By Staff
Amtrak needs reorganization
To the editor:
There are a number of suggestions as to the proper disposition of Amtrak in view of large subsidies  although small in comparison to those granted other modes of transportation. One is a logical solution that has already been applied, at least partially, in some areas, particularly on the West Coast.
Amtrak's financial problems stem from the huge costs of maintaining the infrastructures of regional corridors, especially in the Northeast where the Reform Council identified an annual expense of over $600 million.
These localized corridor operations should be paid for by the local people who use them and should be owned and operated by regional transportation authorities established by the states and funded by local taxes supplemented by federal discretionary grants. Such corridors should not be wards of the federal government as in the past receiving direct appropriations.
Only the long-distance routes which lend themselves perfectly to the interstate concept should receive direct federal funding. These routes provide basic workaday transportation to communities all over the nation, often the only such public transportation available. They are not in any sense "luxury" or "leisure" trains as sometimes labeled and actually carry much of the expense attributable to the corridors as a result of Amtrak's ambiguous fully allocated cost accounting system now being exposed by the new president, David Gunn.
As rail transportation begins to expand in Texas, this is the pattern that exists. The Dallas-Fort Worth rail corridor is owned by DART as a state-created and locally-funded regional system and is operated under contract by a private sector company which specializes in such operations.
Amtrak, as a federally operated system, is using this line increasingly by its interstate trains to avoid congestion on the parallel Union Pacific Railroad and pays DART for doing so. This is a policy that can be effectively applied all over the country and will reduce the federal subsidy to a modest amount for the interstate routes, which will be far less than air and highway subsidies.
M.D. Monaghan
Former board member
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Garland, Texas
via e-mail
Long distance trains treated like stepchild
To the editor:
I can understand your concern about the seemingly endless stream of funding needed by Amtrak. In particular, Amtrak's long distance trains have come under fire recently as being huge money losers. These trains are rightfully criticized for providing unreliable service because, frankly, Amtrak has done a poor job of operating them. Time keeping is terrible, crews are sometimes unfriendly and mechanical breakdowns are common.
These problems have caused most people in government, the media and probably your editors to come to the wrong conclusion about long distance trains because they simply don't understand them. Don't feel bad, however Amtrak doesn't understand them either.
Ever since its creation in 1971, Amtrak has put nearly all its effort and money into the Northeast Corridor while treating the long-distance network like an unwanted stepchild.
And what has this produced? Huge debt and financial ruin. The NEC is a black hole for money and yet the long distance trains get the blame. Even Amtrak's own numbers tell us that it needs $800 million in subsidy each year just to operate the NEC, while $200 million in subsidy will operate the entire rest of the system.
The number of riders on the long-distance trains is about equal to the NEC ridership, but  since the passengers ride much further on the long-distance trains  these trains produce much more in real terms (passenger miles).
The Crescent is the train that serves Meridian, and it probably produces more passenger miles than many "corridor trains." Critics also belittle the small city station stops like Meridian, where, perhaps, "only" 10 people board the train. What's wrong with that? It costs nothing to stop the train, and it only takes a few minutes to board the passengers.
Remember, also, that these people are almost always traveling a long distance with fairly expensive tickets. That's called revenue. The fact is that very few passengers ride end-point to end-point on long distance trains, and that is exactly why these trains are so useful and efficient. One train like the Crescent produces countless "travel opportunities," because it serves so many communities.
A properly run network of long-distance trains can operate in the black as long as some subsidy is provided for capital expense. The Northeast Corridor will never do that.
Rather than complaining about Amtrak funding, you should be demanding an accurate accounting of how and where the funding is spent. Even with the current level of service, the Crescent is often functionally sold out. Just imagine what would happen if Amtrak ran the train on time, had a friendly crew on board and washed the windows.
Pierre Loomis,
Monmouth, Ill.
Treasurer, Illinois Association of Railroad Passengers
via e-mail