I can personally guarentee every one of you that D’s or R’s will not make a difference at Amtrak. Both parties have much bigger fish to fry. Amtrak is not a political ‘winner’ for either party.
And remember, Mineta was a Clinton appointee!
Only NS and CN are “revenue adequate”, meaning they’re making enough money to stay in business for the long haul without having to “eat their foot” to stay alive. It would be unreasonable to place any additional financial burden on them on top of what they already bear for Amtrak.
Mineta was a Bush appointee and the lone, token Democrat. Rodney Slater was Clinton’s guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_E._Slater
But don’t forget the other game that congressmen/women have also been playing, which has been mentioned before.
While a number of them seem to be “anti-Amtrak” no one wants to earn the reputation (other than McCain) that he or she helped to kill Amtrak (especially if Amtrak happens to run in his or her state).
…which is EXACTLY why they won’t change a thing!
BTW I think even McCain has softened. In recent years, he’s been rather pro-corridors but anti-long distance.
The reality is Amtrack is simply outdated. It works OK in the NE corridor because of the large population area, road congestion, the cities are close enough that there’s not a great time savings if one flies, and it owns the track. There are a few other corridors it somewhat works. There are even other corridors it would work IF it owned the track. That’s it.
I have a good friend who is a full professor of transportation who loves the rails as much of me. He’s served on all types of commissions and committees that have studied passenger rail. His conclusion is the time of the long-distance passenger train in the US has definitely passed unless its operated something like a cruise ship where the passengers are not in any hurry to get anywhere and willing to pay top dollar to be pampered while on the train. Mid-distance doesn’t fare any better. The studies he has participated in show its far, far, far cheaper (and faster and more convenient for the passengers) for the government in almost all areas of the country to heavily subsidize Greyhound or other bus companies to perform the passenger services for those who can’t or won’t fly. And there’s no way that the freight railroads could be paid enough money to bring back their physical plants to what it would take to operate higher speed (not high speed but higher speed then what’s available now outside the NE) passenger service in the US. The studies also indicate that frequency of service and speed of service are secondary to price but all are important. So having one or even several trains a day in each direction averaging 50-55 mph (if everything works right) serving a market just doesn’t cut it.
I also worked for another gentleman who chaired the high-speed rail study commission for Pennsylvania and who had a
Out-dated in what sense? Certainly RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE is not outdated, especially in an age where fuel for cars is so prodigiously expensive and the supply becoming a real pain in the @$$ to secure (hydrogen fuel cells will not save us).
I’ve always thought it a shame that amtrak is forced to suffer, while Greyhound Lines (the crappy bus service known for lousy schedules, always being late, dirty facilities and vehicles, and over-priced (compared to the quality of service) tickets is somehow able to turn a profit and secure a base of ridership. I guess an important point here would be that Greyhound’s thoroughfares (the IHS) are subsidized and maintained with tax-payer dollars. The airlines, too, are notorious for being bailed out and having money thrown at them by government.
But try and get anybody in government to give a penny to amtrak and it’s labeled “welfare for a failling system”…I think this is a huge lie and more so, a cop-out. If politicians simply admitted that they had no interest in “bailing out” or subsidizing amtrak because amtrak wasn’t a billion dollar industry with high lobbying-potential and there was no money in it for themselves, the politicians, it would sting less. Politicians don’t want to refrain from giving amtrak money not because it accounts to “giving welfare to a failiny system” but namely because they don’t care about amtrak and have no reason to.
Nothing is more offensive and condescending than having smoke blown up one’s keister.
You can get as much trained, educated management with well-thought-out plans as you want, but the fact remains simple - AMTRAK NEEDS GOVERNMENT MONEY. Without the initial boost for a year or a number of years, there will be no hope and amtrak will remain to be a passenger rail service that the bolivians would be embarassed by. Couple government subsidies with smart, efficient management and it might stand a chance.
Maybe the Democrats might do some high speed projects and keep funding Amtrak.
[quote user=“alphas”]
The reality is Amtrack is simply outdated. It works OK in the NE corridor because of the large population area, road congestion, the cities are close enough that there’s not a great time savings if one flies, and it owns the track. There are a few other corridors it somewhat works. There are even other corridors it would work IF it owned the track. That’s it.
