“The House voted 406 to 22 to cut the Amtrak federal subsidy by 18 percent, to $1.1 billion. The subsidy is $214 million more than President Bush requested and a House panel approved last week.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/washington/15brfs-006.html
Dave
Once again, Amtrak is proving that while the best of intentions may get you $ for a while, eventually you have to prove your value to the taxpayers (that’s us).[:(] Sadly Amtrak has not been able to get its costs into line with its revenue. [8]That may be impossible. The service outside the Northeast corridor and California’s corridors has gotten progressively worse, with no signs of improvement[banghead] Amtrak is a prisoner of the political system, driven by a "What have you done for us lately?"approach to its future. Perhaps New York’s efforts to kill the Empire Corridor west of Albany-Rensselaer, makes sense. The MTA’s Commuter rail network will take over the NY/Penn and resume NY/GCT service to Albany-Rensselaer. The rest of the NYSSR? Forget about rail service beyond A-R, gang. Not that anyone will miss the service, which has declined noticeably of late.
May be if our congressmen could look at the big picture we might have a passenger system on par with most other developed countries.It takes more than a year by year approach of bandaid solutions.
The Senate will have its own ideas about the level of the subsidy, there will be the Conference Committee, Amtrak will stagger into another fiscal year, and people around here will complain that Amtrak is underfunded.
However, to put this in perspective, http://www.njaviation.org/ai/0502211ai.html, the FAA budget is kept constant at around 8 billon, but most of that is funded by the Aviation Trust Fund (taxes on tickets, on aviation fuel). The amount of subsidy (general fund payments) is to be reduced from 2.8 billion down to 1.5 billion, with money saved up in the Trust Fund to be drawn down to make up the difference. So I guess the air travel industry is taking their lumps as well.
Aviation serves about 500 billion passenger miles compared to 5 billion passenger miles on Amtrak (about 100:1). Unless someone can quantify more than 100 billion in subsidy to the airline last year, it is safe to say that Amtrak will remain subsidized at a higher rate.
Part of Amtrak’s problems is that it has been pared down compared to its fixed overhead – if it received more subsidy, it perhaps could expand its operations and servce more people at less subsidy per passenger mile. Is this demonstratable? Do folks out there have numbers on direct operating costs for passenger trains along the lines of the discussion on another thread of short freight trains?
In the mean time, we can talk all we want about rail getting its fair share or of how all modes are subsidized and there is no free market, and that it is unfair to ever expect Amtrak to turn a profit. But the question is subsidy rate.
The question also turns around labor costs, and people are saying China is building a bullet train, and Mexico is building a bullet train, but the U.S.A. as a shame and a disgrace is starving its rail network. Well, the U.S. is one of the highest labor cost countries out there, certainly in comparison to China and Mexico. We were in a Kohls store wondering where anyone was t
…Why don’t we just forget this yearly charade…The system as it is now is a discrace. Kill it all…including the NEC…Let them find another way to do it…If it can’t be done in a reasonable way…abandon the whole system. Maybe some day China can figure it out for us…We’re too busy concerning ourselves with other parts of the world…and paying for it…!
Modelcar, you are close to the point! And, way off in some other respects. But, overall as to Amtrak, it’s status is really not worthy of a first class nation. We only take freight railroads seriously, and then only when we discover that railroads can handle hazardous ladings safer than any highway carrier can ever hope to, move Coal 15,000 tons at a crack, move ethanol that we will need to have transported reliably at minimum cost. Then again, NAAH![xx(]
As I mentioned, the squeeze is also being put on the aviation people as well, and there is a lot of grumbling about how the air traffic control system is underfunded and Band-Aided. We grumble about how rail is a step child, but the whole game with any kind of appropriation, program, or subsidy is that what the government giveth, the government can taketh away.
How is it a disgrace? The NEC offers a frequent and as far as I have heard on-time service. Last year the Acela train sets were pulled for brake problems, but it seems they got past that one. I hear our Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha train runs pretty much on schedule, and one of the faster schedules outside the NEC, thanks to the Canadian Pacific railroad. Many of the long-distance and some other corridor trains have serious on-time problems owing in part to priorities of the host railroads as to serious capacity limitations even for the freight traffic. Simply increasing the Amtrak subsidy won’t solve that problem – the long-distance trains will have to find some kind of market for their services subject to the capacity limitations of the host railroads apart from some really serious public money sent to upgrade tracks (which California has done in cooperation with host railroads on specific corridors).
Is it a disgrace because the EPA has mandated the switch to toilet holding tanks, these tanks fill to capacity when trains are seriously delayed, resulting in very disgusting toilet experiences and no-repeat Amtrak customers? Would increasing Amtrak funding to 2 billion a year allow Amtrak to rebuild its fleet with bigger tanks or fund a fleet of rescue tank pump trucks or clue Amtrak management in on the disgusting things which happen when a train encounters multi-hour delays?
[quote]
QUOTE:
Maybe som
I hear that sentiment. It is certainly NARP-worthy.
