Should we take the Long Distance Trains off of Amtrak's back

[Paulus]

Full Article

Amtrak says that they lose over $500 million dollars a year running the Long Distance Passenger Trains. But Amtrak endures this hardship because of the transportation necessity provided by the Long Distance Trains in much of rural America. Amtrak has been hinting that they would like the States to help pay for the costs of the Long Distance Trains to keep them running. This would be much like how States pay for their Short Distance Trains.

Perhaps we should explore changes to the Long Distance Passenger Trains which would take the entire burden off of Amtrak. If the States are going to pay to keep trains in their State maybe they should have some control over how they are run. This will need to be done in a way so passengers can still connect and transfer to other trains in the country with through ticketing. Local agencies should also have access to Federal Funds for capital improvements on the railroads that these Long Distance Train run on. Most important is by reorganizing the way Long Distance Trains are operated and funded every effort needs to be made to expand and improve service nationally while losses from running the services go down.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The Coast Starlight might work as a JPA because all three states are supporters of rail transit. Good luck with coordinating any other long distance routes. Long distance trains should be a federal responsibility.

 

[oregon pioneer]

There are lots of services out there, where the government says: we'll let you have this high-profit contract as a monopoly, if you'll provide this related low/no profit service to your area as well. My local waste handler (a contractor) provides recycling to our rural area under this type of agreement. It's part of the contract.

If we made it so that Amtrak could dump the unprofitable long-distance trains, yep Amtrak would be profitable, but service would go away in many rural areas. That suggestion is just another in a long line of "push the responsibility back on the states" ideas. I hope they keep it the way it is, where they are obligated to provide Long Distance trains. In fact, I hope they increase the level of service in the rural west!

 

[Train Rider]

That will only work if states truly think they are getting something for their contribution. It will have be a true partnership. If it's just a method for Amtrak to extract money with zero state input, then it has zero chancing of happening.

 

[Blackwolf]

Cutting off your nose in spite of your face.

All it takes is one anti-rail state along a LD corridor to "derail" the entire train and destroy the route (an example could be Nevada refusing to support the California Zephyr with their very limited state funds, even though all the other states step up to the plate.) Of course, for the anti-rail camp, this and the never-ending push for privatization would be the perfect means to get rid of those pesky passenger trains once-and-for-all. All I can say is NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

What we have now isn't perfect, but it works. And the American people get it at a bargain price (after-all, absolutely no railroad company prior to the creation of Amtrak ever had to run the entire country's worth of passenger trains.)

 

[henryj]

Paulus keeps bringing this up. I think it would be a great idea to separate these LD trains from Amtrak and put them under a separate entity and separate operator. Then Amtrak's NEC would have to eat all that bloated overhead they stick these trains with. Be careful what you wish for as you just may get it.

 

[the_traveler]

Remember that Amtrak was formed in 1971 because no one else (freight companies or states) wanted to operate passenger trains.

 

[Paulus]

Cutting off your nose in spite of your face.
All it takes is one anti-rail state along a LD corridor to "derail" the entire train and destroy the route (an example could be Nevada refusing to support the California Zephyr with their very limited state funds, even though all the other states step up to the plate.) Of course, for the anti-rail camp, this and the never-ending push for privatization would be the perfect means to get rid of those pesky passenger trains once-and-for-all. All I can say is NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

What we have now isn't perfect, but it works. And the American people get it at a bargain price (after-all, absolutely no railroad company prior to the creation of Amtrak ever had to run the entire country's worth of passenger trains.)

There's no intrinsic reason that the non-paying state would derail it; presumably the other states could either increase their own subsidies or it could be locally subsidized by the communities that it stopped in. It is, however, rather vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons and I do agree that it is unlikely to work.

Personally I'm a wee bit surprised that RailPAC of all organizations suggested this. I've suggested California paying for a portion of the Starlight before, but that so as to adjust the schedules to better serve California.

Where this might make more sense is as a means of paying for increased frequencies on current long distance routes. A second CONO for instance or a Valley Starlight LAUS-BFD-SEA to solve the Bakersfield gap, provide an "extension" of the San Joaquin to Redding as the state wants and add another frequency to the Cascades

 

[Ziv]

I think making long distance trains the sole responsibility of the states they run through would be a sure way to get less train coverage in the US, which would be a bad thing. All it takes is one state with an anti-train governor/state house or a budgetary problem and that LD train would be in danger of disappearing, probably forever. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

One thing I could see, though, would be for governors from the states along a LD line to get together and hammer out a way to split the cost of buying new locomotives and cars to make single day service into twice daily, if the line would support it. If not, simply have the multi-state consortiums buy Superliners to add to the existing trains to enhance the amount of people that can use the service. It wouldn't hurt if Amtrak would go back to naming some of the cars and let the states name the cars for vacation destinations along that rail line. If Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois got a consortium together to simply buy 6 Superliners that would be used to add extra capacity to the existing EB consists, it would allow for more travelers in peak season and would allow for more low bucket rates most of the year.

