After having traveled by train in multiple foreign countries, I really would like to support Amtrak in the U.S.  They don't make it easy.

 

/begin rant

 

I just looked into taking the train to the east coast for a conference in several months.  The price is right, but the schedule of trains through Ohio really means that I need two additional days -- even leaving in the middle of the night and traveling for nearly three times the travel time of flying I do not arrive early enough to attend the first sessions, meaning I have to arrive a day earlier and pay for an additional hotel night. 

 

So frustrating to think how many more passengers Amtrak would have if they would just increase the frequency of trains along existing routes! >:( >:( >:(

 

/end rant.

Friends at Amtrak say they would love to operate more frequently between Chicago and the East Coast. But they point to a 21-year-old law and a 10-year-old law that say Amtrak cannot add service that increases their operating subsidy without guaranteed, non-federal way of paying for it. There actually are ways of doing it, but would require Amtrak to behave in an entrepreneurial manner. Meanwhile Amtrak uses a fully-allocated cost accounting method that makes long-distance trains appear more expensive than they really are, versus an avoidable cost method that Amtrak is required by statute to use. In other words, Amtrak has to be convinced to get out of it's own way.

Friends at Amtrak say they would love to operate more frequently between Chicago and the East Coast. But they point to a 21-year-old law and a 10-year-old law that say Amtrak cannot add service that increases their operating subsidy without guaranteed, non-federal way of paying for it. There actually are ways of doing it, but would require Amtrak to behave in an entrepreneurial manner. Meanwhile Amtrak uses a fully-allocated cost accounting method that makes long-distance trains appear more expensive than they really are, versus an avoidable cost method that Amtrak is required by statute to use. In other words, Amtrak has to be convinced to get out of it's own way.

 

And it sounds like Congress also needs to be encouraged to get out of Amtrak's way.

In other words, Amtrak has to be convinced to get out of it's own way.

 

Or, alternatively, states like Ohio need to pay for additional service out of their own pockets.

 

Or, alternatively, states like Ohio need to pay for additional service out of their own pockets.

 

Definitely. But for service that crosses state lines, it's difficult to get states to work together and stay coordinated. In fact, the first state-supported route was the Lake Shore, linking Chicago and New York via Cleveland and Toledo, but New York never paid its share because it was undergoing a statewide rail plan and didn't want to pay for anything yet. So the service was dropped after less than one year. Amtrak started it up again as an experimental route in 1975, wholly federally funded. Here's a historical piece I wrote a few years ago: http://allaboardohio.org/2015/10/31/amtraks-lake-shore-ltd-turns-40/

 

But for routes longer than 750 miles (like Chicago-East Coast), federal law is less clear on who should pay for new service. The Constitution, which gives the federal government power to oversee interstate commerce, suggests that the federal government should be the one paying the bills for interstate routes. But multi-state compacts can and do undertake such efforts in the absence of federal leadership. In fact, since the passage of the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008, the feds give nearly all of the authority to sponsor expanded service to states and multi-state compacts. But railroads (Amtrak and private) do have eligibility to apply for federal operating subsidies to add new services as long as they can pay for them with non-federal funds after three years.

Having some issues with Amtrak website. Are there any other sites that book for Amtrak, like with google flights?

^You can call Julie (unless Amtrak has terminated it's phone system).

^You can call Julie (unless Amtrak has terminated it's phone system).

 

Wait, doesn't she work on the Love Boat?

They have an app...

They have an app...

 

Thanks I'll give that a shot.

 

Wait, doesn't she work on the Love Boat?

 

I hate Julie. I've never used the Amtrak 800 number. At least not in this century.

 

What problems are you having with the website? You might consider https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/

My boss hates flying and she needs to get to the Bay Area for a meeting. She asked if the train was an option so a few of us were checking, all of us were having trouble with the site (could be our system). Every option (SD-SF and SD-OAK) seems to require a bus transfer at some point, and she said "under no circumstance will I get on a bus." Lol. I think someone just found her a route where she can ditch the transfer bus and take an Uber/Lyft instead.

