Senators Try Again To Fund And Reform Amtrak

[Bukowski Fan]

Senators Try Again to Fund and Reform Amtrak

By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A04

Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.

Supporters said the plan would place Amtrak on a firm financial footing after years of instability.

SNIP

Amtrak, the main operator of passenger trains in the country, has been beset with money-losing routes, hobbled by technical troubles, criticized for mismanagement and crippled by a lack of capital investment. Conservatives especially have questioned whether large operating subsidies for Amtrak are a wise investment.

SNIP

In addition to all the carrots, the bill offers several sticks, such as expecting Amtrak to reduce operating costs by 40 percent over six years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601459.html

Personally, I think it's about time Amtrak got some extra dough. They seem to have been getting their act together over the past few years. I always stare in wonderment at the fact that to get from Union Station to BWI, making the same stops, taking the same amount of time, it costs $6 on the MARC train, however it costs $12 on Amtrak, which runs far less frequently.

[Captain Hilts]

1. The I-95/Cap. Beltway intersection gets more money than Amtrak. What's right with that? nt

[terip64]

2. I think that this is very important! K & R

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. What is the problem with trains in the US?

I've been to England, the Netherlands, France and Germany. Trains are a vital part of the national infrastructure, both for local and long-distance travel. Given a choice, I would rather take a few extra days and travel by rail than go through the nonsense and high stress that is airport travel.

Why have trains not caught on in the United States, and why does rail travel get treated as the red haired step-child of the American transportation system?

[tanyev]

6. Exactly. We took Amtrak from Dallas to St. Louis and loved it.

I would much rather do that again than fly, but Amtrak doesn't have routes to every place you might want to go.

[MindPilot]

9. Amtrak's web site should be called youcantgettherefromhere.com

I used to be able to go from San Diego to Vegas; that route doesn't exist anymore. There is no way I can go from here to Denver without part of the trip being an 6 hour bus ride.

I hope some of those funds make it out west.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Very unlikely any money will make it west of the Mississippi

Call me cynical, but the only reason Congress has any interest in supporting rail travel is that is is still important on the east coast. Of particular interest are the train lines that connect the District of Columbia with Philadelphia and New York City. I get the impression that they would be delighted if Amtrak were reduced to a regional DC based service.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Oil, auto and tire manufacturers lobby against it. nt

[reprobate]

22. The problem with trains in the US is that the airline industry has a huge lobby,

while passenger rail has none. Therefor the airline industry gets whatever they want with little or no regulation and the passenger rail system gets nothing.

As someone with the advantage of six decades of memories I remember when passenger rail travel was a fun thing, almost an adventure. The food in the dining car was better than good, as compared with the food on the airlines today-when they serve food and not just peanuts and booze.

Back then the rail service was good, usually on time, and comparable to that in Europe.

[Lost4words]

37. You are spot on with that one!

[SeattleGirl]

23. I have no idea.

I used to take the train quite often between Seattle and Eugene. Scenery was absolutely beautiful, and the ride was relaxing (except for the time that we had to take on passengers from and east-west train during a snowstorm -- it got rather cozy).

[Joe Bacon]

30. Via Rail doesn't run it

Canada knows how to run a rail system and we won't. Sell Amtrak to Via Rail and watch how they would improve it!

[Hieronymus]

34. Thanks, that's good to know.

I've thought about traveling across Canada by VIA.

[terip64]

4. And welcome to DU!! n/t

[leesa]

5. Um...hello...WWIII???

[MindPilot]

7. Great news!! Funny how they don't bat an eye at billions for the airlines

But help a brother on the train? We're not so sure we want to do that.

[Captain Hilts]

10. People don't understand that the airlines and highways get bazillions. nt

[wakeme2008]

8. A little late Bush's friends canned the head of Amtrak that was

turning it around and then cut funding. They want to sell off the Northeast profit maker and kill the rest of Amtrak.

