How Amtrak Derailed the Passenger Train

[C855B]

Taking it strictly personal...

In my gut I think that Amtrak long-distance trains are a goner. Yes, I'm a NARP member and all that, but today's political environment is a plutocracy and I'm sure as heck not going to make a dent against the likes of, say, the Hunt Brothers. Profit wins, everyone else can take a hike. I grok that. The Ferengi model.

So my response is to ride the trains I'm interested in while they're still here. In a few weeks we're taking an end-to-end round trip on the Empire Builder, even catching both legs of the split west of Spokane. That's the last Western long-distance train we hadn't done. The two of us have not evaluated whether to do any of the Eastern trains. We've done the Lake Shore from Chicago to Cleveland, and I've experienced the Metroliner ('80s) NY-DC, and the Crescent end-to-end. Frankly, there's not a draw to just make train rides out of Eastern routes, especially since we have few reasons to travel east.

Anyway, when the trains go, so does our cross-country travel not within two days' leisurely drive. We don't fly. Period. Argue all you want about relative speed, the airline customer service model has become insulting and disgusting, and I will not step on another commercial plane again. What's left of our family knows that, so they won't be surprised when we don't show at funerals.

As to driving, note that I said "leisurely drive". We're also shunpikers, avoiding the busier cross-country Interstates except through metro areas. This cuts our travel range by about 30%. The exponential increase in truck traffic over the past 15 years makes the fastest routes exercises in stress. Insert more than a few miles of Interstate into our route, and we arrive exhausted. Life's too short for that $#!+.

So... passenger trains do provide a valuable transportation service, but since the folks who control our society have deemed "efficiency" as the overriding metric, this choice is fading. So we'll enjoy it while we can, and simply stay home after that.

[Rich_S]

Taking it strictly personal...

In my gut I think that Amtrak long-distance trains are a goner. Yes, I'm a NARP member and all that, but today's political environment is a plutocracy and I'm sure as heck not going to make a dent against the likes of, say, the Hunt Brothers. Profit wins, everyone else can take a hike. I grok that. The Ferengi model.

Mike, The part I find amusing, your post seems to indicate you believe this is a recent trend in the USA. Profits have always been the name of the game. When it comes to passenger trains, their greatest success was before the interstate highway system and jet liners.  Now when it comes to the the airlines, is it because of the airlines or the employees that customer service has become insulting and disgusting? Do you believe companies should operate at a loss or just break even? For some unknown reason in this country, the word "profits" has become a dirty word. I have worked for a number of companies that did not earn a profit and the companies ended in bankruptcy. The problem with Amtrak is it cannot pay all of it's bills, so it has to head to congress to receive more tax money (our money) to continue to operate. While I am in favor of ending the track usage payments made by Amtrak to the freight railroads, these only account for 3.3% of Amtrak's annual budget. The biggest problem with Amtrak is they have an Operating ratio of 113% and they annually loose 355 million dollars. Compare that with Union Pacific operating ratio of 63.5%, Norfolk Southern's operating ratio of 69% and BNSF operating ratio of 69.1%. For Amtrak to even come close to paying it's bills, they need to raise ticket prices, but if they do raise ticket prices what will that do to ridership?
 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

What is a highway's operating ratio?

[C855B]

What is a highway's operating ratio?

That's a good question. I don't know, but maybe Rich does.

What I do know, and if you recall that I worked for DOTs... long-haul trucks pay only 35% of their direct costs to build and maintain the extra capacities in the infrastructure just to support heavy trucks. The rest is funded by tax money in the name of the "public good" of facilitating commerce.

If we really want to get into tax-funded transportation systems, let's talk barges and commercial waterways management.

No mode operates without considerable subsidies, so I don't really understand why Amtrak continues to be such a whipping boy. Easier to kick sand in the scrawny kid's face, I guess.

[Rich_S]

 long-haul trucks pay only 35% of their direct costs to build and maintain the extra capacities in the infrastructure just to support heavy trucks.

The first thing that shows is how inefficient the government runs anything they touch.  I can tell you from personal experience, I spent 20 years in the trucking industry before finally getting a job with the railroad, not only do trucks pay a fuel tax, they also pay a highway use tax along with licenses and registration that are more than triple the cost of personal cars. Now if the taxes being paid by the trucking industry do not cover federal highway costs, then maybe those taxes need to be raised? Of course the first thing the trucking industry will do is count the number of trucks using the interstate highway system, then count the number of other vehicles using the interstate highway system. If it were only trucks using the roads, you could point your finger at them and say they are doing all of the damage. Sure you might say they are heavier, but at the same time that weight is spread out over a greater distance with more axles.

