UPDATE ON AMTRAK PRESERVATION FIGHT

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.
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
1,805
Location
Harrison Michigan
I got this from my union by e mail.

To stay informed go to WWW.UTU.ORG

UPDATE ON AMTRAK PRESERVATION FIGHT

Ever so sadly for Amtrak employees and the American public, Amtrak’s Perils of Pauline existence continues.

Amtrak, once again – as has been the case since its inception in 1971 -- is on life support, awaiting adequate funding from Congress.

Amtrak’s opponents – conservative lawmakers egged on by the Bush administration -- are hell bent on putting our national intercity rail passenger network down as if it were a lame horse on the president’s Crawford, Texas, ranch.

The UTU PAC and UTU lobbying efforts have helped hold Amtrak’s opponents at bay while building support for more consistent and reliable funding.

The effort is fraught with challenge.

Amtrak’s board of directors, handpicked by the Bush administration, has a new plan to kill Amtrak by dividing its political supporters.

This would be accomplished by separating the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston from Amtrak’s intercity routes that operate over freight railroad track. Amtrak proponents warn that were our national intercity rail passenger network so Balkanized, the confederation of lawmakers from various parts of the nation similarly would be split and forced into competition with one another for individual project funding, giving rail-passenger opponents the upper hand in Congress.

Management targeting conductors

Meanwhile, Amtrak’s management, thumbing its nose at safety and security concerns, wants to eliminate the assistant conductor position and have just one conductor responsible for the safety and security of upwards of 1,000 passengers. The lessons of 9/11 and train bombings in London and Madrid seemingly are being ignored by Amtrak management at the bargaining table.

Indeed, negotiations with Amtrak, under the Railway Labor Act, have been in progress since mid-2000, with little progress made because of Amtrak’s unceasing attack on assistant conductors. The National Mediation Board has scheduled a public meeting for March 23-24, 2006, in Baltimore to address the concerns of both sides – and to look at other Amtrak labor-management issues.

Amtrak employees do receive cost-of-living adjustments every six months while negotiations toward a new contract continue with Amtrak management.

Funding Summary

Following is an update on congressional activity to fund Amtrak:

Early in 2005, the Bush administration sent to Congress a proposed budget for fiscal year 2006 – which began Oct. 1 – providing zero funds for Amtrak, which would have caused an immediate shutdown of Amtrak on Sept. 30 had Congress accepted the president’s proposed budget.

As the House and Senate continue to debate how much money they will provide Amtrak for the 12 months that began Oct. 1, Congress agreed to continue funding Amtrak at its fiscal 2005 level. This is why Amtrak continues to operate while awaiting fiscal 2006 funding.

The good news is that both the Republican-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate have snubbed the Bush administration’s Grinch position toward Amtrak. There are many Republicans standing arm-in-arm with most Democrats in support of Amtrak.

With the UTU PAC and UTU lobbyists influencing labor-friendly Republicans, and with UTU-member phone calls and e-mails streaming into both Democratic and Republican lawmakers urging adequate funding for Amtrak, a light is appearing at the end of the fiscal year 2006 tunnel.

Indeed, the House approved some $1.8 billion in funding for Amtrak for fiscal year 2006. “Key to that vote were the overwhelming number of calls and e-mail messages sent by UTU members, their families and friends and others from all quarters of labor,” said UTU International President Paul Thompson.

The Senate, meanwhile, approved some $1.5 billion in funding for Amtrak for fiscal year 2006, also following a barrage of communications from the UTU family. This is about $300 million above the fiscal 2005 level, while the House figure is some $600 million higher.

The two chambers still must reconcile their different bills through a conference process; and President Bush has threatened to veto that joint effort. The fight is far from completed. To stay current on this legislation, watch the UTU website at www.utu.org.

Longer Term Effort

The UTU also is spearheading a longer-term effort to keep Amtrak intact. Senate bill No. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, would do just that.

S. 1516 would adequately fund the existing Amtrak – our national intercity rail passenger network – with $11.4 billion for six years through 2011, which is enough to maintain Amtrak’s current operations, upgrade its equipment and return Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair.

