the daily train, it said to Amtrak,

You want it, you pay for the track. And suggested half a billion or so

in needed upgrades.

That's not the story I heard. It apparently started out much more amicable and good progress was being made, then things went south just before things wrapped up.

Meanwhile Amtrak and UP agreed to adjust the Sunset's schedule.

It got a faster trip time (saving 9 hours,iirc) that required one less se

Coast Starlight in L.A., and better times on the segment L.A.-Tucson.

The Sunset's now -surplus equipment was immediately reallocated

to other routes short of cars, or put into the pool like the locomotive.

Where is that equipment now? It got soaked up like stray raindrops

hitting the sand in the Sonoran Desert, because all of the Western trains

are desperately thirsty for equipment.

That's what was supposed to happen, but it didn't for quite some time. Maybe that's where they finally came up with the 6th set of Empire Builder equipment. But for a long time, the equipment just sat in NOL for longer between trips.

 

[neroden]

On the other hand, the PRIIA study forecast that daily service would at

least double the total yearly passengers, to about 250,000. Of course,

Amtrak's forecasts seem to be low-balled. See the Lynchburger for

the most notorious misunderestimate. (I believe low-ball forecasts of

ridership have become the standard now, because if initial ridership

fails to meet the forecast, the haters shout about the failure for the

rest of their lucrative careers.) So it could easily turn out to be more.

It also said that total losses after avoidable costs on the Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle would rise by 16%. Given that, it's really not surprising that Amtrak isn't all that interested in going daily.

That's a very funny way of looking at the numbers. It said that total bottom-line losses would rise by about $3 million dollars. After adjusting the ridership and revenue estimates for current ridership and ticket prices rather than 4-year-old numbers, that should come out to roughly "zero" ($0). (When you multiply ridership & revenue by roughly 7/3 to account for improved service, which seems to be close to what Amtrak did -- and it's a reasonable way to do it -- it matters how high ridership and revenue were to start with.) That's still a conservative estimate. Daily service is just that much more attractive than less-than-daily.

FWIW, the "new" Sunset Limited schedule is an approximation of the proposed "through" Texas Eagle schedule. Though the associated changes to the Texas Eagle schedule didn't happen.

The situation on the Cardinal is a little less clear now because a daily train would probably lose the Indiana subsidy for the Hoosier State. The PIP's estimates claimed it would cost $2.1 million net back then; adjusting for current ridership and ticket prices, that should be $1.8 million or less. That's with the existing consist. The increase in roomettes provided by Viewliner II dorm should add roughly $1.4 - 1.6 million to the revenue of the existing frequency. But more interestingly, it should improve the benefits from going daily by an additional $3.8 - $4.2 million (yes, really), making the daily Cardinal positive for the bottom line (at about $2.0 - 2.4 million ahead). Again, that's a conservative estimate.

The potential loss of a $4.1 million subsidy from Indiana would now counteract that, of course. But if Indiana drops the subsidy anyway, or if Indiana decides to make the Hoosier State a separate train on an entirely different schedule... then daily service becomes a clear winner for the bottom line.

As Amtrak says about the Cardinal:

The fact that a 133 percent increase in frequency (plus elimination of the Chicago/Indianapolis Hoosier State) can be achieved with a 50 percent increase in equipment sets demonstrates the inherent inefficiency of the current tri-weekly service.

Tri-weekly is wasting money. The conservative estimate is that ridership & revenue will be multiplied by 7/3 if you go from tri-weekly to daily (proportional to the increase in frequencies); in fact, in the few examples I've been able to dig up, it seems to go up by even more than that.

This is simply considering bottom-line financial results. Obviously, the major benefit of daily service is massively increased ridership, making all those "loss per passenger" type numbers (which Congress likes to look at) much smaller. To put it another way: a daily Cardinal with the bag-dorm should have about the same impact on Amtrak's bottom line as the current three-a-week Cardinal without the bag-dorm does, but with nearly 2.5 times the ridership.

I don't know who came up with the idea of three-a-week service originally; I guess it dates back to the 19th century; but it's a terrible idea in the modern world.