And yes, I realize it won't happen...

 

[TimePeace]

No.

 

[R30A]

I think we should put the state funded routes back on to the federal system. Not the other way around. State governments are too fickle.

 

[LWBaxter]

I agree that the Starlight is probably the only long distance route where there is any possibility of getting all the states involved to participate, but why should CA, OR and WA pay for their train when the rest of the country doesn't pay for theirs? The long distance trains are the political cost of having the federal government pay for the NE corridor infrastructure. (Where a state consortium wouldn't work well either.)

 

[MikefromCrete]

I think we should put the state funded routes back on to the federal system. Not the other way around. State governments are too fickle.

Having states pay for service within their states, particularly extra runs on a route is a good idea since the residents of those states are the primary beneficiaries. The whole 750-mile cutoff thing should be revoked, however. The states backing their own trains are anything but fickle. Illinois, Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Vermont, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Washington, Oregon and North Carolina are in it for the long haul (so to speak). Even Wisconsin sees the benefits of backing the Hiawatha service. They're more reliable than the feds in supporting trains.

 

[Ispolkom]

The article ignores the political aspects of the long-distance network. Amtrak would find the senate a much less friendly place without long-distance trains. Why would a senator from North Dakota, for instance, support an Amtrak limited to the Northeast Corridor?

 

[Ryan]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[Amtrak George]

Do people post this kind of thing just to raise our blood pressure? If so, it works. :wacko:

 

[jis]

Amtrak was originally created as a Train Operating Company. It should be made into such and allowed to fulfill its original mission. The Infrastructure pieces that were loaded onto Amtrak in 1976 should be hived off into a separate government owned organization with responsibility for maintaining and evolving infrastructures and providing equal access to them to any takers using a graduated fee structure based on speed and usage pattern. That way Amtrak can concentrate to running trains, both LD and corridor as was originally intended. To that extent the quoted article has got it a$$ backwards. Meanwhile the Infrastructure company can be funded using mechanisms similar to those used for fudning the construction of the Interstates and the infrastructure that supports the Air Traffic in the country. It would be ven better if a market could be developed for passenger equipment leasing, thus offloading the cost of owning equipment from the train operators, and allowing them to strike long term lease agreements with those that own the equipment and possibly even maintain them and make them available for use by any takers willing to enter into long term leases. Let train operators cocnentrate on providing service. All of this will take a strong regulatory regime that enforeces the law and the cotnracts involved, something that we seem to have progressively become less capable of. That is the major fly in the ointment. Just IMHO of course.

 

[Anderson]

I'd like to see at least a modest equipment leasing operation in place (if only to allow better handling of peak seasons...the times when Amtrak is close to capacity in many places are growing, and it doesn't take much to envision a seasonal break-even in certain months: EBITDA for December 2012 was "only" a loss of $21.9m), but aside from that I think the current system is probably the right way to go. The only major error with the NEC was not putting the whole thing in Amtrak's (or someone's) hands rather than the wacky situation in CT.

With that said, I'm not sure whether a separate company would actually work better, considering the political pressures involved. Just because it's a separate entity doesn't mean that there won't be sufficient pressure from MD, PA, and NJ to basically force it into a loss (or to shift costs "unfairly" to Amtrak).

 

[Shortline]

I believe, and I think the Government is beginning to get, that you can't have a National System tied to the whim of the states. Now, I want to qualify this-as a generally conservative person, I do support a modern rail transportation system, supported in the same manner as highways and airports. You simply can't make money moving people, by train, bus, OR air, without large investments in the infrastructure. However, in the case of rail, the infrastructure is largely paid for by private industry, who gets relatively little to no true compensation for hosting passenger rail. THAT is a huge problem. However, I also get, and believe, that continued long distance train travel can, and should, be greatly expanded. How? Through a parity of government subsidies to find a system on par with the highway and air systems. Without that, host RR's have no incentive to deal with Amtrak, expand (or even maintain, in some cases) service, or host passenger rail at all. Unlike Europe or Asia, Amtrak currently relies on privately owned track and infrastructure to operate, and there simply is not enough incentive to expand or really support operations. However, I think there can be. Even conservatives, that are largely blasted as anti-rail, understand that Rail is a viable option forward. It just needs to be in a manner that doesn't negatively impact private enterprise. Therein lies the problem. I believe it can be solved, and will be.