I have a good friend who is a full professor of transportation who loves the rails as much of me. He’s served on all types of commissions and committees that have studied passenger rail. His conclusion is the time of the long-distance passenger train in the US has definitely passed unless its operated something like a cruise ship where the passengers are not in any hurry to get anywhere and willing to pay top dollar to be pampered while on the train. Mid-distance doesn’t fare any better. The studies he has participated in show its far, far, far cheaper (and faster and more convenient for the passengers) for the government in almost all areas of the country to heavily subsidize Greyhound or other bus companies to perform the passenger services for those who can’t or won’t fly. And there’s no way that the freight railroads could be paid enough money to bring back their physical plants to what it would take to operate higher speed (not high speed but higher speed then what’s available now outside the NE) passenger service in the US. The studies also indicate that frequency of service and speed of service are secondary to price but all are important. So having one or even several trains a day in each direction averaging 50-55 mph (if everything works right) serving a market just doesn’t cut it.
I also worked for another gentleman who chaired the high-speed rail study commission for Pen
Rather than lengthen my already long post above I thought I’d add this separately, from RAILPAC:
RailPAC Alert: Residents embracing the rails, despite cheap gas
While the article below focuses on the Bay Area and Amtrak service, the fact is that rail ridership is growing all over the state of California, including commuter and light rail.
Today, about 1.2 million rides are taken on the various passenger rail services in California.
In 1988 daily ridership was less that 600,000.
With new additions and expansions due in the next 12 months that will grow even more. In fact, passenger rail ridership is growing at a rate faster that the population.
Perhaps best of all, fare box recovery is growing faster than ridership. While we can never expect rail to pay all of it’s operation and capital costs, to the extent revenues increase it means that more service can b
Strong Amtrak presidents have generally been Republican appointees for whatever reasons. Paul Reistrup, for instance, was appointed under Gerald Ford, and was a skilled railroader who in turn brought in the highly experienced Marty Garelick as COO. Sharp railroaders all around.
Under Carter, Amtrak enjoyed about the same degree of success as everything else under that President. When the Republicans came back in charge under Reagan, it was the strong leadership of the legendary F. Graham Claytor at Amtrak, John Riley at FRA, and Elizabeth Dole at DOT – all Amtrak supporters – that led the renaissance of Amtrak, restoring Congressional favor by being able by 1989 to generate 72% of its own budget, up from 41% in Carter’s last year in office.
Under Clinton, Amtrak again became a political appointment. Instead of a strong, experienced leader like Claytor, Amtrak got saddled with Thomas Downs, whose primary achievement had been massive delays and huge cost over-runs on the Capitol Union Station project as the city adminstrator of Washington DC. It was Downs who began to promise to Congress self-sufficiency for Amtrak – creating wholly unrealistic expectations that continue to contaminate the discussion to this day.
Yep, I remember Thomas Downs. We were hit with the “Downsizing” of Amtrak and here on the Florida west coast we lost the Silver Meteor and are now just left with one northbound and one southbound train a day (Silver Star).
George Warrington seemed like a likable guy, but from what I’ve read his emphasis seemed to be on the NEC and not on the LD trains.
It’s interesting that some believe that the LD passenger train is obsolete, yet ridership continues to grow.
As I’ve stated so many times…long distance bus travel is far less comfortable than passenger train travel. Buses having to meal stop at “choke & pukes” (as truckers used to call them) or at fast food resteraunts sure doesn’t compare to having a dining car or a lounge car with snacks in the consist. Paying the extra dollars for a relaxing meal on the rails seems worth it.
…Leadership {in Amtrak}, was strong when the Republicans “came back” under Reagan but it was certaintly not Pres. R. Reagan that was promoting Amtrak by any means. Each time the budget came up he wanted to do the usual…Cut
I agree with Michael Sol that Amtrak has faired better under Republican administrations. Unfortunately the pattern of more favorable support under Republicans didn’t follow through to the latest administration. It was almost a perfect storm. A combination of White House budget people with options limited by powerful leaders in the military/defense sector and entitlement programs, a Secretary of Transportation (yes, a Democrat) that had no initiative on his own and a Republican Congress that generally went along with the administration’s bidding almost got Amtrak tanked.
I think it is realistic to say that Dave Gunn, himself a Republican (or a Tory, when he wears his Canadian hat), held the place together rather well. Interesting that the unlikely bedfellows of Paul Weyrich, a conservative political activist and former Massachusetts Govenor and Democratic presidential candidate Mike Dukakis recruited and persuaded Dave Gunn to take the job. I don’t really think that anybody in administration wanted to take the rap for losing Amtrak and so the line was to put the job on the states or in private hands, i.e., somebody else that could be blamed when rail passenger service did not survive. Gunn’s key strength was convince enough people in congress that there was nothing close to a well thought out plan to support that type of change and to try to force a change by simply cutting off funds would result in nothing more that the end of the service.
