1. Sometimes, the information sneaks in through the backdoor, which is fine, as long as it comes in.

   Courtesy of the United States House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we have learned of Amtrak’s plans for new equipment.

   The United States House of Representatives, in a rush to spend more public money, has presented H.R. 2847, THE “JOBS FOR MAIN STREET ACT, 2010” which it considers to be a jobs creation bill. There is all types of transportation monies in the bill, including scads of money for Amtrak.

   Before you jump to any conclusions, this is a bill which is in progress, not a completed bill approved by both the House and Senate and sent to the president for signing. This is only a bill in progress, working its way through the legislative system.

   But, what this bill does is give us a good glimpse into Amtrak’s wish list for new equipment.

   Here’s what the bill has to say, pertaining only to Amtrak.

   AMTRAK: $800 MILLION

   H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act, 2010: Title I, Chapter 6 of H.R. 2847 provides $800 million to Amtrak for fleet modernization, including rehabilitation of existing equipment and acquisition of new equipment such as fuel-efficient locomotives. It also strengthens Amtrak’s Buy America requirement to encourage domestic manufacturing and rehabilitation of the equipment.

   Amtrak’s equipment is aging; it is a major factor in delays. Some of Amtrak’s vehicles are more than 50 years old. The average life of a passenger rail car, depending on its usage, is 25 to 30 years. The lifespan of a locomotive is 20 to 25 years. Currently, Amtrak has 92 Heritage cars in service (which are 53 to 61 years old), 17 Metroliners (which are 42 years old), 412 Amfleet I cars (which are 32 to 35 years old), 122 Amfleet II cars (which are 28 to 29 years old), 249 Superliner I cars (which are 28 to 30 years old); 184 Superliner II cars (which are 13 to 15 years old), 97 Horizon cars (which are 19 to 20 years old), 50 Viewliners (which are 13 to 14 years old), 29 Talgo cars (which are 10 years old), 120 Acela cars (which are nine to 10 years old), and 41 Surfliners (which are seven to nine years old).

   With respect to locomotives, Amtrak has 49 AEM-7 locomotives (which are 21 to 29 years old), 18 P32’s (which are 18 years old), 18 P32DM’s (which are 11 to 14 years old), 21 F59PHI’s (which are 11 years old), 15 HHP-8’s (which are eight to 10 years old), and 207 P42’s (which are eight to 13 years old).

   Over the next five years and given adequate resources, Amtrak plans to purchase 396 new single-level vehicles for corridor service, which will replace about 95 percent of the Amfleet I vehicles; purchase 275 new single-level vehicles for long-haul service in an effort to remove all of the Heritage single-level cars and about 95 percent of the Amfleet II vehicles from service; purchase 160 new bi-level vehicles to replace 65 percent of the Superliner I cars; and purchase 100 new electric locomotives to replace the entire electric locomotive fleet. Amtrak also plans to acquire 54 new diesel locomotives, replacing 20 percent of its diesel fleet; and purchase five additional Acela trainsets and 41 new switch engines to replace the entire switcher fleet. Amtrak estimates that the effort requires capital funding of approximately $4.57 billion.

   Recovery Act Implementation: The Recovery Act provided Amtrak with $1.3 billion for capital improvements. Of the $1.3 billion, Amtrak has awarded $623 million in contracts for 350 projects. This amount represents 48 percent of the total apportionment. Other major initiatives are planned, including infrastructure improvements (such as major bridges); and improvements to rights-of-way, facilities and other structures, information management systems, and communications and signal systems. Amtrak is also making capital improvements to stations and other facilities to meet requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act; various safety and security improvements, including purchasing police equipment; and replacing concrete ties.

   Okay, while your True Believer buddy to the left of you is jumping up and down for joy at the information above, you, being a regular reader of This Week at Amtrak, and, therefore, exercise more bold caution when it comes to announcements from Amtrak or about Amtrak, take a more critical view of what you have just read.

   You realize everything above only talks about REPLACING aging equipment; none of the hyperbole above actually talks about fleet EXPANSION.

   In other words, Amtrak, if it gets the big bucks, only plans to replace its fleet, not expand its fleet. Using Amtrak’s usual bureaucratic thinking nonsense about always wanting perfect government-think scenarios because they are neat and tidy and don’t require any real thought, probably considers all of that older-hopefully-replaced equipment as upcoming surplus, to be sent to the scrap yard.

   Amtrak still hasn’t learned its lesson from its chilly cousin to the north, VIA Rail Canada, which has the majority of its fleet’s equipment older than what Amtrak is using, and they cheerfully slap a new coat of paint on it, take out some of the dents, upgrade the electronics, and keep it going down the road with great dispatch, mostly because when Budd built the stuff in the 1950s, they built is the same way other companies built Sherman tanks: virtually indestructible.

   But, no, that won’t do for Amtrak. Amtrak wants all-new, instead of new augmenting older for a blended fleet with different purposes. Heaven forbid Amtrak maintenance would have to be as clever as VIA Rail Canada maintenance.

   So, yes, it’s nice to know Amtrak does have some plan tucked away somewhere for the future. Unfortunately, that plan doesn’t call for any expansion, or any improvements. It only calls for replacements.

   Amtrak hasn’t figured out that wars are not won by just replacing dead soldiers; wars are won by determined surges making use of a combination of existing and new soldiers.

2. Did you notice the ad in the November 2009 issue of Railway Age Magazine?

   It has the unglamorous title of “Request For Proposals: 10-PCJPB-T-025 For a Rail System Operator.” Did that make you start tingling all over? No? Well, here’s why it should.

   The ad was placed by Caltrain, which operates the former Southern Pacific Railroad commuter service in and out of San Francisco and down the San Francisco Peninsula. Caltrain operates 98 trains per day, San Francisco-San Jose-Gilroy, with a total of 33 stations (including endpoint terminals). Included in the system is the famed Silicon Valley. The system has 77 miles of track with a top speed of 79 M.P.H. Caltrain carries on average, 39,000 passengers a day on weekdays.

   This is not an inconsequential system; there are 29 locomotives and 110 passenger cars.

   Let’s look at Amtrak in California; Amtrak’s biggest state cash cow. Amtrak takes in State of California (Caltrans) revenues for operating costs for the Capitols, San Joaquins, Pacific Surfliners, and, now Southern California’s Metrolink, in addition to its current operations deal for Caltrain.

   Amtrak has been operating Caltrain on behalf of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (a longish and legally proper way of saying the old Southern Pacific San Francisco Peninsula commuter service) since 1992. Now, the contract is up, and Caltrain has advertised for a request for proposals.

   Amtrak just lost the Virginia Railway Express on the Right Coast; what would happen if it lost Caltrain on the Left Coast?

   With the addition of Southern California’s Metrolink, probably not much on the surface; the Amtrak bureaucracy in the West would just keep on marching.

   Those with a sharp eye may notice Gilroy, California is on the Union Pacific main line which is traversed by Amtrak’s Coast Starlight. Gilroy slips right in the middle of the San Jose and Salinas station stops.

   So, let’s speculate, just a bit, as an intellectual exercise.

   Suppose Amtrak doesn’t keep the Caltrain contract; suppose some other service provider, such as Veolia Transportation, Herzog, or even the French company which is taking over VRE on the far side of the country successfully bid for and win the Caltrain contract.

   And, then, suppose the Caltrain operator performs successfully, and pleases not only the folks at Caltrain, but also – more importantly – the folks at Caltrans, who are monthly writing big, big checks to Amtrak for operating the Pacific Surfliners, Capitols, and San Joaquins (Metrolink writes its own checks).

   What if some renegade bureaucrat in Caltrans says, “well, Caltrain is doing so well, how can we expand that service?

   “What would happen if, say, we took one or two of those Caltrain consists, and pushed them further south than Gilroy, perhaps all the way to Los Angeles?

   “What would happen if Union Pacific Railroad liked the Caltrain operator better than Amtrak?

   “What would happen, if say, well, gee, we just start turning over all of the Caltrans contracts to the Caltrain operator, instead of retaining Amtrak contract after contract?”

   The answer is, Amtrak would suffer a horrible blow, and be crippled tremendously in the west. Amtrak would actually have real world competition. Amtrak would have to sing for its supper every night. Amtrak would really have to perform.

   All of this, of course, comes under the heading “what if?”. But, it’s an intriguing “what if?”.

   Amtrak for too long has taken most of its world for granted. It has even had the hubris of presuming it will be the preferred operator of the coming various high speed rail systems, even though it has not done well operating what it has today.

