Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Anyone who doesn't understand the threat from this administration (limiting this statement to long-distance passenger rail for topicality), just isn't paying attention.

When everything is in the fire, you can only save so much before the rest of it burns.
 
JoeBas I agree 100%.

Posted this on the City of NO thread more relevant here though.

I agree as important as Amtrak is it's not in the top ten. Social security, healthcare, education are all more important to name a few and the Republicans want to destroy those programs as well. Facts are facts the current version of the GOP has a very anti middle class agenda. Sad for the wealthiest country in the world. We are light years behind the rest of the world on almost level.
 
JoeBas I agree 100%.

Posted this on the City of NO thread more relevant here though.

I agree as important as Amtrak is it's not in the top ten. Social security, healthcare, education are all more important to name a few and the Republicans want to destroy those programs as well. Facts are facts the current version of the GOP has a very anti middle class agenda. Sad for the wealthiest country in the world. We are light years behind the rest of the world on almost level.
And yet we still fund Social Security (borrowing from as yet unborn children to do so), as well as education on the Federal level and likewise, we will continue to fund Amtrak, including long distance rail. A lot of the 'attacks' (and the rebuttals) are simply virtue signaling to the respective constituencies. There's a lot of money to be made by non-governmental organizations in ginning up the Outrage Machine and keeping it going.
 
How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.
History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before.
We've also lost many long distance routes in the past.

Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed.
Largely or completely unscathed? Amtrak amenities, service levels, and route miles have suffered repeatedly under the growing size and influence of the anti-rail movement.

What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast).
Nobody is saying the NEC is at risk of being dissolved. It may be at risk of being privatized, but that's likely to come later, after a suitably corrupt oligarch has been identified for a sweetheart purchase price.

Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.
Amtrak should remain intact or not remain at all? Seems much more likely that Amtrak loses one or more long distance routes while retaining commuter corridors and state sponsored trains. But I guess that outcome doesn't fit into the Pollyanna "nothing to see here" narrative you're trying to spin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast).
Nobody is saying the NEC is at risk of being dissolved. It may be at risk of being privatized, but that's likely to come later, after a suitably corrupt oligarch has been identified for a sweetheart purchase price.

Exactly, we just first have to get rid of these troublesome Long Distance Profit Suckers. Then there'll be soooo much less resistance to giving the remnant NEC and corridors to the 1%-er-du-jour, with the maintenance done at taxpayer expense (socialized expenses, privatized revenue).
 
Here is an excellent article on the Carter Cuts of 1979, and the back and forth during that year.

http://history.amtrak.com/blogs/blog/a-new-map-emerges
The 1979 cuts described in more detail, specifically the PM/TM used to determine which trains should have been canceled: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/

How is it known the long-distance trains remain safe as well? I disagree.
History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before.
We've also lost many long distance routes in the past.

Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed.
Largely or completely unscathed? Amtrak amenities, service levels, and route miles have suffered repeatedly under the growing size and influence of the anti-rail movement.

Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.
Amtrak should remain intact or not remain at all? Seems much more likely that Amtrak loses one or more long distance routes while retaining commuter corridors and state sponsored trains. But I guess that outcome doesn't fit into the Pollyanna "nothing to see here" narrative you're trying to spin.
And they saved the wrong ones and cut the wrong ones. They should have been determined by merit and not nepotism.

I'm wondering if any LD routes are cut would states get involved to pick up the slack? When the National Limited was cut, Missouri added STL-KCY trains and Pennsylvania added the Pennsylvanian. We can say this state won't fund trains but if their LD trains disappear and they have no service that might be the push to get these states to do so. Minnesota has proposed a state funded CHI-MSP train on top of the EB. Get rid of the EB and see how fast that CHI-MSP train (the only one then) becomes a reality.
 
I repeat again that there is a fundamental economic difference between the situation for Amtrak in the 1970s and 1980s and the situation now. Having looked at the reports then, when *did list direct costs* (no allocations), the trains really *were* costing a large amount to run (not just overhead) in the 70s and 80s. Now, they're mostly profitable before overhead.

This *is* a difference.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the NEC and all the state-supported trains continue to run, since the NEC isn't being attacked (a new development) and the states are just as supportive as they were in 2016. This requires nearly all of Amtrak's overhead to continue, including bases at Beech Grove, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and Portland. Let's run through the long-distance trains once again, and see if any money could be saved by cutting anything (spoiler: not much).

