CJTrainguy The chances of getting passenger rail Dallas to Memphis is practically nonexistent. If you follow politics at all in this state and Texas you know what I mean. Hope just got Amtrak this year after much to do. I can see the potential customers on I 30 / I 40 but getting them on the train. I 40 does need the extra lane Little Rock to Memphis. But what also makes sense for roads is US 67 to St Louis. I digress here a little. I think that if you want to do this you need to have a network that would continue north to St Louis and Chicago east to Nashville Knoxville to Charlotte. North and, east to Louisville Indianapolis Cincinnati Cleveland Washington DC the northeast ie just like the Interstate highway system. Over 16 years on the road as a truck driver I saw first hand 7 incidents of road rage on I 40 between Little Rock and East Memphis. It was real insanity at times. Essentially there is a better way. And that is to give people real alternatives to driving. My thoughts are to provide an auto train service. Thx IGN
PS The Eagles times in Little Rock(1130pm Eb and 310am WB) do not encourage ridership. Combine that with tardy operation, what can I say. Thx IGN
Where to begin. I’ve been riding trains in Europe, primarily Germany, but also other countries for 45 years quite regularly and your statement above does not correspond with what I have observed first-hand. I also read articles in the German press concerning DB.
You stated I don’t believe millenials will ride trains. Of course what I clearly said was that younger folks will not ride the western LD trains even if the speeds were dramatically increased to reduce the times. A discussion without accuracy is pointless.
Schlimm, we’ll probably have to agree to disagree on what the future of passenger rail should be in the US.
I am glad that you have had ample opportunity to ride trains in Europe over many years. I grew up in Europe and frankly took the easy access to passenger trains for granted for much of my life.
As to what I related about regional networks in Europe seeing passenger traffic first abandoned and then eventually reinstated, you state that you haven’t observed that. That’s of course entirely possible, as I don’t know what you have observed or how far off the mainlines you have had the opportunity to venture. What I stated is however what I’ve observed and lived through.
In the UK, the Beeching report led to the wholesale abandonment of lines deemed unprofitable. Some of those very lines are now being reactivated. In Germany many miles of rail lines were abandoned in the 70s and 80s by DB. Sometimes just the passenger traffic,
We all see things differently. I have seen many lines of the former DR abandoned since 1990. And I have ridden on many single track lines in Germany (and in the UK) far from the mainlines. And I am wondering which DB lines abandoned in the 70’s and 80’s have been reinstated more recently? Which pre-Beeching lines are being reinstated in the UK?
As to the US, the reason western transcontinental LD routes need to be trimmed is because they cannot compete with air travel. In the east and to some extent in the midwest and southeast, interstates are overcrowded and so the rail can provide a sound alternative to those roads. Since the western interstates, i.e., those running west to east, are not overcrowded, they do not need to exist as alternative to highways. Consequently, they serve no useful purpose in any national transportation scheme.
You may enjoy driving from CHI-SF, as do others, including myself. But that is no justification for wasting resources for passenger rail operations, where they are not vitally needed, when those same dollars could be put to better use where passenger rail is competitive and IMO, needed.
“The need for the western LD trains is not to drop them, but to work with the host railroads to improve on-time performance and to raise the travel speed. It may even mean that Amtrak gets its own ROW in places.”
How do you propose to pay for or continue to pay for the long distance trains that are used by less than one per cent of intercity travelers?
It is doubtful that private investors will put up the money. This is especially true for expansion of or upgrading of the long distance trains. Moreover, working with the hoist railroads means increasing their cost of hoisting Amtrak’s trains.
So that leaves the taxpayers. And they are in hawk up to their ears. Currently, the national debt is $16.8 trillion. Add in state and local government debt, and the number is close to $19.8 trillion dollars. This is before unfunded liabilities, which are estimated to be in the neighborhood of $46 trillion. The public debt, which is the one to worry about because the federal government either services it or defaults on it, and if it defaults on it, there would be terrible ramifications, stands at $11.9 trillion. It is approximately 76 per cent of GDP. The International Monetary Fund cautions countries whose national debt exceeds 60 to 65 per cent of GDP.
As per table S-5 of the President’s 2014 budget (OMB), the interest on the national debt is projected to be $763 billion in 2023. The projected outlay for defense is $631 billion. The biggies are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with defense, but if a country is required to spend more on interest than defense, it has a financial problem.