   An article in today’s Daily Finance (www.dailyfinance.com) says Japan Central Railway has started putting together a proposal to be the sole builder and operator of America’s high speed rail system; everything from building track and infrastructure to building and operating trainsets. These are the same folks who operate the profitable bullet train franchise in Japan today.

   The French and Germans want in on the USA action, too.

   Amtrak may think it has the home field advantage, but it’s tough to see how, when there are much more successful worldwide competitors out there knocking on America’s door.

   Veolia Transportation, which operates some sort of commuter rail or transit system in over 500 cities around the world (equivalent to Amtrak’s number of station stops in the national system) wants in on US high speed rail, too. They have the talent, and they have the financial clout to make it happen.

   Will Amtrak understand in time what is swirling around it and potentially causing a lot of mayhem? Will Amtrak understand it has a long, long way to go to get its corporate house in order so it can fend off these much more successful international competitors? It’s going to take a lot more clout than Amtrak has today on Capitol Hill to keep things together. Amtrak needs to understand the world is not an exclusive Amworld.

If you would like to print a nicely pre-formatted copy of this post, simply click on the “print this post” button at the top.

1. It’s that time, again. Amtrak has put out the Fall 2009/Winter 2010 national timetable, and these things just keep getting better with every edition. Amtrak’s timetables are one of the few bright spots in the company; each one becomes more user friendly than the previous edition, and the design – which was stagnant for years – shows some zip and imagination.

   Notable are the number of paid advertisements by outside agencies and vendors. These people are obviously interested in the business which can be created by Amtrak’s passengers, and they are reaching them in the most expeditious manner, plus helping reduce the cost of producing the timetables.

   Whoever is creating the timetables needs to keep doing whatever they are doing. It’s working, and working nicely.

2. It’s begun. Yesterday’s San Francisco Business Times reports the California High-Speed Rail Authority is submitting a business plan to state lawmakers increasing the price tag of the California bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco by $9 billion, from $33.6 billion last year to $42.6 billion now.

   Ridership estimates have also fallen, from 51 million riders a year down to 41 million; the Authority says the lower ridership estimate is based on projected higher fares, from $68 to $104, now almost $105 instead.

   The cost increases for construction are due to inflation, more right-of-way purchases, and additional track work required.

   The Authority expects the intrastate project will be funded by $9 billion for 2008′s Proposition 1A approved by California voters, local funding of $4 to $5 billion, private funding of $10 to $12 billion, and you and me as federal taxpayers will kick in $17 to $19 billion over the life of the construction project, which isn’t planned to be completed until 2020, 11 years from now.

3. This will give you an end-of-the year giggle. There is a mini-crisis brewing in Tallahassee, Florida’s capital. Senator Paula Dockery, who lost the battle to defeat SunRail this go round earlier this month is never saying “die.” Her new approach: Ask for all of the e-mails swapped between various government officials, departments heads, etc., relating to SunRail. Senator Dockery has particularly been gunning for the Secretary of the Department of Transportation.

   Here’s the fun part: Florida has very strong sunshine laws governing all public communications, including intra-governmental e-mails. It seems while the legislation was being formed, Florida’s Department of Transportation was in constant contact with CSX, the main beneficiary of the law; CSX is selling its right-of-way and infrastructure to the State of Florida to make SunRail in Central Florida possible.

   Horrors! says Senator Dockery. Florida DOT, as it was crafting legislation, was in contact with CSX, the beneficiary of the legislation. Something crooked must be going on!

   Most likely, it never occurred to Senator Dockery, in all of her vitriol and seeking revenge against CSX and Florida DOT, perhaps, since both parties are going to have to agree to this deal, if the parties communicate while the deal is going on, there will not be a prolonged period at the end for negotiations? Perhaps, if agreements are made incrementally, then upon final drafting of the deal, only signatures will be required instead of more and more negotiations?

   That’s what a reasonable person would think.

   The folks at Florida DOT didn’t help themselves, though, by creating what is now known as “Wafflegate.” It seems the DOT people MAY have wanted to avoid public records disclosure searches by labeling all of their e-mail pertaining to SunRail with the names of breakfast foods.

   Yes, you read that correctly. E-mails traded between DOT officials had subject headers of “pancakes,” and “French toast.” When the initial public records search was made using key words such as “SunRail,” “CSX,” and “commuter rail” the search engines somehow completely ignored “pancakes” and “French toast.”

   So, a tempest in a teapot has come to be. Somebody, drinking the breakfast tea, should have used better judgement in labeling e-mails. A very good commuter rail project is now mired in election year political backbiting and witch hunts because somebody was just being foolish.

4. Does everyone understand the concept of an unfunded mandate? This is what Congress and the federal government frequently do; laws are created everyone must follow, but no money is provided often for the billions of dollars it will cost for private industry or individuals to follow the new law’s mandate.

   Positive Train Control, as mandated for 30 of our nation’s railroads in the Amtrak reauthorization signed last year by President George W. Bush is an unfunded mandate, which the railroad industry estimates will cost $10 billion to comply, says ProgressiveRailraoding.com. The railroads (including Amtrak) will be required to install the monitor-and-control system. Industry benefits on the $10 billion investment are expected to be about $600 million, far, far short of the cost of installation.

   As a result of this, some railroads are looking at their track networks and trying to figure out how much of the networks have to have PTC by the mandated start date. Some railroads, such as CSX, are looking at lightly used main lines, like the Sunset route east of New Orleans into Florida, and making decisions not to upgrade that track, electing instead to move freight trains over a nearly parallel route further to the north, and dropping back into Florida for the gateway at Jacksonville to all of Florida’s peninsula.

   Other Class I railroads are correctly doing the same. With a mandated investment in the billions, and return on investment in the low millions, railroads have to take a rational approach to PTC. No track is being torn up, but routes are being downgraded until the long term business climate looks more favorable.

   This puts Amtrak in a bit of a difficult position. Any route expansions or restorations have to take into account for the first time whether or not PTC infrastructure is in place. If not, the cost of the expansion includes the addition of Positive Train Control on the new track.

   Some TWA readers have wondered what all of this is going to do to Amtrak as it shakily stands today.

   Most likely, the host freight railroads are going to look to Amtrak as much as possible to bear the cost of PTC on their lines, especially on routes which are lightly used for freight movements, but constantly used by Amtrak. Parts of the Southwest Chief route on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway qualify under this condition.

   The freight railroads will look at Amtrak like one of their investment bankers; Amtrak has less controversial access to cash from the federal and state governments than the private railroads. Don’t be surprised sometime in 2010 or soon after for Amtrak to make a large grant request to Congress, perhaps in the hundreds of millions of dollars, solely for the purpose of PTC upgrades along established routes.

   This only makes sense; it was Congress, in its rush to prove its chops after the many fatalities of the Metrolink crash in Southern California earlier in 2008, which said any line carrying passenger trains and certain hazardous freight loads must be PTC equipped if used in regular, scheduled service.

   If Congress believes its own publicity and believes it acted correctly with the Amtrak reauthorization in 2008 which included PTC mandates, then it should have little, if any, problems coming up with the big bucks it’s going to take to fund Positive Train Control.

   Since Congress mandates host railroads MUST handle Amtrak trains, and Congress mandates host railroads MUST offer the safety of PTC, the Congress MUST pay for all of this. It’s one thing to make railroads host passenger trains, it’s entirely another to penalize them with additional expense to create a multi-billion dollar mandate nearly 40 years after Amtrak was created.

5. Here is the latest from Ken Orski at Innovation NewsBriefs. This is Volume 20, Number 24; for further information, consult www.innobriefs.com.
   

   December 12, 2009

   Using the Jobs Stimulus to Reform the Transportation Program

   Writing recently in the National Journal’s Transportation blog, we observed the new Obama-proposed job stimulus might dim the prospects for an early enactment of a long-term surface transportation authorization. “The jobs stimulus,” we wrote, “or rather its infrastructure component, could be the death warrant for any foreseeable reform of the federal surface transportation program.” (“What Have We Learned from the Recovery Act”, December 9, 2009, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com)

   The crowded senate calendar, we reasoned, means congressional action on the second stimulus proposal — or at least its $50-70 billion component dealing with new infrastructure spending — must wait until next year and may not reach the President’s desk until late Spring 2010. With the newly authorized infrastructure funds added to the still unspent $16 billion left over from the Recovery Act (ARRA), federal stimulus spending for transportation projects could stretch well beyond 2010.

   Assuming the job stimulus becomes law, we asked, does any one think Congress would still have any appetite to enact a $500 billion multi-year authorization in 2010, on the eve of a congressional midterm election? Most likely, we concluded, a multi-year authorization would be delayed until 2011and some pessimists think that with a new Congress and an increased emphasis on deficit reduction, an even further slippage could occur. “Is the tradeoff worth it? You decide” we wrote.