My estimates of profits before overhead are *underestimates*, by the way, because I believe I'm overestimating direct costs and underestimating overhead. Direct costs were specified to include the costs of stations served only by one train.

-- Despite recent declines, the Auto Train is quite profitable -- about $36.8 million. The Sanford Maintenance Facility must stay open to support SunRail. Cancelling it would COST money every year.

-- Silver Star, Silver Meteor, and Palmetto jointly generate a profit of about $45 million per year. This is certainly enough to pay for the rent and staffing at the stations they share along the route which are not shared with corridor trains (i.e. south of Cary). It looks like it's enough to pay for Hialeah maintenance base too. So: again, incrementally profitable; canceling any of them would COST money every year.

-- The Lake Shore Limited is profitable by about $3.8 million per year. This is enough to cover the costs of Cleveland and Toledo, the only staffed stations not shared with state services. So cancelling this would, again, COST money every year.

-- The Capitol Limited costs about $4.7 million per year to run. All staffed stations are either unique to it (and therefore included in this number) or are used by state services or the profitable LSL. So that's the sum total you could possibly save by cancelling it. In fact, over half of its passengers connect to other trains... the result is that cancelling it would probably lose more than $4.7 million in revenue on other trains, thus meaning that cancelling it would COST money every year.

-- The Coast Starlight seems to cost about $1.8 million per year to operate. All the maintenance facilities are shared with state services, and all the stations are either shared with state services or unique to this route (and so included in this number). Again, like the Capitol Limited, this almost certainly generates revenue from connecting traffic on state services in excess of $1.8 million, so cancelling it would COST money every year.

-- The Empire Builder seems to cost about $3.5 million per year to operate. Again, all the stations are either unique to this route or shared with state services. I don't know whether it generates enough connecting traffic revenue to cover that, but seriously, $3.5 million per year?!?

I'm not going to go through them all again, but you get my point. The maximum theoretical amount Amtrak could save by cutting long-distance trains would be $59.2 million plus the cost of operating New Orleans Union Station. (New Orleans is the only station shared by multiple long-distance trains but not by state services, NEC, LSL, or Silvers.) It would actually be less than that. This assumes (a) we only cut the unprofitable trains, (b) my estimates are right (they're not, they underestimate profits and overestimate losses), and © no connecting revenue would be lost (it definitely would be lost).

I can estimate a more realistic "maximum savings from cuts" by retaining, in addition to the NEC and state services, the profitable trains (Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, LSL, Crescent), and the trains which are likely generating connecting revenue in excess of their small direct operating loss (Coast Starlight, Capitol Limited, Empire Builder, Cardinal). This would be about $46.5 million. The thing about this is, there's zero chance of doing this politically. What trains would be cut to do this?

-- California Zephyr. Won't happen, Colorado won't allow it, neither will Nevada or Nebraska

-- Southwest Chief. Won't happen, New Mexico won't allow it, neither will Kansas

-- Texas Eagle. Texas and Missouri actually fought for this train.

-- City of New Orleans. *Mississippi* actually fought for this train.

-- Sunset Limited. This is literally the only train which both loses money on operations and doesn't have massive political backing.

So if I were going to be really realistic, I would point out that the maximum Amtrak can save by cutting trains is the roughly $13.2 million for the Sunset Limited (revenue less direct costs).

This is totally insignificant.

Basically, for any CEO at Amtrak, faced with the current system, the only rational thing to do in the face of funding cuts is to get more money, whether from the states or from borrowing. Because cutting trains will either COST money or will cost too much political support to be possible.

I must repeat that this is *very different* from the situation in the 1970s when individual trains had direct losses (revenue minus direct costs, again, BEFORE overhead allocation) upwards of $20 million, IIRC some as high as $40 million. That's a *very different* situation economically.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can estimate a more realistic "maximum savings from cuts" by retaining, in addition to the NEC and state services, the profitable trains (Auto Train, Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, LSL, Crescent), and the trains which are likely generating connecting revenue in excess of their small direct operating loss (Coast Starlight, Capitol Limited, Empire Builder, Cardinal). This would be about $46.5 million. The thing about this is, there's zero chance of doing this politically. What trains would be cut to do this?