The legislation also includes funds to create a new grant program for states that want to add or improve intercity rail passenger service.

"UTU members, their families, their friends and their neighbors should continue sending e-mails and making phone calls to congressional lawmakers in support of Amtrak," Thompson said.

"We must do this to preserve essential intercity rail passenger service, on behalf of our brothers and sisters employed by Amtrak, and to preserve the financial health of the Railroad Retirement system, which would be in jeopardy if Amtrak ceases to operate or is privatized and exempted from paying Railroad Retirement payroll taxes."
 
No. Actually the NEC with it's large daily ridership (of voters) is something the GOP is actually afraid of. They are afraid that if they did simply kill Amtrak all those voters would scream bloody murder and upset the GOP applecart. W himself isn't because he never has cared what anybody who disagrees with him thinks or wants. So they came up with a plan to break off the NEC from the rest of Amtrak. While they keep the NEC running normally, they can point out that the rest of the system has such low ridership and loses so much money that it is not worth keeping, and they can kill it, after offering it to the states that the rest of the system travels through, without immediately risking a tremendous outcry from all those NEC commuters/voters. Then a little bit down the road they can tell all the state and local governments along the route of the NEC that the GOP are going to transfer the administration and funding responsibility of the NEC directly to them. If those state and local governments take it on, well and good. Otherwise the NEC would then also be shut down, and the GOP will shrug it's shoulders and just point to the state and local governments and say "the GOP didn't kill it - the state and local governments did when they refused to pay for it". And bingo, there we are, no national system, and no NEC, either, and W and the GOP got their way. I think Mr. AmtrakLoverandHater needs to read the exhortation in the Bible about how all parts of the body are necessary and no one part can say that it does not need a particular other body part. That applies to the nationwide body of Amtrak as well, I think.
 
AmtrakWPK said:
No. Actually the NEC with it's large daily ridership (of voters) is something the GOP is actually afraid of. They are afraid that if they did simply kill Amtrak all those voters would scream bloody murder and upset the GOP applecart. W himself isn't because he never has cared what anybody who disagrees with him thinks or wants. So they came up with a plan to break off the NEC from the rest of Amtrak. While they keep the NEC running normally, they can point out that the rest of the system has such low ridership and loses so much money that it is not worth keeping, and they can kill it, after offering it to the states that the rest of the system travels through, without immediately risking a tremendous outcry from all those NEC commuters/voters. Then a little bit down the road they can tell all the state and local governments along the route of the NEC that the GOP are going to transfer the administration and funding responsibility of the NEC directly to them. If those state and local governments take it on, well and good. Otherwise the NEC would then also be shut down, and the GOP will shrug it's shoulders and just point to the state and local governments and say "the GOP didn't kill it - the state and local governments did when they refused to pay for it". And bingo, there we are, no national system, and no NEC, either, and W and the GOP got their way. I think Mr. AmtrakLoverandHater needs to read the exhortation in the Bible about how all parts of the body are necessary and no one part can say that it does not need a particular other body part. That applies to the nationwide body of Amtrak as well, I think.
That'll preach! The Divide and Conquer strategey of the Bushies is exactly what this is. I have said this months ago, GWB want to throw the blame and responsibility for the demise of Amtrak upon the states and local governments.
 
AmtrakWPK said:
 I think Mr. AmtrakLoverandHater needs to read the exhortation in the Bible about how all parts of the body are necessary and no one part can say that it does not need a particular other body part.  That applies to the nationwide body of Amtrak as well, I think.
I don't get what you are trying to say. I am playing devil's advocate, of course, I want to say that I think splitting the NEC off is irresponsible and would doom the rest of the system.

The NEC is subsidized by the long haul trains, assuming they split off the NEC does that mean the "tax" these trains currently pay to the NEC will be ended? Perhaps the rest of the system would have an easier time turning a profit if their bottom line wasn't affected by this?

And what does the Bible have to do with Amtrak?
 
