Amtrak adds Michigan Line train!

[GP30M4216]

For Labor Day Weekend, Amtrak is adding an early morning Kalamazoo-Chicago train and a late night Chicago-Kalamazoo train. This is an initial experiment to gauge potential ridership numbers for a full-time train operating on a similar schedule, allowing the opportunity to get to Chicago earlier in the day, and to help relieve some of the ridership overcrowding on trains 351, 365, and 354. Check out the timetable on the second page of this link! If you have nothing better to do Labor Day weekend, take a trip on one of these trains and show your support! Both of these new trains stop at several intermediate stations, which will also help to boost ridership at these smaller stations.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServe ... ecials.pdf

[TrainWatcher]

I think thats a waste. Might as well send it atleast to AA or Dearborn. Ridership on this end of the line seems to really be kicking into high gear. Or one thing Amtrak could do is perminately ADD more cars! Oh wait, that makes no sence, thats not a way to reduce crowding...

[Shorthaul]

Kalamazoo boards the second most passengers in the State, after Ann Arbor. Starting/ending the train in Kalamazoo eliminates needing to run on the NS in Michigan, which makes things easier and prevents some delays, although they still have to run on the NS from Butler into Chicago, which is where most of their delays occur.

Amtrak does not choose not to add cars, they just don't have enough cars that work on a consistent basis. I'm sure if they had more rolling stock, then they would use it. The problem is that they spend so much money on their long distance, infrequent, low-ridership trains that they don't have proper funds for trains like the ones in Michigan, which are shorter-distance corridor trains. These are the trains that make sense, reduce highway congestion, and are the kind that could eventually become high-speed routes. If Amtrak were to either completely drop their long distance services, or at least cut them back, then they would have more than enough money to fund the routes where rail transportation is actually viable. I don't think many people are aware of the fact that Amtrak spends around 75% of their money on around 15% of their passengers.

[CSX_CO]

I've often wondered why AMTRAK didn't have an early morning departure from K-zoo to Chicago, with a late night return trip. Maybe only weekends only to tap the College crowds in K-zoo.

Purdue has the Hoosier State which calls on Lafayette about 7:30 in the morning. Arrives into Chicago by 11:00. It used to be even earlier, and didn't leave Chicago until 8:30, arriving back around midnight. Allowed for a day trip to Chicago, on a reasonable schedule, without the need for an overnight stay in the City ($$$). Plenty of college students took advantage of this from Lafayette North, and visiting students would do the same. Get into Lafayette by midnight on Friday, in time to party, and leave Sunday morning to be home by Sunday night.

Practice Safe CSX

[Buster Manning]

Don't know where you guys have been hiding, but Amtrak HAS added cars to their trains. All the trains have added at least 2 cars to their consists, bringing the normal train size up to 6-8 cars instead of the 4-6 ; over the July 4th holiday period, 352 was running with 10 cars and I anticipate that again over the Labor day holiday weekend.

Amtrak and MDOT have wanted to run a train out of the Kazoo area in the early morning period for a while to try to capture some of the long-distance commuters heading into CHI; lack of equipment and crews were the biggest holdups to this happening.

Don't know where you are getting those figures Shorthaul; Amtrak's biggest expense is running and maintaining the NEC. I bet that if you compare just how much they make off the corridor with ALL the costs associated with it to what Amtrak actually pays the host railroads for track maintainence and to dispatch the long-distance trains, the long distance trains come out way ahead percentage-wise.

[Shorthaul]

Don't know where you are getting those figures Shorthaul; Amtrak's biggest expense is running and maintaining the NEC. I bet that if you compare just how much they make off the corridor with ALL the costs associated with it to what Amtrak actually pays the host railroads for track maintainence and to dispatch the long-distance trains, the long distance trains come out way ahead percentage-wise.

No, actually that is not correct FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I believe that the NEC actually makes money for Amtrak. If we take a look at Amtrak's latest monthly report, which I linked below, it shows that NEC trains made $36.5 million, and the operating costs were $14.2 million (although that seems low), which turns out to be a profit of $22.4 million.

In comparison, long distance trains made $22.3 million, but lost $63.7 million, for a total loss of $41.4 million.

Corridor/Short distance trains made $45 million, cost $29.6 million, which is a profit of $ 15.4 million.