 

[George Harris]

I think the article has it exactly backwards Amtrak should get out of the glorified commuter business that is the northeast corridor and concentrate on operating a national passenger train system. Way too much of their management orientation and overhead is given to the northeast. Unfortunately it appears that quite a portion of their management is in the northeast mindset that everything west of the Appalachians and south of the Potomac is Terra Incognito. Create some sort of regional compact to operate it. Fold in the longer distance commuter portions, such as New York to New Haven, and make it a coherent system with an overlay of the long distance trains, such as those going to places like Florida, Chicago, etc.

Perhaps Amtrak headquarters should be moved to some place like Kansas City or Dallas so that their people would realize that there is more country out there.

 

[sunchaser]

Interesting. I thought ridership has increased? Is that why we should get rid of LD Trains? Does anyone say this about LD flights? The airlines lose money, and get subsidies too.

California is broke. Do we really think they would continue the Coast Starlight?

I would be surprised if our state would pick up the tab for LD Trains.

I have often wondered if it wouldn't be more cost effective if they got rid of all the paper/plastic stuff and went back to real dishes, and started really cooking again.

Labor costs would go up, but food and supply costs should go down! Prepackaged food is usually more expensive! I certainly do not want to see experimentation in this area, even though it could be a good thing if all the states could afford it. Right now, not all states could afford it, or are even interested. Would this not be equal to an 'unfunded mandate'?

 

[Paulus]

I think the article has it exactly backwards Amtrak should get out of the glorified commuter business that is the northeast corridor and concentrate on operating a national passenger train system.

An average trip of 155 miles and $67 fare is hardly a "glorified commuter business."

Way too much of their management orientation and overhead is given to the northeast. Unfortunately it appears that quite a portion of their management is in the northeast mindset that everything west of the Appalachians and south of the Potomac is Terra Incognito. Create some sort of regional compact to operate it. Fold in the longer distance commuter portions, such as New York to New Haven, and make it a coherent system with an overlay of the long distance trains, such as those going to places like Florida, Chicago, etc.

The management orientation and overhead is given to the Northeast because that's where the trains and the passengers are. Creating a regional compact is not only a complete fantasy (since they can't even come to an agreement on costs at this point), but also dangerous to the future of intercity rail and long distance trains (as we've seen recently with NCTD's shenanigans on Surfliner/COASTER stops).

 

[George Harris]

I think the article has it exactly backwards Amtrak should get out of the glorified commuter business that is the northeast corridor and concentrate on operating a national passenger train system.

An average trip of 155 miles and $67 fare is hardly a "glorified commuter business."

Way too much of their management orientation and overhead is given to the northeast. Unfortunately it appears that quite a portion of their management is in the northeast mindset that everything west of the Appalachians and south of the Potomac is Terra Incognito. Create some sort of regional compact to operate it. Fold in the longer distance commuter portions, such as New York to New Haven, and make it a coherent system with an overlay of the long distance trains, such as those going to places like Florida, Chicago, etc.

The management orientation and overhead is given to the Northeast because that's where the trains and the passengers are. Creating a regional compact is not only a complete fantasy (since they can't even come to an agreement on costs at this point), but also dangerous to the future of intercity rail and long distance trains (as we've seen recently with NCTD's shenanigans on Surfliner/COASTER stops).

If the northeast corridor is such a cash cow, the states or various private entities should be falling all over themselves trying to take it over., I haven't noticed that happening.

 

[Paulus]

If the northeast corridor is such a cash cow, the states or various private entities should be falling all over themselves trying to take it over., I haven't noticed that happening.

Who said anything about it being a cash cow? It's at least break-even with ordinary investments, trending towards break-even with fixing deferred maintenance stretching back to the Pennsylvania Railroad (or possibly already there), probably not quite there for sometime with addressing future capacity needs (though that's also largely due to the commuter traffic sharing the rails). Even if it were a relative cash cow, that doesn't mean it would be an attractive investment for a third party due to low ROI.

 

[jis]

If the northeast corridor is such a cash cow, the states or various private entities should be falling all over themselves trying to take it over., I haven't noticed that happening.

Who said anything about cash cow? It is certainly the most heavily used passenger rail infrastructure in the country. Or did you have some other piece of infrastructure in mind with that distinction?
I think that it stands to reason that a piece of infrastructure that is heavily used and actually matters to the economy is maintained well. Of course others with other agenda could disagree.

Methinks you have just stood up a strawman and ably knocked it down