Passenger Trains > Actual Proposed Administration Budget Detail - More than sleepers

I have enclosed below the actual wording from the detail sheet of the proposed Administration Budget.

The key concept is that a variety of amenities are proposed to be restructured, perhaps with an opportunity for betterment in the provision but should they all be just simply eliminated it would significantly influence coach travel utility as well.

“Any Federal subsidies currently allocated to premium/first-class services provided by Amtrak – including sleeping cars, dining cars, and checked baggage – would also begin to be phased out and encouraged to be contracted out to private operators, or otherwise break even or eliminate these services.”

Of course I doubt the authors are thinking of eliminating the extra attendant on Acela trains or the included food service to send more revenue to infrastructure. Also, the proposed $757 million cut by halving the exaggerated Total Cost basis Long Distance Federal investment by forcing the States to pick up the other half is overshooting the mark by about $500 million. Recall, even the exaggerated Total Cost basis loss for the Long Distance network is reported to be about $492 million, of which half thrown to the States would be a Federal reduction of only $246 million or just a third of the proposed reduction.

This author believes this level of misunderstanding provides an opportunity to create a new framework of above the rail - below the rail funding for all routes.

Administration FY19 Budget Detail on Amtrak Below:

“The Budget proposes a number of reforms to rationalize Amtrak's long distance trains, which transport a relatively small number of passengers but generate the vast majority of Amtrak's operating losses. The Budget proposes that States served by long distance trains begin to share in the operating costs with the Federal government. This proposal is one reform initiative out of a set of efforts the Administration will be exploring with stakeholders to reduce long distance operating losses and improve transportation options for the public. In line with overarching reforms to Amtrak, the Budget proposes funding for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor activities at a level that supports capital investments, but encourages Amtrak to increase efficiencies across all asset lines.

Funding Summary
(In millions of dollars)

-------------------2017 Enacted--2019 Request--2019 Change from 2017--
Budget Authority......1,495............738...............-757

Justification
Amtrak's Long Distance routes suffer from poor on-time performance; account for only 4.7 million of Amtrak's nearly 32 million annual passengers; and incur annual operating losses of more than $500 million. In particular, in 2017 the Sunset Limited Long Distance Route served 99,000 passengers, but generated a $38.4 million operating loss, resulting in a $351 Federal subsidy per passenger. Other Long Distance Routes, including the Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, and Empire Builder, required a subsidy of $118-$149 per passenger.

The approach to fund and operate the Long Distance network in its current iteration is not effective nor efficient. The Budget proposes reforms to rationalize the system, including implementing State contributions equal to the Federal Government for operational costs of Long Distance routes that serve their communities. The Budget proposes that States will begin to split the operating subsidy costs of Long Distance routes with the Federal Government. This proposal for greater State contributions aligns with the President's Infrastructure Initiative to encourage greater State and locality investment in infrastructure projects.

However, State contributions to Long Distance Routes is only one tool in the menu of options the Administration would explore with stakeholders to reduce Federal subsidies in the Long Distance network. The Administration believes Amtrak should utilize existing capabilities to reduce Long Distance costs, such as eliminating redundant routes and allowing ticketing for intra-NEC trips for Long Distance routes that operate over the NEC. Any Federal subsidies currently allocated to premium/first-class services provided by Amtrak – including sleeping cars, dining cars, and checked baggage – would also begin to be phased out and encouraged to be contracted out to private operators, or otherwise break even or eliminate these services.

The Budget proposes funding to the critical NEC at a level that supports capital investments, but encourages Amtrak to increase efficiencies across all asset lines.”



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/18 06:26 by District.

When you see "subsidy per passenger", a meaningless metric having no correlation with efficiency or farebox recovery, and numbers of passengers rather than passenger-miles, you know these people are empirically illiterate.

IPH, AEE, and RMR's subsidiary in Montana have all failed. So much for the private sector.

Absent from any of this is the $110 Billion in bailouts to the Highway Trust Fund from General Funding from 2008 and on.

OMB Director Mulvaney is an ignorant, pompous moron.

Why anyone would want to take a long distance train without sleepers or full service diner is beyond me. Unless no other form of transportation were available.

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why anyone would want to take a long distance
> train without sleepers

While I'm nostalgic regarding passenger train travel, I'll point out the pricing for a sleeper typically runs in the $1000's of dollars for a multiple day trip (and these cars ain't the ritz for DAMN sure). Furthermore, there are numerous stories and accounts about how poor the service/attendants are on sleepers, at best erratic. We have not even mentioned yet that food service is usually only "just" better than the microwave.

Let me ask, why would anyone take a long distance train at all anymore? In coach, its like riding inside a 3rd world country with people sleeping across seats or the floor along with bodily excrement everywhere due to broken bathrooms and I didn't even mention the super friendly crew who if they respond at all makes you feel like you're an idiot.