Amtrak's website is probably directing passengers to the state-supported trains via the San Joaquin route (which requires an Amtrak bus between LA and Bakersfield) instead of the Amtrak long-distance train, called the Coast Starlight (trains #11 & 14). And even then, the website will automatically direct people to an Amtrak bus for the final leg from Oakland.

 

Instead, try booking San Diego to San Jose. Then she can buy a ticket at the San Jose station for the frequent CalTrain service right into downtown San Francisco. CalTrain doesn't take advanced reservations.

 

EDIT: I just tried it and that worked, booking San Diego-San Jose. Trains 763/14 were the second option that came up.

^ Thanks!!!

By the way, tell her to try to get the left side of both trains. She'll probably have to claim the seat after she get's on, at least that's how we do it in the east. The San Diego-LA train and the Coast Starlight travel along the Pacific Ocean coast for many miles -- sometimes within feet of the beach (Pacific Surfliner) and other times high up on a cliff (Coast Starlight).

By the way, tell her to try to get the left side of both trains. She'll probably have to claim the seat after she get's on, at least that's how we do it in the east. The San Diego-LA train and the Coast Starlight travel along the Pacific Ocean coast for many miles -- sometimes within feet of the beach (Pacific Surfliner) and other times high up on a cliff (Coast Starlight).

 

Absolutely great advice. These trains go right along my favorite stretch of beach!

 

San Clemente?

San Clemente?

 

Cardiff-by-the-Sea  :-)

 

Wait, doesn't she work on the Love Boat?

 

I hate Julie. I've never used the Amtrak 800 number. At least not in this century.

 

What problems are you having with the website? You might consider https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/

 

I've been thinking about taking a train trip - maybe to Montana, although prob not this year at this point.  Does that website have premium cabins on Amtrak?  I can't find it. It looks like that website's fare is $35 cheaper than on Amtrak site for the coach seat and was wondering about premium. 

 

EDIT: check that, when clicking the fare, it ends up showing same price as Amtrak website.

At the Amtrak website, pick your origin, destination, travel date(s), and number of people/age traveling. It will give different trains to choose from and, within those train selections, you will see different accommodations (nonrefundable coach seat, refundable coach seat, roomette (a small compartment), bedroom (medium size compartment), family or handicapped bedroom (a large compartment). Happy hunting!

By the way, tell her to try to get the left side of both trains. She'll probably have to claim the seat after she get's on, at least that's how we do it in the east. T

 

On DC-NYC-BOS where the trains sell out regularly, the trick to getting a preferred seat is to hire a redcap. A $10 tip puts you onboard *before* general boarding.

That's good to know. BTW the trains sell out regularly everywhere. I rode the Lake Shore Ltd from Cleveland to Boston in April and every seat was sold out by the time we reached Syracuse.

 

On the way back to Cleveland from Albany during a trip in June, the Lake Shore Ltd was sold out west of Buffalo. It was also WAY over air conditioned. But the trains were on time for a change.

I should add, the redcap 'trick' only works at stations where the train esentially empties out (BOS, NYC, and DC).  In Philly, Baltimore, etc. you take your chances.

major amtrak food services layoffs:

 

https://www.amny.com/transit/amtrak-layoffs-1.21733947

good news for a change --- moynihan train hall / farley post office reconstruction is on the fast track:

 

 

https://rew-online.com/skanska-reports-moynihan-train-hall-project-on-fast-track/

 

Aaron Renn shared this link on his newsletter. Maybe a little off topic, but I think it's pretty cool. A design group based in Indianapolis has reused leather seats from Amtrak Acela Express trains and turned them into fashion products. If you're a rail fan, it might be a fun purchase. 

 

https://peopleup.org/pages/amtrak

^ thats funny — and really cool. the merch they made from it so far looks excellent. these are great gift ideas.

"Is Amtrak becoming too like the airlines?" asks the article.  It's a valid criticism. I ride a regional train (not an Acela) regularly from New Carrollton (Wash DC burb) to NYC and I'd not be happy in an airline cabin. The price would have to come down to Chinese bus levels and it's pretty low now. OTOH, the airlines DO make money ...

