Amtrak Funding in 2018

[me123]

Whilst I am reluctant to unleash any discussion of the 45th President of the United States outwith its dedicated thread, I feel that this is significant enough to warrant a separate discussion.

Today, the provisional US 2018 budget has been released. Aside from "Veterans Affairs", Homeland Security and the Military, everything else looks set to see cuts.[1] Of note for us, the transportation department is likely to see a whopping 13% cut in its budget; from $18.6Bn to $16.2Bn. To achieve this, it is proposed that Air Traffic Control will be privatised, the Essential Air Service Subsidies will be revoked, there will be cuts to infrastructure projects, and (most relevant for this forum) Amtrak will lose financial support for its long distance train services. [2]

For Amtrak, the budget would restructure and reduce federal subsidies to the national intercity passenger railroad to focus on services within regions. It eliminates federal support for long-distance Amtrak services, "which long have been inefficient and incur the vast majority of Amtrak's operating losses," according to the document.

"This would allow Amtrak to focus on better managing its state-supported and Northeast Corridor train services," it states. [3]

Amtrak have responded by saying

"These trains connect our major regions, provide vital transportation to residents in rural communities and generate connecting passengers and revenue for our Northeast Corridor and state-supported services," said Moorman. "Amtrak is very focused on running efficiently — we covered 94 percent of our total network operating costs through ticket sales and other revenues in FY16 — but these services all require federal investment." [3]

What do other forum members think about this? Are we set to lose the long distance Amtrak services, or will they survive in spite of the cuts? Is it time to end cross-country rail travel in the US, or does it still have a role to play?

Sources:
[1]Washington Post - Budget Overview
[2]Washington Post - Proposal shifts air traffic control outside federal government, cuts funding for transit and Amtrak
[3]ProgressiveRailroading.com - Trump Budget ends funding of Amtrak long-distance trains

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I think if it does not benefit Trump's friends or extreme nationalist nationalist viewpoint, he doesn't care. I doubt anyone he knows has ever even caught a train.

Hopefully the states connected will fund the services instead, but I suspect there might be cuts in provision.

 

[Groningen]

What did say Donald Trump say before the elections. We want to have infrastructure like in Europe. No military! There does all the saved money go to. Want to invade somewhere in the world?!

From his 2015 book Crippled America: "Our airports, bridges, water tunnels, power grids, rail systems—our nation’s entire infrastructure is crumbling, and we aren’t doing anything about it," He went on to promise that fixing it would spur economic growth.

 

[AlterEgo]

Amtrak is already run on a shoestring. Take it across America and see how many people it conveys who cannot normally fly. (I'm talking very large people, the Amish, hobos, and other minority groups)

I'm saddened to hear of this purely from an enthusiast perspective. Amtrak is a 100% all-American experience.

Trump likely doesn't care because he has no financial interest in it.

 

[squizzler]

Too bad for the United States. Their country will become increasingly weak and fall further behind railway building countries such as China, Russia, India, Brazil, EU.

Shame as I enjoyed Portillo and hoped he with the technicolour sport jackets might be the messiah to reignite US interest in their trains (I assume the BBC would sell that show to a US network).

Not many people know that the US presidential election was taken as an opportunity to ballot on many local rail schemes. and most of these passed. Not all is lost then: light rail will give a faster return than rebuilding the US intercity passenger services.

 

[JonathanP]

It doesn't sound good, but do remember this is merely a budget "request", on which the congress and senate have the final say(at least as I understand it).

Obama and the Republicans fell out about the budget so much that it led to a government shutdown. Under normal circumstances you'd expect a Republican congress to wave through a Republican budget, but these are not normal times.

I assume there will now be a lot of jockeying from them to try and protect particular items from cuts.

 

[Suraggu]

Trump is seriously harming "The silenced" who he pledged to protect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Amtrak (and North American operation generally) is grindingly inefficient. Never mind DOO, they have things like staffed stations for a train every couple of days, large numbers of traincrew (doing things like manually operating each door) etc.

They could learn a lot from European operations about how to run the services more cheaply and therefore profitably. But like 1960s BR, do they have the guts to look at that?

 

[Greenback]

It's no great surprise that there are cuts to just about everything apart from the military, is it? It was always on the cards, despite his electionerring.

I can't see much room for further cost saving measures on Amtrak. If the budget is passed, here could be some really bad news ahead.

 

[Taunton]

Amtrak (and North American operation generally) is grindingly inefficient.