Passenger trains are not major contributors to the national debt. But they contribute to the problem, along with hundreds of other “just a little bit” for our interests seekers. Amtrak’s advocates say that the amount of federal money required b
I hear the argument that Amtrak’s deficit contributes to the overall US deficit and so we have to cut Amtrak, because while in the magnitude of a rounding error, it still contributes. Okay, this is not supposed to be a political discussion forum, so on the national deficit thing, I’ll just say that it’s not that long ago the US had a balanced budget. And I do not believe that Amtrak’s funding has increased super-exponentiallly since then to be what tipped the scales and gave the country the current deficit. I simply suggest that those who really want to slash the deficit go look in the spending areas that have increased since the budget was last balanced and they leave Amtrak spending alone.
Somehow, with all the issues affecting Amtrak, and all the budget constraints and fiscal threats over the years, Amtrak keeps transporting more passengers every year. I say it again, the transportation landscape is changing. To dump all or parts of Amtrak now would be a foolish mistake that we will regret eventually. Every bit as foolish as it would have been to just let all the railroads drop running passenger trains back in 1971. At least the White House and congress at that time did something somewhat constructive and gave us Amtrak. Not perfect, but it runs.
In January, 2001 President Clinton left office. Amtrak had deficits at that time. However, the U. S. Treasury has a surplus. Events after President Clinton left office caused our deficit.
Amtrak does not threaten the economic stability of the United States.
In January 2001 the U.S. federal debt was approximately $3.3 trillion.
The on-budget deficit in 1998 was $29.9 billion. However, because of the Social Security surplus of $99.4 billion, the combined budget showed a surplus of $69.3 billion. In 1999 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $1.9 billion on revenues of approximately $1.8 trillion. This was a surplus of 10/100s of one per cent of revenues. In 2000 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $86 billion, the best of the so-call surplus years. In 2001 the on-budget deficit was $32.4 billion. The on-budget figures are the operating results for the United States. With the exception of 2000, the surpluses were mostly a function of Social Security surpluses, which came about because of the Greenspan Commission changes to Social Security.
No one said that Amtrak threatens the economic stability of the United States. But its annual deficits of more than $1.2 billion a year are a contributing factor, along with the other special interest runs on the Treasury. The federal debt and annual deficits has come about because of many variables.
Amtrak’s deficits through FY12 totaled $29.3 billion, which shows how a comparatively small amount each year can add up over the years to a sizable sum of money…
I am not proposing that Amtrak be abolished. However, if the U.S. is to solve its financial problems, it is difficult to see a way forward unless every special interest group, including those supporting Amtrak, gives up something. Just a little bit from everyone would work wonders. The numbers can be found at OMB, CBO, JCT, and the U.S. Treasury.
The question that I
If we had proportional representation that might work, Sam. At least we could come closer to it. But we are a two party system. In any given year that favors a winner take all perspective. It is supposed to even out in the long run but I don’t know how to see whether it does or not. Also, we still are spending money because of our two recent wars. That is unpredictable and hard to factor in.
John
So, many posts and days later, the answers to the thread question are varied, but with the same usual responses:
- LD should be retained in entirety or expanded for various reasons:
a. For the handicapped, seniors, airline haters and graduated college students.
b. For some small towns, especially in winter.
c. To get votes in Congress.
d. Any elimination is the beginning of the end for all of Amtrak.
e. Roads are cross subsidized or get more than Amtrak.
e. Every other transport mode is subsidized so why not LD?
- LD should be entirely eliminated.
a. As part of deficit/debt reduction.
- The reasons advocates give for any passenger rail are specious.
a. The subsidy per passenger mile for rail is much higher than highways.
- Eliminate the worst performing LD routes to save Amtrak.
a. Convert overnight sleeper trains to day trains or segment corridors.
I think if I were in charge I would hang onto the LD trains but I would also eliminate some.
Trains I would eliminate:
-
Cardinal - This train is purely political and only survived the cuts in the 1970’s and 1980’s because of a few powerful Congress Critters.
-
Southwest Limited - Again was a candidate many times for dropping and failed.
-
Southwest Ltd - Would keep it to Kansas City but drop west of there.
New Trains:
-
Dallas, TX connection to Southern Crescent via Shreveport, LA.
-
Dallas, TX train to New Orleans, LA
-
New Orleans, LA to Mobile.
-
Atlanta, GA to Jacksonville, FL via Savannah, GA
-
Chicago to Green Bay, WI via Oshkosh.
-
Maintain Chicago to Indianapolis, IN
-
Start Indianapolis, IN to Sanford, FL Auto-Train via Atlanta, GA.
-
Another Chicago to St. Paul / Minneapolis frequency
There is another argument for keeping current long distance trains, the argument Joe Boardman uses. That argument is that Amtrak is the result of a contract between the Congress and the American people. Related to that argument is that there are people in smaller cities and towns who need Amtrak because they have no alternative public transportation and the number of places with no alternative transportation is increasing. This is not the argument that the places need Amtrak; that is a different argument. It is an argument that many people need Amtrak, people who live in places to small to be profitable to private carriers.
