posted
Let's simply "lay 'em down and dirty" and make an economic case for continuation of the Long Distance trains.
Obviously I hold that LD trains simply have no economic and very little social impact in twenty first century USA. I also hold that they represent a "taking" in that they hardly pay their full economic rent to the Class I industry.
Our economy is presently at full employment, and as such, the impact upon any employees will be minimized. Will there be "pain" from displacement for some Amtrak employees?, yes but "C'est la Vie". Is there legislated or collectively bargained relief for those adversely affected employees? YES. Is there assistance for displaced employees such as Station Agents who would need to relocate to exercise their seniority? Pretty sure there would be under New York Dock.
Will the "little old lady" from Williston have to find another way to get to the Specialist physician in Minneapolis she needs to see? Yes. If there is enough social outcry for relief in these situations, the "pain" could be alleviated for far less than the $400M I hold leaves the cookie jar in support of the LD's by means of establishing subsidized bus routes along those of the discontinued trains. Lest we not forget, there is NO Amtrak station inaccessible by highway.
Will those who find the journey part, if not most, of the travel experience be adversely affected with their pastime lost? Yes; "sorry 'bout that". After all, does Delta Air Lines operate "nostalgia flights" with DC-6's, "Stews"; young and unmarried serving First Class meals (complete with the complimentary pack of three cigarettes to give me a headache), and with TSA formalities being waived? "Uh, don't think so".
Now the "wild card"; uh those 535 of "our finest men, and so we elect them again and again" who dwell "under the Dome"? At present, I think the sentiment has been developed that they want to see and fund rail passenger service infrastructure that is relevant to 21st century needs - and around here we all know what that is - and what it aint'. However, we all know how the climate in that building can change "just like that", but at the moment, get that Requisition into Procurement for some fifty Adios drumheads.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case, surely you do not expect the good people of Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, etc. to have their taxes fund the Northeast Corridor and other such services that do not benefit them?
Moreover, the number of times the average American flies each year is close to zero. If Amtrak LD goes, let airline passengers, the cities served, and the airline companies solely fund that, with the government funding just the minimal air traffic control necessary for military operations and such.
I find remarkable the small scope of Amtrak loses in context of the federal budget as a whole. The waste alone. Congress focuses on Amtrak but the GAO estimates that the government improperly paid Medicare benefits of 57.7 billion and Medicaid 36.3 billion alone in 2016.
posted
Mr. Nadeau, I think your point was immediately addressed in my opening post. Historically the LD system has been a sacred cow in that it represents a mighty inexpensive source of rolling pork. The avoidable cost of, in my estimate, $400M is of course simply a rounding error.
But with the award of $1.9B (still a rounding error in the $350,000B - $3.5T - budget) this present FY, it appears that Congress has signaled they are ready to fund infrastructure, as distinct from gas, drivers, attendants, and steaks, to make rail travel more efficient in the markets where it represents a competitive choice. Aside from the isolated cases of "the little old lady from Williston" (hey, might the little old lady in Mandan also chirp up "I want my train too") no case can be made that the LD's provide much in the way of such.
Now I fully accept that just because "breezes under the dome" appear at present to be blowing in the direction I have outlined, such does not mean that - especially come this November - they can be blowing differently. On that point, it is a "wait and see".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My justification for the LD trains is that many of the most promising high(er) speed corridors are currently part of the LD network. If we remove the existing LD service it will only be more expensive (actually, impossible) to re-instate service at a later date. While we may argue about the viability of the Southwest Chief, nobody should deny the viability of the Chicago to Kansas City market. Amtrak and the states should be funding improvements that would speed up the Chicago to Kansas City corridor and allow additional frequencies. What would happen if the current 7+ hour journey CHI-KCY could be made in less than 6 hours, thanks to infrastructure improvements? Reliability would improve, trip times would fall and more people would consider Amtrak for travel on the CHI-KCY corridor. Add a 2nd frequency and ridership will grow even faster.