Onto the question of highway operating ratio or in other words, trucks drive on tax payer provided highways. This was one of the major reasons for the Staggers Act. Railroads had to pay property tax on ever mile of right of way they owned, while the trucking industry only paid property tax on actual land owned by the company. How do you solve this problem, easy make every interstate highway a toll road, then you pay to play.  Why do you think our nations highways are crumbling? For every dollar our government spends, it has to borrow 14 cents, in other words 86 cents is collected from us and 14 cents is borrowed from a bank just to spend a dollar.  How much longer can this go on, before they banks quit loaning money to our government?  How much of your paycheck or pension are you willing to give up, before you admit this is not working. I know many people will say, just raise taxes on the wealthy or on business. Sure your taxes will not go up, but now everything you purchase just increased in value because business passed that tax increase onto you. Some people say this is greed, but be honest, who is not greedy? How many people would go to work everyday and not collect a paycheck? Money is the big motivator, it's the reason the railroads were built in the first place. The people who laid out money to build the Pennsylvania Railroad did not do so because they had nothing better to do with their money. 

I wish Amtrak was a money making transportation system, I don't want to see anyone loose their job. I've been through more than enough layoffs in my life time, but unless everyone parks their cars tomorrow and starts riding Amtrak long distance trains, I'm afraid the writing is on the wall. The NEC and California corridors on their own can be a profitable passenger rail, but too many of the short and long distance trains loose money every time they leave the station.   

[Ed Kapuscinski]

The first thing that shows is how inefficient the government runs anything they touch.

Whoa there. This is stepping awfully close to forbidden political territory, but I would dare to disagree with you there. Lots of people may think that's the case, but without facts to prove it, it's an unfair assumption.

[packers#1]

No mode operates without considerable subsidies, so I don't really understand why Amtrak continues to be such a whipping boy. Easier to kick sand in the scrawny kid's face, I guess.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's kicking sand in the scrawny kid's face as most of the public not wanting to ride on the rails. There are some people, as you've mentioned with your personal situation, who do not wish to drive long distances or deal with airlines. However, the general public does not think this way. If you read Sam Posey's book on his layout, he talks about riding Amtrak's Silver Meteor. Most of the people on the train he met and talked to were embarrassed to be taking the train, explaining their situation without him even asking them to. Perhaps this is partly due to the way we view cars and planes in our society, but it is also probably due to how our country developed; the Northeast, where Amtrak and lots of commuter rail exists, developed somewhat like Europe, in that most of the states and cities are packed close together. Moving to the South, the culture was much more based in agricultural, so people didn't need to travel as far and were more spread out since they needed large plots of land to grow crops. Then, with westward expansion, there weren't enough people to populate the land as densely as the Northeast and the primary business was agriculture as well.

Now, some of the larger cities use light rail and commuter rail, but by and large our country and our way of life is more centered around the personal freedom the car brings, with the cities and rural areas too spread out for passenger rail to make sense, since you would have people going all different directions from cities to get home. Planes make more sense in this case, as you can have smaller airports which feed larger airports. Take my hometown area for instance; the airport in Augusta, GA, has connecting flights to some larger terminals, where you can take flights to other large terminals. However, you have people moving in such small numbers that planes make more sense than trains. Add into that what the car means to so many people, and the way our infrastructure has evolved to be centered around the car, and you have a case where Amtrak and cross country passenger rail just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps it would be better than planes, I don't know, but the fact remains that Amtrak is the whipping boy because it is seen as an expense which most American people don't need. I drive almost everywhere, as do most Americans; if the choice to use American tax dollars was between maintaining and upgrading our roads or to fund Amtrak (and the choice isn't nearly that black and white, I know), then to me the tax dollars should go to roads, because more of the public uses them for the reasons just stated above. This is why most Americans don't care or want Amtrak eliminated and constantly want its funding decreased, because most of us don't use it and would rather see the government focus on what we do use. Yes, that sucks for people who hold views like the ones you expressed, but the public is going to want their tax dollars to go towards something they and most of the rest of the country use, not something only a few people use. Lord knows our infrastructure does need many major upgrades and repairs; imagine if that money was funneled away from Amtrak and to those repairs (it probably wouldn't be, and that conversation probably heads too close to political discussions anyways).

At any rate, it is what it is.

And props to the mods for letting this conversation continue; thanks guys 

[victor miranda]

That's a good question. I don't know, but maybe Rich does.

What I do know, and if you recall that I worked for DOTs... long-haul trucks pay only 35% of their direct costs to build and maintain the extra capacities in the infrastructure just to support heavy trucks. The rest is funded by tax money in the name of the "public good" of facilitating commerce.

If we really want to get into tax-funded transportation systems, let's talk barges and commercial waterways management.

No mode operates without considerable subsidies, so I don't really understand why Amtrak continues to be such a whipping boy. Easier to kick sand in the scrawny kid's face, I guess.

well, at least some of the answer is that our government sustains transportation infrastructure
for the same reasons it sustains crops, that is to make sure the system exists. (... make sure someone is growing corn
or that a truck can move the corn to market)

most of the time what gets support, sharing as I like to call it, is what our fearless leaders 'think' will help the most
with getting re-elected...

passenger trains are not what most people think they want.
so few votes.... so small supports.

I do not think the decision is wise.
I also do not seem to be able to do much about it as well.

trains are so much more comfortable than planes.

victor

edited to fix a misspelling
 

[Rich_S]

Whoa there. This is stepping awfully close to forbidden political territory, but I would dare to disagree with you there. Lots of people may think that's the case, but without facts to prove it, it's an unfair assumption.

