The Sunset Limited

Trains Magazine Passenger
1

For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007, the Sunset Limited failed to cover its variable or avoidable costs to the tune of $.485 per passenger mile. This was before interest and depreciation.

Amtrak’s average interest and depreciation for 2007 was approximately $.1023 per passenger mile. This number includes the capital intensive northeast corridor. The information furnished in Amtrak’s on-line report does not allow one to determine the passenger mile interest and depreciation attracted by the Sunset, but it was probably less than the system average. I think $.05 per mile is reasonable.

The distance from Los Angles to New Orleans is 1,995 rail miles. The avoidable cost or subsidy for a passenger traveling on the Sunset from one end point to another, at $.535 per mile, works out to $1,067.33. The train averages approximately 46 mph over the 1995 miles.

The Sunset calls at 19 stations, excluding the end points, on its run between New Orleans and Los Angles. Six of the stations are flag stops and presumably entrain or detrain few passengers.

Fourteen of the communities served by the Sunset have commercial air service, i.e. trunk carrier or commuter air. The other five are within a 2.5 hour drive of a city that has air carrier service. Moreover, all but one community - Sanderson, Texas - are served by an intercity bus company with two to four services a day.

Speaking of buses, Greyhound runs from El Paso to Tucson in as little as 5 hours and 35 minutes. It makes two passenger stops between El Paso and Tucson. The slowest bus, which takes the same amount of time as the Sunset, makes four stops, including a 45 minute chow break in Lordsburg. The Sunset, if it is on time, requires 6 hours and 25 minutes for the same run. Unless it is flagged for an intermediate station, it makes no passenger stops.

For the Sunset on time is a rarity, a

2

There are two types of critics. Those who try to tear things down, and those who want to make things work better.

The problems of the Sunset are well known. The question on my mind is how can we solve those problems? Is it really hopeless?

UP has been adding capacity as fast as they can, which should help the on-time performance and thus its ability to attract customers. It would no doubt help the Sunset’s bottom line if it were daily instead of “try weakly.” Let’s try applying solutions before declaring it a failure. Making it go away is the easy way out.

3

I’m guessing it will be two or three years before UP has solved their capacity crunch, and the Sunset Limited will continue to run hopelessly late until then. I think it would be foolish to upgrade the route to daily service before double track allows increased speeds and reliable scheduling. Let’s just leave it as is for two more years.

4

There are many types of critics.

This critic is concerned about wasting money on a train that serves very few people, provides limited social value, which should be a criterion for public funding, and drains away resources that could be better used for enhancing existing rapid rail corridors or developing new ones.

If the Sunset Limited ran on time every day, I would still favor discontinuing it. Better use could be made with the monies saved. It’s a matter of being accountable for the public spend, which is the people’s money. It is bad policy to throw good money after bad.

Long distance passenger trains in the U.S. serve less than one per cent of the traveling public. Most people walked away from them decades ago. Not of one of them covers its avoidable costs, let alone interest and depreciation.

As the following debt information shows, there is a limit as to how much we the people, who are the government, can spend. It begs the need to set our public priorities to benefit the greatest number of people. Clearly, most of the people don’t show a high value for the long distance passenger train through their use.

The national debt stands at $9.1 trillion. The U.S. Government owes more than $33,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, which is more than the nation’s income per person in 2006. The U.S. Treasury Department estimates that the national debt will touch 10 trillion dollars by 2009 and 12.9 trillion by 2017.

According to the Comptroller of the Currency, in 2006 mandatory spending, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military and government pensions, etc. took 53 per cent of the national budget. This is a 103 per cent increase over the 1966 mandatory spend. After considering the mandatory spending and interest obligations, only 38 per cent of the budget remains for discretionary spending.

U.S.

5

[:)]

Reportedly, airlines have lost several billion dollars over the last several years, for tens of billions of dollars overall, despite massive subsidies from local governments for airports and from the federal government for air traffic control. Should we likewise require airlines to cover their costs? Would there be as many airline passengers if they had to pay the true value of their flights?

It seems to me that losing billions of dollars is the same thing as selling below cost. We cry “unfair” when Toyota tries to sell a car below cost. Why is it not just as unfair for Delta Air Lines to sell an air ticket below cost?

[:)] [:)]

6

Is Amtrak’s small market share a function of demand or capacity? You can’t reasonablty compare 15 long distance routes which serve limited markets against the entire national transportation network. A more appropriate comparison would be to compare the markets Amtrak does serve to other modes serving the same market, such as Chicago-Denver or Denver-Reno or Denver-Central California or Central California-Pacific Northwest. Sure, when you’ve only got one train a day in those markets Amtrak is still going to have a small share, but at least the comparison would be a valid one, and the percentage would no doubt be higher.