   Well, the response is in and it largely supports our point of view. It came in the form of responses from fellow bloggers and in a December 9 Newsweek column by David A. Graham, entitled “Putting the Cart Before the Horse: Could a transportation-based jobs stimulus stymie infrastructure reform?” Wrote Graham: “The stimulus bill would spend tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure but do little to remake a flawed financing and planning system. That’s a missed opportunity, according to some observers, who are concerned a stimulus, while better than nothing, would fall short of its potential by ignoring the issues the surface transport bill aims to address.” The column goes on in a later paragraph to say: “The worry is that by pumping large sums into infrastructure this spring, Congress might kill any appetite for a meaningful overhaul of surface transportation funding any time soon.” It quotes my fellow National Journal Transportation blogger James Corless, director of the liberal Transportation for America coalition as “very concerned.” “We worry greatly,” the column quotes Corless, “that putting tens of billions of dollars into these existing stovepipes is not going to have the intended outcome,” i.e. a true reform of the surface transportation program.

   Meanwhile, the objectives of the proposed second stimulus are becoming more elastic as we speak. At a December 10 Brookings Institution forum on Infrastructure, U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood said he sees no reason why some of the infrastructure funds in the stimulus program should not be allowed to be diverted to fund the operating expenses of transit systems which have been hard hit by the economic recession. It’s difficult to see how such a move would help to promote job growth, but then the entire rationale and objectives of the second infrastructure stimulus have been poorly articulated and, not surprisingly, are coming under increased scrutiny.

   Hopefully, by the time Congress is ready to act — most likely, only after the President’s State of the Union address in January — the hemorrhaging of jobs will stop and Congress will be able to shift its focus, as several of my fellow bloggers suggested, from “ready-to-go” maintenance projects (which seem more effective at preserving existing jobs than at creating new jobs) to a longer lasting goal of investing in infrastructure projects that improve national connectivity, increase metropolitan accessibility and enhance economic growth. Such action would make it less urgent to enact a multi-year transportation bill, whose prospects of passage in 2010, we still believe, are anything but certain.

If you would like a nicely pre-formatted copy of this post for printing, simply press the “print this post” button at the top.

1. An interesting collection of mail came flying over the This Week at Amtrak transom this week. Plus (see item number five, below) an answer from Congresswoman Corrine Brown on the future of passenger rail east of New Orleans and into Florida.

   First, a regular rider of the Empire Builder from cold country.

   Allow me to share my observations about Amtrak’s “state of good repair” on it’s most important train (at least outside the vaunted Northeast Corridor), the Empire Builder. I refer to this train often as Amtrak’s “most important” or “most successful” train simply because it earns more revenue, by a wide margin, than any other single train they operate.

   I have had the opportunity to travel on the Empire Builder several times this summer for short trips (about 300 miles one way, 600 round trip each time), on personal business. I have done these in coach on a daytime leg of the itinerary, between Milwaukee and St. Paul, but have made the point of walking the train each time to look at the interior and gauge the patronage, and I have also used the lounge and diner each time.

   You may recall several years ago, when Amtrak went through its most recent spasm of trying to starve itself into prosperity by cutting way back on the quality of on board food service on its overnight trains, it also conducted an experiment by actually upgrading the Empire Builder to see if an elevated level of service and quality would support a higher fare level than on the run-of-the-mill long distance train.

   As part of the experiment, the Empire Builder is supposed to be (but, this year rarely is) equipped with all Superliner II rolling stock and the better engines, to assure a top quality customer experience. The idea, I suppose, was to use all recently-refurbished rolling stock to minimize the frequency of equipment malfunctions like air conditioning failures, ratty carpets, inoperative toilets and doors, etc. They also staffed the Builder exclusively from the Seattle crew base, using mostly re-trained, top-quality on board service staff.

   The dining car kept the previous Amtrak-standard meal service, with Amtrak china and stainless flatware, and more-or-less cooked on board meals. The train already had some of the best time-keeping in the country, due to attentive dispatching by BNSF Railroad on the Builder’s “home rails” on the ex-Great Northern Railroad “High Line” across northern Montana and North Dakota. (On other trips, I have seen BNSF put their top-priority freight “Z-trains” on a siding to let the Builder run through.) And, they added a summer-only “upstairs guy” to work the upper level snack kiosk in the lounge car (in addition to the full snack bar downstairs), between Chicago and Whitefish. The Empire Builder does not offer a separate first class lounge environment like the “Pacific Parlour Car” on the Starlight, or the “Park” cars on VIA’s Canadian, and other overnight trains.

   What I have seen this summer, however, in terms of the rolling stock is a sadly degraded environment. The fares are as high as ever (sleeper fares especially are breathtaking on this train), but, the cars are not clean, even on No. 7 westbound leaving Chicago; some are smelly; restrooms are not in good shape physically or mechanically (i.e., they work, but it seems there is always some issue with them – water splashing around from the faucets, toilets don’t flush, door locks are jammed, etc.); surfaces are badly worn out in places, leaving a third-world impression of tattered and worn, ill-kept, trains. Signage is worn out or missing, or crudely hand-written and taped up. Things are literally falling apart inside the cars.

   The lounge cars are not well-kept, with many seats patched, and floors worn out. And again, this is supposed to be Amtrak’s best effort (in the west).

   I have NEVER seen any main-line train in this kind of physical condition in Europe (except in the United Kingdom).

   The dining car, on each trip on No. 7, has sold out at dinner and turned away customers, despite serving from 5 P.M. through to well after 9 P.M. Sporadically, for a variety of reasons, the diner has resorted to plastic plates and utensils (“the dishwasher is broken” or “we weren’t stocked properly at Chicago”).

   There have been discussions inside and outside the company this summer about promoting this and the other long distance trains with a renewed advertising effort. But, I have to say I am skeptical, based on my trips this summer. I fear almost any ad campaign is likely to create a consumer expectation which will be inevitably disappointed by the actual travel experience, even if employees are well behaved, and the train is on time.

   A majority of the other customers with whom I have interacted are still first-timers or foreigners, so even in 2009 many “first impressions” are being formed with every trip. Since mid-June, each Empire Builder I have ridden has had more than 300 passengers on board between St. Paul, Minnesota and La Crosse, Wisconsin, or vice versa. Conductors frequently make public address system announcements to the effect the Builder is or will shortly be completely full, and people cannot use two seats for one person.

   The sleepers appear to be heavily – if not fully – booked. They are operating a single coach as an extra car between Chicago and St. Paul, and it appears to sell out each trip (it runs in the computer as “Train 807/808″). Amtrak turns over anywhere between 90 and 125 passengers at St. Paul on each train. One cannot help but wonder how many other would-be customers have been turned away this summer for lack of carrying capacity. That adds up to a lot of people who, if not exactly “never-agains,” are at least left with negative impressions, and far from a “come back soon” experience.

   It is hard to experience an on-board environment like this, where there is both physical/mechanical decay and a slow erosion of service quality, in a train carrying so much promise and potential. It’s almost heartbreaking at times. And, at times one gets angry, wondering what this train could be if management had chosen to invest a trivial fraction of the $1.3 billion dollars in subsidy they get each year from congress into keeping these cars in an actual state of good repair, and supporting the on-board service people, to create a truly premium travel experience.

   Northwest Airlines airplanes aren’t rolling junk, even though parts break periodically, and I’ll bet money no brand-name cruise ship is even remotely like these aging Superliners. It just doesn’t have to be this way on a premier passenger train. Amtrak already has that much money available. They just haven’t chosen to spend it here. It has gone to other uses, because first former President and CEO Alex Kummant and now Interim President and CEO Joseph Boardman have chosen to use it elsewhere instead of here. And that is disappointing, and a lost opportunity.

   Cordially,

   A perpetual optimist

   This is yet another example of a promise Amtrak management made to its employees it has made a conscious decision not to keep. When the crew base for the Empire Builder was moved from Chicago to Seattle, there was a promise made to employees who chose to work this train, telling them they would have first-rate equipment to work with and provide their passengers good service. Oops! It didn’t take very long for Amtrak to slip back into its wicked ways, and start putting junk equipment back on the Empire Builder.

   The country this train traverses is breathtaking. The route of the Empire Builder rivals that of its VIA Rail Canada cousin to the North, The Canadian. between Vancouver and Toronto. Tourists from all over the world are willing to pay big bucks to ride the Canadian and experience a level of passenger service often unknown on Amtrak.

   But, here’s the kicker. Most of the equipment on The Canadian is half a century old, or older. The Canadian runs Budd built equipment originally designed and ordered for Canadian Pacific Railway when The Canadian was the flagship of a combined travel system that stretched nearly around the world and included passenger trains, ocean-going cruise liners, and an airline.

