Bush Fights AMTRAK Bill

To the surprise of no one, President Bush opposes the recent Lautenberg effort to provide remotely reasonable funding for AMTRAK.

Bush Administration fights Amtrak Funding
The Bush administration on Tuesday blasted a plan by a group of rail-riding senators to overhaul Amtrak and give the passenger railroad an annual subsidy of $3.2 billion to repair aging lines and start new service.

Joseph Boardman, administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, told a Senate Commerce Committee panel that the administration has serious reservations about the proposal and that the federal government must stop subsidizing Amtrak.

How ridiculous would it be for the Bush administration to propose that the federal government stop subsidizing the interstate highway system? $3.2 billion is less than what the federal government spent on interstates in 1988.

More from Railex

Here is a more recent item about Railex. If you need background, read here and here. The most interesting part:

Railex depends on Priya's sophisticated inventory management system toincrease speed and accuracy. As trucks come into the warehouse, producepallets are either cross-docked for lot sales or graded, selected,packaged, and labeled with store brands for resale as packaged goods. Produce is then immediately loaded onto trains for cross-country transport. While the produce is in transit, Priya provides real-time inventory data to sales teams who sell the bulk produce en route so it can be cross-docked immediately onto trucks in New York for direct delivery.

Neat stuff. Elsewhere in the press release it mentions that Railex takes 250 trucks off the road.

More Smoke and Mirrors For AMTRAK?

The answer to an inefficient, poorly managed service appears to be to throw more money at it:

Senators renew push for Amtrak authorization bill
WASHINGTON -- Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Trent Lott initiated a second attempt Tuesday to pass legislation that would set ambitious funding targets for Amtrak while also requiring the passenger railroad to become more efficient.

The bill, similar to one that passed 93-6 in the Senate last year but was never voted on in the House, would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak for the next six years. That amount includes direct funding of $1.9 billion and $1.3 billion in bond authority.

Amtrak received $1.3 billion from Congress for the 2006 fiscal year.

The bill would also establish a program of matching grants to states that invest in Amtrak service and calls on Amtrak to reduce operating expenses by 40 percent.

. . .

[Amtrak President Alex] Kummant declined to name specific areas where cuts could be made, but he noted that the program of matching funds for states would help reduce operating costs because it would require states to foot the bill for running trains in exchange for federally subsidized capital improvements.

. . .

The funding amounts set out in the legislation would serve as targets, but would not be guaranteed even if the bill passes. Separate appropriations would still be required.

The bill would also require a new accounting system for Amtrak, aimed at improving transparency, and would mandate security improvements throughout the U.S. rail system.

So the "efficiencies" and "cuts" seem to come principally from shifting costs to states, and the promised money isn't really promised. Well. Aren't we glad things will be different now?

I've long been of the opinion that AMTRAK is woefully underfunded. But it seems to me that if "cuts" and "efficiencies" can be achieved, it should be possible to do that even in the absence of additional funding. Promising umteen billion dollars to an organization that has proven somewhat inept at managing the expenses it currently has seems imprudent, to say the least.

So at the end of the day this looks like more of the same. What really needs to happen is that the policymakers need to decide whether a national rail service is something that we should have. If so, let's figure out how to do it properly, instead of paying lipservice to the idea in principle and then relegating it in deed to the status of ugly stepchild. If we really don't want national rail service, let's get rid of it and quit throwing good money after bad.

Coast to Coast Produce Train Saves 110,000 Gallons of Fuel

Earlier I posted on a new coast-to-coast produce train terminating in Rotterdam, New York, just west of Schenectady.

Today's Albany Times Union has more. Here are the highlights:

Facility offers taste of future
Onions and apples, always in ideal environment, arrive at state-of-art distribution center

. . .

Railex is in the 12th week of an experiment to change the way produce is moved long distances. In some ways, it's a step back to the 1940s and 1950s, when refrigerated box cars moved perishables long distances.

But this is also what's called a unit train, with box cars that are never uncoupled and never pass through railyards to be switched among different trains. And unlike the trains of 50 years ago, each rail car is tracked constantly by satellite, its temperature and humidity closely monitored and adjusted to ensure conditions are ideal for each product being carried.

. . .

[Paul] Esposito, Railex's vice president for sales and logistics, said the train hasn't really increased the amount of produce flowing from the Pacific Northwest to the Northeast. Railex has just shifted it from truck to rail.

. . .

Railex's strategy is to use rail to move the produce long distances, cutting fuel costs by nearly 75 percent and giving the company an edge. The 55-car train consumes 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel on each one-way trip. Moving the same amount of produce by truck would consume about 150,000 gallons of fuel.

Recent trains have carried as much as 3,500 tons of produce each.

. . .

The coast-to-coast rail express, meanwhile, has been sold to wholesalers and growers as a cost-effective way to move their products. The trip is scheduled to take five days, about the same time as it would by truck.

But the trains have actually been making the trip in three or four days, not five. Only during the Great Plains blizzards two weeks ago did the train face delays, and even then it arrived a few hours early, Esposito said.

This answers the earlier questions I had about time of travel relative to trucking. The next question is, can Railex really undercut trucking-based distributors? And if so, by how much?

Stay tuned.

Coast-to-Coast Produce Train

Here's something from the Albany Times Union about a new coast-to-coast produce train linking Walula, Washington and Rotterdam, on the western end of Schenectady, New York.

Produce train arrives ahead of schedule
Express from Washington state to Rotterdam carries as much as 200 trucks

ROTTERDAM -- The inaugural run of an express produce train from Washington state apparently occurred without a hitch over the weekend.

The first train, due in Rotterdam today, arrived Sunday, a full two days ahead of schedule. Union Pacific Railroad and CSX Transportation jointly operate the train for Railex LLC, a unit of Ampco Distribution Services LLC of Riverhead, Long Island.

. . .

The first train carried potatoes, apples and onions, as well as a few cases of pears. The produce trains will use less fuel than the 200 trucks needed to move the same amount of produce, Railex officials have said.

What the article doesn't say and what I wish I knew was how much faster, if at all, the rail service is. Using less fuel is great, but unfortunately our current distribution system values time more than efficiency. The fuel efficiency of rail has always been true. What's new is the coordination (or elimination) of stops and transfers to make the coast-to-coast trip as quick as possible.

Still, it's good to see some investment in this type of transportation.