[Pab Sungenis]

13. Why Amtrak is failing, part 1 of veryhugenumber

Rail travel is neither the most economical nor the most efficient way to go long distances. If I take Amtrak from Philadelphia to Los Angeles, it takes most of three days and costs $154.00. If I take a plane, I can be there in six hours for only $60.00 more.

I prefer the train, but if I had to go to LA I'd be sorely tempted to fly instead.

It's only in the Northeast that cities are bunched together close enough to make rail travel between them practical and economical. That's why the Northeast corridor is profitable, and the rest of Amtrak is dying.

[DamnYank]

15. I disagree

There is plenty of untapped opportunity for greater use of rail travel in this country. It's true that the train is not a feasible option for most people traveling from NYC to Los Angeles. But over half of all domestic air travel covers distances of 500 miles or less. A high speed rail system on these routes would be competitive with air travel, especially in this era of increased security delays, etc. and would greatly reduce air congestion. Besides the Northeast Corridor there is successful rail service in California and Washington state operating over short and medium distance routes. Rail would work nationally if adequately funded.

A few years ago Trains magazine published an article where they overlaid a map of the French TGV system on a map of the eastern US at the same scale. Paris lined up with DC (if I recall correctly) with the channel ports corresponding to Lewiston and Portland, ME and the Riviera ports on the Med lining up with Orlando. It's a myth that our distances are too great for rail.

[Pab Sungenis]

19. We need faster and cheaper trains. That's the problem right now.

You mentioned Orlando in your post. Let me compare Amtrak and planes using that as my destination instead of LA. Both figures are based on dates one month from today with return a week later.

Amtrak 91 Silver Star Philadelphia/30th Street to Orlando: 20 hours each way, $244.00.
AirTran flight 620, PHL to MCO: 2-1/2 hours each way, $379.00.

Even when we factor in 2 hours for arrival, bag check, security bullshit, and typical airport funfunfun, I'm still spending an extra 16 hours on the train each way than I would be in a plane. Probably worth an extra $130.00 just to get an additional day and a half of my life back.

The disparity is even more evident if you book a vacation well in advance like I do. If I were to fly on August 17th instead of February 17, Flight 620 would only set me back $99.00, actually cheaper than Amtrak's quoted $111.00 price tag.

Let's take another example. Suppose I decide to do the absolute worst thing for the environment and my sanity and drive from my house to the Transportation and Ticket Center at Walt Disney World (since we've been using Orlando in this example). If Mapquest's estimates are to be believed, I can do the drive in 16 hours, a total of 1,017 miles. Even ignoring the hour it would take me to drive to 30th Street Station in Philly (the closest Amtrak station), security, and baggage check, driving would get me there four hours faster. If I can count on my car to average 25 miles a gallon (safe bet since most of that drive is I-95, so highway MPG would apply) and gas at $2.25/gal for regular, the drive would cost me just under $100.00 each way. Even adding in the bridge toll for the Delaware Memorial (which I'd have to pay if I drove to the Amtrak terminal anyhow) and other tolls along I-95, it would be cheaper to drive a month from today than to Amtrak it.

If Amtrak is going to succeed, we need to replace large portions of our rail infrastructure with high speed lines, new trains that can reach speeds comparable to the Accela here in the NE corridor everywhere in the nation, and much cheaper ticket prices, even (and especially) at the last minute. Otherwise, there are too many other tempting options for travel.

[MindPilot]

21. I agree and I think they sell it wrong; trains, planes and cars are different

If the object is to get from A to B as fast as possible, fly. If you need the independence and individual freedom a car provides then drive. But if you want to kick back for a couple days, turn off your Crackberry, have a few drinks, catch up on some reading, make some new friends and watch the countryside go by, train it.

I rode the train a couple years back from DC to San Diego; it was the most relaxing and therapeutic four days of my life.

Amtrak should sell the long trips, not as just transportation, but as a "land cruise".

[w4rma]

35. Not cheaper trains. Cheaper tickets. Cheap enough to make it a competitive choice to other methods

of travel. The only way to do this is through subsidies or nationalization.

