Railroad Forums 

  • Anderson on Corridors

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1520672  by Greg Moore
 
https://skift.com/2019/09/19/amtrak-ceo ... turnaround

I think there's some good thoughts here and mirrors what some folks here have been saying for awhile.

I think it's one reason Amtrak is thinking too small in their next equipment order. Amtrak needs to have the flexibility to add/remove cars and even entire routes as traffic patterns changes and Amtrak learns to better serve them.
 #1520682  by rcthompson04
 
The 250 mile focus makes a lot of sense. Those are routes that a slower train, but not too slow, can still compete with the hassle of security and baggage at an airport and just long enough that people consider something other than driving.
 #1520696  by Rockingham Racer
 
If a state does not want to pony up, there will be no corridor. Case in point: Ohio. A lot of this corridor talk by Amtrak is pretty disingenuous, if you ask me.
 #1520700  by mtuandrew
 
Rockingham Racer wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:56 am If a state does not want to pony up, there will be no corridor. Case in point: Ohio. A lot of this corridor talk by Amtrak is pretty disingenuous, if you ask me.
Anderson makes it sound like he’s willing to lower the PRIIA rate though. That would be a bold move, the company could attract funding from states that aren’t willing to pay the current rate (Ohio, Indiana, the mid-south and Deep South), encourage existing users to add service, and still lose less money on a corridor system than they do by funding the eastern LD network entirely out of pocket.
 #1520702  by rcthompson04
 
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:48 am
Rockingham Racer wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:56 am If a state does not want to pony up, there will be no corridor. Case in point: Ohio. A lot of this corridor talk by Amtrak is pretty disingenuous, if you ask me.
Anderson makes it sound like he’s willing to lower the PRIIA rate though. That would be a bold move, the company could attract funding from states that aren’t willing to pay the current rate (Ohio, Indiana, the mid-south and Deep South), encourage existing users to add service, and still lose less money on a corridor system than they do by funding the eastern LD network entirely out of pocket.
Could a city or county pay the PRIIA rate instead? Some much of this appears to be geared at getting the metro areas on board.
 #1520711  by Tadman
 
Yeah the cities along the Hoosier route were paying part of that bill after the Iowa Pacific years.
 #1520726  by mtuandrew
 
What Tad said. Presumably Amtrak would take money from anyone - the Feds, the states, municipalities, Canada or its provinces, the Rocky Mountaineer (though their VAN-SEA money just ran out), Warren Buffett or Ronald McDonald could all fund Amtrak corridor service. Would be an interesting grant proposal for a community or economic development nonprofit.
 #1520765  by R36 Combine Coach
 
mtuandrew wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:05 pm What Tad said. Presumably Amtrak would take money from anyone - the Feds, the states, municipalities, Canada or its provinces, the Rocky Mountaineer (though their VAN-SEA money just ran out), Warren Buffett or Ronald McDonald could all fund Amtrak corridor service. Would be an interesting grant proposal for a community or economic development nonprofit.
I could see more regional rail authorities appear, such as the Capitol Corridor Joint Commission, NNERPA... Even give the NEC Commission administrative and regulatory authority.
 #1520767  by Tadman
 
I think this opens up an entirely new concept for a national rail agency. Instead of having to touch so many states with an LD (however valid that argument is, let's pretend it is), you could have Amtrak as a funding agency only and touch quite a few states that are not very useful for LD trains. For example, they could give $1m/year to Utah commuter trains or a Phoenix-Tucson operation and "touch" those states in a fare more effective way than today's long distance services do. The same could work for a Cheyenne-Boulder-Denver-Springs opearation.

Obviously this would take some finagling with local host railroads, but in the long run, it's far more useful to travelers.

Imagine this - given that airlines don't really like those shorthaul trips, having a corridor that not only carries locals but perhaps interfaces and through-tickets with air travelers would be amazing. I fly into Tucson a lot, but then have to take a mini-flight or bus for the final leg from Phoenix a lot. I hate it. It's awful. I'd much rather have a Brightline or Trax operation, and I bet AMR would, too.
 #1520773  by Greg Moore
 
I've argued for something similar for years. The NEC is perfect proof. On one hand while the airlines hated to lose the shuttle money, on the other hand, short-haul flights, especially at crowded airports can be money losers (or at least not very big money makers).

If this is a way Amtrak wants to experiment (i.e. short-haul between key cities) I'm for it, provided they provide an adequate number of trips (one a day generally won't work) and integrate as much as possible with the existing network and with the airports.
 #1520807  by prokowave
 
I think Anderson is thinking too small with the corridor emphasis. The main problem is that it is dependent on finding enough states to fund the operations and on the feds to fund track improvements for shorter corridors, which leads to a piecemeal system.

Amtrak needs to think politically to get the federal infrastructure funding and state buy-in that it needs. People support the services they use. Mississippi has been fairly supportive of rail at both the local and national level despite being deep red because it has a decent amount of service proportional to its population. In fact, many of the strongest advocates for Amtrak have come from the rural areas that have often been bypassed by interstates and airlines, but continue to see long distance rail. What Amtrak needs to do is argue for targeted corridor improvements which would allow it to increase reliability, decrease travel times, and increase long distance services in order to build support for funding more higher speed corridors.

For example, Ohio hasn't been very supportive of rail because many people are not aware of Amtrak and don't have any experience with it. When I lived in Cleveland, I didn't even realize they had a train to Chicago because no one I knew ever took it because the only trains run in the middle of the night. Same in Cincinnati. The problem is not with long distance trains so much as they are not being run on a schedule that suits the modern traveler. I'd bet if Amtrak ran a second Cardinal and Lakeshore that passes through Ohio during the day, they'd have a much easier time building support for a CLE-CIN corridor.
 #1520812  by JoeG
 
If Mr Anderson actually said that Amtrak will break even in 12 months, as the article says, I'd say that destroys his credibility. Wasn't the Glide Path to Self Sufficiency one of the late George Warrington's missteps? Perhaps foreseeing the future he even used an aviation metaphor.

Can we say Nimble and Amtrak in the same sentence? Not that I have ever seen. Amtrak seems less nimble every day. If they want to run one new train, even with state support, it seems to take several years. (How long did it take to get Roanoke service? Why is Amtrak's Miami terminus still at a lousy station in a lousy neighborhood?)
 #1520815  by David Benton
 
I think he means break even as far as train costs go . Still need the infrastructure subsidies. I.e the NEC trains will run at a profit , if you ignore track costs etc.
They are close to breaking even overall in this sense now, just a few million off.
 #1520817  by east point
 
David Benton wrote: Tue Sep 24, 2019 12:28 am I think he means break even as far as train costs go . Still need the infrastructure subsidies. I.e the NEC trains will run at a profit , if you ignore track costs etc.
They are close to breaking even overall in this sense now, just a few million off.
Maybe the operating cost on the NEC breaks close to even is infrastructure is not included. OTOH LD trains have all costs folded into the cost structure by the host freight RRs ? Also with the many LD stations only serving 1 round trip a day station costs including agents is out of proportion to the NEC. 12 hour mirror service for the stations will cut each present train's station costs close to 1/2 but not exactly 1/2 .

Look at the Palmetto which is almost a mirror of the Meteor schedule.