-- California Zephyr. Won't happen, Colorado won't allow it, neither will Nevada or Nebraska

-- Southwest Chief. Won't happen, New Mexico won't allow it, neither will Kansas

-- Texas Eagle. Texas and Missouri actually fought for this train.

-- City of New Orleans. *Mississippi* actually fought for this train.

-- Sunset Limited. This is literally the only train which both loses money on operations and doesn't have massive political backing.
These states that "won't allow" a train to be canceled? Tell them to put their money where their mouths are and fund their trains with state money instead of federal money.
 
History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before. Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed. What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast). There remain more vocal critics of the long-distance (LD) network, with arguments based primarily on a fundamental lack of understanding of the LD trains' purpose and true market, but again, there's history. Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.

That said, technically you are correct - we don't actually know anything for an established, concrete, written in stone fact. But neither do all the posters proclaiming that the LD trains are toast; The difference, however, is again, that we have history on our side. Many persons have similarly pronounced Amtrak - and/or the LD network - dead before in similar circumstances.
It can be dangerous to lean on history and presume all is safe.

History often does repeat itself, but it doesn't always.

And services once gone, are very difficult and take years to get back. Just look at CONO East.
 
History. We've been down this road many, many, many times before. Amtrak has seen bigger threats to its existence before, particularly the early years of the Reagan administration, and survived largely or completely unscathed. What has arguably changed since then is the recognition that passenger rail is a critical and necessary means of transportation in congested regions (and especially the Northeast). There remain more vocal critics of the long-distance (LD) network, with arguments based primarily on a fundamental lack of understanding of the LD trains' purpose and true market, but again, there's history. Amtrak should be expected to remain intact, or not to remain at all - and again, that's not happening.

That said, technically you are correct - we don't actually know anything for an established, concrete, written in stone fact. But neither do all the posters proclaiming that the LD trains are toast; The difference, however, is again, that we have history on our side. Many persons have similarly pronounced Amtrak - and/or the LD network - dead before in similar circumstances.
It can be dangerous to lean on history and presume all is safe.

History often does repeat itself, but it doesn't always.

And services once gone, are very difficult and take years to get back. Just look at CONO East.
You can say that about many more trains than CONO East. Has any canceled Amtrak train been brought back after say a 5 year gap? I can't think of one.
 
In the late 1960s it began to look like passenger rail's financial problems were going to bring down the railroad industry as a whole.

No one in the federal government wanted to be held responsible for the extinction of the passenger train.

So Amtrak was formed, though with the expectation that Amtrak would exist for only a short time.

Fortune magazine exposed manufactured mismanagement in 197.

The chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad noted that the Fortune magazine story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak.

It may be that Amtrak's LD trains are here to stay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A good report from the EVP.

Note this: Gardner "suggested that, once a route had ceased, any attempt to ‘go back in’ in the future would cost ‘at least $1bn’."

OK, I'm up for it. Remember when President Whatshisname, you know the black one, included $4 Billion a year for passenger trains in the budget proposal for six years in a row. So with a couple of year's worth of that budget item: Broadway Ltd. (NYC-Philly-PGH-CHI), the fabled "day train" to Atlanta (NYC-DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Greenville SC-ATL), the National Ltd. (Kansas City-St Louis-Indy-[big problems here]-PGH?-DC), a Florida train CHI-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-[some problems here]-ATL-Florida), and the Sacajawea (aka North Coast Hiawatha).

Taking a hard look at the runt of the litter, the Sunset Ltd has poor results now, but a great future: San Antonio (and nearby Austin), Houston, and Phoenix are among the fastest growing cities in the US, while Tucson, El Paso, Lafayette, New Orleans, and L.A. are all growing markets. Offering up the Sunset now as a sacrifice to the angry gods is surely a $1 Billion bad idea.
 
If the SL was a daily train, the ridership would most definitely increase. Right now it is hard to schedule a round trip using the SL with only three runs per week. So with growing markets on its route, and going to a daily train, would most likely change the status of this train.
 
Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
 
Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
 
Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
 
-- Sunset Limited. This is literally the only train which both loses money on operations and doesn't have massive political backing.
In my mind I have bigger fish to fry. But the SL does seem to be one of the biggest money losers, especially with non daily service. When you are in the same neighborhood as that other train that's not good.