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2018/10/24/amtrak-service-fees/1740462002/

The airlines make money because much of their cost structure, namely their infrastructure, air traffic control, and security, is externalized onto others (namely taxpayers). Consider:

 

+ $1 trillion worth of airports, air traffic control and other foundations of commercial aviation were established before 1971 when the first federal aviation user fee was instituted;

+ Subsidies continue with tax-free municipal bonds to finance airport improvements, the amounts for which are almost impossible to measure.

+ The Transportation Security Administration spends $5+ billion more per year on aviation security than it takes in from passenger and airline user fees;

+ The nation’s air traffic control system receives more than $3 billion per year from the federal treasury;

+ The Essential Air Services subsidy is about $200 million per year;

+ Airlines received $15 billion in bailouts after the attacks of 9/11.

 

Passenger rail's ownership/operation model is the opposite of its competitors. The infrastructure of driving, busing and flying is publicly owned, financed, maintained, traffic controlled and secured. Privately owned vehicles use that infrastructure.

 

For passenger rail, the vehicles are publicly owned, operated and financed. They use 21,000 route miles of the privately owned and insured infrastructure of the railroad industry that finances its infrastructure construction and maintenance via private banks, has its own rail traffic control systems/dispatchers and police forces. For the 1,000 miles of the Amtrak-owned system (mostly in the Northeast), Amtrak owns, insures, maintains, secures and operates the tracks, bridges, overhead electrical systems, stations, maintenance facilities, rail traffic control systems/dispatchers and police forces. Commuter rail agencies pay Amtrak to use the Northeast Corridor and other Amtrak-owned tracks, but Amtrak says it under-charges the commuter rail operators for the use of its infrastructure. And, no, Amtrak isn't profitable in the Northeast Corridor. It covers about 92 percent of its costs from revenues, which is actually below its systemwide cost-recovery ratio of 96 percent.

Don't forget property taxes railroads have to pay for their physical plant, which all other modes of travel don't have.

19 minutes ago, jjakucyk said:

Don't forget property taxes railroads have to pay for their physical plant, which all other modes of travel don't have.

 

I don't think they pay property taxes for their rights of way anymore. I think they got them exempted some time in the past 15 years. Whenever I click on railroad rights of way on county websites, they show up as exempted and I can find no "amount due" from their tax bills.

If true that would be a step in the right direction, but it's possible that those taxes may be assessed at the state level rather than local or county to try to simplify the administration of it, in much the same way as other utilities.  That usually means they're classified as "centrally assessed" properties or companies. Nebraska for instance created a special type of railroad "personal property" to get around restrictions on levying taxes on "real property."  Idaho uses the term "operating property."  Of course it would certainly vary state by state in many other ways, but I haven't heard anything to suggest the tax burden of improving their infrastructure has been lifted.  It's little different than the way most property taxes are levied, on land and improvements, with the improvements making up the overwhelming majority of the assessment.  Thus it penalizes improvements, upgrades, and expansion, while rewarding depreciation, neglect, and abandonment.  Anyway, here's a couple articles from the past few years about various taxation issues:

 

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/02/10/railroad-taxes

https://www.platteinstitute.org/research/detail/this-time-its-personal-nebraskas-personal-property-tax

https://tax.idaho.gov/i-1167.cfm

https://poststar.com/news/local/county-hit-with-unexpected-railroad-tax-bill/article_38679450-87c2-51ed-b2b0-d19f7daecd21.html 

https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/conference-papers/unit-approach-taxation-railroad-public-utility-property 

Here's a case from 2017 showing that railroads still pay property taxes in South Carolina at the very least.

 

https://home.kpmg.com/us/en/home/insights/2017/03/tnf-fourth-circuit-railroad-challenge-to-south-carolina-property-tax-returned-to-lower-court.html

What I meant to say was: I sure hope Richard Anderson doesn't convince Amtrak to rip out those comfortable Amtrak coach seats and put in six-abreast, airline-style butt-busters.

 

Edit: I'm ok with subsidizing transportation. Governments have been doing it since Cyrus the Great.

