FY2006 Amtrak Funding.

[saxman66]

As some may know, the Bush Administration has set aside zero dollars for Amtrak. Should Amtrak get the full funding, $1.2 billion to continue, or should it go by Bush's "Amtrak reform" plan, meaning the system will shutdown.

[Haretip]

Give me option three... Amtrak needs MORE than its current level of funding. That system has been on life support for many years now. It needs some serious bucks and some rehab. Otherwise might as well let Bush pull the plug.

If they cut the funding, then they should cut ALL the funding. Zero for long haul routes, ZERO FOR THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR!

[saxman66]

Give me option three... Amtrak needs MORE than its current level of funding. That system has been on life support for many years now. It needs some serious bucks and some rehab. Otherwise might as well let Bush pull the plug.

If they cut the funding, then they should cut ALL the funding. Zero for long haul routes, ZERO FOR THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR!

Sorry about no option three. "Full" funding means what Amtrak needs, meaning above the current funding.


Zero for everything is the plan, including the Northeast. That means no rail service from Washington, to NY to Boston. (For a long time at least). Long distance runs will probably cease forever.

[msutton]

i think all of the rail stuff should be privatized. if it can happen with space travel, it should be able to happen with rail. or if not privatized at least like localized. 80% of amtrak is wasting money, and really only the northeast portion is worth the ticket price. and i LOVE trains, amtrak just sucks. it would take far too much money to take it to where it should be, so we need to find another way to get some good trains going on in america

[texman]

i think all of the rail stuff should be privatized. if it can happen with space travel, it should be able to happen with rail. or if not privatized at least like localized. 80% of amtrak is wasting money, and really only the northeast portion is worth the ticket price. and i LOVE trains, amtrak just sucks. it would take far too much money to take it to where it should be, so we need to find another way to get some good trains going on in america

Why do you think Amtrak exists? Because privitized railroads wanted out of the passenger business. And you say Amtrak sucks. Maybe because this country has never commited itself to passenger rail like it has to roads and aviation.

[slfunk]

If Amtrack were to be cut, that would be a huge setback for everyone. When I was up in NY, some of my co-workers would travel back and forth to DC by the bullet train. They would get there faster then by airplane. Mainly because of the ease of getting in and out the terminal versuses the airport. The woman incharge of setting up all the travel arangements sat a couple of seats away from my desk, and I would continously hear of her having trouble booking seats due to the bullet train being sold out. The NE would be hit hard, we would not see it that way here because from what I understand Amtrak serving DFW is more of novelty then an asset. The bullet train is still relatively new to the US, but plans for new systems have been in the works. Now I do not have concrete evidence, but have watched some of those "modern marvels" and discovery channel shows talking about all the systems being developed for the US by foreign companies. The one huge disadvantage that Amtrak has is that is operates mostly on the same rail lines as the freight trains throughout most of the country. Up in the NE that is a different story, this being due in large part to the population density and the need for multiple modes of travel.

I believe the way to go is to invest in Amtrak and upgrade the system overall to include new tracks for Amtrak that can accomodate high speed rail. It is a HUGE uphill battle from what very little I can see, and is the right direction for us to move forward.

[msutton]

i love the idea of a great high speed national rail system, but it will not happen with amtrak. it would take far too much money. we're all idealists here, but i'm trying to bring some realism to it. America will never vote to give Amtrak the money that it needs to resemble systems in Europe or Asia. it will not ever happen. if i'm not mistaken, bush's plan would give control of the systems to more local levels. i.e., the northeast stuff could continue. and without the burden of carrying almost entirely worthless service, like most inbetween chicago and california, they could upgrade tracks and really make that system great. then other regions that are not terribly spread out, perhaps simmiliar things could happen. it's also not like amtrak hasn't had time to at least come up with proposals to create better/more appropriate service for america. they've been a seriously lacking system for over half of a century now, havent they?

[Mballar]

Go Amtrak!!!
Rail Over Roads!!!

