AlanB

This really isn't about trains, but the comparison is interesting. For years we've all heard the horror story that some like Senator John McCain love to tout, about how the Sunset Limited runs empty and costs $400 to $600 in government subsidies per passenger to keep the train running.

Those that have ridden that train know that it doesn't exactly run empty. Yes, perhaps by the time it gets to the end of its run there may only be 100 passengers left on a train that could have carried say 300. But if one boarded the train at an intermediary point, one might well find that there are less than 100 empty seats if one picks the right point.

Well now comes word and figures on just how much more wasteful of public monies the EAS (Essential Air Services) program is. First let me state for the record that EAS overall gets far less total subsidy than does Amtrak. But the problem is that the monies given to EAS are used in a far more wasteful manner than the one's given to Amtrak.

Here are a few of my favorite quotes as reported by USA Today on Monday the 31st:

To move about 1.1 million passengers, we paid for 2.4 million empty seats! That’s less than 50%, almost 45% of all seats occupied. I’m not sure what Amtrak’s occupancy rate is, but I rather doubt that it’s below 50%. If I had to guess, I’d probably say it’s in the 70% range and it might actually be higher.

I find it funny that we never seem to have outraged Congressmen over this waste, yet Amtrak is constantly in the news because of its subsidy. In fact, without so much as a whimper Congress just approved a $110 Million dollar increase in the EAS budget this year to help promote further wasting of money. It would seem that while Amtrak isn't essential to the many rural communities that it serves, having an empty airplane serve those communities is essential.

In any event, for those that are curious you can find the full article from USA Today here.

Explore

Thanks for posting. Interesting and thorough article.

Actually the program isn't that different from Amtrak's long-distance services (which cost many times more in subsidy, but deliver greater benefits). Likely neither would survive without the anti-democratic makeup of the US Senate, where 2 Senators represent populations varying from less than one million, up to 38 million (CA). And the makeup is steadily worsening as distant rural states stagnate in their population growth.

That said, travel junkies like ourselves enjoy making use of these services where they exist. I considered flying Big Sky Airlines to Wolf Point MT to start a one-region award trip on Amtrak. Ultimately my wife and I flew potentially unsubsidized air links from DEN to BIS, and MSP to GFK respectively (though on full or partial awards) to link up with the Empire Builder at Grand Forks, where we paid coach fares from there to Wolf Point to start our Western Region sleeper award trip to Denver.

I don't consider fear of flying to be a legitimate reason to retain long-distance trains. For one thing, you can't cross oceans by scheduled boat anymore. However, perhaps an argument could be made that long-distance services have cultural or natural history benefits that draw travelers closer to the country.

ibrandsguest

Yet another reason not to vote for John McCain. I wish NARP or another organization would keep track of Presidential candidates' positions on Amtrak. I'd assume that Romney, Giuliani and other Northeastern politicians would have generally good records, although I don't know.

the_traveler

I agree - even though I'm on the low side of the population. My state (RI) has the same amount of Senators as NY, TX and CA! When I lived in AZ (which just happens to be where McCain is from), my work required my to cover a county! That one COUNTY was bigger than two or 3 STATES in southern New England - yet those states (with a smaller total area) have 4 or 6 Senators!

Communities may want EAS or Interstate highways for the opposite reason of NIMBY, but when it comes to Amtrak, the answer is NIMS (not in my state) or NIMC (not in my country)! Now that fuel costs are high, it seems people would want a choice more. But not if it does not involve cars or planes! ("Let's make this 4 lane road into 8 lanes! That will fix it.")

njm

Thanks for posting and sharing your thoughts, AlanB! They are well-informed as always.

That was exactly my first thought, and that Sen. Max Baucus of Montana is one of those long-serving, chairman/ranking member types. Indeed, Sen. Baucus is on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and isn't afraid to brag about bringing home the bacon in regards to other transportation spending. (He's the chairman of the Transportation subcommittee.)

See http://baucus.senate.gov/about/serving.cfm .

I'm not saying that he personally influences any choices of routes for the EAS program, but I'm sure he supports it and knows that it's in operation on the routes you've mentioned.

gpayer

While Amtrak may eat up more dollars annually than EAS - there is the potential for Amtrak (assuming the right infrastructure dollars were put in place up front) to end its subsidies in the future; while EAS will always require subsidies due to the fact that very few people fly these "essential" routes - but the government thinks that they are a necessity.

We only began to take a look at the Amtrak situation the last few months. Previously, like most people, I hadn't thought much about Amtrak and hadn't really thought of its cost. However, having taken a trip now and planning many more; I have found the trains to be a fun experience with a lot of potential.

Amtrak's main problem is two-fold: 1) Lack of ownership of rails; and 2) Lack of operating capital (due to mediocre demand for its services).

First, any of us who have travelled on Amtrak have noticed that 95% of the rails they travel on are freight line owned and therefore they do not have priority. This causes various delays and makes their service less reliable (slower). Secondly, due to the fact that they share rails - investing in higher speed equipment is not really an option because they don't control the rails and therefore could not leverage the investment with one unified "faster" equipment platform. Therefore, improving speed of service is a double edged sword.

Secondly, lack of operating capital has made this situation even worse. In recent years Amtrak has been forced to work with various states for operating funds. In exchange for $10M here and $5M here, they make agreements to add various stops within specific states. These 25-30 miles apart stops are somewhat unnecessary and add additional slowness into the system. For example, the MSP - CHI route takes 5.5 hours to drive on the interstate. However, the Empire Builder takes 8.083 hours to travel the same distance. Furthermore, air traffic between MSP and CHI is very cost effective (due to competition on those routes). As a result, Amtrak is not a viable option.