We are having a discussion among friends, and we are talking about our frustration with the state of Amtrak. We are a first class nation, and a lot of nations of seemingly lesser class are building much nicer trains. A lot of nods of agreement go around.
OK, we are running a NARP chapter or some equivalent organization, and we have a public meeting to talk about the great things about Amtrak travel, plans for trains in our area, and we are trying to get people interested in our group and activities. We get up at this meeting to inform people about the embattled nature of Amtrak, someone mentions the first-class nation bit, nods of heads go around among the old guard, and the first-time attendees at our meetings start squirming in their chairs. We don’t see them at the next meeting and we wonder about that.
Most people out there simply don’t see that Japan/France/China/Mexico has a bullet train as reason enough for us to have a bullet train or much care about our first-classedness being influenced by something like that. A lot of us went through the Cold War and didn’t think Russia having a spaceship was reason enough for the U.S. to spend billions on a spaceship. People want to know 1) what is that train going to do for me, now, and 2) how much is this going to cost in fares or tax increases.
As long as Amtrak is funded by the government they are going to have problems no matter who is in office. Neither parties’ track record on funding the railroad is anything to write home about. But the other side of the equation is privatizing Amtrak. Can it survive and be profitable? So far, nobody seems to think so. There just doesn’t seem to be the demand for passenger rail service in this country. Maybe in the future if gas prices continue to rise that will change.
If Amtrak were to privitize they would have to dump the transcon trains and focus on the markets that are turning a profit. (NEC, Chicago, etc.) This may seem painful at first, but it may also mean the long term viability of the railroad as a whole. In the downsizing I am sure that folks would lose their jobs, (doesn’t this usually happen in downsizings?) but the long term benefits may be that the railroad will be fiscally solvent for years to come. Then they could begin to build profitable trains in areas of the country that are best suited for train travel. Just a thought.
Rebuild the holding tanks. They are desperatly trying to get the cars they have out of their Main. facilities. There is no budjet to repair wrecked cars much less replace them. They are our representitives and have no one to blame but ourselves. If we typed letters to our congressmen (instead of on this forum) it might make a difference but I am not going to hold my breath. [V] [B)] [:(!]
Amtrak Black Hole is NEC it needs 30 Billion Dollars to get it into A Shape Again , the Tunnels in New York City Needs 3 Billion in Upgrades. Amtrak should only ran Trains. on the NEC amtrak rans only 100 of they Trains.The Comm Railroad rans over 1200 trains a day. Amtrak needs alot of New Cars Too.[2c]
This topic will never end.
…After all of the above I still say: Stop the charade…Aren’t we sick of it. If we can’t do it right stop it. Yes, I would like to have an America with a decent rail passenger system but seems we can’t. I’ve watched all the goings on as long as most on here and that is just my…[2c]
The funding cut vote is no real concern. The anti Amtk bunch in DC usually wins in the early rounds. But already we are seeing the usuall arm twisting & such plus support from rail labor, Amtk will get its 1 billion and will stumble through fiscal yr. A Amtk issue not being covered in great detail is the proposal to abolish asst condrs from its trains. This will be a fight in itself.
AMTRAK IS A POLITICAL FOOTBALL TO BE KICKED BY ALL SIDES, EACH WITH IT’S OWN AGENDA.
1.) We need as a nation an alternative transportation mode to the private vehicle. Busses have quit their national network status in favor of cherry-picked routes.
2.) The airlines have become not much more than aerial cattle cars. And expensive to boot.
3.) The road system although a good net is suffering from lack of maintenance, most everywhere.
The whole Amtrak argument seems to be just a circular chase, leading to no resolution and no way to work out for the money spent.
Pay the subsidy to the Railroad operators and let them supply the manpower and equipment, as well as populating minor and major routes, with the appropriate equipment. Let the Railroad set the schedule, get the income after the subsidy level has been met at an agreed upon figur
OK, here’s a question… I ride the NY to Chi round trip once a month for work. (Lakshore Limited). It is always delayed, service is not bad considering the limitations put on the workers, but they (for the most part) have been pleasant. BUT… the train is almost always sold out in first class. So, why isn;t there the motivation to make some new tracks in conjunction with CCX and the others, get more passenger and freight “mileage” out of it, and improve the service for both? Or am I just dreaming?
There will always be a winner,and there will always be a looser. And by the sounds if it,Amtrak is the looser. It seams.
Amtrak is what conrailman called a black hole. It will never be able to be self sustaining, no matter what we are told by some “experts”. Too bad too, but we are just not a rail riding population, here. The costs of the war and other more or less pressing and more politically necessary/ popular programs were bound to catch Amtrak and other small benefit, high cost programs in a squeeze!
There’s lots of motivation to upgrade and expand current routes, especially the ones operating at or above capacity. The big problem is money. Tracks ain’t cheap. The big railroads in this country have announced that they are investing in the billions of dollars this year to do so, but their primary aim is the freight capacity, which is where it should be, that’s where they make their money. Passenger trains have been an also-ran (funding wise) since the 50’s in this country.