[aufdermckinneymann]

I agree rail over roads! Amtrak is as full service as any airline...if not better! SO WOOT WOOT AMTRAK!

[RobertB]

It's also not like amtrak hasn't had time to at least come up with proposals to create better/more appropriate service for america. they've been a seriously lacking system for over half of a century now, havent they?
Amtrak can't come up with proposals for blue-sky systems when Congress barely gives them money to maintain what they've already got. *I* can come up with proposals all day (see my Downtown Subway threads), but anything more than roadgeek-with-MSPaint costs money. The city of Dallas just spent $1.5 million bucks on a study that came up with a half-defined second DART line across downtown, without even identifying whether it would be at ground level or under the street. Can you imagine what a real proposal for an integrated cross-country rail system would cost?

My suggestion for making inter-city rail service work is simple: a whole lot more Auto Trains (http://on-track-on-line.com/autotrain-tips.shtml). Our entire transportation infrastructure is built around the personal vehicle, so it's not like I can take the train from St. Louis to Dallas and hope to do anything without a car. If I have to rent a car, I'm better off driving in the first place. But if Amtrak will take me *and* my car, I'm all set. I think all the inter-city routes should include Auto Train service between the major cities (you probably won't want to offer it in Mineola (http://www.texaseagle.com/stations/MIN.htm), for example).

[msutton]

robert, amtrak has had to deal with the threat of 'dying' for a long time now. the least they could have done would be to propose studies, which costs nothing. they've either a) been irresponsible or b) there really is no hope for an American rail system.

I agree, more auto-trains would be great. But there must be a reason that Amrak has not expanded that. Maybe it doesn't work as well as you and i think? maybe it costs so much as to be prohibitive? as ive said before, i love trains, but amtrak is NOT cutting it, and realistically it will never get the funding that it would need to work. it would be losing billions a year. the only thing america will ever throw away money on is war.

[Mballar]

Amtrak needs a good marketing campaign. When was the last time you saw an Amtrak commercial underscoring the benefits of travel by rail?

[Mballar]

Goldman: Oil could 'spike' to $105
01:37 PM CST on Thursday, March 31, 2005


Bloomberg News

Oil may climb as high as $105 a barrel in the next several years as the market enters a "super spike" period spurred by rising demand, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts said. The firm's upper limit was $80 previously.

Rising prices are necessary to "meaningfully reduce energy consumption and recreate a spare capacity cushion," according to a note dated yesterday from Goldman Sachs analysts led by Arjun Murti, who was ranked third last year among analysts who cover the largest oil and gas companies, according to Institutional Investor magazine.

The analysts forecast 30 percent growth in earnings this year for oil companies including ChevronTexaco Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Kerr-McGee Corp., Petro-Canada and Valero Energy Corp. It has not changed the companies it favors and said owning oil companies is more important than picking individual stocks.

"The strength in oil demand and economic growth, especially in the U.S. and China, following a year of $40 to $50 per barrel WTI oil, has surprised us," the analysts wrote in their note. West Texas Intermediate crude oil, or WTI, is the benchmark U.S. grade and the basis for New York Mercantile Exchange futures.

Crude oil for May delivery rose $1.01, or 1.9 percent, to $55 a barrel on the Nymex at 10:33 a.m. today. Oil prices are up 54 percent in the past year and touched a record $57.60 on March 17. Price averaged $45.05 over the past 12 months.
__________________________________________

^No better reason than the above to find support for Amtrak

[RobertB]

^^ Especially since train engines can run on biodiesel...

[saxman66]

i think all of the rail stuff should be privatized. if it can happen with space travel, it should be able to happen with rail. or if not privatized at least like localized. 80% of amtrak is wasting money, and really only the northeast portion is worth the ticket price. and i LOVE trains, amtrak just sucks. it would take far too much money to take it to where it should be, so we need to find another way to get some good trains going on in america

Amtrak can't be privatized. It won't make money.

