Amtrak must be overhauled or junked, Secretary Mineta says

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Amtrak must be overhauled or junked, Secretary Mineta says

By Seth Borenstein, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration’s message to Amtrak is simple: Change or die.

If Amtrak isn’t dramatically overhauled, the Bush administration is prepared to essentially junk it and save only the commuter-rail segments, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta (news - web sites) said Wednesday. That’s preferable, he said, to spending about $1 billion a year in subsidies to keep the cross-country passenger-rail system alive.

In its 2006 budget, the Bush administration proposes eliminating Amtrak’s annual subsidy, which is $1.2 billion this year. The idea is to force Congress and Amtrak to institute sweeping change. Bush would limit Amtrak to owning and operating trains. Others - including state or local governments - would own the rails, stations and physical property, much as private businesses run airlines but the government maintains airports.

Every other mode of transportation has changed dramatically since the 1970s, when trucking and aviation were deregulated, but not Amtrak, Mineta said.

Amtrak, which was created in 1971 when the government took over bankrupt private railroads, carries about 24 million passengers a year. In addition to cross-country and inter-city rail lines, it operates commuter services for several regions. It operates rails over 22,000 miles of routes and owns 730 miles of rails, mostly between Boston and Washington. The company has more than 500 stations in 46 states, all but Alaska, Hawaii, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Under the Bush plan, states along a given line would pay for rail upkeep. If a state wouldn’t pay, stations along the line in that state would be closed and trains wouldn’t stop in them, Mineta said.

The Department of Transportation is discussing the sale of Amtrak infrastructure, said Jeffrey Rosen, the agency’s general counsel.

If Congress continues to

2

…I believe a better plan would be to get rid of yes man, Mineta…He hasn’t supported rail passenger service since installed into the Transportation Sec. position…

3

More rhetoric from Mineta…

LC

4

Amtrak needs to be fully funded and brought up to snuff. That is the basic reform that is needed.

5

Why is our countries cursed with thease no guts bleeding heart liberals who don’t take a stand and just let things flow with the river of hypocracy?

This Mineta is no different then alot of our politicians I am sorry to say.

6

I think the parallel with airlines and airports is telling. With all of the discussions of subsidies we’ve been having, this would be very logical - Airlines pay for space and landing rights at the government (usually a local municipality/authority) airports. They don’t directly pay for the infrastructure between the airports (you and I do).

If the people and their states want Amtrak service, they’ll have to provide a “landing spot” (station) and try to get Amtrak to “land” there. As stated, if nobody in a state wants the service, they won’t get it.

7

Sorry, I’d hate to see any Rail system fail and be disolved, but Amtrak’s been a black hole of our tax dollars to many years now. it’s about time a politican stood up and said “straighten up or die”, instead of “hey you with money give me it and i’ll ignore that black hole we have”.

Amtrak is in need of serious reworking, the only thing they got working right is the commuter lines in the NE. For years now people have been asking, “why doesn’t amtrak Use already subsidised places, like airports, instead of building and maintaining new buildings”. really, if they were to hub together at least 1 major airport per state, forgoing any other stops for now, They could seriously save billions a year in operating costs. Dedicated track, built for Amtrak and only amtrak, could allow high speed, non-stop travel between these points.

they need to radically cut their fleet size, they have litterally hundreds of cars being maintained that hardly ever see the rails. They have to cut the number of car shops down to a reasonable number, there’s way to many stations right now, that when you take into account the operation costs of them, they exceed the income produced by those stations.

If 911showed anything to use, it was how helpless we were without air travel. We need a national rail system that can suppliment and, if needed, replace the air travel. Amtrak needs bold new leadership and need to look to national intrests, they need to look to being on par with any other mass transit system out there. Our National budget doesn’t need more “black hole” programs, we need to start plugging the holes and get our tax dollars used more wisely.

8

Steamer Fan: Does Dave Gunn know about all the “hundreds of cars being maintained that hardly ever see the rails…”. Something doesn’t sound right with the above statement. Amtrak is almost starving for equipment to run the routes in place now…??

9

Although no one asked, this is my plan for a “new Amtrak”. Trains should be ONLY long distance. For example, The Capitol Limited leaves Chicago, stops ONLY at Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Washington. Wasn’t that what “limited” meant, anyhow? All the intermediate stops can be operated by individual states or a consortium of states. Another example, the Empire Builder. Leaves Chicago, stops in Milwaukee, St. Paul, Fargo, Havre, Sandpoint, Spokane, and Seattle. Again, intermediate stops can be operated by teh states they serve. I have ridden both trains quite often, and have noticed that several stops (especially on the Cap. are also served by commuter agencies. This is an unncessary duplication of services.

This may relieve Amtrak of running short distance trains to connect with the LD trains. As of now, all short distance trains are scheduled to meet in chicago for connections to LD trains. The dream is to free up capital to purchase more LD cars, for greater frequency, and esaier connections at more major cities than Chicago. I’m sure there are many, many flaws to this plan, but al that is missing is the political will to do this.

10

I have tried very hard to stay out of this debate but here goes…

Amtrack has been in danger of shutting down since the first day it was created. At first it was equiptment barely adequate for long haul. I recall some locomotives could not even provide heat to the passenger train in the western winters.

The North East Corridor is vital to the United States. The French may have the TGV and fly at world record speeds mph between Paris and Lyons but we have Washington DC and Boston and the smog choked, gridlocked traffic filled rusting hundreds of miles in between. Theoratically you can get up at 5 AM get shaved and fed go to work 200 miles away and come home in time for dinner thanks to the NEC.