When people, as you say, “walked away” (your words not mine) from passenger trains gas was cheap, airports were a breeze to get through and skies were friendly. Those days are gone. In the last several years Amtrak’s long distance ridership has been steadily increasing. The Sunset’s 2007 ridership was up 22% over 2006. (Probably a recovery from the loss of traffic after Katrina.) Overall long distance ridership was up 2.4% over last year.

Polls show the public supports funding Amtrak. A Harris poll last year asked which forms of transportation should be expanded to meet future passenger needs. The top two choices were corridor trains and long distance trains. People may have “walked away”’ from trains in the 1960s, but there is good reason to believe they want to come back. The folks who are trying to kill long distance trains are actively preventing them from doing so.

As for the Sunset’s role in the national debt, bear in mind that th

7

A whole lot hinges on your word “presumably”! To presume Congress would allow Amtrak to take operating funds and use them to fund capital for new corridors, presumes a lot!

I definitely agree with you that the Sunset is broken. But the question of what to do about that isn’t totally clear to me. There are other questions that to be looked at w.r.t. the Sunset.

  1. What would it take to fix it and what would that cost? The UP’s double track project west of Texas will help, but the schedule in Texas would still be “broken”.

  2. Texas needs corridors developed. How does the Sunset fit in? If it’s a good fit, then why trash it now? LD trains running within the backbone of a corridor network should be much less costly to run, if they are considered based on incremental cost. I might be socially justifiable at that point. If the Sunset is whacked now, could it ever be restarted?

  3. Would cutting the Sunset take the focus off the necessity to improve Amtrak’s operational and mgt efficiency? Cutting service is not the only way to cut costs.

I think the whole Amtrak funding issue needs to be worked from another perspective. Instead of trying to sharp-shoot routes based on cost, which could lead to reduced funding and reduced service, maybe Congress could be cajoled into giving Amtrak a fixed operating subsidy and then paying the employees a bonus based on how many passenger-miles they can deliver with that subsidy. Even if Congress mandated that the existing LD train network remain in place, it would still give Amtrak incentive to figure out how to make it all work better and would focus their limited funds where it would perform the best. Coupled with a dedicated stream of capital (which it lo

8

The Sunset has been the poster child for the passenger train issue since well before the Amtrak era. It was the last major train on SP to be streamlined (1950) and the failure to get any return on this investment is said to be a major reason in why SP management soured on passenger trains so utterly. One can reasonably argue that it should have been discontinued way back in the late 1960’s (or earlier) since the ridership had long since vanished even before many of the expensive amenities were removed. It wasn’t included in the original sixteen proposed Amtrak routes and I’m not sure why it was included in the 21 routes that actually started on May 1, 1971 except to fill a perceived gap on the route map.

9

You’d think that the Sunset should be doing better now since Phoenix, Tuscon, Houston and San Antonio are so much larger population centers now than there were in 1971!

10

Except now the Phoenix station is 50 miles south of the city.

11

I like the creative ideas that are being presented. re-routing and/or rescheduling are worth investigating.

I observe that Sunset and the Empire Builder are at opposite ends of the success spectrum, which seems odd given their similarities. They both connect major transportation hubs at each end, but largely travel through sparsely populated areas between them. The Empire Builder has some advantages, including a friendly host railroad, more frequent service, better timekeeping and better scenery. We can’t change the scenery on the southern route, but the other three factors could be altered if the will was there.

12

Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can’t find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don’t worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.[2c]

13

A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further!

Amtrak needs fixed.

14

A little back of the envelope analysis. Assuming that the average Amtrak passenger travels 400 miles. This allows us to extrapolate the highway measure of “vehicle miles traveled” into a “something” that may or may not be comparable to Amtrak. But, if the Amtrak average measure is taken against the highway mileage racked up, we can derive a number of highway equivalents to Amtrak. For airline travel, we have a number of passengers flown, but no reasonable estimate on mileage.

But, distributing the subsidies granted to an average Amtrak passenger, to a reasonably equivalent highway user, and to an airline passenger, the subsidies work as follows, per person:

Air: $17

Highway: $6

Rail: $48

That’s a pretty rich subsidy for “poor little Amtrak”.

15

Here’s some real numbers from Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0709monthly.pdf) to put on your envelope - may

16

Increasing capacity on corridor trains, i.e. NEC, Los Angles to San Diego, etc., frequently results in increased use. It also increases cost. Capacity on the California corridor routes has increased significantly over the last decade. Yet they failed to cover their 2007 variable operating costs to the tune of $38.7 million before interest and depreciation.