BNSF_1088 said:
...have just one conductor responsible for the safety and security of upwards of 1,000 passengers.
I wish the 1000 passengers per train part was true. Some of the busiest summer Pacific Surfliner trains do carry 1000+ pax (and I'm sure some trains on the NEC must also on a daily basis), but the fact is most of the longhauls are lucky to carry half that number.

Eliminating assistant conductors on the least busy portions of longhaul trains might not be a bad idea. Reno, NV to Winnemucca, NV and Winnemucca, NV to Salt Lake City, UT are two relatively light load areas on the Zephyr and the stops are spaced far enough apart that a single conductor would have plenty of time to collect all the tickets and perform his/her other duties. However, the Emeryville (San Francisco) to Reno, NV section on the Zephyr is always heavily patronized and I would cringe at the thought of losing the assistant conductor on that leg.

Some laws of economics (i.e. supply and demand) should be applied and the number of conductors assigned to a particular leg of a train should depend on the season and number of anticipated passengers. That lonely AC riding on the Zephyr in eastern Nevada would not have a spare moment if he were reassigned to one of those busy Pacific Surfliner trains (where the conductors often do not have enough time to collect tickets from everyone and pax are on and off before ever seeing a conductor).
 
Someone kindly correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, the Amtrak union contract spells out under what circumstances a train gets an AC.
 
AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
The NEC is subsidized by the long haul trains, assuming they split off the NEC does that mean the "tax" these trains currently pay to the NEC will be ended? Perhaps the rest of the system would have an easier time turning a profit if their bottom line wasn't affected by this?
Where are we getting that the NEC is subsidized by long-distance trains? This is simply untrue. The LD trains would have no better time turning a "profit" without the NEC than with. In fact, it would push them further into the red, since any overhead costs currently shared between LDs and corridors would have to be carried fully by the LD trains.
 
rmadisonwi said:
AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
The NEC is subsidized by the long haul trains, assuming they split off the NEC does that mean the "tax" these trains currently pay to the NEC will be ended?  Perhaps the rest of the system would have an easier time turning a profit if their bottom line wasn't affected by this?
Where are we getting that the NEC is subsidized by long-distance trains? This is simply untrue. The LD trains would have no better time turning a "profit" without the NEC than with. In fact, it would push them further into the red, since any overhead costs currently shared between LDs and corridors would have to be carried fully by the LD trains.
If you don't think the NEC is subsidized by long haul routes, look at the relationship of dollars invested & spent per passenger revenue mile. Also, the margin of loss on a PRM mile is much more substantial in the NEC, but most folks rely on loss per passenger as a means of comparing the routes, which is absolutely silly and does not show a relevant comparison because the NEC is littered with short-haul routes.
 
Relative amounts of investment are meaningless. To say that the NEC is subsidized by LD trains means that the LD trains are profitable, and that their profit is paying for the NEC.

Neither the NEC nor the LD system could survive on its own. Everything loses money. There is no cross-subsidization of anything. It all depends on federal (or state) grants. Period.

Getting rid of the NEC will *not* improve LD trains' financial performance.
 
While you're right about the NEC needing to stay part of Amtrak's national system, you are wrong that relative investments are meaningless.

The NEC has over the last decade received a very disproportional amount of funding from Amtrak's appropriated budget, yet its margins have not improved and in fact may very well be eroding.
 
AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
While you're right about the NEC needing to stay part of Amtrak's national system, you are wrong that relative investments are meaningless.
Then you're talking about two completely different things. Your whole argument seemed to be that because Amtrak was spending so much on the NEC, the LD trains were becoming less profitable. My point is, no matter how much Amtrak spends on the NEC, it has no bearing whatsoever on how "profitable" (or not) the rest of the system is.

The rest of the system isn't profitable, and if, tomorrow, Amtrak stopped spending money to upgrade/repair the NEC, the rest of the system *still* wouldn't be profitable.
 
rmadisonwi said:
AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
While you're right about the NEC needing to stay part of Amtrak's national system, you are wrong that relative investments are meaningless.
Then you're talking about two completely different things. Your whole argument seemed to be that because Amtrak was spending so much on the NEC, the LD trains were becoming less profitable. My point is, no matter how much Amtrak spends on the NEC, it has no bearing whatsoever on how "profitable" (or not) the rest of the system is.

