RENSSELAER — It's considered one of the 10 most scenic rail journeys in the world.
But if you want to take it, you might not want to dally.
The state's subsidy for the Adirondack, which offers daily service between New York and Montreal through Albany, is on the chopping block, and that could result in the curtailment of service, passenger rail advocates fear.
According to the state Division of the Budget, Gov. David Paterson proposes cutting the annual $5 million subsidy in half under his 2009-10 budget. But that, says Empire State Passengers Association President Bruce Becker, would lead to "some pretty drastic service adjustments."
Although I've never ridden The Adirondack, I certainly agree that the route is scenic. It was indeed a pleasure to watch the D&H RS-3's lean into the curves along Lake Champlain from the comforts of the Parlor-Obs on The Laurentian.
Since there now seems to be "Feddybanks, feddyinsurance, feddycars", why not have another "feddytrain"? This could be a move on the part of Gov. Paterson or designates to get The Adirondack 100% Federally funded. Since NY is an overwhelming 'credit state", i.e. they put more into the Federal till than they ever take out, a sense of "entitlement' could be felt. Problem there of course is that other states, particularly those with large passenger train initiatives, i.e. CA and PA, could well try to blackmail the Federal government, with its ostensibly "pro-rail" incoming Administration as well - and so goes adios the Bush initiative to have services funded at local levels.
But if the Adirondack is to hang up the Adios drumhead, what has been lost? I'll concede a scenic excursion, but has a reliable service that is time competitive with highway travel serving meaningful population centers been lost?, I don't think so.
Finally, let us consider that The Adirondack is confronted with reliability issues owing to border formalities. There is simply not enough passenger train volume to have inspectors from both countries riding trains such as they did during 1956 when I first visited Canada. Additionally, I once learned that because Canadian National did not join Amtrak (even if several US subsidiaries did) and hence were not party to provisions of the May 1, 1971 Agreement with regards to access, they wanted and got "an arm and a leg' for such over their rails. This of course, if still prevalent, raises the cost of operating The Adirondack - and no doubt was factor in having The Vermonter terminate at St Albans.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Mr Norman, I STRONGLY beg to differ. Being time competitive with highway travel might mean a lot on the commute from Trenton to Baltimore, or New York City to Washington DC. It means a lot less on one of the ten most scenic trains in the world. The Adirondack should no more be de-funded than Yellowstone Park should be, or a beach, or the Statue of Liberty . . . Yes, it takes longer than driving. But you can see so much more, you are on the very edge of Lake Champlain for hours. It connects with the Port Kent ferry in summer too.
When I took it this fall, with the dome car, there were many people who had come to New York State (from Pennsylvania, NJ, MD, VA, and others) simply to take it. Several stayed in Albany. So, anyway, it was generating tourist dollars that you cannot measure simply by checking how much the train itself makes. And btw, ridership was up 11 percent last year.
Also, the train is often reliable. It was just 10 minutes late when I took it up, and only late going down because of some CVS trackwork (about which I was phoned and informed in advance).
As far as border delays, these ought to be handled better, there is no question. They are certainly handled better Seattle to Vancouver, a busy route.
Finally, I should point out (as the article does) that New York State gives ridiculously little to Amtrak, far less than many other states. I am not sure why! But Amtrak does make some money between Albany to NYC (inc Hudson, Rhinecliff stops) so maybe that is why it doesn't require it?
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
quote:Since NY is an overwhelming 'credit state", i.e. they put more into the Federal till than they ever take out, a sense of "entitlement' could be felt.
The first part of this may be true in the past, but, is it now? I sincerely doubt it. It certainly is not when it comes to Amtrak, which in New York State does of the Federal dime what is done almost everywhere else by local funds, and that is not to mention the huge money sinkhole that is the Northeast Corridor. (Yes, I think the high speed corridor is a good idea, but should have a lot more local money into it.)
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I believe a response to the immediate postings is warranted; they were presented here is a mature and respectful manner, and so accordingly will be my response.
First to address Ms. Sojourner's points. "You the People" of New York have been willing for the past thirty four years, to provide funding for what essentially is a scenic rail excursion. For the reasons you note, and I am not about to dispute, The Adirondack does bring vacationers to the region it serves. RPSA '70 was wise in its provisions contained within Section 403(b) of that Act, whereby if the Federal level could not justify operating a service, the mechanics were in place to have a service operated that a local jurisdiction was prepared to fund.