   VIA Rail Canada has lately let some of that equipment slide into a less than perfect state of repair, but it is still much better maintained than newer equipment on Amtrak which is half of its age, or even younger. The VIA equipment underwent a major renovation, but that was about 20 years ago.

   With all of the cash Amtrak’s long distance trains throw off to the company, why is there constantly a choice made to squeeze these trains until it hurts, even though they are the geese laying the golden eggs?

2. This came from another part of the country.
   

   Dear Mr. Richardson,

   I have really enjoyed your TWA articles and the website for the last nine years since they provide an alternative to the doom and gloom that I’ve read from most railfans. Your group’s solutions to this country’s passenger rail system are very unique.

   I have some thoughts in regards to a recent column. I would actually go a bit further than the reader in the August 19th issue and turn O’Hare into a second main Chicago station based on former Amtrak Reform Council member James Coston’s comments in the April 5, 2007 edition, where he talked about Union Station being “beyond obsolete” due to “crowd control and user friendliness problems.” Why not have a stop at one of the world’s busiest airports? It would provide air travelers and locals another option. I will also suggest Union Station be skipped by some O’Hare trains and be served by a select few trains primarily for transfer purposes to/from other trains.

   Even though I don’t live in the Windy City, it’s a good thing they have four major train stations left over from the Golden Age of Rail. I believe once we know the operators of certain Midwest High Speed Rail routes (and it’s very likely that Amtrak will be outbid on some of these contracts), some of the other companies may want to leave Union Station to less crowded areas.

   Here are how the other three main stations in addition to Union Station could play a role in a post-monopolistic intercity rail industry:

   A) The Oglivie Transportation Center (former CN&W station) could provide service for Hiawatha service to the Twin Cities and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Also, another operator could choose to serve alternate stops between Chicago and Milwaukee, like Kenosha and Racine.

   B) Millennium Station. The Randolph Street station could host Illini and Saluki routes, the super HSR St. Louis service (if it can get pulled off), and maybe, Cleveland service; and

   C) The La Salle Street Station could host Quad Cities/Iowa/Omaha service and/or Cleveland service.

   To alleviate the problem of changing trains and operators, HSR authorities like MWHSR should work out a special transfer program for passengers if they have to transfer from one station to another operator at a different station in the same city. That would guarantee passengers a connection (e.g., A passenger on the westbound Capitol Limited needing to take a high-speed train to Madison would get his or her transfer at Union Station and take a cab to the Ogilvie Transportation Center to continue on to Madison).

   Impressive thoughts, aren’t they? Passenger rail historians will recall it was common in the pre-Amtrak days to shuttle both passengers and passenger rail cars between stations in Chicago for through-train service.

   It’s not hard for many people to peer into the future and see a fascinating world of passenger rail. Amtrak seems to be the only group of people constantly incapable of doing this.

3. And, finally, these thoughts came from Georgia.
   

   Thank you again for this [last] weekend’s editions of TWA. As always, they continue to be enlightening. Here are some random thoughts from my Monday Morning brain.

   I do not wish to disparage Dr. Herzog’s academic mind and practical experience. In reading his proposal, has Host Railroad cooperation been taken into consideration? I feel like three routes daily on all those lines listed would work great on a privately owned, passenger-only right of way, but in the real world of constant delays (some Amtrak’s fault, others the Hosts’ fault) and even one-per-day run trains regularly (quarterly, perhaps?) encroaching on the train ahead of it, and then turn-arounds and bustitution to get people where they need to go, to multiply that liability as well by three, would seem to clog up the freight network in a manner that the Hosts would not care to take such risk on.

   My random thought on HSR is that it should overlay current Amtrak routes and be completely separate (preferably not even run by Amtrak). If you take Dr. Herzog’s plan and you overlay an HSR system on top of it, you would have major cities connected with few, if any, stops in between.

   Stations would be co-located with current Amtrak stations, but all new. It would have to be all new because HSR should never be envisioned without being at least Class 8 service with a dedicated ROW and no grade crossings.

   Boston would be connected to Miami with stops in Providence, Hartford, New York Penn, Trenton, Philadelphia,  Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, and West Palm. You could break it up with Washington being the focal terminus. The existing Amtrak system would then be Dr. Herzog’s “milk run” stations, taking people from the co-located Amtrak/HSR stations and moving them to their local destination.

   My thoughts aren’t completely random, as this is very similar to the way HSR was introduced in Japan nearly 50 years ago. “Shinkansen” means “New Trunk Line,” and that’s what they did – all new ROW with major stations co-located with local service to intermediate locations (that were not necessarily along the same ROW).

   Additionally, there is a desperate need for SE to NW corridors. But I think you know that already.

   Dr. Herzog was a primary supporter of changing the way Amtrak deals with its host railroads. Like many others of us at United Rail Passenger Alliance, Dr. Herzog felt Amtrak underpays its host railroads for use of tracks and dispatching, and Dr. Herzog felt a new bond should be forged where everyone played equally, without winners or losers when it came to private, freight railroads hosting Amtrak passenger trains.

   For so many years, we have all been indoctrinated with the thought Amtrak can’t run trains because host railroad main lines are clogged with freight trains.

   While there is some validity to this, that concept has often been a convenient excuse for host railroads to subvert the law which they agreed to at the formation of Amtrak which allows Amtrak access to any two chosen steaks of rust in the country, pending a deal where maintenance costs are worked out if upgraded rails are necessary to host passenger trains safely and comfortably.

   For Amtrak to grow and prosper, the word “no” needs to be filtered out of its corporate vocabulary.

   If a passenger route can support more than one daily frequency (which is the case on EVERY passenger route Amtrak runs.), then what adjustments need to be made between Amtrak and its host railroad to make this happen? More sidings? Some other type of realignments? Never has the time been more providential than now to determine what needs to be done to host more passenger trains and at the same time have the freight railroads not suffer any inconvenience for the sake of Amtrak passengers.

   The freight railroads, through the Association of American Railroads, have indicated a willingness to sit down and discuss more passenger trains. Government has indicated a willingness to come up with funding mechanisms to make this happen.

   Now is the time to focus on the future and why things can be accomplished, not why not things can’t be accomplished.

4. Had a conversation with the map maker referred to in the last edition of TWA about the continuing work of creating a map of the late Dr. Adrian Herzog’s vision for a full and robust Amtrak system.

   The map maker is still hard at work.

5. To date, we have heard no official word from Congresswoman Corrine Brown of here in Jacksonville in regard to Amtrak’s Gulf Coast Service report she inserted a million bucks into Amtrak appropriation last year to pay for.

   However, her primary aide which handles transportation issues, Nick Martinelli was quoted this week by reporter Leo King on www.examiner.com.

   from Mr. King’s article of Thursday, September 3, 2009

   Returning to Amtrak and trains along the Gulf Coast, he said, “Any rational person would say, ‘We need to address some of the issues with the costs on the long lines, – the Sunset Limited, when we get that back – and, of course, running the whole way to L.A. Those prices are really expensive and there are flights that are cheaper, but you have to think of the system holistically, and I think that’s the way the Congresswoman and a lot of people do.”

   The Sunset may not return, but there is movement to bring passenger rail service from New Orleans to Jacksonville and on to Orlando.

   “No question. The Congresswoman would kill them if they didn’t. That’s ideal. It is expensive and the problem that we’re facing now is that states have to be partners in this system to maintain the things and do that instead of ‘Look, we’ve got no money. The federal government wants us, they need to do it.’

   Martinelli said “They presented a couple of options. Amtrak isn’t even love with running that Sunset Limited line because it’s expensive for them, so they weren’t going to kill themselves to rebuild the line, but CSX was up in a year, had the system up and going. That’s something we’re going to have to pressure Amtrak [on].”

   Well. Many of us were waiting for a comment from Congresswoman Brown on what she got for her (our) money with the Amtrak report.

   Now, we know. Her office wants to pressure Amtrak on restoring service, BUT, Mr. Martinelli said “now that state have to be partners [financially].”

   So, does this mean no train unless Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida pony up the money?

   And, of course, we know this brings us to the precipice of the very, very slippery slope that if Amtrak can put on a mask and use a gun to hold up the three states east of New Orleans, then a precedent is set and it can try this type of robbery ANYWHERE ELSE in the country (Except, probably, the sainted Northeast Corridor, where no states EVER have to pay for anything.).

   Somebody needs to stop this madness, right now.

If you would like to print a pre-formatted copy of this post, simply push the “print this post” button at the top.