Whether increasing capacity on the long distance trains would increase riders and market share significantly is problematic.

The Texas Eagle runs daily, whereas the Sunset is a thrice weekly train. The Eagle lost $25.3 million in 2007 or 19.4 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The Sunset lost $29.8 million or 48.5 cents per passenger mile during the same period. Increasing capacity might draw more patrons, but whether the increased volumes would offset the increased cost, given the economics of long distance passenger trains, is doubtful.

Gasoline today costs about what it cost in 1980 when adjusted for inflation. Personal incomes have more than offset the increase in gasoline costs since then. Americans are getting use to $3.00 per gallon gasoline.

The nation’s airports and airways are more congested than they were 10 or 15 years ago, although the worst bottlenecks tend to be in a few spots. Dallas/Fort Worth Airport is one of the busiest in the country. Yet it is relatively easy to get in and out of the airport if one knows where he or she is going. None of the airports in Texas are major bottlenecks except during severe weather, which occurs infrequently.

Telephone polls, because of their nature, are notoriously inaccurate. People will frequently say that they favor spending more money for roads, schools, trains, etc. when given an either or scenario or a simple multiple options scenario. But if the poll taker explains what it would cost the person responding to the poll, the answer frequently c

17

Thanks for pointing out that the money spent on other things or in other countries is a “red herring”. I believe that the money spent on LD trains is a “red herring”, too. Although it may be reasonable to assume that the money spent on “this” train or route might be available for “that” train or route, the political history of Amtrak shows that not to be the case. The LD trains are “pork” and, although politicians like to blather on about how bad pork is, they rarely 'fess up to their own pork. To them, it’s not pork, it’s just “the other white meat”.

It’s no too likely that any money saved from knocking off the Empire Builder to spend on corridors in Texas, would get much support from the Senators from the nothern tier states. You’re more likely to get their support for YOUR new spending if you leave their pork alone! Start knocking off too much of the LD network, and Amtrak would collapse politically. IMHO, you need the institution of Amtrak, or similar, to provide a base of support for intercity rail, no matter what form it takes.

My questions is, and remains, “why does the pork have to be so fatty?” I would love Amtrak to have more control over routes and how and where to spend their subsidy. But, it appears that’s not a political reality. I would also love for Amtrak and their employees be rewarded for finding and implementing operational efficiencies. There are likely a lot of things they COULD do, but who’s gonna gore his own ox or shink his “empire” w/o some carrot on a stick?

As for funding new corridors or corridor improvements, I think each can stand on it’s own merits for new funding. If the cost/benefit shows corridor developement to be better than the alternatives, then the money to do it should be there. There are a lot of barriers to overcome though. The notion t

18

Again we need to stop giving aid to these over Seas Country to tune of 200 plus Billion and this War cost 500 plus Billion and Gulf Coast and NOL is a mess and we should’nt save these other Country first, but we should save our Country first the Good USA, Spent all these Billion on us in USA not over Seas Country?[2c]

19

Samantha, if you’re worried about the budget deficit, what we’re spending overseas is quite relevant. You’re carping about a trickle while ignoring the river. My guess is that you support the river of spending on foreign wars.

20

The federal budget deficit will not be cured by deficit spending irrespective of what drives it. Adding more debt inflames the problem, irrespective of its source, which you and your off spring will help pay for.

Spending overseas or on highways or airways facilities, etc., is irrelevant to the question of what the country can and should spend on passenger rail.

The amount of debt carried by a family in relationship to its income (debt ratio) is important for determining its ability to service the debt. The same concept applies to a nation.

According to the Comptroller General of the U.S., the debt burden of American households, when factoring in the unfunded liabilities posed by mandatory government spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), is approximately $440,000 per household. This is nearly 10 times the median household income. It suggests, amongst other things, that funding projects with low social value is not a good idea.

Highlighting the debt load is not a red herring. It is an indicator that we should take a very hard look at spending proposals, including the use of public funds to underwrite the loses incurred by Amtrak’s long distance trains.

I opposed the Iraq War from day one. Since you don’t know anything about me, nor do I know anything about you, you only have my word for it.

Proponents of long distance trains argue that passenger rail in the U.S. would go in the tank if Amtrak discontinued them. There is no evidence to support this proposition. Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART) light rail system is not dependent on one chronically late, lightly patronized long distance train (Texas Eagle). Neither is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). They are doing well, albeit with significant subsidies, without any help from the Texas Eagle.

Congress persons from New York might agree to fund or help fund rapid rail in the Texas Tr