This is the REALITY of intercity rail passenger service:

From a recent GAO report

http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/rc98134t.pdf

 Amtraks financial condition continues to deteriorate. Although Amtrak has been able to reduce its net losses (total expenses less total revenues) from about $892 million in fiscal year 1994 (in 1997 dollars) to about $762 million in fiscal year 1997, the 1997 loss would have been $63 million higher were it not for one-time increases in revenue from the sales of real estate and access rights for telecommunications. Prospects for fiscal year 1998 are not bright. In March 1998, Amtrak projected that its net loss for fiscal year 1998 could be about $845 millionabout $56 million more than planned.  Amtrak will continue to face challenges in improving its financial health. Amtrak hopes to improve its financial health by increasing revenues through such actions as expanding mail and express service (delivery of higher-value, time-sensitive goods) and instituting high-speed rail service between New York City and Boston. However, Amtrak has had to substantially scale back its net revenue projections for express business, and positive net income from the high-speed rail program will not occur for another 2 years. Amtrak does not currently plan to reduce routes, even though only one of its routesthe Metroliner service between Washington, D.C., and New York Citymakes money. Instead it plans to fine-tune its route network and conduct a comprehensive market analysis.  Federal funding and recently enacted reforms will not solve Amtraks financial problems. Although the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, fiscal year 1998 capital appropriations, and the Presidents proposed fiscal year 1999 budget, if enacted, will provide Amtrak with historic levels of capital support, this support will fall short of Amtraks identified capital needs by about $500 million. In addition, Amtrak plans to use $1.8 billion of the $2.8 billion in requested federal capital grant funds to pay maintenance expenses between fiscal years 1999 and 2003. The use of funds for this purpose would substantially reduce the remaining level of funds available to acquire new equipment or make the capital improvements necessary to reduce Amtraks costs and/or increase revenues. Therefore, such use will have a negative impact over the long term. Furthermore, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 significantly changed Amtraks operations; but these reforms will provide few, if any, immediate financial benefits.

This is how WSDOT wants to justify spending YOUR MONEY on additional intercity rail. To make the numbers come out, they include the costs YOU pay for your car, the PARKING you or your employer pay for your car, the cost of the noise your car makes, to make rail appear cheaper than other modes of transportation. Read it and weep.

http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/pacnwrail3.pdf

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 31, 1999

Answers

Weep about what? Your comparision about AMTRAK service between New York and Washington DC and the Sound Transit system? Can you say apples and oranges? How many of the people riding the intercity lines on the East Coast between cities like New York, Boston, and Washington D.C. are actually commuters? And how many of those people are taking infrequent or one time business trips? These runs are NOTHING like the trips between Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. Nice try.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 31, 1999.

"Weep about what? Your comparision about AMTRAK service between New York and Washington DC and the Sound Transit system? Can you say apples and oranges? How many of the people riding the intercity lines on the East Coast between cities like New York, Boston, and Washington D.C. are actually commuters? And how many of those people are taking infrequent or one time business trips? These runs are NOTHING like the trips between Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. Nice try."

Gee, Patrick...

I'd say it applies AT LEAST as much as comparing our roads post 695 with Missouri's, wouldn't you? How come you didn't ask Moonhunter the same thing?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 31, 1999.

Patrick-

It would help if you would READ THE REFERENCES before voicing (or typing) an opinion. This is NOT about the Sounder system. The illustration is from a report by WDOT to attempt to justify more taxpayer dollars (in excess of $1 billion for this state) for ANOTHER railroad expansion between Oregon And BC for the purpose of intercity passenger rail service. This PRECISELY parallels what AMTRAK does. This is a fairly hefty 18 page or so report. The executive summary glosses over methodology, but if you read the report itself you find that it uses incredible comparisons in cost accounting to make rail more cost effective than either air or auto. The cost comparison gets into alleged alternative costs including the costs of PRIVATE car ownership, insurance, parking, etc., and treats these as if a cost avoidance were possible (ie., you wouldn't have to own a car at your expense because the railroad track (paid for with tax money) could perform the services cheaper, AS IF THE ONLY REASON YOU HAD THE CAR WAS TO TAKE YOU TO THE SIX OR SEVEN TOWNS SERVED BY THIS ROUTE. It was presented for a couple of reasons. The whole report is both an expensive waste of time, and an exercise in bureaucratic sophistry. It is typical of the "make my programs grow" mentality of the bureaucratic program manger. Back when I did that work we used to joke about "If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail to you."

Now I don't particularly care if you agree with my postings or not, it's a free world. But if you are going to comment upon them, it might be helpful to your case if you would read the references so you can have at least the foggiest idea of what you are commenting upon, I am afraid your self esteem will suffer if you continue to publicly embarrass yourself in this way.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.

Patrick-

In support of the answer above. If you will be kind enough to actually download the site that you are commenting on you will see this first paragraph:

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Washington State, in partnership with Amtrak, Oregon, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and others, is incrementally upgrading intercity passenger rail service along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC). This rail corridor stretches 466 miles from Vancouver, British Columbia to Eugene, Oregon. The states ultimate goal is to provide fast, frequent, safe and reliable intercity rail passenger service that requires no operating subsidy.

I would maintain that the comparison with AMTRAK service is PRECISELY on target, and that this is just another example of no amount of inefficient spending of transportation dollars being enough for WSDOT. They need to build the roads that the people want, not pursue their own agendas, and certainly not produce intellectually dishonest reports like this in an attempt to "grow" their bureaucratic empire. When they demonstrate they can make rational decisions with the resources they currently have, it will be much easier for them to convince the voters (after I-695 passes) to give them additional revenues.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.