1. The folks on the Loonie Right – you know the type, they drive the BIG Hummer, not the wimpy small version, don’t care much about the cost of gas, and keep a hunting rifle handy in case while they’re driving home from work they want to shoot Bambi for dinner – are adamantly opposed to high speed rail, transit, and any type of transportation other than the automobile, pickup truck, or SUVs.

   Then, there are the folks on the Loonie Left – you know the type, they hate automobiles, demand walking paths everywhere, want the price of gas to be taxed through the roof, adore the use of transit, no matter how inconvenient, and want everyone on the subway to join in singing a few choruses of Kumbaya between station stops after they have led a scintillating group discussion on the myriad benefits of herbal tea – who always know what’s best for everyone, and think the higher and more confiscatory taxes are, the better.

   A survey of talking heads, columnists, allegedly learned academicians, and experts on various types of transportation produces such extremes in opinions it’s difficult to find any common ground.

   As high speed rail and expanding transit has been discussed this year, conservatives, citing the same statistics over and over and over, demand no money be spent for high speed rail or transit because more money is needed for roads and air travel. These folks cite the absolute, complete freedom of personal vehicle travel, such as the ability to leave and arrive at will, total control over stops and route, and choice of speed. They go on to cite airline statistics, and repeatedly say Americans only want to drive or fly; who has time for other types of what they call wasteful and expensive surface transportation?

   Coming from the liberals, who apparently must swear they adore transit in order to receive their cherished government identification papers, is the argument to build! build! build!, sparing no expense or higher taxes to put new transit and high speed systems in place, hoping someone will want to ride them. Never mind the ongoing costs of operations or maintenance, just build the systems so we can save the planet.

   Ugh.

   Here’s a reality check. As said in this space many times before, not every rail project is perfect, and any rail projects which are ultimately built must be of the highest quality and have the best chance for success so other projects may follow without controversy.

   For all of us who live in suburbia, and plan to stay in suburbia, don’t force us to do anything against our will, no matter how smart you think you are, and how much you just know it’s for our own good, so it must be the right thing to do.

   Instead, provide us reasonable options.

   Now, is that so hard?

   Let’s talk about Amtrak, our favorite monopoly common carrier. One tenth of one percent is Amtrak’s market share of domestic transportation output. Less than 29 million people a year climb aboard an Amtrak train of any description, and since the same person is counted twice for round trips and repeat riders, the actual number of Americans riding Amtrak is significantly smaller, probably in the range of 10 million or so.

   Yet, we know it’s important to have a balanced mix of transportation options in our domestic network. Passenger rail is an important part of that mix, and it should grow in an orderly and financially responsible manner.

   Let’s talk about SunRail in Central Florida, the proposed commuter rail system from the Northeast of Orlando to the Southwest of Orlando’s metropolitan area. Much of the proposed system will parallel Interstate 4, which runs from Daytona Beach on the Right Coast of Florida to Tampa on the Left Coast of Florida, and goes through the middle of downtown Orlando. Interstate 4, which most of time if it isn’t 3 A.M., resembles a long, long parking lot, is about to be expanded – yet, again. It already seems it’s a few dozen lanes wide at some points, but, hey, they want to make it wider.

   With the way Central Florida will continue to grow after this pesky recession abates, a larger I-4 will only be a larger parking lot unless it’s 3 A.M.

   Will SunRail stop that from happening? Most definitely not. Maybe, if Sunrail has three minute headways all day, and 10 car trains, it may make a trifling dent in I-4 congestion. But, it won’t. Instead, SunRail will offer a reasonable rush hour schedule with convenient schedules other parts of the day.

   But, what SunRail will accomplish (As Tri-Rail in South Florida, running parallel to Interstate 95 already does.) is offer a reasonable choice for those commuting from one point on the SunRail route to another.

   If you want to creep along on I-4, you can do that. If you want to zip along on SunRail, you will be able to do that, too, if the Florida legislature ever approves the project.

   The few hundred million dollars cost of SunRail compared to the cost of expanding I-4 is a reasonable investment. SunRail, because of a number of factors, has a good chance of financial success, so bloated predictions of budget-busting operating costs are scare tactics.

   Back to Amtrak, and making the case for an expanded Amtrak, including a healthy long distance system instead of the anemic and embarrassing skeletal system Amtrak boasts today.

   If Amtrak had the will – and, don’t even start the baloney about never having enough money, because that just isn’t true – it could find ways to partner with its host railroads to expand the long distance system (See the three press releases press release below.). Equipment costs too high? Nah, lease it. New station costs too high? Nah, let local governments, using Amtrak specifications, provide depots and stations. Operating costs too high? Nah, not if the service is priced honestly and marketed properly.

   Some Amtrak True Believers believe it should be a social program, with low cost transportation for all. Why is that? Amtrak isn’t some sort of museum or monument, or public beach – it’s a passenger railroad, tasked with moving people from one city to another in an efficient manner. Nobody said it has to be a welfare program like most transit systems think of themselves. Nobody is going to be penalized by not being able to get to work on Amtrak if a fair fare is charged for transportation; we’re talking about Amtrak’s true mission of long distance, intercity travel, not commuter rail.

   But, more True Believers wail, nobody will ride Amtrak if it’s priced too high. It’s too slow, it’s too shabby, it’s too non-cool to be competitive, so it has to be priced low to attract riders.

   Such uninformed piffle.

   Amtrak boasts it is the largest single passenger carrier in the Northeast between Washington and New York City. Okay, if Amtrak is as smart as it claims to be and can achieve that goal, why can’t it be smart enough to expand in the rest of the country?

   If you were the CEO of Amtrak, would you be boasting to your CEO buddies “Hey! My company commands one tenth of one percent of domestic transportation output, which is significantly lower than motorcycle riders!”?

   But, again, you wail, “All it takes is more money for poor, starved, emaciated Amtrak!”

   And, again, no, it doesn’t.

   What it takes is a refocusing, and a rededication to Amtrak’s core purpose of providing a national passenger rail system, not just a loose combination of distinct corridors with little connectivity.

   In reality, probably a refocusing of less than $100 million would be required to beef up ridership in the national system, using existing routes and trainsets. What would happen? A new wave of riders – many for the first time discovering America’s best kept secret, Amtrak – dropping money for fares into Amtrak’s coffers which would quickly replace that spent $100 million or less for sales and marketing.

   Is that so hard?

   How much vision does that take?

   How much initiative does that take?

   How much reality is Amtrak willing to absorb?

   Or, will Amtrak just continue on its slovenly way, happy to eat slops at the United States Treasury trough instead of even attempting to become somewhere close to self-sufficient?

2. If you have any reservations whatsoever about Amtrak not getting into the swing of things and not realizing what is happening in the railroad world around it, read this press release from the Association of American Railroads. The world of passenger railroading – whether it’s conventional or high speed – is very quickly changing.
   

   Freight Railroads Join Midwest Governors in Planning for High-Speed Rail

   Joint Rail Efforts Should Complement, Not Compromise Freight Rail’s Future

   Washington, D.C., July 27, 2009 – Association of American Railroads President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger today said the national rail network is critical to meeting the mobility needs of the 21 century. Speaking before the Midwest High-Speed Rail Summit in Chicago, Hamberger said striking the right balance between passenger and freight rail expansion is key to the success of high-speed rail in America.

   “America’s freight railroads support the goal of increased passenger rail investment,” Hamberger said. “It’s good for our economy and the environment when more people and goods move faster by rail.”

   He pointed out that the country’s privately owned freight rail network is the literal foundation for high speed rail in America. Railroads account for 43 percent of intercity freight volume — more than any other mode of transportation.

   “We are critical stakeholders that need to be engaged from the very beginning of project planning and development. Passenger and freight efforts to grow and expand must complement, not compromise one another,” Hamberger said.

   Governors that participated in the summit were Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, Iowa Governor Chester Culver, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Missouri Governor Jeremiah Nixon, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle.

   Hamberger noted that each high-speed rail project needs to be examined and assessed based on its own merits, taking into account several important factors – including volume of freight traffic, terrain, number of grade crossings, and track configuration. These issues will help determine the feasibility of operating high speed passenger trains on the freight rail network. In addition, Hamberger emphasized that agreements addressing liability, compensation and increased maintenance need to be approved prior to project planning and development.

   # # #

   Editors’ Note: The Association of American Railroads is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association whose members include the major freight railroads, or Class I railroads, of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, as well as Amtrak. Class I railroads represent 67 percent of the U.S. freight rail mileage and 90 percent of freight railroad industry employees. Railroads account for 43 percent of intercity freight volume — more than any other mode of transportation. To learn more about how freight rail works for America, the environment and for you, please visit: www.freightrailworks.org.