But unfortunately "You the People' are looking in the piggy-bank, and there's not too much copper looking back - 'sumppins gotta giv'.
To continue however, your statement that New York State gives ridiculously little to Amtrak is true to the extent that it gives little to the operation of Amtrak trains under 403(b) (the Adirondack is the only train so funded) needs amplification. NY has made massive funding for passenger rail infrastructure. Examples include electrification White Plains-Brewster on the Harlem Division, extensions of same on the L I R R, constant tension catenary on the New Haven to Byram (Connecticut, "we're working on it'), track improvements enabling higher speeds on the Hudson Division as well as on the New Haven RR, and the Local portion of funding for a substantial reequip of the NYC and L I R R MTA services. In short, New York's passenger rail $$$ have gone where the people are and not 'where they ain't'.
Addressing Mr. Harris' comment, I'll certainly agree that New York is hardly the 'credit state' that it has been in the past. If the $$$$ that have been and will be disbursed under the TARP in great part to firms HQ'd in New York are deemed to be an "entitlement', then New York has become a 'debit' state - big time. Add to that what the Federally sponsored SIPC will cough up now that Bernie "Made off" with the loot.
However, if transactions under TARP represent the purchase of securities that once the recovery takes hold (it won't be tomorrow, volks) the Federal Reserve will be able to sell these securities on the open market and for a profit. Lest we forget the government has made money in the past on certain bailouts - one of which just happened to be ....Conrail.
Finally, if The Adirondack must be a sacrificed to meet the shortfall in MTA funding, so be it, for such a move simply represents a prudent allocation during austere times. "You run your trains with what you have and not what you want".
posted
Well, Mr Norman, you have made my point. NYS spends a fortune on the commuter trains in the NYC & NYC suburban areas that you mention, and is even helping Connecticut to boot. Yet the little pittance it gives Amtrak is about to be cut. And don't forget, Amtrak operates the Empire Service line, with trains to Niagara Falls, 1 to Toronto, and many between NYC & Albany.
This idea of going where the people are and blahblahblah--I can't help but think it is part of the ideas of IMO shortsighted people who care only about short-term money matters and cannot see the forest for the trees. In fact, in the same way that many people on this board rightly complain of far too much attention among some pols to the NEC at the expense of the rest of the country's trains, it's the same attitude you are arguing for--only care about trains where the very most people are. Trains are simply all commuter trains to you.
That's ridiculous. NYS is a state, not a city. Fewer people may live in an area, but it is still the responsbility of the state to service that area. There is piss-poor public transportation north of Albany except the Adirondack. And having Adirondacks Park, and a train through it, is part of the beauties of the state that people in the more congested areas can take advantage of. Having passenger train ties to Canada for us to visit there, and for Canadian and European tourists, is part of the wonders of the state. It doesn't matter if there are fewer people in the area this train serves, any more than it matters that there are fewer people on the Empire Builder line etc etc. And remember too, regarding NYC, there may be no other city in the whole country where so many people live who rely on public transportation and don't even own cars, and those people like having long-distance passenger trains to take them to other parts of the country, and to Montreal, instead of having to rent cars, or take a (puke) bus, or fly what is not really a long distance. . . .
I don't have time to argue more. It is just stupid, that's all I can say. And once it's gone, it won't come back. Like the Chicago to Toronto train, and the Vermont train to Montreal, and the SL east of New Orleans.
Any rail fan should be willing to argue for one of the 10 most beautiful train rides in the WORLD, for the most beautiful train ride east of the Mississippi.
There is another bottom line, and it has to do with our heritage.
PullmanCo Member # 1138
posted
Ms Sojourner...
You have a legislature in the State of New York. It's a smaller version of my Federal 218+51+1. When a majority of your lower House, a majority of your upper House, and your Governor re-buy-in to this service, it will happen.
Elsewise, it will not.