Now the rest of the nation either revives Trolley Lines as Little Rock just did, builds Light rail as Baltimore did or imrpoves subways and bus links as Washington did. And everyone else in between the east coast or west coast have a commuter line here and there and perhaps a amtrack station here and there.

I live near a mainline that goes into Little Rock. There are about 5 communities with old depots along that double tracked mainline between me and Little Rock. It would not be difficult to get a passenger train to take workers into downtown in the morning and bring em home at night. You would need to find parking, infrastructure and associated links to feed this passenger system. I dont think the Union Pacific is going to take the time and trouble to run a passenger train for my area and perhaps trains between Little Rock and Memphis/ St Louis including all the little towns in between. This costs money and personel.

I dont think we can ever go back to the glory days of the Heavy Weight pullmans and service at every town like we used to before Airlines and interstates were common.

There are projects on going to replicate the north east corridor in different areas of the USA. For example High speed between Houston and Dallas. Turn a 6 hour driv

11

Again, a lot of very nice people will be made into second or third class citizens without long distance stop at hamlets trains. I don’t think they should get this kind of discrimination. I think we should insist that Mineta ride one of the long distance trains, like the CZ or the SWChief and talk to the people riding. He may get a very different impression. I still think long distance trains are as vital for the USA as they are for Canada. The Canadian governmet realizes that fact. Why not Bush and Mineta?

12

I think as well that this focus on limited stops, larger sities, etc. is just another version of a theme many passenger rail supporters have seen before. If you eliminate stops, you also eliminate ridership. Trains make stops in certain places because the stops along the mid-points of routes create as much business ans the endpoints. In the cases of some routes, such as the Empire Builder’s route, 80 - 90 % of riders embark or disembark at stops other than Seattle, Portland, or Chicago. When you eliminate stops, you eliminate service and reduce the overall ridership.

What would be possible would be to create a second train, running at a different schedule, having different stops along the same route. Each train would overlap the other.

13

At face value, I think that Mineta’s speech provides an interesting starting point.

I’m not sure the funding it state by state is a good thing, particularly when so many trains travel thru more than just a state or two. But, trying to shift some of the funding to localities could be useful.

And, I was intrigued that $1B might be available for grants, on top of the $360M for NEC infrastructure, to operate trains on a 50-50 basis. If you could negotiate a bit from this point - say to 80-20 funding, we could actually wind up with more and better train service than we do now.

The Bush admin’s tendency has been to throw proposals out and then let the political process (and I use the term loosely) hammer them into something else. As long as the final product bears a little resemblence to the original proposal, the bills get signed.

If the discussion evolves into “status quo or nothing”, I’ll bet we wind up with the same, underfunded, inefficient status quo. But, there is a chance that something different could evolve and it may even be better than the status quo.

I’m not so niave that I take Mineta’s speech completely at face value, but neither am I so cynical that I see deep, dark hidden agendas, either. I think they truly want some reform so that Amtrak is more palatible to the conservatives while still providing the public service Amtrak’s contituents expect.

If nothing else, this will be fun to watch!

14

Uh, airplanes do the major city to major city thing a whole lot better and cheaper than Amtrak can. Where the LD trains are sucessful is when they connect those little places you want to skip (what, to save 30 minutes on a 24 hour schedule?) with the big cities. For example, the Crescent does great business between the Northeast (including Alexandria and Manassas) and Charlotteville. You want to skip Alexandria or Manassas?

Speeding up equipment turns is a great idea, but skipping some stops won’t do it.

15

Great idea CG9602. Kind of like when they ran the North Coast Hiawatha with the Empire Builder. Thanks Dave for finding the flaw in my plan (I knew it sounded too good). At least we are starting some kind of reasonable dialog with decent ideas. Thank you all for your consideration.

16

Like I had said earlier, I think that this could be a great idea. If the states get matching funding, that will promote more of them to put in money for the system, than put up nothing. They would then be able to take it out of the highway funds. Put it this way, Amtrak could make it so that they would get 2 billion instead of one with just federal funding. That is a good thing, and we will see if it can be done.
Brad

17

Problem is states are very uneven. Some give great support to intercity rail, like Washington and California, some are mediocre, like New York and Connecticut, and some won’t even consider helping. Fopr some time, New Hampshire has been getting a free ride off of Maine and Massaachusetts, with their helping with the Boston - Portland service (not that trains are in such great shape overall in Massachussetts either), and finally they are being convinced to chip in. A national system can distribute the burden more equitably, in my opinion. Canada has Province supported commuter trains, like GO Transit, but the VIA system is national.

18

but why should people in hawaii or alaska pay for Amtrak, neither of those people, as sell as anyone in idaho, wyoming, north dakota, and many others who don’t get the service have to pay fot it. The difference in Canada, is that they are a socialist society, we are not.
Brad

19

If anything should be “Junked”, it should be Mineta. This guy understands transportation issues about as much as Bush understands Fiscal Responsibility!!

20

Secretary Mineta’s ideas for reforming Amtrak are seriously flawed.

  1. Leaving thru long distance passenger rail service up to the states the trains run through raises the question, what happens if an intermediate state refuses to commit funds for operating the train? You don’t stop the train in that state? yeah right.
  2. The concept of separating train operations from infrastructure was tried in Great Britain, it was a collossal disaster