Not just that, it's ASTOUNDINGLY grindingly inefficient for staff costs etc. And despite keeping all these people going, I've had some appallingly rude attitude from their staff, which is regularly reported as a common experience.

Outside the corridors, much of their patronage is leisure travellers and train buffs. It may well serve various rural places, but the rural residents themselves have long abandoned it for air (long distance), Greyhound bus (for cheapness) or car. I'm afraid it's lost any value. Just like in Australia and other developed countries round the world.

It's quite likely that the US president has never taken one of the long distance services. And outside the Washington-Boston corridor that's probably true of almost all of his old staff at his New York HQ, and likewise his new staff in the government. Didn't John Goodman write about "15 cars and 15 restless riders" in his song about riding the 'City of New Orleans' 50 years ago?

 

[me123]

It doesn't sound good, but do remember this is merely a budget "request", on which the congress and senate have the final say(at least as I understand it).

Obama and the Republicans fell out about the budget so much that it led to a government shutdown. Under normal circumstances you'd expect a Republican congress to wave through a Republican budget, but these are not normal times.

As true as this may be, I can't really see the Republicans doing all that much to protect funding for long distance Amtrak services. In fact, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect them to cut.

 

[williamn]

It would be tragic to lose all the long distance services but I agree with the inefficiency, I am guessing it mostly dictated by the unions which (oddly) are incredibly strong in certain sectors in the US.

I'm always amazed at hoe many staff there are on trains the US, who spend most of their time sitting in the cafe car taking up space that passengers might possibly want. And also amazed at the lack of customer service - you always feel like having passengers is a bit of an inconvenience for the staff really.

 

[47802]

Not just that, it's ASTOUNDINGLY grindingly inefficient for staff costs etc. And despite keeping all these people going, I've had some appallingly rude attitude from their staff, which is regularly reported as a common experience.

Outside the corridors, much of their patronage is leisure travellers and train buffs. It may well serve various rural places, but the rural residents themselves have long abandoned it for air (long distance), Greyhound bus (for cheapness) or car. I'm afraid it's lost any value. Just like in Australia and other developed countries round the world.

It's quite likely that the US president has never taken one of the long distance services. And outside the Washington-Boston corridor that's probably true of almost all of his old staff at his New York HQ, and likewise his new staff in the government. Didn't John Goodman write about "15 cars and 15 restless riders" in his song about riding the 'City of New Orleans' 50 years ago?

I have to agree that was my experience of Amtrak. As you say the long distance trains have manual doors operated by staff, even the North East regional I was on seemed to have 2 Conductors, and then when I did Orlando Washington there was a member of staff allocating seats as I got on, I think the idea of electronic seat reservation is some kind of witch craft to Amtrak, then there seemed to be a variety of other staff milling about on the train and not doing very much.

It will be sad if some or all of the long distance services out of Chicago go like the California Zephyr but I suspect it been on the cards for some time. I certainly got the impression that the train is still used by Americans who don't like flying and the smaller towns which may not be near and Airport.

I have not been on Greyhound but reports I have had from others is that it frequently leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Joe Paxton]

...
I have not been on Greyhound but reports I have had from others is that it frequently leaves a lot to be desired.

Megabus (USA) and BoltBus are much newer operations that seem to be quite popular, in contrast to Greyhound.

 

[daodao]

Megabus (USA) and BoltBus are much newer operations that seem to be quite popular, in contrast to Greyhound.

Given that Greyhound is run by the same company (First) who run the buses in the Potteries and North M/c, what do you expect?!

Portillo's recent American rail journeys were fascinating, but Amtrak is a relic from the past. Without subsidies, long-distance sleeper trains are not viable anywhere; they are disappearing all over Europe, have gone from Mexico and less than a handful survive in Canada. I don't expect them to survive in the USA either, which will lead to the demise of Amtrak as a national network.

 

[philabos]

Amtrak routinely reports about a half billion dollar annual loss on the long distance trains that carry about 15% of the total system passengers. Every Amtrak President has stated they are responsible for the lion's share of the losses. Some rail fans maintain Amtrak simply cooks the books and the Northeast Corridor is responsible due to its enormous capital requirements.
Indisputable is that fully half of Amtrak ridership is in the Northeast, in about 6% of the continental US land mass. The other 35% of the ridership is in corridors around Chicago and on the west coast.

 

[Taunton]

I'm always amazed at hoe many staff there are on trains the US, who spend most of their time sitting in the cafe car taking up space that passengers might possibly want. And also amazed at the lack of customer service - you always feel like having passengers is a bit of an inconvenience for the staff really.