What would ridership on the west coast look like if Amtrak went back to a circa-1986 service schedule? Unreliable and slower trains with fewer frequencies would inevitably depress ridership. But the west coast states and Amtrak have funded numerous improvements that have made passenger rail a viable option for west coast travel. Amtrak should be working to build corridors on the LD network instead of eliminating those future corridors.
There are plenty of possible local corridors that exist within current LD network. Charlotte to Atlanta, Chicago to Memphis, DC to Pittsburgh, Tucson to Los Angeles, Seattle to Spokane are all corridors on the current LD network that could be improved with the additional local service. Amtrak should be focusing on ways to build the corridors of future of passenger rail rather than cutting amenities on the existing LD trains.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Vincent, I honor your points regarding a direct Chi-KC (not via STL) routing.
Only trouble; what's "in between" on either the CB&Q (KC Zephyr) or the ATSF?
OK; Galesburg on either route.
"The Highwaymen" never got their direct Interstate (you can be sure they tried), and recognizing that, someone dreamed up the CKC Route, which is IL 110 here. It is a hodgepodge of highways - some of which are two lane.
If the Corridor could be supported with end point traffic only, and BNSF was agreeable, then I'd say "go for it".
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
To be brief, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Michigan, and Virginia bring home a goodly number of the 218 votes Amtrak needs in the House.
Frankly, AZ, NM, CO, WY, OK, SD, ID, IA, KS, NE, and other states where Amtrak is a vitamin (1 a Day) just don’t matter to the voting calculus.
The tougher matter for Amtrak is the Senate, because the short haul caucus is far from 51 votes.
quote: Here is what I deem the Amtrak Funding Caucus
53..California _5..Connecticut _1..Delaware 18..Illinois _9..Indiana _9..Massachusetts 14..Michigan 12..New Jersey 27..New York 16..Ohio 18..Pennsylvania 11..Virginia 10..Washington
Bottom line is 203. That means these folk only have to find 15 votes to get a majority for Amtrak.
The Senate is harder, the vote count is only half of the need at 26. That's enough to do some issues horse trading.
So, where I once thought 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, and 7/8 mattered to Amtrak, I say now, as a political reality: So what, who cares? Post the 180 day discontinuance notices on the STB website. That Superliner stock can be used for 2d runs on several of the Chicago-East Coast routes, which fall in the 750 mile limit.
The One a Day runs are no longer part of the political calculus, imnsho.
posted
I don’t understand all this speculation. I’ll take what Anderson has said at face value until proven otherwise.
He supports all state fundied corridor services (why wouldn’t he if someone else pays?)
He has also said he thinks there is a place for experiential trains. He specifically mentioned the CZ, CS, EB, and ‘maybe’ Florida service. I suspect the Texas Eagle will also survive as a CHI-KC-Oklahoma City (aka Heartland) train to Fort Worth. No economic justification necessary or possible, and it might make a few congressional members happy.
Beyond that, use your AGR points before the 2020 Amtrak reauthorization.
The only hope for the SWC, beyond the truncated segments, is for NM and CO to support a front range train from Denver to Trinidad and then over to Albuquerque. It’s certainly viable down to Pueblo, not sure about over Raton. CO could certainly use some of their weed money and all the LD train off miles as bargaining chips with UP/BNSF for track capacity down the front range
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If wonder, if Mr. Anderson kills many to most of the LD route, the loss of passenger fares from those routes are of significance? I don't know how accurate this figure is, but I've read that, in 2015, passenger fares covered 75% of Amtraks costs. I don't know if much of this reflects the "profitability" of the NEC or if the entire Amtrak system is of importance. If Amtrak discontinues the LD routes, I don't think just having the NEC is a panacea, with track maintenance costs, etc, which can be huge.
Also, a few years ago, a few (freight) railroad presidents expressed, privately, that if they could obtain some of the subsidy that Amtrak gets, a consideration might be made for running their own passenger trains.
Going back to the plans for the SW Chief, I really think that a bus link is a terrible idea. I think that passenger interest, in the route, would drop precipitously with a bus link. Also, even if a stretch didn't have PTC, I think a bustitute with the possibility of highway accidents is something that should be considered.