These statistics could be misleading me though, but they are under the section "Financial performance of routes-Fully allocated overhead, excluding interest and depreciation," in the June 2010 monthly report, so they seem like they would be the correct numbers.

The report is available here: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServe ... onthly.pdf

Even if the NEC costs more than the rest of the system, that really has very little impact in my argument towards corridor trains and away from long-distance. The NEC is so different than the rest of Amtrak's network that it shouldn't really be brought into this debate, which is about diesel powered trains running (primarily) on freight routes. As I see it, long-distance trains are ridden almost exclusively for the pleasure of being on the train, and the fun of the trip. Not many people ride these trains for transportation alone. The same goes for cruise ships. Does the government subsidize cruise ships? NO. Should they? NO. Buses could be operated for people who need long-distance, ground based transportation. Short-distance trains, on the other hand, are used by people who actually want to get from point A to point B in a timely matter. Not many people would ride these trains for the "fun' of it alone. These corridor trains are a great way to reduce highway congestion. Since they are an alternative to taxpayer-funded highway construction, taxpayer dollars should be able to be used to fund them.

[CSX_CO]

No, actually that is not correct FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I believe that the NEC actually makes money for Amtrak. If we take a look at Amtrak's latest monthly report, which I linked below, it shows that NEC trains made $36.5 million, and the operating costs were $14.2 million (although that seems low), which turns out to be a profit of $22.4 million.

There are lies, darn lies, and statistics. AMTRAK likes to say that the NEC makes them money, but you need to compare the entire system, which is what AMTRAK is. Its all in how you quantify it. Maybe you need to break it down to expense per mile of track. Yes, the NEC operating costs were $14.2 million for roughly 450 miles of track. That works out to $31,555 in expenses per mile of track.

Now, AMTRAK says they have 21,000 route miles across the country, including the NEC. So, that means you have 20,550 miles of routes, that cost $63.7 million to operate, or $1440.41 of expense per mile.

Now, you tell me which one costs more to operate? If AMTRAK were to spend $31,555 on EVERY mile of ROW it uses, then we'd have a passenger system to rival anyone in the world. Instead, AMTRAK spends big $$$ in the Northeast, while the rest of the country gets the crumbs. What makes the Northeast so special?

No one has ever made money moving passengers, at least not in the modern era. Airlines don't make money moving passengers, they make money moving freight in the planes. Greyhound doesn't even make money moving passengers, it hauls stuff in the belly of the bus that makes it money. That's what did in the airlines after Sept 11th attacks. It wasn't being shut down for 3 days, it was the fact that the FAA wouldn't allow them to move freight in the cargo holds of the airliners. Railroads were at best loss leaders on the passenger services they offered. Express and mail contracts help off-set those losses.

By your logic, we should stop subsidising interstate highways because they could be used for 'pleasure trips'. Maybe we need to stop paving roads altogether, dirt and rock work just as well to drive over. After all, 95% of roads in town is used by people to just 'do stuff' they want to do.

This is where we need a 'balanced' transportation network. Ask anyone who worked for AMTRAK on Sept 12th, 2001, if AMTRAK was needed. The trains were the only way to get between the city centers of this country, and were packed full. What happens if the airlines shut down again?

As far as tax dollars used to fund 'cooridor' trains, what do you think AMTRAK is? Its a taxpayer funded entity, run by the Government. I for one would rather see more money poured into AMTRAK then into some interstate I'll never see. I'd love to see the interstates all become toll roads. Play to play. At least then my Indiana gas tax dollar isn't going to widen some highway in Southern California I'll never see.

Practice Safe CSX

[ns8401]

Underfunding has always been a problem for Amtrak, and they receive a pittance in comparison to the freeways and even the airlines. If the funding went up they could run trains on less of a shoestring budget.

[Ben Higdon]

By your logic, we should stop subsidising interstate highways because they could be used for 'pleasure trips'. Maybe we need to stop paving roads altogether, dirt and rock work just as well to drive over. After all, 95% of roads in town is used by people to just 'do stuff' they want to do.

I like that idea! I'd rather keep more of my tax dollars and pay for a minimal road network. Bring back the mass transit (goodbye to some of those tax dollars) and stop building the sprawl.

