The eastbound ‘California Zephyr,’ left, meets a state-funded Capital Corridor train at Sacramento in March 2013.
Brian Schmidt
WASHINGTON – Amtrak is considering a plan to replace its long-distance train network with new corridors along parts of the same routes, the Wall Street Journal reports.
“We are undertaking a major rethinking of the national network and how we offer service on the national network,” an unnamed Amtrak spokesperson tells the newspaper. “That study and planning isn’t done yet, and we aren’t prepared to announce any plans or recommendations yet—those will come in our reauthorization proposal.”
These ideas, however, have been floated previously in the past months and years by CEO Richard Anderson, who is looking to change Amtrak’s business plan. In the past he has characterized long-distance trains as “experiential,” even though they have been with Amtrak since its inception.
The Wall Street Journal report notes that decisions need to be made soon regarding the replacement of aging equipment and the focus of the company, fewer long-distance routes or more corridor services, will dictate the types of equipment purchased.
Amtrak is due for reauthorization by Congress later this year, according to the report.
May I share some thoughts on the Anderson/Gardner/Coscia “plan” for Amtrak’s Reauthorization?
As the RPA President Jim Matthews has already stated, what Amtrak is offering in terms of a restructured network with more frequent corridor trains at “better” times (at least as quoted in the WSJ) is a false choice–a national network or enhanced corridors.
Perhaps one of the best ways to attack this is to point out the demise of the National Network destroys Amtrak as a hub/spoke carrier. Whether Amtrak likes it or not its long-distance riders need trains that will serve multiple markets and that means more than just in a tightly closed mileage-based corridor. For example, before Amtrak began to so closely restrict coach bookings on the CZ, there was a proven local trip market for 100+ riders per day from Denver to Glenwood Springs. But that would hardly support a multi-frequency corridor. How many riders would also want to go Denver to Provo, or Glenwood Springs to Reno? Or more dramatically Glenwood Springs to Cleveland?
It is the very existence of the interconnected national network that makes such trips possible. The Anderson/Gardner model would preclude far more trip options than it would serve. If “New Corridor” trains from Glenwood to Denver, Denver to Omaha and Omaha, to Chicago required constant changes and more likely overnights in hotels enroute, such a network would immediately fail if, for example, a rider from Hastings, NB had to overnight in Omaha to proceed to Chicago.
This is simply a formula for failure and Anderson knows it. Crucial to the viability of the airlines’ use of hubs is the ease of direct and reasonably close connections and in general the avoidance of the need for more than one change. Chicago (and to a lesser degree Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland and New York/Washington) play this role for Amtrak as well.
It is also vital to note that none of Anderson’s new corridors could run without full state support/subsidy arrangements. This will be particularly unlikely if, as with Denver-Omaha-Chicago multi-state compacts will be required. Anderson knows this as well. This may be too complex an analysis for a WSJ reporter, but the Congressional transport staffs should be easily able to comprehend it. And there will be no chance these corridors could be fully Federally funded without a similar relief for all the other currently operated under 750 miles state supported routes.
We as passenger rail advocates must frame the discussion focused on the need to retain the nationally funded interstate network and to budget/appropriate money for the new equipment it needs. These trains may only carry 15% of total ridership, but in terms of passenger miles they generate vastly more business–indeed in passenger trip route mile terms well over 45%–and this must be emphasized.
We must come out very strongly against this even as a trial balloon. Amtrak can not be allowed to define the debate as being about how much to cut the already skeletal national network in favor of new corridors that will likely never run. The long-distance trains are the sole reason Amtrak still exists as a national service. They are well-used–not “empty trains to nowhere”. We need to be sure this is the key Congressional message.