I forget exactly what the staff numbers are on the transcontinental trains, but it's between 20 and 30. Each car has an attendant, then there are the waiters and cooks in the diner. These work end-to-end and have accommodation in the rearmost sleeper. Then the loco crew (two) and the conductor, who is assisted by probably two brakemen who wear the same uniform and seem to drag behind like trainees - although most look aged over 50. They change every 12 hours, during which time they can rack up some considerable mileage.

The rudest American I have ever met in my life (in a country where I do find courtesy everywhere) was the first class attendant on an Acela, from New York. I really did wonder for a moment if she was going to pull a gun on me.

 

[ACL]

It doesn't sound good, but do remember this is merely a budget "request", on which the congress and senate have the final say(at least as I understand it).

You are absolutely correct. I worked in Budget departments in US Federal Agencies for 34 years. The President's budget request is just that, a request. In the US Constitution the power of the "purse" belongs to the Congress. The Fiscal Year 2018 appropriations will be written and approved by the US Congress, and they may or may not reflect any of the President's budget request. The President has only the option to sign or veto the appropriations. And if he chooses to veto any of them, that veto can be overridden.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I forget exactly what the staff numbers are on the transcontinental trains, but it's between 20 and 30. Each car has an attendant, then there are the waiters and cooks in the diner. These work end-to-end and have accommodation in the rearmost sleeper. Then the loco crew (two) and the conductor, who is assisted by probably two brakemen who wear the same uniform and seem to drag behind like trainees - although most look aged over 50. They change every 12 hours, during which time they can rack up some considerable mileage.

And that's what they need to have the guts to change...as I said DOO ain't going to work, but do they really need more than a couple of shifts of driver, guard and buffet/sleeper steward?

They could also do with changing their approach to signalling and preventing stuff hitting other stuff rather than overengineering passenger vehicles. If they used a Stadler FLIRT or a Turbostar instead of a massive lok and 4 coaches it'd save a packet on fuel consumption.

They are almost on a cusp like we were at Beeching - and we didn't have the guts to look at Paytrains and rural DOO quickly enough, and as a result lost lines.

 

[glbotu]

So, the biggest problem Amtrak has is that the lines that seem to have survived are strangely not the ones that would generate the most ridership (NEC excepting). Romantic though big trans-continental railway journeys are, they're also not practical - they just don't get you there fast enough.

America had its Beeching, sure they didn't physically close the railway lines, because the very geography that makes passenger transport inefficient makes freight transport an undeniable success, but going from a country that almost entirely relied on rail transport to one that can only successfully operate trains on 6% of its landmass is a testament to the grip the road lobby had over government in the 60s (and before, the Great American Streetcar scandal in the 30s is another).

What Amtrak (or the American passenger rail industry as a whole) needs to look at are routes with distances under 500 miles in total length, with stops every 50 - 100 miles and a major city (1m + population) at at least one end. This is where you can make real headway in getting Americans out of their cars, especially with congestion worsening and many of these cities getting light rail systems to cope with that. Speeds need improving, which means actual infrastructure spending, rather than relying on ancient track sharing agreements with freight operators, who frankly don't care if their trains can't run over 75 mph - because most freight trains don't need to.

 

[edwin_m]

So, the biggest problem Amtrak has is that the lines that seem to have survived are strangely not the ones that would generate the most ridership (NEC excepting). Romantic though big trans-continental railway journeys are, they're also not practical - they just don't get you there fast enough.

America had its Beeching, sure they didn't physically close the railway lines, because the very geography that makes passenger transport inefficient makes freight transport an undeniable success, but going from a country that almost entirely relied on rail transport to one that can only successfully operate trains on 6% of its landmass is a testament to the grip the road lobby had over government in the 60s (and before, the Great American Streetcar scandal in the 30s is another).

What Amtrak (or the American passenger rail industry as a whole) needs to look at are routes with distances under 500 miles in total length, with stops every 50 - 100 miles and a major city (1m + population) at at least one end. This is where you can make real headway in getting Americans out of their cars, especially with congestion worsening and many of these cities getting light rail systems to cope with that. Speeds need improving, which means actual infrastructure spending, rather than relying on ancient track sharing agreements with freight operators, who frankly don't care if their trains can't run over 75 mph - because most freight trains don't need to.