In the year that Gunn has been gone from the job, little more has been done other than to implement programs that were under development or started by Gunn in the four years he was at Amtrak. Unaudited, but here are the latest results for the 11 months of FY2006 through August as reported on the Amtrak web site. Revenue, excluding $445.4 million Federal support for operations: $1.824 billion. Expenses, excluding interest, taxes, depreciation and other post employment benefits: $2.233 billio
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted February 21, 2005
"Larry Kudlow of CNBC asked me if it were true that I did not advocate destroying Amtrak but wanted to reform it. I plead guilty. I am pro-rail.
"I believe we demonstrated after 9/11 that it is prudent to have a national passenger rail system. However, Amtrak is spiraling toward death. The Administration has recommended not a dime.
"In Ronald Reagan’s budget Amtrak was also zeroed out. Back then the President knew full well that Congress would restore the money. It was one of those “wink-winks” which take place in . Reagan satisfied a part of his conservative constituency by pretending to be against Amtrak funding while his Office of Management and Budget (OMB) people planned for the restoration of the money.
"I probed the Deputy Director of OMB as to how serious the Bush Administration is about not funding Amtrak. Specifically, I asked him if the Congress restored the Amtrak money, would he recommend a veto to the President, assuming a separate Transportation Appropriations Bill had been passed by the Congress. (Reagan always excused himself on the Amtrak issue by pointing out that Congress sent him what is known as a “CR,” a Continuing Resolution, wherein several appropriations bills are rolled into one. He felt he could not veto the Continuing Resolution without endangering th
[quote user=“MichaelSol”]
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted February 21, 2005
"Among the reforms which we at the Amtrak Reform Council advocated, and which were picked up by the Administration, is to create two separate corporations. One would own the infrastructure now owned by Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor from to and also , to as well as a 70-mile stretch in . That corporation would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the property owned by Amtrak. In addition, it would assist the freight railroads for that portion of the system now leased to Amtrak. Under such a system the Commuter Rail lines, which run many more trains over the Corridor then does Amtrak, would have to pay their fair share of upkeep. A second corporation would only run passenger trains.
“Presently, because Amtrak is involved in so many businesses, it is not possible to find out exactly what it costs to operate a given train.”
Michael Sol:
I spoke a number of years ago with Marty Garelick about this. He and Paul Reistrup agreed back in the 1970s that Amtrak was attempting to straddle two entirely separate core competencies – the NEC, and all the rest. As private sector guys, they saw both the financial and managerial obstacles inherent – absolutely inherent – in attempting to effectiv
The U.S. should condemn all railroad rights-of-way in the country with no compensation to the railroads. The rights-of-way would be public as they should be. The U.S. could then tax the railroads for their use of the now public right-of-way, just as we pay gas tax and other taxes to fund and use public highways. Once the government has the rights-of-way under its control and this logical source of funds, they could look at the system comprehensively and determine which rights-of-way are redundant and which need to be improved, expanded, realigned and which need to be created altogether for both freight and passenger services, high-speed or not. If no private companies choose to run passenger service in the system, the government could create a separate company to run passenger trains and just build it gradually over time on the routes that demand the most passenger service.
Marx would be proud…
This professor is anything but ivory tower. He is one one of the more highly known consultants in regards to America and international railroading. But he is a professional so that means he put’s his own personal preference for the railroads aside when it comes time to recommend action. As for the former head of the PA highspeed rail commission (now deceased), he spent most of his life working his way up through the ranks of railroading until he reached a high position and then retired to an even higher administrative position at a major university (although he also taught transportation classes par-time). He did his best to try every which way to come up with a way that state-wide high speed rail would work in PA but it just wasn’t there. The Pittsburgh area just wasn’t populated enough to make it work and the state politicians just couldn’t keep their noses out of running it.
As for buses, my friend tells me that susidizing mid-distance and long-distance bus fares in most of the US gives far more bang for the buck than subsidizing the normal once a day or twice a day train. The roads are already there and much of them are interstate or interstate quality, the salaries are currently much less than Amtrak’s with less work rules, there’s more scheduling opportunities, and the service is normally faster. He doesn’t claim bus service is more travel friendly–the train is still the best for comfort and less troubled by weather. But from a financial standpoint, its a better deal for the taxpayers. Remember, I’m not talking about the NE and CA corridors that everyone keeps mentioning or commuter operations–just most geograpical mid-distance and long-distance non-air and non-personal vehicle travel. What he is advocating on the national level as the best deal ov