Japan and China have trains with six seats across. I doubt Amtrak is going in that direction. Amtrak is adding seating capacity with longer trains. The new Acela Expresses will be eight cars long instead of the current six, and I don't think RFPs have come back for replacing the Amfleet I cars that make up the Northeast Regionals plus other Northeast-Midwest trains. There are some rumors that Amtrak wants either individuals cars and locomotives like Brightline in Florida or maybe a European-style Diesel-Multiple Unit/Electric-MU in which the cars and locomotive at one end are in a semi-permanent configuration and can tilt through curves, making all trains run faster. We should find out what's being considered as early as this winter.

 

Much of what is being considered by Amtrak now for reducing costs and being more airline-like is to save money in the food and station staffing areas which are some of the most expensive cost centers for Amtrak. And while sleeping cars command higher prices, they also incur higher costs. Look for Amtrak to find ways to save money there, too.

Edited October 30, 20186 yr by KJP

here is another article that was in the paper today about the recycled acela leather seats. there is a short video from the indy recycling company p.u.p. that shows how they do it:

 

 

https://nypost.com/2018/12/04/amtrak-makes-a-435-luxury-bag-out-of-old-leather-train-seats/

On 10/30/2018 at 8:31 AM, KJP said:

Japan and China have trains with six seats across. I doubt Amtrak is going in that direction.

 So does the Long Island RR. I'm convinced New Yorkers don't feel secure unless they're crowded.

Speaking of which, look for Amtrak to possibly extend some trains (possibly Empire Corridor) to Long Island. Apparently Amtrak considered that as part of a quid pro quo in allowing Metro North to run New Haven Line trains over the Hell Gate Bridge to Penn Station and add four Metro Northern stations in the Bronx. Although I would propose running these New Haven Line trains through to Croton-Harmon to give Hudson Line Metro-North trains access to Penn Station as well. If that happened, I would also add a new Metro North station at 116th Street/Morningside to serve Columbia University and be an easy walk to the #1 subway.

Randal O'Toole, an anti-RR guy, has written a new book called "Romance of the Rails".  I ordered a copy just so I can debunk his arguments at least in my own head.  A review of the book says he faults rail project developers for chronic understatement of costs and overstatement of anticipated usage. He right about that part.

8 hours ago, Dougal said:

Randal O'Toole, an anti-RR guy, has written a new book called "Romance of the Rails".  I ordered a copy just so I can debunk his arguments at least in my own head.  A review of the book says he faults rail project developers for chronic understatement of costs and overstatement of anticipated usage. He right about that part.

 

Unfortunately that's true of many American transportation projects, regardless of mode. But I can also cite many rail projects that carry far more riders than originally anticipated.

 

Oh, and I would never buy his book. The last thing I want to do is put money into that hitman's pocket.

Edited January 25, 20196 yr by KJP

15 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

Unfortunately that's true of many American transportation projects, regardless of mode. But I can also cite many rail projects that carry far more riders than originally anticipated.

 

Oh, and I would never buy his book. The last thing I want to do is put money into that hitman's pocket.

 

Maybe Dougal can loan it to you, so you can write your opposing book.  

43 minutes ago, Cleburger said:

 

Maybe Dougal can loan it to you, so you can write your opposing book.  

 

I already have three books floating around in my head. Don't need another one added to my to-do list. Besides, all these books do is confirm already established beliefs/preconceptions.

What's troubling about Amtrak's new plan is that Amtrak isn't going to reapportion its federal $$ to "give" trains to parts of the country like Ohio that should have better rail service. The shorter routes of 750 miles or less, under the US Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008, **require** the states to fund them, not the feds. So if states that don't have decent service because they don't fund it (not because the state doesn't have corridors deserving of multiple daily trains) continue to not fund it, that means they lose their token long-distance train and don't get anything to replace it....

 

Amtrak plan to expand ridership could sidetrack storied trains

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/amtrak-plan-to-expand-ridership-could-sidetrack-storied-trains/ar-BBTQFFM

Interesting article. It calls out specifically connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati. That is potentially great news, but are you saying it would require the state to fund the route expansion? If so that makes it DOA.