3. Now, take a look at these two press releases from Norfolk Southern; CSX is mirroring NS and saying much the same thing.
   

   July 20, 2009

   Rail Can Help Relieve Highway Congestion Crisis, Norfolk Southern CEO Tells Nation’s Governors

   NORFOLK, VA – Wick Moorman, CEO of Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC), called on the nation’s governors Saturday to consider railroads as “a vital part of the solution to our nation’s transportation crisis.”

   Addressing the National Governors Association at Biloxi, Miss., Moorman said “railroads offer significant economic and environmental benefits while helping relieve highway congestion – which is fast becoming public enemy number one.”

   Our nation’s transportation network is a complex, interdependent system that demands our combined creative efforts to operate it most efficiently,” Moorman said. “Our experience at Norfolk Southern has shown that by working together in public-private partnerships, we can achieve far more in far less time and with far greater public benefits than any of us can by working alone.”

   Moorman cited two rail routes – the Heartland Corridor between the Port of Virginia and Columbus, Ohio, and Chicago, and the Crescent Corridor linking New Jersey to New Orleans and Memphis, Tenn. – as examples of how public-private partnerships “can create additional capacity in our rail transportation network, with public benefits of jobs creation, less highway congestion, lower environmental emissions, and fuel savings.” He said the Crescent Corridor project alone will result in 41,000 “green” jobs over the next decade and move more than a million trucks annually off the highways onto rail, saving more than 150 million gallons of fuel every year and reducing carbon emissions by nearly two million tons per year.

   “It’s clear we must do something,” Moorman said. “Freight volumes in this country are projected to grow 88 percent by 2035 alone. To handle that freight, we must improve our national transportation infrastructure.”

   Norfolk Southern Corporation is a leading North American transportation provider. Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary operates approximately 21,000 route miles in 22 states and the District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other rail carriers. Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal and industrial products.

   Norfolk Southern Corporation | http://www.nscorp.com

   July 23, 2009

   Norfolk Southern CEO Says Tax Incentives for Rail Capacity will Generate Economic Benefits, Create Jobs

   NORFOLK, VA. – Tax incentives to expand freight rail capacity would “make sense for America,” generating $1 billion in economic benefits and 20,000 green jobs, Norfolk Southern Corporation CEO Wick Moorman said today on Capitol Hill.

   “America needs more transportation capacity and needs it now,” Moorman said on behalf of the Association of American Railroads during testimony to a U.S. House subcommittee. Noting that today’s transportation network is not designed to handle the doubling in freight demand projected by 2035, Moorman said, “Railroads are the most affordable and environmentally responsible way to meet this demand, and that is why tax incentives for rail capacity would be good public policy.”

   Railroads have spent record amounts reinvesting in their own networks even during the economic downturn, Moorman said – a record $10.2 billion in capital improvements last year alone. “Since 1980, railroads have spent more than 40 percent of their revenues – some $440 billion – to maintain, improve, and expand their networks.

   “Yet as much as railroads are investing, it isn’t enough to meet projected demand,” he said. A recent study found a $52 billion gap between the $148 billion needed for expanding freight rail capacity and the $96 billion railroads can expect to generate. Tax incentives “provide a sensible way to help bridge this gap,” Moorman said.

   In addition to creating economic stimulus and jobs, public benefits would include reductions in fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and highway congestion, as railroads are more fuel efficient than trucks, and a single train can haul as much freight as 280 or more trucks, Moorman said.

   “Numerous states are partnering with us,” Moorman said. “Thanks to the leadership of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, and others, we are already investing to expand our system to meet the looming demands of moving our nation’s commerce. Congress should bolster these efforts by enacting tax credit legislation to encourage additional freight rail investment,” he said.

   “America today has the best freight rail network in the world. Still, it is clear that rail capacity must increase as the economy and population expand in the years ahead. Tax incentives provide one way to ensure that happens,” Moorman said.

   Norfolk Southern Corporation (NYSE: NSC) is a leading North American transportation provider. Its Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary operates approximately 21,000 route miles in 22 states and the District of Columbia, serves every major container port in the eastern United States, and provides efficient connections to other rail carriers. Norfolk Southern operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and is a major transporter of coal and industrial products.

   Norfolk Southern Corporation | http://www.nscorp.com

   Why is this important? Because, as private railroads are warming to the idea of government help on infrastructure for freight movement, you can bet the mortgage money government strings will come attached to that help, most likely in the way the government will require any expansion plans to include capacity for passenger trains, either at conventional speeds or high speeds.

   So, again, the question: Will Amtrak have the vision and be capable of handling this type of expansion? Or, will it be just another wasted opportunity on the part of Amtrak?

4. The comments keep floating into This Week at Amtrak about the horribly flawed Gulf Coast Report on restoration of service east of New Orleans. Here’s the latest comment.
   

   Re: Former IG Fred Weiderhold

   AMTRAK = Always Managing To Remove Anyone Knowledgeable

   I like to “have fun” with acronyms.

   Anyway, welcome to August, 2009, the 40th anniversary of Hurricane Camille. Imagine SCL–L&N using Camille as an excuse to discontinue the Gulf Wind! Hell, the ICC and state PUC’s would have attacked SCL like a swarm of killer bees!

5. And, there was one gentleman who sent this comment.
   

   Here is a SMART [The ad hoc private group working to restore the Sunset east of New Orleans and make it a daily train] recommendation draft currently in circulation:

   “There is one configuration that would appear to keep everybody happy and also have the potential for the most ticket sales. It is a Double Y Concept. The eastbound Sunset Limited from Los Angeles to Florida would continue to drop a sleeper and a coach in San Antonio for routing to Chicago on the Texas Eagle (the first Y). Later it would pick up another sleeper and coach in New Orleans coming in from Chicago on the City of New Orleans (the second Y) and carry them on to Florida. Westbound would reverse the procedure.

   “This gives Amtrak the opportunity to sell through tickets to and from Florida to both Chicago and Los Angeles. It vastly extends the ticketing routes of both the Sunset Limited and the City of New Orleans.

   “This solution provides a backbone for national coverage to a large part of the nation, including the second, third, and fourth largest cities in the United States. It covers all of the south and much of the central part of the country. Regional trains can easily connect into this backbone at many locations. All of Amtrak’s “options” are covered.

   – Dan Pugh

6. Former Amtrak Chairman of the Board John Robert Smith has found a new vocation.
   

   John Robert Smith Named Reconnecting America President And CEO

   Four-term Meridian, Miss., mayor recognized for initiatives to promote sustainability, affordability, livability

   Mayor John Robert Smith of Meridian, Mississippi, has been named President and CEO of the national nonprofit Reconnecting America. He has served on Reconnecting America’s board for five years, and was a founding partner and board member of Reconnecting America’s predecessor organization, the Great American Station Foundation, voting to expand its mission and change its name in 2004.

   Smith will replace Shelley Poticha, who has been appointed Senior Advisor for Sustainable Communities at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, where she will advise Deputy Administrator Ron Sims and help facilitate the interagency partnership of HUD, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

   John Robert Smith was elected mayor of Meridian in 1993 and was re-elected three times before deciding this year not to seek re-election to a fifth term. He has been an active member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and has served Amtrak as both Chairman and as Board member.

   Mayor Smith was an early practitioner of transit-oriented development, having successfully renovated Meridian’s historic downtown train station, a project that helped leverage the revitalization of Meridian’s downtown. That experience made him a passionate advocate for the power of station renovation projects to link transportation and community revitalization. He has also been recognized in local, state and national arenas for his initiatives to promote sustainability, affordability and livability.

   “John Robert Smith brings real-world hands-on experience to the work that Reconnecting America does. He has initiated and managed the kind of projects that Reconnecting America has long advocated,” said Reconnecting America Board President Janette Sadik-Khan, Transportation Commissioner of the City of New York. “He understands how transit-oriented development can breathe new life into communities and help generate lasting public and private returns.”

   While in office Mayor Smith oversaw a number of development projects to boost investment in Meridian’s downtown and several declining inner-city neighborhoods, including the redevelopment of the historic Union Station, the construction of a new performing arts center and restoration of the Grand Opera House, and the development of a HOPE VI mixed-income housing project. He has been a longtime advocate for the performing arts and raised significant arts funding for Meridian. He also built a coalition that was successful in restoring daily Amtrak service from Atlanta to New Orleans, and has been an influential advocate at the national level for investing in and improving the national passenger rail system.

   “I have been involved in transportation on a national level for many years, due to my passion for inner-city and urban revitalization,” Mayor Smith said. “With the next-generation transportation bill being crafted by Congress now, it is vital that the voices of those who believe in a connected, multi-modal approach to transportation are heard. Transportation touches every aspect of life in cities of all sizes and I am looking forward to working with our nation’s leaders at all levels to incorporate smart urban planning and connections to people across the United States.”