Whether or not Amtrak routes that are not now part of our national passenger transportation system is a different question. Whether or not individual routes should be dropped is a related question; however it needs to be considered in terms of the whole system.
Finally, there are many arguments both for and against Amtrak. These arguments have varying degrees of validity and need to be considered individually.
Under any conceivable scenario the government, not Amtrak, will have to put up the front money to expand passenger rail. A key question is whether the taxpayers, who own the government, at least in theory, will get their money back.
Passenger rail corridors could be developed and operated by multiple operators. That is how passenger rail developed before Amtrak. That is how the California High Speed Rail Project is being developed. And that is how the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) between Dallas and Fort Worth was developed. Amtrak did not have anything to do with them.
Amtrak has become a large, lumbering bureaucracy. A strong argument can be made that smaller, regional developers and operators could be more effective in delivering passenger rail than a highly centralized Washington based bureaucracy.
Maybe a better approach would be to open the routes up to contractors, as per Australia, with the appropriate subsidies, and see what happens. A small centralized coordinating staff in the DOT probably would be helpful in calling balls and strikes, but opening passenger rail to competitive bids per route could produce a better outcome.
The nation does not have one airline, one bus company, one power grid, etc. Why should it have just one intercity passenger rail operator? Come to think of it, when the California High Speed Rail Project comes on line, assuming that it does, the nation will not be locked into just one true intercity passenger train operator.
I don’t know of a Texas community served by Amtrak that could not be served equally well or better by buses. Moreover, I am skeptical that any of the communities served by Amtrak’s long distance trains in other parts of the country could not be served by commercial buses, but I may be missing something. Perhaps there are some places where the bus operator would have to be subsidized, but my guess is that they are few and far between.
Amtrak was cobbled together by the Nixon Administration and sold to the peoples representatives. Calling it a contract with the American people is a stretch. I doubt many people knew the issues surrounding the creation of Amtrak or even cared.
By the time Amtrak came into being most Americans had given up on passenger trains. Today, if my friends and former colleagues are any indicatio
-
Joe Boardman also said in the same speech that LD routes should not be subsidized in part by operating surpluses from Acela but that congress should directly subsidize them in entirety.
-
“The greatest good for the greatest number” has been a sound utilitarian basis for services for years. Why should Amtrak be forced to provide a very inefficient service to people primarily in rural areas (where the population is stagnant or decreasing)? If it is so needed, congress should adopt an EBS program, patterned after the EAS program. Buses are more efficient and flexible in reaching widely scattered people.
The elderlly and handicapped who cannot flly also cannot stand a bus ride more than a few hours.
You are justifying this on the basis of a small minority of the elderly and challenged who cannot fly (Why not?) or ride a bus more than a few hours, who also don’t live near metropolitan areas or shorter rail routes? The numbers must be miniscule, given how small the total ridership of LD routes is.
Sam.
According to Amtrak’s Texas Fact Sheet there were 465,300 boardings and alightings at Texas stations in 2012. This is up 9.3 per cent from 2011.
But is there any desire in Texas to do away with Amtrak? The places I know of want to keep their Amtrak service. Service to the Gulf Coast states was suspended after Hurricane Katrina and those states have asked that it be returned.
As far as the historical picture is concerned, I think there is substantial evidence that private railroads had given up on American passengers as well as the other way around. And I did not expect you personally to buy into Joe Boardman’s contention that Amtrak is the result of a contract between Congress and the American People. But regardless of that when Amtrak started ridership began to increase and in the last decade or so it has increased markedly.
John
-
Joe Boardman also said in the same speech that LD routes should not be subsidized in part by operating surpluses from Acela but that Congress should directly subsidize them in entirety.
-
Amtrak has had ups and downs in ridership, peaking in 1991 and then dropping, recovering and finally surpassing that level only in the last few years.
-
After Boardman testified at a hearing, on 5/21/13, Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) noted in his opening statement that Amtrak’s long-distance routes are losing money.
“In 2012, they lost a combined $600 million,” Denham said. “We simply cannot afford to continue these levels of subsidized losses year after year.”
Since the current Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) became law in 2008, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor increased its profits by 143 percent and state-supported routes have reduced their losses by 24 percent, but long-distance routes have increased their losses by 11 percent, he noted.
“It is clear that the FRA and Amtrak did not follow PRIIA’s intent to reduce long-distance costs, so it is up to us on this committee to find better solutions,” Denham said.
- So it becomes very important to note that the PRIIA supersedes any “mandate” Congress gave Amtrak in 1971 and long distance service is a millstone around Amtrak’s neck.