Carl Fowler
Rail Passengers Association
Vice Chair
(Opinions expressed are my own)
Mr. Ash, I suspect a good enough sales pitch from Amtrak could change the law in a heartbeat…
Mr. Anderson, I would like to see one of your bright ideas come to fruition (concerning the discontinuing of long distance trains) that I think might work… Amtrak can start a short distance train from Miami to Jacksonville, Fla via FEC trackage then continue on to Atlanta to make connections with your trains to New Orleans. It has been almost five years since Amtrak was talking about extending the Sunset from California or City of New Orleans from Chicago, nothing has materialized. Surely, you wouldn’t worry about your buddies at the Atlanta’s “Delta A.L. Hub!!”
Unless I am missing something, the states will have to buy into this great plan or nothing is going to happen except erosion of LD service.
Trains Magazine, are you confusing, “experiential” with “experimental” ? I know I did when Anderson first made that statement…as you stated….”even though they have been with Amtrak since its inception”
Richard Anderson is proving he was the wrong pick to run AMTRAK. He’s an airline guy through and through and believes that running a railroad like an airline can be accomplished. He’s got to go now before he’s allowed to do long term, expensive to fix destructive things to the national rail system. The head of AMTRAK should only be open to career railroad professionals who know how to run a railroad. Beefing up corridor service is a fine idea, but not at the expense of the long distance trains. I am 70 and when I was a kid, you were never far from a railroad station where you could catch a train and either directly or through connections end up almost anywhere in the country you desired. I’m not trying to be nostalgic, but returning the US to a system similar to Europe or Japan where you can travel pretty much anywhere by train just makes a lot of sense. A decent system of long distance, corridor, and branch line trains connecting the small towns and large cities of this country should be a priority to save energy and provide comfortable and reliable transportation to our citizens. Airlines should only be used for long distance travel where time is a factor.
mr. landey:
regarding city pairs and taxes: i have never spent much time time in dallas or
orlando but my taxes have helped pay for the roads there — particularly the interstates.
we all pay taxes for things we don’t directly “use”, especially where transportation is
concerned. i don’t use bridges in alaska but i help pay for the them through
my taxes and that – in my opinion – is how it should be. i’m not sure the tax
argument applies any more than it applies to air traffic control. we either want it or
we don’t.
another point i’d like to make is: i did not ride to california from new york by rail as a fan; i rode
as a customer. what amtrak offered fit my needs for that particular trip at that particular time.
american airlines suited my needs more recently on other trips. on an upcoming journey, my
wife and i will use amtrak to get to new england from manhattan not because the conveyance
is a train – but because a combination of factors cause it to “fit” our needs better than the
alternatives.
one last thing: regarding not having forty-eight years to decide what happens next for amtrak — how right you are!! i will have left this sphere long b4 that…….
As the US Military says “What a cluster F**k mister Anderson is creating !!!
We need more trains of both !!!
What do you think the freight railways will want for capacity improvements???
Case closed!!!
Please forgive a typo in my earlier comment. The word not is used twice at different locations in the first sentence. As you read, mentally delete one of the two at your discretion. The meaning will remain the same.
Thank you.
To all who state the Amtrak has had 48 years to this or that it really is and always has been up to Congress. Both parties are guilty of just lip service when it comes right down to it. Shame on all. I unfortunately agree that the time has come to Ethier fund Amtrak properly or put it out of its misery
Passenger rail in the U.S. has not been viewed by policy makers as not being truly needed or desired. Beginning with the first federal highway act nearly a century ago, “public policy” determined that personal transportation
should be elevated to the preferred mode of travel. Beyond the public’s desire to embrace the automobile, there was and still is a great deal of money to be made in embracing the proliferation of highway construction. The railroads could not begin to compete with the lobbying efforts of all the interested parties including state highway transportation officials, construction aggregate suppliers, highway construction contractors, heavy equipment manufacturers, automobile and truck manufacturers, oil companies, and rubber companies to name just a few. One can compile a similar list regarding vested interests in aviation. Feel free to add to the list.
Railroads were placed at significant disadvantage due to the tremendous burden of taxation including property taxes on rights of way, yards, and station terminals to name just a few. Today the U.S. Treasury must support the Highway Trust Fund to the tune of 15 billion every year to make up for the shortfall collected in user fees.
