posted
He (Mr. Mineta) said he expects to be appointed soon to head the Amtrak Board of Directors. Using that key position, he said he expects to "look at selective routes and promote them instead of trying to blanket the country with routes that are not financially viable." If Mr. Mineta's vision comes true, it will represent an entirely new direction for Amtrak. The only remaining routes will run along the East and West coasts and between a few major Midwestern cities, such as Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and New Orleans. All the other routes -- some of which are staples of transportation for mid-sized cities -- could simply disappear.
Summed up: he wants to discontinue long-distance trains. Passenger revenue would drop, along with mail and express, which is a very important revenue source for Amtrak. Knowing Congress, if these lines were cut, subsidies would probably be cut, so Amtrak would be in the same boat as it is today.
Posts: 553 | From: Flagstaff, AZ USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of ALL people, who would guess that the nation's own Secretary of Transportation would be strongly opposed to a national system of long-distance passenger-rail ??
I am shocked by his attitude and I sincerely hope I am not alone !!
Think of the countless HUNDREDS of cities that will no longer be served by a passenger train.
I am extremely disappointed in him. Although I was sad that Tommy Thompson did not get the transportation secretary post , initially I heard GOOD things about Mineta and how he felt about a NATIONAL system for passenger-rail.
And if I am not mistaken, did he not just address the NARP and express DIFFERENT "opinions" about the future of long-distance rail ??
Well, I tell you what , I am going to travel as much as I possibly can in the near months ahead----because I really believe the end of long-distance passenger rail is in sight.
Everybody has been "focusing" on 2003. The "carpet" may well be "pulled" on Amtrak WAY before then----I am totally dismayed and SHOCKED by this very REAL possibility.
I can not help but blame freight-rail for MUCH of Amtrak's "woes." Mark my word, freight-rail may be "next." Most of freight-rail is probably DELIGHTED to know that Amtrak (as we know it) may very well be gone within a matter of months. Little does it know that its future is also quite uncertain. The trucking industry would most certainly be delighted if freight-rail "falls" , too-----more business for THEM.
If Amtrak does "fall" , I hope every Senator and Representative in Congress who supported it will "focus" their attention on freight-rail and ITS real "necessity."
I hate to say this, but PERHAPS the BEST thing that could happen to long-distance passenger-rail will be to have the nation be WITHOUT it for a time. Let those "in power" fully realize that maybe it served a useful "purpose" after-all !!
posted
To be honest, I think we are almost "beyond" the letter writing stage , at this point in time. The "powers that be" simply do NOT think our country needs a "national" passenger-rail system. I think the "writing is on the wall" with Amtrak. It will simply "tread water" until 2003 and then slowly "fade into the sunset."
All this talk about the major bond issue that would "save" Amtrak and offer it a future is simply "rhetoric." If there actually WAS enough support to pass the legislation , it would have been done so ALREADY (my opinion.)
When one considers all the opposition Amtrak has had (since day one) , it is amazing it has survived as long as it HAS.
We simply MUST admit that the highway , freight-rail , and aviation lobbies (combined) are simply too much for Amtrak to contend with. Why the freight-rail lobby ALONE is over-whelming. In countries where passenger-rail IS a success, the government and populus support it completely. Not so in this country. Americans , by and large , simply do not wish to "embrace" passenger-rail as a "viable" travel option (PARTICULARLY long-distance passenger-rail.)
Travel agents , by and large , will NOT suggest Amtrak as a travel option. This is "in general" now, so do not misunderstand me. There certainly ARE agents that DO. But certainly they are the exception rather than the rule.
To really "rebirth" passenger-rail would take a 100 billion dollar commitment by the Congress. There is simply NO way that will ever happen---regardless of how much support Amtrak seems to have in Congress.
After Mineta made his comments about HIS "vision" for Amtrak , WHY (if there really IS more support in Congress than we realize) did NO ONE seem to respond to them.
The Congress men and women who DO support a truly NATIONAL system of passenger-rail never seem to be very VOCAL about their support----ESPECIALLY at this very "difficult" time. The Congress has so MANY important issues to discuss that "saving" Amtrak seems to be the LEAST of anybody's worry.
I hate to be "critical" of the NARP , but sometimes I wonder whether or not IT has really attempted to present Americans with enough information related to WHY Amtrak is "failing." Why the air-waves should be literally be FLOODED with reports about Amtrak's uncertain future. I am talking ads in major newspapers, commercials, talk-shows, radio shows, flyers. At times, I feel the NARP shares too much of it "news and views" with US and NOT the general public---whose support is DESPERATELY needed if Amtrak is to be saved. I am certain the NARP does powerful lobbying in Congress. That is all well and good. But, it is a "grass-roots" effort (if anything) that will save Amtrak , and nothing else. SOMEHOW, the general public needs to be CONVINCED that passenger-rail service in this country (as we know it) is DOOMED unless immediate action is taken.