Let them know you care!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I hope that my earlier postings, where I reflected on both sides of the coin, have not suggested I am advocating the Adirondack be killed. Whether or not The Adirondack survives is a local NY matter. I believe the impact of a passenger train on CP freight operations over the D&H is less than that made by Amtrak operations on other Class I's such as the UP, as the D&H was as good as out of business on C-Day (the interchange with the ERIE at Binghamton was kaput and routings for E-W traffic over the NYC via Ogdensburg were simply more favorable to Big Blue) even if it stumbled along under several owners until the inevitable March 15, 1988 Bankruptcy petition.
Therefore it is a New York matter regarding how scarce resources are allocated. The choice is simply whether funds should be allocated to this scenic excursion so that people like Ms. Sojourner who enjoy the ambiance of a train can continue to do so or whether people are efficiently moved in the regions of the State "where the people are".
The ball is in the court of NY residents (of which I am not; while "grey", I may have been one during 1962 & 63). As Mr. Pullman notes, let those folks you elected know what you want; what I personally want is of no concern.
Finally, to perfect Mr. Pullman's immediate point; source: Constitution of The State of New York:
Section 1. The legislative power of this state shall be vested in the senate and assembly. § 2. The senate shall consist of fifty members, except as hereinafter provided. The senators elected in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five shall hold their offices for three years, and their successors shall be chosen for two years. The assembly shall consist of one hundred and fifty members. The assembly members elected in the year one thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight, and their successors, shall be chosen for two years.
posted
You may or may not be able to access this material; however here is The Adirondack as it was shortly afteri the 1974 inauguration. During the 1974-76 period, the train was essentially a "turnkey' contractual operation by the D&H; Amtrak and the State simply paid the bills. At that time, D&H Alco PA locomotives were on the head.
posted
GBN, The link takes me to a billing information page.
TB
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
....plus a $60 Xmas gift to the carrier (WSJ too; that's only $300).
I do like my papers, but they "ain't a dime a pop no more".
TBlack Member # 181
posted
GBN, I get the Times on Sat. & Sun. Would that give me the same access to archives as you have?
TB
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I would think so, Mr. Black, but apparently not. Just the same, check your US Mail next couple of days.
notelvis Member # 3071
posted
Fascinating that no Amtrak cross-border train, apparantly, was ever part of the 'national' system and thus not reliant on state dollars for it's operation.
Personally, I think at the very least there should be New York-Montreal, New York-Toronto, Chicago-Toronto, and Seattle-Vancouver cross-border trains operating daily and that these should be part of the 'national' system.
Call me an advocate!
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Lest we forget the Montrealer, Mr. Presley - Federally funded.
RPSA '70 called for "International Service", which considering that The Montrealer was inaugurated during 1972, was certainly a "lightning" response. Also inaugurated during 1973 was the Ft Worth-Laredo Inter American which was coordinated toconnect with the NdeM Aztec Eagle to Mexico DF. Seattle-Vancouver Pacific International also dates from 1973.
But access to Canada has always been a "high cost" adventure for Amtrak. The reason simply is that both Canadian roads knew Amtrak was mandated to provide International service both under the Act, but also from one of the first appropriations made to this "for profit" business entity (LOL; anyone in the industry at that time did just that), specifically called for such service. Both roads also knew that they were not covered by the Act (it's legislation - not a Treaty) and hence were not party to Amtrak's "right of access'. Also, the Canadian roads were beyond any jurisdiction and remedies that the National Arbitration Panel (a panel established under the Act for the purpose of adjudicating disputes between Amtrak and the railroads) could afford. In short, it was time for a little "sock it to 'em". As I noted much earlier in the topic, that access to Montreal, be it the Montrealer or Adirondack costs "heap big wampum". It is no wonder that Amtrak and its local sponsor (NYDOT) considered a reroute into Montreal over the CP and to Windsor Station (whatever it's called nowadays - something French), but that was considered to provide no real benefit and apparently dropped.
So let's recognize that any additional direct services to Canada other than the interline NY-Toronto are going to be costly; accordingly I would guess that Amtrak is not interested in having any more of such than they must.
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
The US Government spent the 1950's building a highway system to rival the big bad railroads. the only thing the many of the todays government railroad burueacrats know is to spend and pay themselves like the railroad tycoons of old. That is on themselves not on services.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Mr. Tanner, I'm sorry, but your immediate point needs to be perfected.