According to Philabos above, 85% of Amtrak's ridership is already on journeys of this sort of length - perhaps even higher as it may not include shorter journeys on long-distance trains. Many of the "high speed" proposals of recent years have targeted the same corridors, though not particularly high speed by European standards. Joe Biden was a particular fan of these but I've not seen any indication as yet of the attitude of the Trump administration - there was something on here about trying to stop the California project but that could be down to animosity to that particular state.

There is a long-standing regulatory requirement for continuous cab signalling on any line running faster than 79mph, and unsurprisingly few of the freight railroads want to bother with this (it applies to all trains on the route, not just the faster ones). I'm not sure how the requirement for Positive Train Control affects this, but I think it applies only on lines with passenger service so could be imposing another cost on Amtrak routes whether it falls to Amtrak or to the owning railroad.

The reason most of the long-distance services transferred to Amtrak at its formation have survived is essentially the pork barrel. They travel through enough constituencies that an administration wishing to make cutbacks finds it difficult to get enough votes to do so. Individual states can also step in with funding if they wish.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

So, the biggest problem Amtrak has is that the lines that seem to have survived are strangely not the ones that would generate the most ridership (NEC excepting). Romantic though big trans-continental railway journeys are, they're also not practical - they just don't get you there fast enough.

...

The routes that have survived are in many cases the ones that are more resistant against direct car competition thanks to being multi-day trips.

They instead compete with planes and long-distance coaches and for some people are a viable alternative, whether they have lots of bags, dislike flying etc.

Trying to offer shorter trips to compete with driving will be a lot harder. Most American towns and cities outside of the North-East and Chicago are designed to be driven around and having walked around a few, you end up crossing vast car parks and empty spaces to get between shops or offices.

 

[Taunton]

This is where you can make real headway in getting Americans out of their cars

This approach will get nowhere. The vast majority of Americans do not want to get out of their cars. When they travel somewhere else by air, their first stop is typically at the rental car counter. There are a couple of major metropolitan areas, only, where congestion is an issue, but not on any journey flows that Amtrak serves, or could serve.

 

[gsnedders]

There is a long-standing regulatory requirement for continuous cab signalling on any line running faster than 79mph, and unsurprisingly few of the freight railroads want to bother with this (it applies to all trains on the route, not just the faster ones). I'm not sure how the requirement for Positive Train Control affects this, but I think it applies only on lines with passenger service so could be imposing another cost on Amtrak routes whether it falls to Amtrak or to the owning railroad.

PTC affects every Class I railroad in the US (perhaps only mainlines?), regardless of freight/passenger/etc. The big problem with PTC is the fact there's so many miles of "dark" territory where all signalling is currently done by radio.

I'll point out that there are some countries in Europe that require in-cab signalling above 79mph (128 km/h), with the Czech Republic requiring it for everything over 100 km/h IIRC. There are other places that require it for over 120 km/h and 160 km/h. The UK is unique, AFAIK, in allowing 125 mph (i.e., 201 km/h) running without in-cab signalling.

The reason most of the long-distance services transferred to Amtrak at its formation have survived is essentially the pork barrel. They travel through enough constituencies that an administration wishing to make cutbacks finds it difficult to get enough votes to do so. Individual states can also step in with funding if they wish.

And that's the vital point: from a financial point of view they'd have died the same death as similarly long-distance sleepers in Europe years ago. Their survival is almost entirely political and will continue to be so.

 

[edwin_m]

I'll point out that there are some countries in Europe that require in-cab signalling above 79mph (128 km/h), with the Czech Republic requiring it for everything over 100 km/h IIRC. There are other places that require it for over 120 km/h and 160 km/h. The UK is unique, AFAIK, in allowing 125 mph (i.e., 201 km/h) running without in-cab signalling.

The difference is that on those routes there are probably several dozen trains per day that exceed the threshold speed so the cost is spread over that. On the long-distance Amtrak routes that wouldn't be so unless the freight operator saw some competitive advantage in high speed operation.

I think the Santa Fe (Amtrak's Southwest Chief) is the only major route in the west with cab signalling. Although I do know the UP on the south bank of the Columbia River was also so fitted in 1990. I was sitting on the train for several hours waiting for them to rustle up a pilot engine when the relevant equipment couldn't be activated on the Amtrak one.

 

[squizzler]

DO I detect a whiff of desperation from the US establishment which has been trying for so long to kill of train travel?

I suspect such a conspiracy would be bound to fail. If Amtrak withdrew to their Northeast stronghold it would blow the field wide open for buccaneering new operators:

1. Commercial land cruise operators will probably try to get hold of the classic named services. Perhaps they will add an economy class for no-frills travel?
2. The affected states can tender for train operators to run former Amtrak service.
3. The big railway companies get back into the passenger rail game.
4. Most excitingly, crowdfunding or various types of Community Interest Companies might start.