Finally, Amtrak desperately needs updated equipment and amenities. For example, I think that Amtrak should look into JetBlue type entertainment (like DirecTV) in some train cars (possibly a business class or first class cabin). Furthermore, I think that the train needs to have internal internet access. While I know a lot of people will say it is about the journey, it is important to realize that in order for Amtrak to really survive and grow - it needs to have a broader base of users. Those amenities will bring others online and will make people ride a slower train for the comfort and enjoyment provided (not to say their isn't some charm to it already).

Basically, my point is this: I see a few critical investments that the US Government should make in rail traffic:

1) Infrastructure investment in dedicated rail ownership and rail upgrades for higher speed equipment;
2) Capital investments for upgraded equipment, amenities, and higher speed service nationwide (the elimination of smaller - somewhat duplicate station locations).
3) Quicker service and more offerings on their current lines (quicker service will draw more people and fill up the new capacity).

Now, obviously this takes a serious investment by the US taxpayers. Many will say it is unnecessary. However, some industries simply need to be "seeded" to be successful. Rail traffic in the US is one of those industries. Air traffic continues to get more expensive (with its heavy reliance on fossil fuels) and congested. A higher speed railway will help provide a more viable alternative travel option for Americans.

My guess is that $50B would make a massive difference in Amtrak's abilities to make a future rail service option a reality. Remember that is what we spend on the Iraq War about every 6 - 9 months.

Now, consider the millions annually that the government gives to EAS and the $15B bailout of the airlines in 2002. Over the long haul - a huge investment in rail would provide a lot more benefit to the US than the continued investment in air service for places that very few people are going. A viable rail system would provide returns in the long run - while the EAS program just keeps funnelling dollars to a failing business (airlines serving remote areas that will never be self-sufficient); while Amtrak can be self-sufficient with the right upfront investment.

Just my thoughts.

jackal

Welcome to FlyerTalk and the AGR forum, gpayer!

Good thoughts and I hope they instigate some discussion.

One thing I'd suggest, though, is that it's not necessarily a bad thing for Amtrak to serve stops 25-30 miles apart. If train frequency were high enough (although many routes are only served by one train in each direction per day!), I'd agree that a "limited" or "express" service only serving major cities would be a viable option (and there is actually now a limited stop service on Acela between WAS and NYP).

However, with the slower trains on most other routes and the very short dwell times at most of these low-traffic stations, I don't think the potential passenger gain due to the minute time savings (maybe 30 minutes at best?) is worth the potential loss of traffic.

With a project such as the California High-Speed Rail proposal, however, express service to major cities would work perfectly, since the time savings would be a significant percentage of the total journey time.

I think Amtrak is beginning to address some of your concerns regarding improving speed and access with their focus on corridors. As Amtrak buys up freight trackage and/or negotiates better deals with host railroads for more frequent commuter services and then increases the speeds and frequency of service, more people will choose rail travel for these medium-length journeys.

However, I'm still a fan of Amtrak's long-distance (i.e. cross-country) services, but I doubt anything short of a full-blown, record-setting >350mph high-speed rail project would make Amtrak truly competitive with the nation's airline infrastructure. With connections, a transcontinental journey today probably takes around 7 hours on average. That's enough traveling for most people, and as relaxing and enjoyable as rail travel is, I don't think people would settle for anything more than 12-15 hours. However, people will trade a 2-3 hour journey by air for a 5-6 hour journey by train (as evidenced by the success of Acela), so developing regional high-speed services is the key to the success of rail travel. If you think about it, that's the model Europe uses--separate high-speed services in each country (about the size of two or three medium-sized states). It's actually been only recently that Europe has started to interconnect their high-speed rail systems across borders, and eventually when ridership is high enough, we can look at connecting the northeast system with the northern midwest (Chicago-based) system, the southeast (Atlanta-based) system with the southern midwest (Houston/Dallas-based) system, the southern midwest system with the northern midwest system, and eventually even the southern midwest system west to a California-based system.

gpayer

I agree with you on the express v local service. There are still some stations that are probably a little too close to have (in rural areas specifically). I know a lot of people in North Dakota and they consider a 100 mile trip to be comparable to a 20-30 journey for me (just different perspective based on where they live and what they are used to). As such, I think you could cut a few stations here and there to speed up the service without sacraficing any passengers (they will more than likely drive to the next station anyways). In fact, I have thought about driving to the next station (further away from me) just because I can drive that segment as fast as the train travels and it allows more flexibility in my travel plans.

I also agree with your regional statements. However, I don't believe that local governments and states should "compete" to fund their regional service over another. I truly believe that the US goverment needs to step in and provide the funding on a national scope.

I read that the next high speed corridor ("Acela-like") is scheduled to be between Detroit & Chicago because Amtrak already owns nearly 100 miles of the needed track. Furthermore, it appears that the federal government supports that route.

Personally, I would like to see a maintenaince of the existing long-haul routes (as they are an unique experience and truly a vacation unto their own), while added regional high speed corridor connections. That would make Amtrak a more balanced company providing for improved passenger counts (profitablity), more viable long term success, and a true option to air travel. No one is going to take Amtrak cross-country versus an airplane if the train component is not in their itinerary. However, I would surely take Amtrak between MSP - CHI - DTW if high speed corridor travel existed because while the flights are 1.5 to 2.0 hour flights (each) going to an airport, checking in, checking luggage, deplaning, getting my luggage, parking issues, etc really slow air travel down. In fact, I think that regional high speed rail can match air travel when you add in those factors (as well as weather doesn't slow train travel down as much as it does air travel). I think you agree with that in your remark that people take the 4.5 hour train ride over the 1.0 flight between WAS and NYP.