Automobiles are subisidized because taxes pay for our roads.
Mass transit airplanes have gotten many huge subsidies from the government since 911.
The rail system for trains, at the very least, should be paid for with taxes.

[jpak]

24. I would love to see Amtrak service to Lewiston, Augusta and Bangor Maine

(and Bar Harbor too)

The Downeaster from Boston to Portland is pretty dern popular - extending it North would make a Good Thing better...

[Kolesar]

20. I think rail is a success with a town like Chicago as a regional hub

The Missouri and Wisconsin routes are state-subsidized and I think it is a great transportation option.

[MaineDem]

14. I love the train

I hope Congress really shores up Amtrak. It's worth it. At least here in the Northeast.

[tandot]

16. I am taking Amtrak to and from work every day and love it

It is not always on time, but it still beats the stop-and-go traffic here in the Sacramento area.

[Bryn]

17. I was practically raised on the train

My great-grandfather, grandfather, and dad were railroaders. I love riding on trains!

Here's what I found on one of train message boards:

With the loss both houses for Republicans, does the future of Amtrak look any better with much more liberal Democrats controling the spending. I realize President Bush is the primary opponent to Amtrak, but it would appear his influence in some areas is now somewhat diminished.

Not trying to start any pro/con arguments about Amtrak, just wondering if anyone has news reguarding its future.
Bob

Democrats controlling spending? Sorry I couldn't resist. While I disagree with most things Democrats do and spend money on. Amtrak is one area we both agree on. I think Amtraks future will be better, but by how much I don't know. Time will tell.

As for Republicans, many supported Amtrak, if there wasn't that support; Amtrak would be long gone. So with both parties who knows

Regards,
Gary

Sorry to say I don't see the situation improving for Amtrak.

If Congress wanted to support Amtrak, all they needed to do was garner enough votes to override any Presidential veto.
To date, I have not seen anyway near enough spine in our Congress to give Amtrak a stable long term funding source.

Dem or Rep, Red or Blue, unless our Congressman here from the public, in large enough numbers to fund Amtrak, it will be the status quo.
Chris

Too early to tell; Dems have a higher agenda and will not get around to Amtrak for months, if at all in the mid-term before the next presidential election. As far as I know, the Democrats haev not issued any policy statements regarding Amtrak or even general transportation policies. There were a few Republicans who supported Amtrak as well or better than Dems, such as Steve Latourette of Ohio. They just had little impact to date.
Peter


I don't see it getting any worse, which is an improvement.
Tom

[CRH]

18. Good Morning America how are you? ...

don't you know me I'm your favorite son? ... Arlo from the 70's singing the disappearing railroad blues while nuclear, fossil fuel exploration, Chrysler, the airlines and others were subsidized for reasons of national security or by the pork barrel. The rail infra structure was largely forgotten.
Back then we needed some of the common sense of 'Uncle Bucky' to become 'enduringly successful', but Lockheed and Standard Oil had the political platforms and the economy of the rail system was ignored in favor of two cars in every garage, the teamsters' highway systems for shipping, and rapid air travel. Forty years later we are beginning the energy resource wars and wondering what will power the future.

[happyslug]

25. More bandages.

The problem with Amtrak is that outside the North East Corridor, the trains it runs do NOT run as often as needed. Roughly to make a rail system work you need at least 4 trains going in one direction per day. People do NOT work 9-5, some work 6-2, other 10-6, some work 6-10 and then 2-6. Other people want to take the train to go someplace, stay a few hours and then return. If you look at this pattern, you quickly see that most people can NOT rely on a train system that runs one or maybe two trains a day (WHich is what Amtrak does in most of the Country). You need at least four per day per direction (i.e. 8 total between two ends of the rail corridor). For example In Pennsylvania, you have more ethan 8 trains a day (Both directions) on the East Coast Corridor, you have this on the Harrisburg to Philadelphia Corridor, but only two trains (One train in each direction) between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh (And this is the main reason most people take the Pennsylvania Turnpike when going from Eastern Pennsylvania to Harrisburg and East).