Aviation interests receive at least 4 billion a year in additional federal appropriation beyond user fee collections, with Essential Airline Service funding being but one example.
And yes, the cruise line industry does receive indirect subsidies. Carnival Lines and Princess Lines do not pay for deep water port dredging at their ports of call. That is provided compliments of the taxpayer.
Congress will never allow the long distance routes to go away, so any hand wringing to the contrary is a wasted effort. Notice that the current continuing resolution propped up the SW Chief and ordered discontinued station agenc
COngress will never allow the long distance routes to go away, so any hand wringing to the contrary is a wasted effort. Notice that the current continuing resolution propped up the SW Chief and ordered discontinued station ag
Mr. Renze: To your point about the tracks having to be maintained to “passenger standards”, such standards are not dictated by Amtrak. They are dictated by the Federal Railroad Administration track safety regulations and the railroad company must adhere to the standard, regardless of the type of service.
For the great majority of the national rail network, Amtrak trains abide by the speed limit that the freight carrier sets based on the FRA standard. No “extra subsidy” comes from the freight railroad company.
If higher speeds are desired, the passenger carrier and the freight railroad must come to an agreement as to funding for the upgrade. I guarantee you that the freight railroads are not giving away capacity improvements out of charity.
Also, FRA track standards allow for split speeds. i.e. Class 3 track = 40 MPH freight/60 MPH passenger. Class 4 track = 60 MPH freight/80 MPH passenger. However, the freight railroad (owner of the track) might choose to maintain a portion of their railroad to Class 4 standards but can still elect to restrict passenger speeds to, say, 60 MPH for example.
On the one hand, I would hate to see the long distance routes go. I’m 31, so I don’t remember pre-Amtrak days. The fact my parents took me on a few long distance trains as a kid is why I love trains now. I still ride them as often as I can because I enjoy it greatly.
On the other hand, they make about zero financial sense. Forget all the controversy about whether Amtrak is doing its books correctly; they are subsidized to a HUGE degree by the freight railroads. I’m no accountant, but each freight train they force to stop has to cost a few hundred dollars. That doesn’t take into consideration the fact the tracks must be maintained to passenger standards or the opportunity cost of the capacity Amtrak uses.
I would love to see trains that made financial sense. That said, I would also love to still be able to buy a sleeper ticket ten years from now, but I’ll understand why if I can’t.
I do use, and have used, LD Amtrak service both during my working years and in retirement. I am not living in the past, nor am I unrealistic when it comes to economic realities.
When the discussion is about subsidized service, we must take into account that all modes of transportation in the US exist with the benefit of taxpayer subsidy. Every last one.
Highways, from the interstates to the rural grid, are the largest beneficiaries of taxpayer funded infrastructure. And this system has been bleeding red for more than a decade, even considering that the hundreds of millions of acres of land occupied by this system adds nothing to the local coffers in real estate taxes. (The railroad infrastructure owners do pay real estate taxes and, therefore, its customers pay, regardless of whether that customer is passenger or freight.)
Imagine what highway travel would be like without taxpayer subsidy. If you’ve ever seen video of, or read about, roads in the early 20th century, then you would know that public roads would be nothing but a mud bog. Barely passable in good conditions and impassible most of the time.
The airlines would not be able to have the system that now exists without public subsidy in the form of regional airports. None of which belong to Southwest or any other private carrier.
So, what is the difference between European rail service and the skeleton of rail service in these United States? Europe chose to fund an integrated rail network while the USA chose to kill it. Those who prefer to travel in the more civilized manner via rail are being told to pay the entire costs, without subsidy, or get lost. None of the travellers of the other modes are being told to do that.
We the People still have the choice to fund a network of passenger rail travel or not to. I would willingly choose to fund it.
To the point about parking provisions, I endorse the idea. Uber or Lyft is not practical if a potential passenger lives an hour or more away from the train station. I’ve faced this conundrum myself.
