CASEY FOR SENATE
Re: The Prowler's A Team
Divided:
I am writing in response to the piece on the Bob Casey for U.S. Senate campaign that ran in the March 14, 2005, Washington Prowler under the title, "A Team Divided."
Your reporting in this article is fundamentally inaccurate, and we wish to set the record straight.
The conversations that you describe regarding abortion, stem
cell research and filibusters simply never took place. And at no
time did Senators Reid or Schumer put forward any conditions for
supporting Bob Casey's run for the Senate.
-- Marc Farinella, Interim Campaign Director
Bob Casey for U.S. Senate
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
RIDE ON
Re: William Tucker's Rolling
Disaster:
Joe Vranich is on a crusade to promote TGV-style high-speed trains in America, no matter the cost, and to get there he is willing to distort the actual economic performance of Amtrak's current trains beyond the breaking point. Mr. Vranich especially disparages the interregional long distance trains as empty anachronisms, awash in red ink, kept in operation only to appease venal senators in flyover states. This assessment is dead wrong.
Here is some data that Mr. Vranich either doesn't know, or perhaps doesn't want you to know. The long distance trains produce by far the greatest share of Amtrak's entire system output of transportation. Output is measured by revenue passenger miles, not "ridership," which is only a measure of transaction volume. The long distance trains produce nearly half of system output, the vaunted Northeast Corridor a little over a third of total output, and the other regional corridors the balance.
The NEC (like our other short regional corridors) boasts load factors of under 40%, showing that we are already overinvested in these short distance services. Long distance trains enjoy load factors generally of 55 to 65%, in markets where a load factor of 67% is functionally "sold out" due to the many boardings and alightings that occur all along a transcontinental route. The seat that is empty now has already been sold to someone boarding down the line. So, the few long hauls we have are in fact heavily used, and highly productive.
But at what cost, Vranich asks? Don't these trains suck up all the federal subsidy? Well, actually, no, they don't. A recent Federal Railroad Administration study showed that all of the long distance trains together consumed less than $100 million a year, out of a $1.2 billion federal subsidy. Amtrak says the cost is closer to $200 million in cash, and maybe $300 million, fully-allocated. But the higher figure is still less than one-quarter of the annual federal subsidy. Where does all the rest of that cash go? Mr. Vranich doesn't like to talk about it, but more than half the annual subsidy is consumed in his model market, the NEC, home of our best approximation of the TGV high speed service he dreams about.
Today, half the annual subsidy produces just a third of the output, in the high speed, short-haul, market in the NEC, while less than a quarter of the subsidy generates half the total output, in the long distance markets. Thus, each federal dollar invested in the long distance markets produces several times more revenue and transportation output per dollar invested than any dollar sunk into the short corridor markets and especially the high speed corridors.
In the one clear example we have of Mr. Vranich's high speed,
short distance, interurban corridor scheme, the financial return on
investment from the three billion federal dollars spent to create
the Acela high speed program has been a negative number, because
the Acela program, according to the US DOT, has accompanied an
increased annual operating loss for Amtrak as compared to
pre-Acela. And everyone seems to agree that the NEC still needs
billions in additional, new federal subsidies, out over the next
decade at a minimum, just to sustain what is already there, not
drive growth in output. We have, therefore, already tested the
Vranich hypothesis, and it has failed totally, at a federal cost of
billions of taxpayer subsidy dollars.
This is not a good model to guide future federal investment in
intercity rail programs.
Secretary of Transportation Mineta, like Mr. Vranich, has his
priorities exactly backwards -- if we seek better financial results
from our intercity rail programs, we must redirect a much larger
share of available federal investment capital towards the markets
that have sold out trains and a much higher capital leverage ratio,
the long distance markets. The short corridors perhaps warrant
investment from a social benefit perspective, to the extent that
they provide consumer choice and possibly some mitigation of urban
congestion, but they are voraciously capital intensive, and
financially hopeless.
-- Andrew Selden
Vice President--Law and Policy
United Rail Passenger Alliance
Minneapolis, Minnesota
My family of five has taken two long train trips; from Michigan to Glacier National Park in the summer and to a ski resort in the middle of winter. In both cases, AMTRAK was our only option. We quickly learned that if you ignored the fact that the trains usually run late (our winter return home was 13 hours late due to high snow levels in a California mountain pass), and that most of the unionized employees on the trains are more concerned about getting their fair share (and more) of break time than making your trip enjoyable, you could have a delightful trip! We were able to walk about, sit on the sightseer car, eat meals in the dining car and spend a lot of conversational time with our three children. We watched movies on our computer, played cards and enjoyed the serenity of a long train ride. We met interesting people on both trips, and spent hours talking with them. When was the last time you had a long conversation with a stranger? There is something very nostalgic that attracts us to train travel.
The best thing about train travel was not worrying about time schedules -- there was nothing we could do about it anyway. No complaining about crazy and inconsiderate drivers, like the "Left Lane Larrys" that plant themselves in the left lane at below the speed limit, no unscheduled stops for emergency bathroom breaks. My only disappointment (besides the service) was my inability to read for very long, due to the wavy nature of the tracks, which kept our bodies in a constant, subtle motion.
But in today's hurry up world, few people want to spend a few extra days getting to their vacation destinations, so the demand for long distance train travel is unlikely to rise. It is too bad that politics will prevent AMTRAK from seeing any real competition, which would force it to improve or go out of business and make room for a more efficient private company, and thus attracting more customers.