Ed, I don't want to get off topic, so tip toeing on the edge, my proof is the various news investigations on the subject 

trains are so much more comfortable than planes.

victor

victor, I agree with you 100% on the point about comfort. I'll also add passenger trains are a lot quieter for the passenger compared to Jet liners. On a jet you have the constant whine of the jet engines in the passenger compartment, but modern railroad passenger cars provide a smooth quite ride. 

I always encourage everyone I meet to take a trip by train, even if it's only a day trip. The experience is worth the price 

[Rich_S]

If you read Sam Posey's book on his layout, he talks about riding Amtrak's Silver Meteor. Most of the people on the train he met and talked to were embarrassed to be taking the train, explaining their situation without him even asking them to.

I've never heard that before, I guess that is a good indication of just how our society has changed. Many, many years ago when I was in the USAF, I often when home for Christmas via a Greyhound Bus, because I couldn't afford a train or a plane ticket. Greyhound did keep their buses clean and in very good condition, but I was still kind of embarrassed to be riding a bus and not riding in style on a train. It's sad that people today now think that way about the train. Do you have a link to Sam's book?


   

[packers#1]

I've never heard that before, I guess that is a good indication of just how our society has changed. Many, many years ago when I was in the USAF, I often when home for Christmas via a Greyhound Bus, because I couldn't afford a train or a plane ticket. Greyhound did keep their buses clean and in very good condition, but I was still kind of embarrassed to be riding a bus and not riding in style on a train. It's sad that people today now think that way about the train. Do you have a link to Sam's book?


 

http://www.amazon.com/Playing-Trains-Passion-Beyond-Scale/dp/0812971264/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1430358920&sr=1-1&keywords=playing+with+trains

Definitely worth the read!

[tappertrainman]

I'm from the younger generation that grew up without trains being the most popular form of long-distance transportation.  I'm 34.

My wife and I have discussed taking a trip for an anniversary/vacation/etc. via Amtrak.  Here's where the comparisons for a week-long or 4/5-day weekend trip work out according to my research:

Drive in a car - pay for gas and hotel rooms wherever we go - lower cost, slower travel, more flexibility as far as travel at destination or during the commute itself to pull off the road and see sights, bathroom, etc.
Take an airplane - pay for tickets, and then hotel rooms at destination - medium cost, fastest travel, less flexibility at destination unless you rent a car, more time to spend at destination
Take Amtrak - pay for tickets (no destination, or fly home, or round-trip), maaaaybe one night at destination? - high cost, average travel (not much faster than a car if at all), zero flexibility, the trip is the purpose, no destination

See the problem here?  Amtrak is not the fastest, it's the least flexible, and you're not taking a trip to a destination because there's not enough time so the trip itself is the purpose for the train-ride (i.e. Coast Starlight).

Now, factor in the cost/accommodations of a 4-5 day cruise and Amtrak's struggle becomes crystal clear.  For the price, a cruise beats the train any day of the week for a "leisurely travel vacation".  I'll bet the accomodations and entertainment and food options are better on a cruise too (having never been on a cruise before).

Trains may still have a place for local commuting or travel within a small radius, but planes are awfully close if you don't mind the close quarters and inspections.

James

[C855B]

I'm from the younger generation that grew up without trains being the most popular form of long-distance transportation.  I'm 34. ...

Ah... and you're of the generation where two-week vacations are unheard of. They were a staple when I was growing up, otherwise you couldn't go much of anywhere since air fares were simply not affordable for family travel. However, my career spanned the transition to where taking two weeks off - even if earned time - sometimes resulted in not having a job on returning.

... Take Amtrak - pay for tickets (no destination, or fly home, or round-trip), maaaaybe one night at destination? - high cost, average travel (not much faster than a car if at all), zero flexibility, the trip is the purpose, no destination. ...

You forget one thing - schedules on long-distance trains are optimistic [put politely]. It's hard to have a destination with a purpose because you either have to schedule yourself a day ahead for adequate cushion, or have a Plan B for when the train gets in too late for... say... getting to the in-town car rental agency while it's still open. Our Plan B on the last trip was booking a room at the hotel across the street from the destination station, cancelling the reservation when only an hour out of town and relatively comfortable we'd make the rental agency in time.

The car rental issue is by far the biggest problem we have as semi-frequent Amtrak travelers. It's only available in bigger cities, and then only M-F business hours. When a train dumps you off in Podunk, USA at 3:00 a.m., you'd better know the town already and what is (and isn't) available to you. F'rinstance, in our town the long-haul train is 12:15 a.m. southbound and 4:10 a.m. going north. We have no taxi service at all, and just an Enterprise rental office embedded at a Ford dealership. Until Amtrak (or somebody) addresses this problem, destination travel is just not reasonable.

One big plus for Amtrak... their affinity credit card. Amtrak frequent-rider "points" go pretty far. It's been relatively easy for us to score free travel with our regular spending, even cross-country round trips in a deluxe bedroom that we would not otherwise take if it wasn't free or nearly so.