Today’s (Thursday’s) article in Wall Street Journal appears to take Amtrak at its word in regard to cost allocation as between corridors and the long distance routes. Whatever, Amtrak loses money no matter how it allocates cost among routes.
My question is this: in what universe, in whose mind, would the mid-distance routes Anderson advocates be economically feasible?
An emerging corridor like Charlotte – Atlanta or Memphis – New Orleans would lose money hand over fist. Such a corridor quite possibly would lose more money than any current route.
The only way to justify the mid-distance routes would be if multiple frequencies between city pairs, and connectivity at hub cities, would attract riders and thus serve a public convenience. We have that now in Chicago and maybe a few other places like Emeryville – Oakland, plus of course NEC cities like Philadelphia and New York.
Could Dick Anderson pull that off at, say Atlanta? The simple answer is “no” and the complicated, studied answer is “no”. Anderson is trying to get out of the transcon market. Pretending that mid-distance corridors would be economically feasible is a laugh and a half.
The carrier railroads start of with a clean slate when routes are realigned. Or if not a total clean slate, at least the upper hand in negotiation. Atlanta’s two railroads are CSX and NS. Which among them is clamoring for more Amtrak trains at the price Amtrak would be willing to pay?
The time for a rational Amtrak was the mid-1970’s to the mid-1980’s. Having lost that opportunity it won’t come again.
Guy:
I agree with your synopsis of the LD service. My Cardinal trip, less than a day, did similar “sold-out” business, including in the sleepers. Ditto my experiences in 2016 & 17 on the Silver Meteor/Star routes. Now we agree Anderson is a “hub & spoke” mentality – and the corridors are (seemingly) healthier than the LD network…
But as the HOOSIER STATE & CARDINAL show, one can be a corridor today, whilst an LD route “domani”.
James: Nice notes –
Ltc: Being that the national rail system is part of the defense network, and King Donald is moving funds to support our defense on the Southwest Chief’s route along the border – don’t be surprised in OMB Director minion Mr. Mulvaney takes SW Chief funding out of AMTRAK’s appropriation this year and sends it to the border…
Just saying, don’t count any chickens… (yada, yada, yada).
v/r
Kip
Yes it is , and the CEO need to go back to the airlines he is from.
As much as I like to ride long distance trains, it’s a legitimate question to ask why the Federal government should be subsidizing land cruises (i.e., “experiential” services) . Yes, I’m aware of all of the controversy regarding Amtrak’s accounting, the bottom of line of which seems to be that Amtrak may be assigning more costs to long distance trains than it supposedly should. But that obscures the fundamental issue. NONE of Amtrak’s services makes money. NONE of Amtrak’s services would survive if they were supported only by the customers using them. EVERY service Amtrak offers exists only because some government entity is subsidizing it.
It is almost certainly true that the Northeast corridor “loses” more money per unit of production (however measured) than the long distance services. That’s because capital costs (i.e., the costs associated with the infrastructure) are a major component of any railroad’s cost structure. Amtrak is primarily responsible for the capital costs of the NEC, but not the long distance network. The capital costs of the long distance network are primarily paid by the freight railroads over which Amtrak operates – Amtrak pays, at most, only the “incremental” costs it imposes on the freight RR’s. So, of course, the “costs” per unit of production on the long distance network are lower than the NEC. But, even so, the long distance trains still lose money.
The real question – which no one on these forums seems to be asking – is what services make economic sense for the SUBSIDIZER to support. The NEC handles a huge amount of passengers. If it went away, various governmental entities would have to spend a ton of money to replace the capacity, mostly in terms of additional highway/parking capacity (if that’s even possible) and additional air transport capacity (airport runways etc). The costs of this alternative capacity are avoided by subsidizing the NEC. The avoided costs are a legitimate economic factor in deciding whether subsidizing the rail service makes economic sense for the SUBSIDIZER. The avoided costs are pretty obvious for the NEC, but they aren’t so obvious for the long distance network. Given the abysmally small market share of the long distance network, it’s difficult to see how there are ANY avoided costs that would economically justify the subsidies that support them. After all, we don’t subsidize cruise ships.