As for the question: why Amtrak continues to operate long distance trains?, you don't need to look any farther than Washington DC. The only way Amtrak will get enough support to be subsidized is for them to have routes through as many states as possible. Kind of like something I've heard about NASA...having components built in every state to ensure political support.

[Shorthaul]

Yes, CSX_CO, I see your point, but I don't agree that we should stop subsidizing interstate highways. My point is that the interstate system is already there, so there is really no need to run Amtrak to transport these people when there are other modes of long-distance transport that are less expensive currently. The reason that roads are subsidized are because of the economic benefits of transportation. Passenger transportation has never been able to make money in it's self, but it makes so much money for businesses that it is a very worthy investment, obviously. Amtrak's long-distance trains move so few people relative to the amounts that the interstate highways and airlines move between the same destinations, so they bring much less economic benefits to the communities that they serve. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak is able to move MANY MORE passengers, due to a number of factors, the largest which are population density and relatively short distances. Since Amtrak moves so many more passengers on the NEC than anywhere else, they can justify this kind of spending. I doubt that spending $31,555 per mile of track on a route from Chicago to Seattle, or from Los Angeles to New Orleans would EVER pay off. But maybe I am totally wrong.

Sadly, ever since this country decided to subsidize roads with general funds, every other mode of transportation has had a disadvantage against the automobile. There is no way that a private company can fairly compete with an entity that taxpayers fund. As much as this country bills its self as a "free market economy," there is virtually NO free market in the transportation industry. I would love to see all taxes used for transportation cut, and people charged directly for the true cost of their transportation. This could include a small recorder installed in each automobile, which counts mileage and sends it to a database. Every month or year, people get their "road bill." If people decide to take public transportation instead, than they are charged the true cost of the system. Same with flying, because airports are also heavily subsidized. Airlines would be charged the true cost of using the airport, and could subsequently charge passengers more, which would be justified since they would be paying less taxes. Private companies could take over passenger railroading, which would make it more efficient. Surface streets would be virtually impossible to privatize, and would still have to be government run, but maybe highways could be privatized, although they would need regulations, because they hold a virtual monopoly as of now. There could still be low-interest loans provided by the government, to allow for massive growth and changes (which would all be decided by the free market). This system would create a level playing field, and would cause (in my opinion) a large shift away from highways. Unfortunately, I doubt that this will EVER happen, as there has been a LONG courtship between the government and the automobile industry, but if it does, I have no doubt that the United States will have the best passenger transportation system in the world.

A more moderate alternative would be transportation funding on a 100% state-by-state basis. The federal government could still provide funds to the states if need be (ideally not), but the states choose how to appropriate these funds entirely by themselves. I can see problems where California and Utah want to improve a highway between Salt Lake City and LA, but Nevada doesn't, so the section through Nevada remains a problem, however, if Utah and California are the states that will benefit from the highway, and Nevada will not, than in my opinion, it is fair for Utah and California to pick up the tab for the section through Nevada. Rail could go the same way. Instead of being funded and run by a federal level organization, each route could be funded and operated by the states that it serves. This way, people pay for the transportation they use, although not as directly as my first concept.

These are merely ideas, and I am sure that there a lot of holes in my logic, but I love discussing this kind of thing, and hope that this thread can continue to provide an intelligent subject of conversation.

[sd70accsxt700]

My point is that the interstate system is already there, so there is really no need to run Amtrak to transport these people when there are other modes of long-distance transport that are less expensive currently.

Ummmm.....Railroad were there first, long before the Interstate system. And just because the interstate system is there there is no need for Amtrak. That is absurd. Just because there is one mode of transportation, or even two, that dont mean it should not be there, even if it is the most expensive. For what ever reason, people pay to ride it, so it has a use.

Amtrak's long-distance trains move so few people relative to the amounts that the interstate highways and airlines move between the same destinations, so they bring much less economic benefits to the communities that they serve.

Once again, who says that just because other modes are there, it should not be. By that assumption, we should all be in horse and buggys, because there were there first, (aside from walking). And how is it that is has much less economic benefits to the communites than anything else.

