Explore

Dateline Oxnard, CA, January 15: Returning my Taurus to the lightly-traveled Oxnard Airport after a one-day rental to explore Ventura County and parts of western LA County. Stayed overnight on the westside of LA. Was originally planning on using Amtrak and MTA for the roundtrip, but with no single traveler discounts available save 10% AAA, plus a blackout on using Select + coupons to upgrade to Business Class, and uncertainty about the AGR credit card, I found the car to be a better deal. Full auto cost $43 including gas, vs. around $33 in Amtrak coach (AAA) and MTA, or $53 in Amtrak Business, not including Oxnard transfers. This despite the fact that Oxnard has only two car rental firms.

On my trip I experienced little traffic congestion, and enjoyed excellent mobility "the American Way". I had a beautiful sunny return trip along Malibu and Point Mugu shorelines, a landscape denied to train travelers by a recalcitrant property owner a century ago (the railroad didn't have the eminent domain authority of the highway department).

Footnote: AGR blackouts for MLK, Columbus, and Veterans Day weekends may not make sense outside the Northeast.

the_traveler

I agree that the blackouts do not make sense. And the "no single" discounts hurt me (and I'm sure many others), since I usually travel alone. Amtrak currently has some great discounts for 2 pax. But since I only have 1 pax, I don't qualify.

I remember when I checked for someone that for 2 pax, the discount was (IIRC) $108, but for 1 pax the discount was only $18!

Besides the 3-day purchase rule (which I could live with), I understand that Amtrak wants the higher fares, but faced with the higher fares, I (like you) may chose to drive instead!

AlanB

Amtrak doesn't want higher fares, Congress and the White House are demanding higher fares with their insistance that Amtrak make a profit.

Reindeerflame

Amtrak doesn't want anything. It is a bureaucracy that lives at the whim of the politicians and has lost the ability to innovate. Still, we love it anyway, much like a parent loves their delinquent 30+ year old that still lives at home (that's Amtrak!). It's called tough love.

AlanB

While I don't agree with the overall idea, as I suspect that it may hurt ridership in the long run, I'd say that the whole Diner Lite concept was rather innovative on the part of somebody at Amtrak.

Reindeerflame

Sure, that may be OK. But did Amtrak decide on its own to do this? I don't think so. This was forced on Amtrak by Congress. Without that pressure, I suspect Amtrak would have done "nothing".

I know they're struggling to survive, and that's not the best laboratory for innovation. It's just after 30 years I'm no longer willing to make excuses. It's put up or shut up time for them.

AlanB

Well it was a fickle and foolish Congress that added a provision to Amtrak's funding stating that Amtrak must cut the losses on food service. But beyond cutting the loss, there was no guidance on how to do that. It was up to Amtrak as to how to achieve this demand. A demand that was silly at so many levels that it showed that most in Congress had no idea how to run a RR, or that they ever read a history book.

No food service in the history of railroading over the last 100 years has ever made a profit. They all ran at a loss. Yet somehow Amtrak is supposed to find a way to do something that has never been done in a world where labor costs are higher than ever. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it and it is apparent that Congress didn't learn.

Next, while I won't disagree that there are many areas where Amtrak needs improvement and efficiency, micro managing isn’t going to fix those problems. Amtrak was handed about $1.3 Billion dollars in that budget where the demand was made. Congress was worried about cutting a bit of the food service loss, which in total amounts to around $100 Million per year. I’m reminded of the tale of the little Dutch boy with his finger stuck in the dike trying to hold back the flood.

If Congress would simply provide a constant, stable, guaranteed, inflation adjusted early allocation of funds, Amtrak could probably save at least $100 Million every year on its contracts for supplies and parts. But since Amtrak has to wait until the last minute to order anything, because it never knows what its budget will be next year much less 3 years down the road, it pays a premium for things. The ability to have long term contracts would save more money than Amtrak could ever cut on food service.

Heck if Amtrak had had stable, constant funding for the last 30 years, it wouldn’t be so deeply in debt right now. And that dept service probably represents close to 1/3 of the monies given to Amtrak last year.

Amtrak is a creature of those who created it. The only way to really fix it is to fix Congress. Yes, if pushed and prodded Amtrak may make improvements. Heck, hire the right managers maybe Amtrak will even make some improvements without being pushed and prodded. But there is only so much that they can do on their own. Some things are the fault of Congress, like saddling Amtrak with the retirement costs of workers from the pre-Amtrak days who never ever worked a day in their lives for Amtrak.

And the demands that Amtrak make a profit once again shows that those in Congress have failed to learn from history, as the freight RR’s never made a profit collectively during the years that they ran passenger trains.

OutOfOffice

Excellent and well thought out post ^

I have been preaching all along to anyone who will listed that the Amtrak we know today is the result of over 30 years with no clear mandate and going through each fiscal year with no clear idea what the next year will bring.

Once Amtrak mortgaged the last of it's real estate, it became 100% dependent on the whims of our congress and it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.

NovaEngr

I disagree that the way to solve Amtrak financial problems is to simply guarantee them money every year. How would that provide any incentive to improve operational efficiency? What other business operates that way? Amtrak should have to meet some goals and thresholds as conditions for receiving aid. Otherwise, why not just send them a blank treasury check and let them fill in what they want.

One more thing. Amtrak does enter into long term contracts for services and materials. Their NEC power supply contracts, along with others, are multi-year. While I do not doubt that vendors take the annual budget uncertainty into account in their long-term pricing, Amtrak has managed to survive all these years despite itself. Vendors know that and price accordingly.

AlanB

I'm not suggesting that guaranteed money would solve their financial problems, but I do believe that it would do more towards helping than the silly mandate to cut the food service losses imposed by a recent Congress. And I'm definately not advocating a blank check approach.

Any long term monies should come with some sort of realistic controls/management/goals for the money and the bulk of the money shouldn't be usable for general operating expenses. Any such monies should be going for long term projects by and large.

You mention business operating with guarenteed money, but how many do you know that have to prepare their annual budget and start the new year on said budget without actually knowing how much money they can expect. Yes, most businesses are gambling that their revenues will go up from one year to the next, and baring unusual circumstances or poor management, they generally do. But that's not the same as knowing that you need financial help, yet having to plan a budget without knowing what you will actually get.

Yes they do have some long term contracts (LTC), but there are many other areas where they don't enter into LTC's because of the uncertainty of funding. And as you've pointed out, many of the LTC's that they do have are most likely priced higher than they would have been, had funding been stable.

Yet another area where long term funding would help is in the area of interest rates on the current debt. If Amtrak's future were more certain, they'd be paying less debt service and quite possibly saving that $100 M without even trying.