My dream other than the failed 3C idea is a passenger train that connects Cleveland>Akron>Canton>Columbus> Dayton>Cincinnati. 

 

It makes too much sense.

3 hours ago, Mendo said:

Interesting article. It calls out specifically connecting Cleveland to Cincinnati. That is potentially great news, but are you saying it would require the state to fund the route expansion? If so that makes it DOA.

 

Yes. Under federal law, someone other than the federal government must provide the operating subsidy for routes of less than 750 miles. And regardless of route length, Amtrak believes it is not legally allowed to expand service if it adds to its operating subsidy requirements -- unless someone other than the federal government pays. Worse, Amtrak doesn't initiate new services on routes it doesn't own. So if a region, state or group of states want a new train or more trains, they have to go to Amtrak and purchase service from them as well as pay for $500 million liability insurance (costs upwards of $2 million per year) and any added track capacity that ensure the existing/future freight services are not negatively impacted by the addition of the passenger rail service.

Sounds like we should have just built the 3C.

On 2/20/2019 at 12:34 PM, KJP said:

What's troubling about Amtrak's new plan is that Amtrak isn't going to reapportion its federal $$ to "give" trains to parts of the country like Ohio that should have better rail service. The shorter routes of 750 miles or less, under the US Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008, **require** the states to fund them, not the feds. So if states that don't have decent service because they don't fund it (not because the state doesn't have corridors deserving of multiple daily trains) continue to not fund it, that means they lose their token long-distance train and don't get anything to replace it....

2

 

Could we come up with a 750-mile route, all within Ohio to satisfy the 750-mile requirement -- Dayton-Lima-Toledo-Sandusky-Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Mansfield-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati-Athens-?

46 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Could we come up with a 750-mile route, all within Ohio to satisfy the 750-mile requirement -- Dayton-Lima-Toledo-Sandusky-Cleveland-Akron-Canton-Mansfield-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati-Athens-?

 

Yes, and I proposed several ideas to friends at Amtrak who say they doubt the higher-ups would go for it. But that was under the assumption that Amtrak wasn't going to eliminate any existing long-distance routes and free up some federal operating subsidy for other routes. It's still a bit of a grey area because Amtrak isn't supposed to start any new routes that would require a new federal operating subsidy, yet the FAST Act of 2015 provides a pot of federal money for new/restored/rerouted/expanded train services called Restoration & Enhancement Grants. But the funding is only for three years and Amtrak can't use other federal dollars to subsidize the service beyond the three years. But Amtrak, if it chose to do so, could take a message from that provision that the feds do want new/restored/rerouted/expanded services regardless of funding source.

 

So if Amtrak cut a long-haul route (I won't name one because it could be construed I support this!), it could free up tens of millions of dollars per year in federal operating subsidy. Now, VIA Rail Canada runs a Quebec City-Montreal route, and a Montreal-Ottawa route, and a Ottawa-Toronto route, and a Toronto-Windsor route. But guess what? VIA utilizes its train equipment so that a single train runs that entire route. It lays over for an hour or two after completing each route segment, then continues onto the next, albeit under a different schedule number in the timetable. But it's the same locomotive and train cars. Eventually that train makes it all the way to Windsor. There, it turns around and go back to Quebec City the next day.

 

Something like that could be done Chicago-Detroit, then Detroit-Pittsburgh, then Pittsburgh-New York. Or Cincinnati-Cleveland, then Cleveland-New York. Or a section of the Lake Shore could be split off at Cleveland and run to Cincinnati, turn around and go back to Cleveland to reconnecting with that evening's Lake Shore to the East Coast.

A good friend of mine in Amtrak management cautioned that the Wall Street Journal story was not correct. He promised to give me more information about Amtrak's plans soon. But he added that Amtrak does not plan to cut the long-hauls and use the funding for more short-distance trains. As I've noted, legally they can't use federal funds for routes of less than 750 miles anyway. Instead, he said Amtrak will seek other ways to expand short-distance train services, including in Ohio. But it won't come at the expense of the long-distance trains, despite WSJ's erroneous article.