The rest of the system isn't profitable, and if, tomorrow, Amtrak stopped spending money to upgrade/repair the NEC, the rest of the system *still* wouldn't be profitable.
Ok, my argument is that basically Amtrak spends too much money maintaining the NEC, while neglecting other areas of similar "profitability" because they are not in the NEC. Bush and his cronies have the idea that only the NorthEast needs a good rail system, and that this is the only place federal dollars should be invested.

Long haul routes are neglected because of this, and because they receive a much lesser share of budgeted dollars (when compared on a PRM basis) they are indirectly subsidizing the NEC by virtue of their smaller pool of dollars to work with.

Bush and Co. like to say that long haul routes lose the most money per passenger ($30+!) , but in the travel industry this is not how revenues are measured. Airlines loss per PRM were a factor in the government determining whether they got subsidies after 9/11, and they should use the same system for Amtrak too, imo.
 
AmtrakLoverAndHater said:
Long haul routes are neglected because of this, and because they receive a much lesser share of budgeted dollars (when compared on a PRM basis) they are indirectly subsidizing the NEC by virtue of their smaller pool of dollars to work with.
The assumption, here, is that if Amtrak spent less money on the NEC, Amtrak would continue to receive the same amount of subsidy from the federal government (and thus, would have more to spend on long-distance services). I don't believe this is necessarily correct.
 
NO NATIONAL PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM ON EARTH (that I am aware of) TURNS A PROFIT. Each one is an irreplaceable national asset, an absolutely necessary piece of the national transportation puzzle. More and more necessary, in fact, as fuel continues to get more expensive and as other transportation modalities (like airlines) prove themselves to be vulnerable to fuel cost and things like terrorism. IF THAT ONE ISSUE (trains do not =profit) could once and for all be nailed into the heads of the politicos (and everybody else, including some heads here), we would never again have to debate the issue or defend it, and we could get on with the job of building up that system so that it actually does what we need it to do, efficiently and safely.
 
I have a theory that the whole trains turning a profit idea comes from there being a farebox or ticket stub. Which came from a time private companies ran things for profit. If no one had the idea of having fares, they probably wouldn't think about turning a profit.

If airports, libraries, courts, roads, or schools had an admission charge to get in, they'd probably be talking about all those places turning a profit too!

As a conservative radio host in my area said once, it's not gov'ts business to turn a profit. And he was talking about the need to build passenger rail in Tampa, which he did quite frequently.
 
guest_jeffw said:
I have a theory that the whole trains turning a profit idea comes from there being a farebox or ticket stub. Which came from a time private companies ran things for profit.
Lest anyone be confused, passenger trains in the US have never made money, even when operated by the freight RR's. Back then they just covered the losses with the profits on freight. When the interstates came into being, the trucking industry cut into that profit, and the freight RR's wanted out of the passenger business.

But again with the possible exception of the WWII period, passenger trains never made a profit.
 
That's simply not true Alan... although I sincerely doubt that many alive today remember that time.
 
Alan, you are correct up to a point regarding passenger trains and profits.

Short haul commuter services were rarely money makers but the long haul limiteds certainly made money. For example, The 20th Century was a big money maker for the NYC for years. What they lost in the diner, they far made up in fares. Much of the "Great Steel Fleet" was profitable in it's day. Things came undone shortly after WWII. Western roads also did well with their longhauls longer than their eastern counterparts, appealing to the leisure traveler. Interestingly, the Broadway for the PRR was almost never profitable. It's always been a mystery why it ran as long as it did. The Broadway only became profitable when the Central downgraded their services under Perlman in the late 1950's and the existing customer base ran to the better train. Despite a freshening up of the Century in the early 1960's, the Broadway was by far the better train during that decade until it was combined with the General and downgraded shortly before the Penn Central merger.

Steve
 
One more point, the New Haven existed for years on their passenger train income from both their limiteds and commuter runs. Again, things came apart after WWII, but the New Haven never gave up trying to serve it's customer base to the end. They sold them any way they could until the end.

Steve
 
Back
Top