"80% of Amtrak is wasting money"
It costs $1.2 billion to run the Northeast Corridor each year. That's 600 miles. This carries 30% of Amtraks passenger miles. For a mere $300 million more, you can run the rest of the system. That's 22,000 miles, and 70% of Amtraks passenger miles. Cutting the so called "non-profit" routes, ie long-distance, would severely hurt the short corridor trains, only moving the costs to them, and reducing thier passenger loads. Contrary to popular belief, the long-distance trains are very efficient. One single train, say the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle, can have over 900 different roundtrips! And that does not include connections to/from routes. So even though a majority of psgrs ride under 500 miles, the ones who ride the entire route, help pay for running the entire route. Thats how you can have a train from Grand Forks, ND to Wolf Point, MT. That same train is a Fargo to St. Paul train, or a Spokane to Pasco, WA train. So getting a two-thirds of the passenger miles, for less than a third of the price sure sounds like a deal to me.

So killing Amtrak and giving the autority to the states, is like tearing down the interstate highways, then rebuilding them, under state funding. When they improve a highway, they still get the traffic through, to make it better. Amtrak has done everything in their power to improve service, but can't because it lacks funding. After a large investment, you can make the operation much more effiecient, by running more trains and routes. One single flight by an airline won't to as well, if it didn't have a network of other flights. Same with Amtrak, and rail in general. It needs a network to build off of. But you need to spend money to make money.

Not having Amtrak will cost the nation billions in recovery. No private operator will bid for Amtraks routes. Even if they did, the freight companies wouldn't be too keen of them running on their rails. By law Amtrak is allowed to traverse the rail lines, at low insurance liability rates. No Amtrak, would but the liability on the frieght company. If (and I mean if) a private operate wanted to run a passenger service, it would cost billions just to start the system, and liabilities would sky rocket as well. Amtrak is in debt. Congress now would have to pay Amtrak's debt. The states can't afford opening up lines. Sure they should open up corridors, but what if a long distance train traversed that state? If a state didn't pay for its portion, it would "run closed door through that state." (Secretary Mineta). That would mean huge revenue losses, and just plain does not make sense. You may as well close all the exits on I-10 in Texas, because Texas decided not to fund it. (not that it would happen)

Well I hope you all walk away with alittle more knowledge about passenger trains. Dont get me wrong; I'm all for states paying for passenger rail as well as private operators coming in. But that's in addition to the feds funding and Amtrak service as well; not in place of.

Chris

[drumguy8800]

That article about gas prices makes me feel sick.

[msutton]

chris, you said an awful lot without much to back it up. if you have something proving that by closing long-haul roots amtrak would lose more money, then i very well may change part of my opinion. but i cant do that just becuase you say it's so. My impression, from the one time that i rode the texas eagle, was that over half of the seats were empty. granted i only rode from Dallas to Austin (a big mistake, by the way, it took two hours longer than it has ever taken me to drive there), but im pretty sure if, say, an airline were running a route that only filled half of the seats they'd shut it down. or at least run smaller planes on it.

also, if the government currently makes amtrak able to run on the lines, why can't they 'make' freight companies allow private or state-financed trains run on the tracks? amtrak's already an "independent", if federally funded, entity.

Chris, how much more in federal $$ would it take to get Amtrak to a position where it would actually become a viable alternative to car travel, or plane travel in areas other than the Northeast? Wouldn't it basically require getting entirely new trains, or at least parts of trains and/or building thousands of miles of new or improved track?

And also, why does Congress not already have to pay Amtrak's debt? If Amtrak files chapter 7 bankruptcy then wouldnt congress not have to pay all of the debts?

i'd love for amtrak to be a great system, but as i've said before, i do not see how it could possibly happen in america. and whats the point in running a system that relatively few people use (even in the northeast, though its much higher than in the rest of the country) that is losing money and getting worse service every day? as much as i'd love to put all the money from the war into amtrak, it will NEVER happen, and obviously amtrak cannot provide acceptable service in the eyes of most americans. so why not try something different?

[texman]

My impression, from the one time that i rode the texas eagle, was that over half of the seats were empty.