How is Amtrak going to solve this problem? The better solution is accept that long trains can NOT run frequently enough to get people to use the train and to keep them using the train. We need more frequent trains, even if the trains themselves are smaller. The best solution is to go to one self-propelled diesel unit cars with only an engineer on the Train to keep cost low. If demand for service increase tremendously you can add cars to the self-propelled units. I would re-design the Train Stations to permit level on off, both to permit people with Wheelchairs to get on the Cars without assistance, but to permit people to wheel on their own baggage (I would even permit Bicycles on the trains, but like heavy baggage in a area near the exit doors).

You could do such routes between Chicago and Philadelphia and Chicago and DC (Both going via Pittsburgh). Another route I would look into is DC south to Richmond, to be used almost like a LRV (I actually envious these new one to two car trains to be operated more like LRVs than conventional trains, but with large baggage areas). You can do the same between Dallas, Austin, San Antonia and then up to Houston and then back to Dallas (Through maybe a Ft Worth, Dallas, Houston, Baron Rouge to New Orleans may be a better Selection, with a Second route Houston to San Antonio, then Austin and Dallas). Other routes should also looked into, but I do NOT see this money being enough to do the above, hat I fear will occur is what has occurred since Amtrak took over Passenger Service in the late 1960s.

Since the 1970s Amtrak has had to provide service to almost every state in the Union to get funding from Congress. Most of this service is one to two trains a day. All of these trains lose money for Amtrak, but for Amtrak to drop the route is to have even more congressmen and women no longing supporting Amtrak. The "New Plan" seems to be to continue this policy but ask the States to fund Amtrak for additional service in their state. The states have had this option since 1969 and have consistently either refused to find Amtrak or did so at very low levels of Funding (Often at levels that Forced Amtrak to cut out the service, for example the Pennsylvanian which offered second train east and west from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg, but was cut when Pennsylvania refused to add additional funding to fully cover the cost of the service).

I hate to say this, what Amtrak needs is to admit its policy of the last 40 years is a complete failure. What Amtrak should do is say it will NOT run any Train that loses money. If that means it is restricted to the Northeast Corridor, then so be it. On the other hand, Amtrak should be able to talk to the States and say, "If you want single car service, this is the price you have to pay for 8 cars a day". If the state says yes, get the route up and running, if the state says no, tell them to do the service themselves. That is the only way domestic Rail Service can be saved, making sure you have FREQUENT SERVICE.

[Parche]

26. AMTRAK

I love Amtrak,
I love planes/trains

I have sent letters 3times to my great rep David Wu D-OR
and he has responded on all of them to help save Amtrak

We need a rail system in America, it serves the small communities
that dont have any other form of transportation.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

27. A train to nowhere...

Since Trent(W)Lott wants to help(?) Amtrak then he is doing it because of greed.

And Amtrak does need help...alot of help. maybe break it up like MaBell and then a few years later merge all the little trains back together.

[sakabatou]

28. Ugh... Amtrack sucks

I would take a Caltrain over Amtrak

[eridani]

29. Every other form of transportation is subsidized--

--whythehell should rail be different?

[Fovea]

31. Right on the money.

Look at the money that has been thrown to the airlines since 911.

We so desperately need a national rail system that goes everywhere that's anywhere.

[Hieronymus]

32. I love train travel, and take advantage of it in Europe.

The TGV in France is absoulutely wonderful .. very fast and it's great to see the scenery. The ride is smooth and on time going up to 200mph. The train takes you from civic center to civic center, avoiding airports and travel to and from the airports.
Earlier train travel in the US was wonderful until politics got in the way.

[w4rma]

33. Amtrak cannot work without subsidies. Just like every other transportation system in the world. (nt)

[Lost4words]

36. I dont see how they could cut 40% from the operating budget and survive.

Too many managers maybe?