In my mind the SL's main purposes are to connect California and Texas and to serve Houston. In reality Arizona and New Mexico already have the SWC. If the SL served Phoenix I'd feel better about the portion west of SAS (the Flagstaff Thruway connection would still be intact). Ideally if there is a way to keep the SAS-HOS-NOL portion I'd be willing to part with the portion west of San Antonio (largest metros lost would be El Paso and Tucson, Palm Springs would also lose service). Unfortunately SAS-NOL isn't 750 miles so it can't qualify as an LD train by itself. One idea is to extend the Crescent to SAS but that would take more Viewliner sets that are already in short supply. Other possibilities would be SAS-Florida via NOL, CONO to SAS and/or TE to NOL. Maybe we can have a triangle route between CHI-NOL-SAS, then back to CHI (one going to NOL first and the other going to SAS first). The CL and CONO's would be the same and Houston would have a one seat ride to Chicago for the first time since the Dallas-Houston portion of the TE was canceled. If you could get the HF to KCY it could be a through car branch from Fort Worth to KCY off the SWC which would keep a one seat ride between Dallas and Los Angeles.

Ideally I'd like to get rid of the 750 rule and keep service to urban areas while cutting rural service. You shouldn't have to run a train 1000-2000 miles to serve one or two major markets. Ask Congress if they'd rather pay for a 500 mile route or a 1000-2000 mile route. If Congress would pay for a NOL-SAS stand alone route and others, you could cut many train miles off the Amtrak system and keep service to all the major markets.
 
Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
Ultimately how much of that 227 deficit went into the back pockets of the class 1s?
 
Most important quote of the article (and it's not what some posters here seem to want to believe):

‘The most likely outcome is that the status quo will prevail’, Gardner believes.

Right now Amtrak pays a lot of money to the class 1s for access, OTP and improvements so basically a good proportion of Amtrak funding is in effect a subsidy to the host rail roads. So if Amtrak is defuncted by Trump won't they just start knocking on Capitol Hills door pleading poverty and asking for money to keep them running??
The freight pays the real bills, to the tune of ~$40 billion dollars a year in net profit for the industry as a whole.
Sounds like they no longer need any sort of taxpayer subsidy from Amtrak then. I wonder how much money that will save us. Maybe enough for Amtrak to stay in the black for a change.
Amtrak does not pay the 'freight railroads' a subsidy, so it would save nothing. What Amtrak does pay for is track usage, generally at rates lower than for which anybody else could reasonably expect to have access.

If you owned a rental apartment complex, would you also be willing to let someone live in one of the units for free (while you rent the remainder)? It's the same thing.

Ideally I'd like to get rid of the 750 rule and keep service to urban areas while cutting rural service. You shouldn't have to run a train 1000-2000 miles to serve one or two major markets. Ask Congress if they'd rather pay for a 500 mile route or a 1000-2000 mile route. If Congress would pay for a NOL-SAS stand alone route and others, you could cut many train miles off the Amtrak system and keep service to all the major markets.
You would largely just be maintaining service in name only. For instance, a New Orleans to San Antonio (presumably day) train and then an El Paso to Los Angeles train ignores passenger markets travelling through the end points. There is generally no single point where you can split a route without abandoning a significant percentage of the passengers (and travel markets). For a train route which already loses money, I'd question the wisdom of a business strategy designed to produce less revenue while preserving most of the (unavoidable) costs.

As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
No, don't cut THIS arm off, we need THIS arm. Cut THAT arm off!
 
As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
Amtrak wants to cut funding. I (and others) want to figure out how much of the Amtrak system can be preserved with less money. Either the cuts won't happen or they will and we have to figure out what we can keep. Let the cannibalism begin!

Fight the cuts but be realistic. You might see another 1979 or 1997.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
Amtrak wants to cut funding.
Where did you possibly hear or read that Amtrak - not the administration, but Amtrak - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.
 
As someone else here already asked, why, why, why on a passenger rail oriented forum are so many people seemingly anxious to reduce and cut back Amtrak service? The general public is often supportive of passenger rail and potential new services, but come here, and you'll have multitudinous people telling you it can't be done and will never work.
Amtrak wants to cut funding.
Where did you possibly hear or read that Amtrak - not the administration, but Amtrak - wants to cut funding? That's a new one.
I stand corrected. Congress wants to cut funding.
 
Back
Top