You say Chris doesnt have any facts to back his talk up, but obviously you don't either from that statement above. The Texas Eagle has had awsome ridership levels, and over a 16% increase from last year...http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/08/09/daily5.html


also, if the government currently makes amtrak able to run on the lines, why can't they 'make' freight companies allow private or state-financed trains run on the tracks? amtrak's already an "independent", if federally funded, entity.

Making the frieght railroads do something is not that easy. Remeber, passenger service delays their frieght service with little benefit to them. Also if someone is trying to go from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City, how would one of these 'state financed' trains work if Oklahoma doesnt agree to funding? Stop at the red river?


Chris, how much more in federal $$ would it take to get Amtrak to a position where it would actually become a viable alternative to car travel, or plane travel in areas other than the Northeast? Wouldn't it basically require getting entirely new trains, or at least parts of trains and/or building thousands of miles of new or improved track?

Probably about 5 billion. Still a small sum compared to aviation and road.

[msutton]

You say Chris doesnt have any facts to back his talk up, but obviously you don't either from that statement above. The Texas Eagle has had awsome ridership levels, and over a 16% increase from last year...http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2004/08/09/daily5.html

First, I spoke in a very subjective way. Nothing objective about my statement on Amtrak travel. "My impression, from the one time that i rode the texas eagle, was that over half of the seats were empty." I did not claim to have numbers. I did not claim any absolutes. I simply stated, very clearly in a subjective way, that in my experience the Texas Eagle seemed to have very low ridership.

Now, for your article, all I see is that there has been an increase.

"Ridership has also risen dramatically this year, he said. Approximately 172,684 riders traveled on the Texas Eagle between Oct. 1 and June 30 -- up 16 percent increase over the same period a year earlier.

That's good news for the Texas Eagle, which has been threatened with cutbacks and even cancellation several times in the past few years, because of slow ridership. A groundswell of opposition from Texas has forced the railroad to abandoned those plans, so far."

Which is terrific! Still, that does not say that there is more than 50% of seats filled. Indeed, that last paragraph seems to say that, quite possibly, my experience was a normal one, if not a busy day (my trip was the summer of 2001). If there used to be, for instance, merely 30% of seats filled, a 16 percent increase wold mean that it was at, what, about 35% of seats filled? I hope that's not the case, and I'm just giving perhaps a "worst case scenario" example, but here your evidence is just a bit too vague to really say that my impression was wrong (which it may be, we just cannot tell from this article. I'm fully aware I may have gone on an off day, but I have no reason to believe that until I see otherwise).


You should learn your Amtrak history. Frieght railroads learned that passenger rail wasnt a profitable business(but that didnt mean it wasnt needed) so the government offered to take up all rail passenger service, hence the creation of Amtrak. http://www.amtrakhistoricalsociety.com/bah.htm One of the reasons frieght railroads couldnt hold a passenger service is because they were not subsidized like the other transportation modes. The likelyhood of them taking up passenger service is minimal since they are the frieght business and have opposed Amtrak running on their rails for some time now. Sorta gives you an idea of the chances of them taking up un-profitable(even if subsidized) passenger service which would delay their frieght service even more.

I'm not saying freight companies should take up passenger rail. I'm simply saying that some other possible method should be searched for. There has to be some great creative thinker out there to put something forward when Amtrak is obviously not meeting anyone's expectations. Maybe it will turn out that the only way for passenger rail to work in America is throwing Billions and Billions of $$ at it, but theres no way of knowing that right now, and other alternatives should be explored. I'm not a rail engineer or even a terribly bright guy so I don't have any solutions, but I am bright enough to see that when something is broke, you should try to fix it.


Probably about 5 billion. Still a small sum compared to aviation and road.

Hmm, interesting, what makes you think that would be the cost? And is that your projection for all high-speed rail, or for merely current services, but with all trains in full working order, sparkly inside, and everything running on time?

[msutton]

Adding this to keep up to date with your edited post:



Making the frieght railroads do something is not that easy. Remeber, passenger service delays their frieght service with little benefit to them. Also if someone is trying to go from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City, how would one of these 'state financed' trains work if Oklahoma doesnt agree to funding? Stop at the red river?