I have traveled MANY , MANY rail-miles and fellow travelers I talk to on the trains are FLABBERGHASTED when I offer them REAL facts about how Amtrak operates and why it has the problems it does. They are literally , SHOCKED. They have absolutely NO idea whatsoever. When one thinks about it, there is NO excuse for this. I say to myself , "Why does the NARP (Amtrak's strongest voice) not have literature readily available on EVERY train for passengers to read and share ? " If such literature IS available, I certainly have never seen any of it. I often wonder if the NARP (and other groups like it) feel the same "URGENCY" that you and I do.
I have always been told that Amtrak has "weathered" serious "storms" before. But folks, I am VERY concerned. Amtrak has NEVER been under such vicious attack and opposition. Personally (and I hate to say it)I truly believe there is NO way it can survive this "round" of debate in Congress. Amtrak MAY have its supporters there, but I certainly would feel better if I actually HEARD some of them right in the "HERE and NOW." I am not talking 2003----I am talking right NOW !! WHAT is everybody WAITING for ? Do YOU know ?
posted
Unfortunately, Amtrak mgmt did bring some of this on itself. Has it ever been disclosed how much debt Amtrak has incurred in order to make it through the lean times? What are its interest payments? Who does it owe money to? I realize that this is not that interesting to most folks, but the fact that this info was not made public (when requested) did not inspire confidence. If in fact the debt and interest payments were made public, where can that be located?
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to agree with Eric, that if long-distance trains were completely cut that revenue (passengers & express) and subsidies would also drop, leaving Amtrak perhaps worse off than it is now. Remember also, it has always been the plan (Senator McCain excluded) that capital subsidy would continue past 2003, and this money would "support" all services - corridor, short, and long-distance.
We all know that Amtrak will not "truly" be "operationally self-sufficient" in 2003 or any other time. But, by all agreeing to pretend equipment and track maintenance are capital expendatures, Amtrak avoids paying it's biggest "operating" expense from revenues.
Although I don't have actual financial figures from Amtrak's long-distance trains (does anyone else?), I suspect most of them lose very little money. Based on the "short-term avoidable cost" accounting Amtrak used prior to circa 1994, most trains probably cover their direct costs, and lose money only when "overhead" costs are figured in. The Cardinal probably doesn't do quite so good, but the Three Rivers should show a small (pre-overhead) "profit". Again, I'm speculating, but I don't see how Amtrak could save much money by dropping these trains; debt woulld still be $3 billion, you still have to run the car shops, etc. Finally, by cutting long-distance trains, you dismantle the structure which holds the Amtrak route-map together. How many passengers connect to or from long distance trans from the Northeast Corridor, Chicago, or California? A small percentage, but all would be lost business on the corridor services.
Until recently, I have taken a bit of a different view on Amtrak's future. My concern wasn't Amtrak's survival; my greatest concern was only that the suggestions by the Amtrak Reform Council might actually be taken seriously! However, after hearing about Mr. Mineta's remarks, and the $300 million loan request, I'm worried. We are only a little more than 100 days from the start of the next physical year - doesn't $300 million seem like an awfully large sum to need for so short a period?
MPALMER, I wonder if some information about Amtrak debt might be obtainable through a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request; this process is described on Amtrak's website. Of course, if they wouldn't release the data before, they aren't going to give it to us either.
posted
I agree completely with TALKrr that NARP isn't doing nearly enough to get the public involved in this issue. In fact I am working on a letter to NARP to state just that. Nearly everyone I talk to about Amtrak believes it should be there, and they would ride it IF it was available. Well guess what, until I told them most of these people didn't even know the Coast Starlight stops 20 miles away! Now they want to try it!
Here in California we've proven that people will ride trains if they are available. The LA to Oalkand segment of the Starlight is at capacity and a second train, the Coast Daylight, is expected to be in operation within a year.
On the profitability of the long-distance trains: I've heard it said that none of them make money, and I've heard it said that nearly all of them are mildly profitable IF you remove certain capital expenses from the equation. I don't know who to believe.
And I may be in the minority here, but I think we need to seriously consider the merits of the Amtrak Reform Council's proposals. Bear in mind that the report never advocated elimination of any routes, but it did propose a reliable source of funding as necessary to Amtrak's survival. It also proposed removing Amtrak's day to day operations from the political process, and turning over the NEC infrastructure to either a separate entity or a separate division of Amtrak.
Call me crazy, but I think the ARC has made a lot of valid points. We dismiss them at our peril.
One thing is certain, Amtrak cannot survive in its current form. It is dependent on the political whims of Congress for its funding, and thus it has never had a reliable source of revenue (such as the highway trust fund). It is crazy to think we can keep going this way. Radical changes are needed just to keep the current system intact. I don't mean to suggest the ARC report is the final answer, but I think it gives us a good place to start. Keep in mind that Congress has only one alternative to the ARC report: the liquidation of Amtrak. Therefore the ARC deserves a fair hearing from Amtrak fans. No, even more, Amtrak advocates should be working with the ARC to reach a mutually agreeable position. ------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 06-13-2001).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