On the last point, Locomore of Germany is crowdfunded and something I feel the US scene should take note of.

The Amtrak brand itself is valuable and is a byword for long distance train travel in the US. I doubt it be allowed to be lost in the way that Intercity was lost following privatisation.

 

[glbotu]

This approach will get nowhere. The vast majority of Americans do not want to get out of their cars. When they travel somewhere else by air, their first stop is typically at the rental car counter. There are a couple of major metropolitan areas, only, where congestion is an issue, but not on any journey flows that Amtrak serves, or could serve.

I mean, I think that's quite a short-termist view. It's not genetic: Born American -> will drive, right? Yes, there are absolutely real structural barriers to make Intercity rail happen in the USA, but continuing to run Amtrak as a glorified preserved railway isn't the solution. There's definitely an appetite for non-car based travel, as a lot of cities have been and are still building more and more rapid-transit solutions (usually light rail - which is often appropriate for the size of city). With better connections between Rapid Transit and rail, suddenly you could start to see people getting to cities by train as well as getting around them. I'm suggesting real investment here, not just continuing to run the same services on the same freight lines. At least adding tracks to existing corridors - if not whole new lines. I'm also not suggesting doing things like they're done in the UK, the geography doesn't allow it, but trying to get solutions where they're viable is worth while. Sure the environmental message might not get through, but the $1 trillion or so a year the US wastes on "people stuck in traffic" is something that does.

 

[edwin_m]

I mean, I think that's quite a short-termist view. It's not genetic: Born American -> will drive, right? Yes, there are absolutely real structural barriers to make Intercity rail happen in the USA, but continuing to run Amtrak as a glorified preserved railway isn't the solution. There's definitely an appetite for non-car based travel, as a lot of cities have been and are still building more and more rapid-transit solutions (usually light rail - which is often appropriate for the size of city). With better connections between Rapid Transit and rail, suddenly you could start to see people getting to cities by train as well as getting around them. I'm suggesting real investment here, not just continuing to run the same services on the same freight lines. At least adding tracks to existing corridors - if not whole new lines. I'm also not suggesting doing things like they're done in the UK, the geography doesn't allow it, but trying to get solutions where they're viable is worth while. Sure the environmental message might not get through, but the $1 trillion or so a year the US wastes on "people stuck in traffic" is something that does.

There's also "commuter rail" which is local/regional passenger service mainly on the tracks of the freight railroads - a sort of mini-Amtrak but answerable to State rather than federal government (and Amtrak operates many of them). Most started out as peak hour only operations but the more successful ones operate over longer hours if the freight road will permit it. Many of Amtrak's more successful corridors also carry one or more commuter rail services and it's not too big a stretch to see these being integrated under State control if Amtrak disappears as a national organisation.

 

[Groningen]

After searching about Rotterdam in New York, USA i came across this article. After the clash between Turkey and Netherlands; some Turks call the Rotterdam in the USA and not the Netherlands.

Trump budget would cut Albany air, bus and rail services

Air, rail and bus services through the Capital Region all would face cutbacks under President Trump’s proposed federal budget.

The budget plan, released last week, calls for the elimination of the Essential Air Service program, which supports flights between Albany International Airport and two North Country airports in Massena and Ogdensburg.

It also eliminates support for Amtrak’s long-distance passenger trains, including the Lake Shore Limited, which provides daily service between Albany and Chicago, Boston and New York City.
The TIGER — Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery — grant program also is being eliminated, cutting funding for transportation projects by $499 million.

Among those depending in part on TIGER funds: the Capital District Transportation Authority’s newest bus rapid transit routes. They were at the top of a list of programs facing elimination produced last week by thetransportpolitic.com.

Source: Timesunion

 

[philabos]

Actually commuter rail operations are primarily on state owned trackage, with subsidies provided by a combination of federal, state, and regional governments.
We do have a few commuter services still operated by the private railroads out of Chicago
BNSF operates one line, and Union Pacific three. Equipment is provided by the transit agency, but crews, track, and operations all under the individual railroads which receive a subsidy to cover losses. Even tickets issuance and fare collection is done by the railroads.
When all the passenger numbers are counted, Amtrak has 30 million plus per year, but if all the commuter roads are added in the sum is about 500 million per year, or about one third of the U.K. total.