Well, are they not "making" them allow Amtrak now? That was my impression of the statement. Passenger service is already delaying their freight service. The government would simply still help passenger service use the rails, just not have national funds going to the rail.

If it were a totally state financed system (not something I'm endorsing, just an option that I've read mentioned with this whole mess that I threw out), if OK didnt agree to funding but Texas wanted to use that rail, then yes, I guess it would stop at the red river, unless Texas wanted to pay more to get it into Oklahoma City.

[msutton]

So, this (as of yesterday, at least) seems to be the central part of the government's proposal for Amtrak. I think it sounds very smart, but since some of you may be more educated on the issue, please demonstrate the problems that you have with it for me?

"Under the proposal, Amtrak would transition into three companies: a private passenger rail company that would operate trains under contract to states and multistate compacts; a private rail infrastructure company that would maintain and operate the infrastructure on the northeast corridor; and the National Passenger Rail Corp., which would continue as a government corporation that would retain Amtrak's current right to use the tracks of the freight railroads and the Amtrak corporate name."

from:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/03/28/daily28.html?GP=OTC-MJ1752087487

[msutton]

More on the overall plan, this from Apr. 23:

" "Amtrak is dying, and if we continue down the current track, there is no hope of recovery," Mineta said in a statement. "We have a different vision, where the Northeast Corridor becomes a world-class example of modern passenger-rail travel."

Mineta said by having the government promise to upgrade tracks, tunnels and bridges along the transportation corridor, Amtrak would be better equipped to focus on running a more competitive transportation network.

The Bush plan is aimed at boosting competition by letting states choose from Amtrak, private companies, or public rail operators to run certain routes. The plan also calls for the federal government to match state investments in rail infrastructure upgrades.

The Bush administration plans to submit the Amtrak reform proposal, known as the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, when Congress returns to full session in April. "

from:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/03/21/daily37.html?GP=OTC-MJ1752087487

[texman]

Here, I don't feel like explaining it all, but heres two opposing opinions on passenger rail if it can help some people out. Obviously I'm on the side of keeping Amtrak with small reform, but also, keep what we have in general and fund it like actual transportation. Also I would like to bring up that the Bush plan only funds passenger on a 50/50 funds match by state and feds. Compare that to the 20/80 funding ratio that aviation and highways benefit from. Not really fair.

Against privitization: http://www.epinet.org/books/amtrak/amtrak_intro.pdf
For privitization: http://www.rppi.org/transportation/ps235.html

Here an intresting proposel from Kay Bailey which I'm all for,but it went no where in congress. It calls for spliting up and privatizing some of Amtrak's services, but still keep Amtrak running the trains: http://hutchison.senate.gov/prl467.htm

[saxman66]

More on the overall plan, this from Apr. 23:

" "Amtrak is dying, and if we continue down the current track, there is no hope of recovery," Mineta said in a statement. "We have a different vision, where the Northeast Corridor becomes a world-class example of modern passenger-rail travel."

Mineta said by having the government promise to upgrade tracks, tunnels and bridges along the transportation corridor, Amtrak would be better equipped to focus on running a more competitive transportation network.

The Bush plan is aimed at boosting competition by letting states choose from Amtrak, private companies, or public rail operators to run certain routes. The plan also calls for the federal government to match state investments in rail infrastructure upgrades.

The Bush administration plans to submit the Amtrak reform proposal, known as the Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act, when Congress returns to full session in April. "

from:
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/03/21/daily37.html?GP=OTC-MJ1752087487

Here are some sources to which I believe Mineta has very bad ideas.

"Amtrak Fact Check" from the National Association of Railroad Passengers.:
http://www.narprail.org/factcheck.pdf
This specifically states that cutting long distance service, like the Texas Eagle, will only save a mere $300 million.

Questions and Answers about Amtrak bankruptcy: http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=act%2Ehtm

Common Myths about Amtrak: http://www.narprail.org/default.asp?p=act%2Ehtm