I would love to see all taxes used for transportation cut, and people charged directly for the true cost of their transportation. This could include a small recorder installed in each automobile, which counts mileage and sends it to a database. Every month or year, people get their "road bill." If people decide to take public transportation instead, than they are charged the true cost of the system. Same with flying, because airports are also heavily subsidized. Airlines would be charged the true cost of using the airport, and could subsequently charge passengers more, which would be justified since they would be paying less taxes.

You would not be able to afford to go anywhere other then on bike and walking. By the time you factor in payment to employes, mechinacs, drivers, gas, matinence, ect, even taking the bus, would cost twice to three times as much.

[Shorthaul]

You would not be able to afford to go anywhere other then on bike and walking. By the time you factor in payment to employes, mechinacs, drivers, gas, matinence, ect, even taking the bus, would cost twice to three times as much.

What? Why would it cost anything different than what it does now? You currently pay taxes to fund transportation investment, and to pay for employees, gas, maintenance anyway. If you didn't pay these taxes, than you would have more money to spend. This money would directly pay for transportation. I don't get what you are saying.

[Shorthaul]

Ummmm.....Railroad were there first, long before the Interstate system. And just because the interstate system is there there is no need for Amtrak. That is absurd. Just because there is one mode of transportation, or even two, that dont mean it should not be there, even if it is the most expensive. For what ever reason, people pay to ride it, so it has a use.

Tickets don't pay for most of Amtrak's costs. Taxpayer dollars do. I don't see what the special need for Amtrak's long distance routes are.

You would not be able to afford to go anywhere other then on bike and walking. By the time you factor in payment to employes, mechinacs, drivers, gas, matinence, ect, even taking the bus, would cost twice to three times as much.

What? Why would it cost anything different than what it does now? You currently pay taxes to fund transportation investment, and to pay for employees, gas, maintenance anyway. If you didn't pay these taxes, than you would have more money to spend. This money would directly pay for transportation. I don't get what you are saying about the costs being different for the same thing.

[sd70accsxt700]

Just because you quit paying taxes and such on these "things" does not equate equaly, I cant prove it or even have enought inside info, but something tells me that just because they repeal a half percent tax, means that you will automaticly get half percent back. I would think it would be more like .4 percent that you would get back. I am sure there are some hidden fees in there some where. Also what then happens when (although it happens now, but the way it is now it is already price in, and not out of you pocket), the goverment, state, local, federal, ect, decide that more taxes are need for schools, or even taxes in general, and taxes goes up and you check dont. That meas less mony to spend on transportation that you now dont have, where before it was already there.

And as you also said neither does airline tickes pay for the full cost of a plain trip, or anyother form of transportation, other then your car, so why the hate towards Amtrak?

[Shorthaul]

Just because you quit paying taxes and such on these "things" does not equate equaly, I cant prove it or even have enought inside info, but something tells me that just because they repeal a half percent tax, means that you will automaticly get half percent back. I would think it would be more like .4 percent that you would get back. I am sure there are some hidden fees in there some where. Also what then happens when (although it happens now, but the way it is now it is already price in, and not out of you pocket), the goverment, state, local, federal, ect, decide that more taxes are need for schools, or even taxes in general, and taxes goes up and you check dont. That meas less mony to spend on transportation that you now dont have, where before it was already there.

And as you also said neither does airline tickes pay for the full cost of a plain trip, or anyother form of transportation, other then your car, so why the hate towards Amtrak?

Sadly, I probably do have too much faith in the taxes being fairly cut. You may be right that the taxes would be wasted elsewhere. I just wish that we, the people, had more of a say in our transportation. Maybe there is a happy medium out there, where the highways are converted to toll roads, but the surface roads stay free. Maybe none of these answers are right. I'm just putting ideas out there.

I have no hate towards Amtrak. I think that it is often unfair to freight railroads, and I think it is not nessecary in some applications, but overall, I'm glad we have been able to hold on to passenger rail in this country at all. As we enter a new era of transportation, I am confident that passenger rail will become once again very important, and can only hope that there is enough funding for it. Maybe Amtrak just needs more funding, or maybe the idea of the states taking over would work. I just would like to see the modes of transportation be able to compete fairly.

[sd70accsxt700]

I just would like to see the modes of transportation be able to compete fairly.

I can agree with that.

[AARR]

I'm enjoying the conversation guys.

I'm pro Amtrak because without it there are groups of people who would have less options to get around.