I am not convinced that the corridor trains are more useful than long distance trains. I have lived in a smaller community on a long distance route and people there use the trains. I am also not convinced that the long distance trains perform worse financially than the corridor trains. A lot of money is needed and spent on NEC infrastructure and states provide substantial subsidies for other corridors.
That said, maybe some LD trains could become corridor trains. For example the Lake Shore could sit at Cleveland or Buffalo overnight. Some through passengers may be lost but they would likely pick up some additional passengers from places that are currently only served at night. Passengers could still ride through, choosing to spend the night in their seats or at a nearby hotel. The hotel would likely be a lot less than Amtrak bedroom charges, especially for families who need multiple roomettes.
I would suggest changing this discussion away from being all for or against the idea. What routes, or portions of routes, may be better off if divided into daytime segments? I recognize that not all routes lend themselves to this idea.
Guy Ludwig – I can’t disagree with anything in your post. I’m happy you had a good trip as did all the other people on your trains. Here’s my question, though. What if you were traveling from Dallas to Orlando? Or Dallas to Denver? Or Albuquerque to Des Monies? Or Nashville to Las Vegas? Or Atlanta to Austin? Lots of people go those places and they’re just as American as you or I and they pay taxes too.
My point is that the LD trains are great. I’ve ridden them myself, as recently as four decades ago. If you can figure out how Amtrak can truly become a national system, like the railroads in Europe are, let me know. I’d love to hear it because I’m just as much a fan of rail travel as you are. In 48 years Amtrak hasn’t come up with the answer. You don’t have 48 years to come up with the answer, you have maybe two or three years.
Kevin Brown – No Amtrak doesn’t tie the country together. It ties Winslow, Arizona to Kansas City, or Fargo to Spokane. It doesn’t tie America together. You want to know what ties America together? Go to the Southwest Airlines concourses at BWI Thurgood Marshall Baltimore Airport, see the crowds and study the departure and arrivals monitors.
David and Maynard – You can criticize Dick Anderson all you want. I’m not aware that Roger Lewis, Paul Reistrup, Graham Claytor, Tom Downs, George Warrington, David Gunn, Joe Boardman, or Wick Moorman came up with a sustainable model for Amtrak.
Amtrak’s current CEO is an idiot! If you care about passenger rail service, you must speak up now! Stand up America!
just a reality check here: i traveled from new york city to san diego three weeks ago on amtrak.
during very cold weather, my trains operated on time en route and early into the end-points. both the
lake shore limited and the southwest chief were full. coach seats turned sometimes two and three times
on each service (i.e. couple travels new york-albany then new couple albany-rochester, then new couple
rochester-toledo). sleeper turnover even more impressive: i watched the same space turn chicago-kansas
city (day occupancy) then kansas city – albuquerque and then flagstaff-la. there were, as well, a number
of through sleeper passengers new york – chicago and chicago – la. my point: the services in place are
being used, even during a period of “light” travel in deep winter. without doubt, people use these trains,
both in the small towns they serve as well as the big cities. i am not saying things could not be
improved. but, as someone who uses both long distance and corridor services all year ’round, the current
system is not “broken”. it is being used, it is serving a purpose and it is working. long distance trains are
not irrelevant any more than acela is. they meet different needs – both, in my view, successfully.
Re: So what is the difference between passenger rail service in Europe and the United States?
There’s a MUCH bigger difference.
1) The trains in Europe are used by “the people that matter”.
2) “The people that matter” in the US don’t need trains, EXCEPT in the two place where trains are used by “the people that matter” (which is the Acela corridor where the financial and political parasites live). And California, which is like Denmark (in the minds of “the people that matter” in California).