   Reconnecting America provides an impartial, fact-based perspective on development-oriented transit and transit-oriented development, and seeks to reinvent the planning and delivery system for building regions and communities around transit and walking rather than solely around the automobile. Reconnecting America manages the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, the only national nonprofit effort funded by Congress to promote best practices in transit-oriented development.

   Reconnecting America’s main office is in Oakland, California, and you can visit its web site at www.reconnectingamerica.org .

7. In the last issue of This Week at Amtrak we discussed Amtrak’s RFP for 130 Viewliner 2 single level passenger cars, of which approximately 25 are to be sleeping cars. Since that TWA was published, the Russians have announced they are purchasing 200 new sleeping cars for their trains, which will be compatible with most other systems in Europe through a changeable system to accommodate different track standards.

   It’s also notable since the last TWA the federal government has rushed – without debate – to put an additional $2 billion in place for the cash for clunkers automobile replacement program.

   When will Amtrak allow itself grow and be at a point of prosperity so it can be at the point of saying it needs a quick $2 billion without extended debate?

8. Even Trains Magazine, normally a blindly compliant cheerleading magazine for Amtrak is beginning to question why Amtrak seems adrift these days. In the just-out September issue, author Bob Johnston has a major article entitled “Amtrak, time to claim your destiny.” The subhead of the article is, “With an infusion of stimulus money and a new authorization, can America’s passenger railroad ‘be all it can be?’ Here are six things Amtrak can do immediately to capture more riders and chart its own future”

   Particularly interesting is Mr. Johnston’s suggestion for Amtrak managers and members of the board of directors to experience the rigors of overnight coach travel.

   The refreshing article is a good read. It appears Mr. Johnston and Trains Magazine are as anxious as the rest of us about the future of Amtrak unless it makes major changes in its corporate culture.

If you would like to print a copy of this post, click on the “print” button at the top for a neatly formatted version of this copy.

1. There has been so much going on these past couple of weeks that needs to go on the record, we’re producing a third This Week at Amtrak in less than a week. We have read about the sudden departure of Amtrak former Inspector General Fred Weiderhold, Jr. and the follow-up to that departure by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. Also making a buzz in the past 10 days was the presentation of a report by the United States General Accountability Office entitled “High Speed Passenger Rail: Effectively Using Recovery Act Funds for High Speed Rail Projects.” Reading all the way through it could prove to be a snoozer for some, but this report by the GAO’s director of physical infrastructure issues raises some important points about the need for clarity and focus in government, particularly relating to the subject of passenger rail. That report is presented at the end of today’s TWA.
2. First, some good news from here in Florida. We’ve been following the saga of Tri-Rail, South Florida’s commuter rail system which operates in three counties, Palm Beach, Broward (Ft. Lauderdale), and Miami-Dade. (Note, if you’re like this writer and wondered how Dade County suddenly got to be Miami-Dade County in recent years, you are not alone. It seems the county fathers decided since Miami pretty much completely dominates Dade County, the county should officially be renamed Miami-Dade County. Which, if you’re a map printer, created some headaches for you. One interesting note: further north, in Central Florida is Seminole County, which is adjacent to Orange County the home of Orlando and partially to Walt Disney World. Originally, Seminole County was named Mosquito County, and the name was changed sometime prior to the Florida Land Boom. It would be tough to draw tourists to a location named Mosquito County.)

   Tri-Rail has been publicly struggling with its upcoming annual budget since once again, no permanent funding source was declared for the commuter system by the gutless, do-nothing Florida legislature this year. Tri-Rail officials have been publicly wringing their hands, hoping for a government miracle to save having to slash all weekend and holiday service, and cut huge amounts out of daily service, effectively creating a revised system which would meet very few needs of its total ridership, and drive passengers away. Add to all of that the feds telling Tri-Rail if it didn’t run a full complement of service, the United States Government would demand all sorts of money be repaid in full for infrastructure improvements made (Double tracking the system, and more.) with signed contracts saying Tri-Rail would operate a certain size schedule, no matter what.

   Suddenly, it was a miracle. Well, no, not really. What it was amounted to was transit officials accustomed to lots and lots of funding from other sources (Mainly, the county governments.) and never having to say you’re sorry for anything “finding” some money for operations.

   So, what happened? Gosh, golly, gee, wow, it turns out the money for next year’s full operations was there all of the time, just sitting unused and unloved in another account. Yes, you guessed it, Tri-Rail bosses figured out money could be borrowed from accounts to improve parking and some other equipment upgrades to keep the system operating while a final solution is found for a permanent source of funding.

   The transit-riding public, and all of the businesses in the Tri-Rail area which support the system with paid subsidies for employees and other programs read account after account in the news media saying Tri-Rail was in crisis. Yes, it was – a crisis of its own making. It would have been wonderful if the gutless, do-nothing Florida legislature had done something this year about solving the funding problem for Tri-Rail on a permanent basis. But, keeping true to form, they punted and said it was someone else’s problem.

   What the various denizens of Florida’s legislative branch of government fail to recognize in a huge state such as Florida (Fourth in the nation for population.) is what brings prosperity to one corner of the state brings prosperity to all of the state. Transit is not a regional issue for Florida; it is a state issue. It’s a given in state government highways and other infrastructure will be built and maintained; why isn’t it a given commuter rail should be built and maintained, too, as long as it’s a viable system like Tri-Rail?

3. The plight of Tri-Rail is similar to the plight of Amtrak. There was a belief at Tri-Rail someone else would bail them out and keep the system running, while the real answer to the immediate problem was just sitting in a Tri-Rail bank account.

   Much the same is true at Amtrak. As long as it’s business plan – a favorite of the fans of failure – continues to emphasize money from outside sources instead of first finding every possible way to generate revenues by full use of the company’s various assets, Amtrak will lurch from crisis to crisis.

   Amtrak probably thinks the failed experiment of the heartstrings-pulling Heartland Flyer, funded by the State of Oklahoma for seven figures a year, is a good train. Harrumph. The Heartland Flyer is a waste of good Superliners and locomotives which could be producing far more revenue elsewhere, and could be replaced by a bus or two for the average of a total of 111 passengers per day the train hauls over its 206 mile, two-state route. Amtrak nationally only captures one tenth of one percent of domestic transportation output; the taxpayers of Oklahoma are taking a huge bath with the Heartland Flyer as on a statewide basis it falls far below Amtrak’s national average.

   Rational people hope this more than decade-long operating junior train will one day grow into a real, productive, adult train if the consortium of states working together right now figures out a way to correctly stretch this route north of Oklahoma City and connect it with the route of the Southwest Chief in Kansas. When you consider the tiny consist of the Heartland Flyer still has only a 43% load factor, one has to wonder if anything at all is being done to bolster this train. While it does serve as a feeder to the Texas Eagle in Fort Worth, Texas, (And, the Eagle itself only has a 53% load factor, well below what it should be.) the Heartland Flyer is an example critics can point to and say, “Look at the millions of dollars Oklahoma has fed into this train, and the impact on the mobility of Oklahomans is near zero in the overall picture of state transportation output.” While a tiny, vocal, misinformed minority group of supporters of this train can boast and say Oklahoma has Amtrak service, the real question is, “at what price?”

   Amtrak’s critics constantly point to the high cost of low return on many routes, and the Heartland Flyer is a prime example of when a real, gut-wrenching decision has to be made whether or not to provide a transportation alternative at an exorbitant price, or use those assets elsewhere. Having a train for the sole sake of having a train helps no one except those who like to stand by the side of the track and watch the train go by.

   From the standpoint of Amtrak’s business plan, it doesn’t care where government money comes from, as long as it comes. The only states which have a viable train that can be pointed to by other states as a success story are North Carolina and the Carolinian, with a load factor of 77.9%, Pennsylvania’s Pennsylvanian with a load factor of 74.3%, and Michigan’s Pere marquette, with a load factor of 67.3% (But, as reported earlier this month in TWA, even the State of Michigan is looking cross-wise at continued funding for this train as ridership has slipped this fiscal year.). If North Carolina’s model can be followed, it would be easier for other states to justify the cost of state-funded passenger rail service.

   While starter projects are important, the 11-year run of the Heartland Flyer has proven nothing more than a half of a blip on the transportation radar in Oklahoma, and realistic people have to seriously look at this train and how the assets to operate this train could create a better return on investment elsewhere. It’s notable North Carolina’s other state funded train, the Piedmont, with a load factor of 44.6%, operates solely with equipment owned and maintained by the State of North Carolina.