While this is not on every train and there are exceptions to every rule... Amtrak has some serious fundamental issues at their core and that is reality and budgets are only part of it.

Regards,

Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/18 06:44 by dbesade.

This piece is pure Right Wing Anti Passenger Train Mierda De Toro. A better approach is an excise tax on airplane routes that duplicate the train routes. Make those who want to get there in a hurry pay dearly for the privilege.

DavidJustinLynch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Make those who want to get there in a
> hurry pay dearly for the privilege.

So make the majority of people who fly pay extra so the minority can continue to suffer with terrible service, perpetual lateness, and old tired equipment? Sounds absurd.. if we were going to flush money down the toilet on something, it would be better to subsidize better transportation options outside of for the affected communities.

-Dave



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/18 07:05 by dbesade.

Not sure anyone really understands why the IPH effort in Indiana failed. It sounded like a convoluted contract that did not split the financials between IPH and Amtrak fairly. I wonder if this could have worked with a well written contract. It was IPH's fault to agree to a contract that would not allow them to be successful. But not sure this idea should be written off due to a bad contract.

Currently there is no food service on the Amtrak Empire service trains that run Albany, NY to New York Penn. This route is very successful and popular, but for some reason Amtrak saw the need to eliminate food service. I believe there was a proposal to subcontract out the food service to Subway but I am pretty sure the Amtrak union fought this effort and won.

This is the big negative with how Amtrak is run and the complete lack of any innovative thinking to improve the passenger experience and generate more revenue.


joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> IPH, AEE, and RMR's subsidiary in Montana have all
> failed. So much for the private sector.
moron.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/18 07:27 by CP4743.

CP4743 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I believe there was a
> proposal to subcontract out the [Empire Service] food service to
> Subway but I am pretty sure the Amtrak union
> fought this effort and won.

IIRC, the Subway employees were intimidated by AMTK employees and the company pulled out of the deal. Glad to be corrected if that's wrong.

I think we need to go with vending machines; they work in other countries.

If all else fails, trains can make a meal break stop, where food is brought on board by a contractor.

And lengthen the running times and the train crew's day and pay, maybe force more crew changes, and more expenses.
Not smart.

Without a national system there is no need for Amtrak at all.

I enjoy the journey across our great country which is something air travelers don't see or even care about. It's a nice market niche which serves many communities along the line.

The anti-rail crowd on this TO board ought to lobby for vastly increased highway spending so travelers desiring to travel on the ground can do so without trains. Not everybody thinks a steel tube in the sky with tight seat pitch is a great way to go.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/18 08:16 by stash.

> It's a nice market niche which serves many
> communities along the line.
>
I absolutely agree with this statement. Its the same as the Cumbres & Toltec and Durango & Silverton. Nice niche market that serves those communities, and in return those communities/states support the railroad.

-Regards,

Dave

Except those small operations do not connect cities across the country. They don't even offer daily service. Totally different.



dbesade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > It's a nice market niche which serves many
> > communities along the line.
> >
> I absolutely agree with this statement. Its the
> same as the Cumbres & Toltec and Durango &
> Silverton. Nice niche market that serves those
> communities, and in return those
> communities/states support the railroad.
>
> -Regards,
>
> Dave

Posted from Android

Steel tube in the sky?? Such a thing would not fly either :)

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Except those small operations do not connect
> cities across the country. They don't even offer
> daily service. Totally different.

During their operating season, both offer daily service.

Daily service from nowhere to nowhere, that's the Durango-Silverton.
Connecting cities across America is totally different. Durango doesn't even have a rail connection anywhere. Get real.


dbesade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> stash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Except those small operations do not connect
> > cities across the country. They don't even
> offer
> > daily service. Totally different.
>
> During their operating season, both offer daily
> service.

stash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Daily service from nowhere to nowhere, that's the
> Durango-Silverton.
> Connecting cities across America is totally
> different. Durango doesn't even have a rail
> connection anywhere. Get real.
>
>
> dbesade Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > stash Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Except those small operations do not connect
> > > cities across the country. They don't even
> > offer
> > > daily service. Totally different.
> >
> > During their operating season, both offer daily
> > service.

I thought we were comparing LDT's... the point many have attempted to make in this thread is the "middle of nowhere" cities that don't have air travel, bus, etc. My point is, that states should pick up the tab for this.

-Dave

So what happens when not all states agree about subsidizing a LD train that passes through their state. You know that some will not.

Victor A. Baird
http://www.erstwhilepublications.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/18 14:34 by wabash2800.

Did New Hampshire "buy in, and then pay in" on the Downeaster?

It was important to Maine, but NH could care less.

wabash2800 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what happens when not all states agree about
> subsidizing a LD train that passes through their
> state. You that some will not.
>
> Victor A. Baird
> http://www.erstwhilepublications.com

If you ran through them closed door, I wonder how long it would be before the local politicians took note?