I think the heart of the problem is determining if Amtrak is truly a national service, or if that notion could be changed so that Amtrak corridors without LD routes could become rational. How many times do you see few (if any) passengers on buses or light rail trains, at least during non-commute hours. While living in San Jose, CA, I found this to be quite common. Yet, San Jose spent millions for light rail. The explanation would be that ridership isn't important, but having the service is very important.
I am ambivalent. I don't disparage Mr. Anderson's look at loses, e.g. in food services and LD trains, in general. In fact, if Roger Anderson ever gets tired of running Amtrak maybe he could run for Gov. of Calif. We need a lot of budget chopping. For example, CALTRANS, which takes care road repair and construction, costs us Californians 2-4 X the national average for each mile of road repair. The proposed budget for CALTRANS is 10.9 billion. We are leaders in extremely high gas taxes, property taxes, and state income tax. In 2017, Gov. Brown asked for another 52 billion in taxes. He addressed Californians, who are disturbed at paying such high taxes, as "freeloaders". Yes, I would vote for Mr. Anderson in the next gubernatorial election.
Or, as the late Sen. Everett Dirkson would say, "a billion here and a billion there, and you're talking real money".
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, I was interested in your comments about California. I have this uneasy feeling about your state. It seems the Tech companies have taken over the economy excessively driving up prices along the coast. To provide the infrastructure for that growth the governor is raising taxes that of course affects all. While this may be good news for CalTrain, it certainly disproportionately affects lower and middle class households., The result is that many seem to be fleeing to the outlying areas if not to other states. Is the bubble going to burst?
But, regarding this thread, I suspect very few in that state care about the fate of the CZ, Sunset, SWC and Starlight. It’ll be interesting to see if Anderson tries to redesign those trains to serve some type of corridor service. Outside of splitting the CS into northern and southern CA trains and Bay Area to Reno service, not sure what else could be done.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Palmland, the economic situation in Calif. is driving people, in droves, out of the state. Not only because of high taxes, but also because of crime, problems concerning the lack of abundant water resources, and cities which have become increasingly uninhabitable. Very scary is the problem of unfunded liabilities, especially pension funds needed for retiring Calif workers. Estimated figures are over 1 trillion for the long haul. I guess Calif. will be looking for a windfall of Monopoly money, from the feds, to take care of the problem.
I agree with your last paragraph. Splitting the CS into northern and southern sections has been discussed, on this forum, before. It may well happen.
Caltrains, at one time, considered terminating in one of the towns well north of Sacramento. If the Coast Starlight disappears, possibly a Corridor train could eventually hook up with a Cascade train, somewhere, if there would be consent from both Calif. and Oregon. For the SWC and CZ, I hear more talk of train consolidation. Possibly a 3-way split for a single train westward, the 3 way diversion to LA, the Bay Area, and to the Northwest.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, your comment about a 3 way split of western trains prompted me to pull out my old UP timetables. Remember the City of Everywhere? While I don’t have one for 1970, I was surprised to see my 1969 one still listed two trains. The City of Denver was combined with the City of Portland as far as North Platte. The City of LA and San Francisco made their split at Ogden.
The current CZ route into Denver is better than the UP because it is a direct route. Amtrak’s Everywhere West train would continue to Salt Lake on existing route, PTC permitting. At Salt Lake, as you suggest, the train could split to Las Vegas and LA. I suspect this would yield better ridership than the current SWC. The CZ would continue on, as it does now, to Sacramento and then Emeryville. At Sacramento it would meet and transfer a sleeper and coach to the Shasta Starlight running from Emeryville to Portland on a schedule to have an afternoon CZ connection and early am arrival in Portland with connections there to the Cascade service and a new daylight state sponsored service to Spokane and maybe Whitefish on a seasonal service.
Unfortunately I don’t think the leaders at Amtrak have much imagination and interest in promoting any kind of new service. It will be cut costs and let the states do what they will with the carcass. I just hope there will be enough national network left next year for my wife and I to take a 50th anniversary victory lap.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