During 1970 when I hired on with a Class I after college graduation, it was public record the CEO (called President back then) of my road earned about $115K. By comparasion, the 2008 compensation, again public record, of BNSF's CEO Matthew Rose was $14.8M (or does $148,000K speak louder?).
Should you choose to withdraw the posting, I will do same with this material.
ehbowen Member # 4317
posted
Mr. Norman, as a college dropout I hesitate to correct a retired CPA on his mathematics, but I do believe that your comment on Mr. Rose's salary is off by a factor of ten. By my reckoning, $14.8M is actually $14,800K.
It is still a legitimate question as to whether Mr. Rose's work and performance is worth a hundred times more than the Milwaukee Road's CEO in 1970, even with inflation. However, if you were to compare the net profits generated by both corporations, as well as their market value as reflected in stock price times shares outstanding, I think Mr. Rose's claim to his salary is defensible.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
I stand corrected, Mr. Bowen; further I will never say that the MILW was a well managed road. It was a victim of its own managerial hubris, cronyism, and sorry to say at the end, outright dishonesty.
Henry Kisor Member # 4776
posted
Are my eyes deceiving me, or is GBN issuing a "skinback" (as we say in the media business) to EHBowen almost THREE YEARS after the fact?
How did this come about, GBN? Were you surfing old messages and suddenly found one that you felt needed a response, even a late one?
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
That's about right, Mr. Kisor.
Jerome Nicholson Member # 3116
posted
Oh. You had me going! This thread is three years old! I wondered how New York had another Governor named "Paterson" so soon!
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
As long as we're playing "Back to the Future," thanks to Gil, there's this:
posted
i believe that the BNSF owns the trackage not only from the border to New Westminster, BC but also to Central Pacific Station used by both Via and Amtrak in Vancouver, even though CN dispatches the latter portion. This was once GN's access to Vancouver.
In any case, BNSF still operates a yard one block south of the station, which means it has at least traffic rights.
Therefore, Amtrak access to Vancouver probably does not depend on the mercies of CN.
Note that the train we are discussing does regular Empire service between NYP and Schenectady, which should be tempering some economic pressure on this route, which as others have said is simply beautiful and one of my favorites in the world.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
quote:Originally posted by ehbowen: Mr. Norman, as a college dropout I hesitate to correct a retired CPA on his mathematics, but I do believe that your comment on Mr. Rose's salary is off by a factor of ten. By my reckoning, $14.8M is actually $14,800K.
Mr.Bowen, I promise you that CPA's today, active or retired, just reach for the Calc, I feel sorry for these Eighth Grade kids that have to figure out problems without one. When I sat for the CPA exam during May '73, Calcs were not allowed, but when working a problem, you could be pretty sure you were OK If it came out even. Now they allow Calcs, but I have to wonder if the examiners allow the candidates the aforementioned "luxury" I enjoyed.
yukon11 Member # 2997
posted
I'm starting to feel old.
When I went to college, back in the 60's, we didn't have calculators, we had slide rules. The engineering students had leather holsters, for their slide rules, which they strapped on to their belts.
Richard
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
As a 1960's engineering student, yes I was one of those wandering around with a sliderule on my belt. One of the most frequently asked dumb questions asked by the non-engineering majors was, "how do you add with it" and they then decided that it was useless if you could not add and subtract. These things were expensive. I still remember what I paid for it, $22.50, and that when the minimum wage was $1.15 (or was it $1.25, which I do not remember other than for my first job the minimum wage was $1.00 per hour)
Manufacture of sliderule ceased quite a few years ago as the market disappeared. The cost of a calculator that could do all and more had become less, and the calculator gave you more significant figures of precision and you did not have to figure out where the decimal belonged.
The last time I ever used mine was when I took the PE exam in 1974, as the $100 calculator I had would not do powers and roots other than square and square root. Yes, they did let us use calculators and slide rules on the PE exam, and the EIT portion as well. Also, all the books and notes you could carry.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Why is this posted here and now. It's very confusing! This habit of not starting new threads for new topics is a very bad one.
Ocala Mike Member # 4657
posted
It's called "thread creep," Ms. sojourner, and it's one of the things I love about the internet. Different strokes and all that, I guess.
posted