   So, in summary, Tri-Rail found fiscal religion in its own bank account, and will live to fight another day for better state funding, perhaps in the form its has advocated for years, a small, local sales tax on rental cars only in the three tourist-laden counties Tri-Rail serves. Oklahoma has shelled out millions of dollars for a junior train (If there were any Rail Diesel Cars still available for intercity service, this train as it is today would be a good candidate for those.), and, unless a solution is found to extend the train to its logical endpoint further north in Kansas, will have to make some serious decisions about the worth of the Heartland Flyer.

   Amtrak, as our national passenger rail provider, still lacking a long term vision, has got to make some decisions, too, before someone else makes them for it. Amtrak has to decide whether it is happy to drain money out of state bank accounts or develop its own plan for as much self-sufficiency as possible. As long as there are annual fights over money being paid to Amtrak to run these small routes, there will be anxiety and wonder every budget year. As one president of a state passenger rail association so eloquently said, “it’s not a matter of making 55% return at the farebox, it’s a matter of straining every muscle and ounce of energy and squeezing out every dime of assets to get to 56% that’s important.” Amtrak and its various fans of failure have been too happy for too long to never worry about reaching that extra point of self-reliant liberty.

4. Something fun from half-way around the world: Fox News reported in mid-June many Japanese women choose to commute in female-only passenger rail coaches during rush hour to avoid being groped by men, and now men are requesting men-only coaches for fear of being accused of groping.

   You can’t make this stuff up. Ten representatives of male commuters petitioned the commuter train operator for men-only coaches, noting there have many cases of groping, as well as false charges of groping, so, since the female-only coaches have been successful, in the spirit of gender-equality, men-only coaches should also be available.

   No word on whether married couples would be allowed to ride in the same car.

5. Here is the GAO report mentioned above.
   

   Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. Senate

   HIGH SPEED PASSENGER RAIL

   Effectively Using Recovery Act Funds for High Speed Rail Projects

   Statement of Susan A. Fleming, Director Physical Infrastructure Issues

   For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, June 23, 2009

   Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Thune, and Members of the Subcommittee:

   I am pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of high speed intercity passenger rail projects in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act). The $8 billion provided by the Recovery Act for high speed and other intercity passenger rail projects has focused more attention on and generated a great deal of anticipation about the possibility of developing high speed rail systems in the United States. These projects are seen by some as serving an important transportation role, by moving people quickly and safely, reducing highway and airport congestion, and being environmentally friendly. My statement today focuses on (1) the factors that we have identified that affect the economic viability of high speed rail projects and (2) how the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) recent strategic plan incorporates those factors. ¹ My testimony is based on our recent report on high speed rail, our review of FRA’s strategic plan, and discussions with FRA and selected transportation experts. ²

   In summary, we found that while the potential benefits of high speed rail projects are many, these projects—both here and abroad—are costly, take years to develop and build, and require substantial up-front public investment, as well as potentially long-term operating subsidies. Determining which, if any, high speed rail projects may eventually be economically viable will rest on factors such as ridership potential, costs, and public benefits. FRA largely agrees with our March report. FRA’s strategic plan for high speed rail outlines, in very general terms, how the federal government may invest the $8 billion in Recovery Act funds for high speed rail development. However, this plan does not establish clear goals for the federal government in high speed rail—other than establishing a “longer term goal of developing a national high speed intercity passenger rail network of corridors”—and does not define a clear federal role for involvement in high speed rail projects other than providing Recovery Act funds. As such, in our view, it is more a vision than a strategic plan. As part of a discussion to prepare for this hearing, FRA told us that it sees its strategic plan as a first step and that it intends to seek structured input from stakeholders and the public to help develop strategies to implement its vision.

   Factors That Affect the Economic Viability of High Speed Rail Projects

   The factors affecting the economic viability of high speed rail projects include the level of expected ridership, costs, and public benefits (i.e., the benefits to non-riders and the nation as a whole from such things as reduced congestion), which depend on a project’s corridor and service characteristics. High speed rail is more likely to attract riders in densely and highly populated corridors, especially where there is congestion on existing transportation modes (such as highways or airports). Characteristics of the proposed service are also a key consideration because high speed rail is more likely to attract riders where it compares favorably to travel alternatives in terms of trip times, frequency of service, reliability, and safety. Costs largely hinge on the availability of rail right-of-way, and a corridor’s terrain. To stay within financial or other constraints, project sponsors typically make trade-offs between cost and service characteristics.

   Once projects are deemed economically viable, project sponsors face the challenging tasks of securing the significant up-front investment for construction costs and of sustaining public and political support and stakeholder consensus. We found that in other countries (France, Japan, and Spain) with high speed intercity passenger rail systems, the central government generally funded the majority of the up-front costs of high speed rail lines. ³ The $8 billion in Recovery Act funds for high speed rail (and other intercity passenger rail) lines represents a significant increase in federal funds available to develop new or enhanced intercity passenger rail service. This amount, however, represents only a small fraction of the estimated costs for starting or enhancing service on the 11 federally authorized high speed rail corridors. For example, the San Francisco-Los Angeles portion of the California high speed rail corridor alone, which already has about $9 billion in state bonding authority, is estimated to cost about $33 billion dollars. ⁴ Furthermore, federal funds for high speed rail in the past (as with the Recovery Act) have been derived from general revenues, not trust funds or other dedicated funding sources. This makes ongoing capital support for high speed rail projects challenging, as they compete for funding with other national priorities such as health care, national defense, and support for ailing industries. In addition, the challenge of sustaining public-sector support and stakeholder consensus is compounded by long project lead times, the diverse interests of numerous stakeholders, and the absence of an established institutional framework for coordination and decision making.

   FRA’s Strategic Plan Is a First Step

   FRA’s strategic plan attempts to address the absence of an institutional framework for investments in high speed intercity passenger rail service. In our recent report and in 2005, ⁵ we discussed the need for:

   1. Clear federal objectives and clear roles for all stakeholders (federal, regional, state, and local governments and freight, commuter, and passenger railroads).
   2. Clear identification of outcomes expected.
   3. Ensuring the reliability of ridership and other forecasts to determine the viability of high speed rail projects.
   4. Including high speed rail with a reexamination of other federal surface transportation programs to clarify federal goals and roles, link funding to needs and performance, and reduce modal stovepipes that hinder financing transportation improvements that will lead to the greatest
      improvements in mobility.

   FRA’s plan, which the Recovery Act required the FRA to issue 60 days after the act was signed, outlines in very general terms how the FRA will allocate the Recovery Act high speed rail funds. It does not define goals for investing in high speed rail, how these investments will achieve them, how the federal government will determine which corridors it could invest in, or how high speed rail investments could be evaluated against possible alternative modes in those corridors. In our opinion—and as FRA recognizes—this strategic plan is a first step in planning federal involvement. FRA has emphasized that its approach is to involve the ultimate “owners” of high speed rail—the states and communities in which they will reside—to help flesh out the approach to developing high-speed rail that are under its control. FRA officials also told us that it plans to spend Recovery Act funds in ways that show success to help keep longterm political support for these projects at the local level.

   Overall, FRA generally agrees with the issues that we raised in our March report, with the report’s recommendations, and with the observations that we are making today. Last week, FRA took its next step by issuing interim guidance for applying for Recovery Act funds. ⁶ The guidance lays out the evaluation criteria for grant funding, the weights to be applied to the criteria, and the selection criteria.

   In conclusion, the infusion of up to $8 billion in Recovery Act funds is only a first step in developing potentially viable high speed passenger rail projects. The host of seemingly intractable issues that have hampered development of these projects remain as challenges, and these issues will need to be resolved to effectively spend Recovery Act funds. Surmounting these challenges will require federal, state, and other stakeholder leadership to champion the development of economically viable high speed corridors and the political will to carry them out. It will also require clear, specific policies and delineations of expected outcomes, and objective, realistic analysis of ridership, costs, and other factors to determine the viability of projects and their transportation impact.

   Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

   ¹ By economically viable, we mean that a project’s total social benefits offset or justify the project’s total social costs.

   ² See GAO, High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, GAO-09-317 (Washington D.C.: Mar. 19, 2009); and Federal Railroad Administration, Vision for High- Speed Rail in America (Washington D.C.: April 2009). We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to June 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

   ³ GAO-09-317.

   ⁴The corridor would extend from Sacramento and San Francisco through Los Angeles to San Diego.

   ⁵ GAO-09-317 and GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington D.C.: February 2005).

   Please contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or Flemings@gao.gov about this statement. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Relations can be found on the last page of this statement. Greg Hanna and James Ratzenberger made key contributions to this statement.