RAIL Magazine Podcast with All Aboard Florida President & COO Don Robinson

This week, your blogger spent some time chatting with All Aboard Florida President & Chief Operating Officer Don Robinson. All Aboard Florida will connect Miami and Orlando on a three-hour trip with 16 daily roundtrips each day ("every hour, on the hour, in both directions," according to Robinson) by early 2017. The effort has the potential to be the first daily scheduled intercity passenger rail service in North America operated by a private entity in more than a half century.

During the conversation, Robinson discussed the recent announcement that Siemens USA will manufacture the locomotives and railcars for the service, its rail-oriented development station projects in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, ridership potential and much more.

Click here to listen to the Podcast.

Analysis: The Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives – led by Rep. Bill Shuster (Pa.), Chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure (T&I) Committee – introduced legislation to reauthorize the nation's passenger rail legislation. The full House referred the measure – known as the Passenger Rail Reform and Investment Act of 2014 – to the T&I Committee for markup, scheduled for tomorrow.

Although the bill outlines a four-year authorization period for investment in the operation of Amtrak's national network and capital projects for the Northeast Corridor, those annual investment levels are well below Amtrak's requested funding levels. And while a number of key elements – ranging from restoration of Amtrak service between Florida and the Gulf Coast to allowing domesticated pets onboard trains – could ultimately benefit the nation's passenger rail network, it falls short of the sort of comprehensive investment befitting a mode of travel that has carried record number of riders for 10 of the last 11 years and can shape local and regional economies like few others.

The co-sponsors of Shuster's bill are significant, given that they represent both the strongest advocates and opponents of federal passenger rail programs in the House: California Rep. Jeff Denham – an outspoken critic of Amtrak and the California's High-Speed Rail (HSR) project – joins Shuster from the Republican majority, while Shuster's Democratic counterpart – West Virginia's Rep. Nick Rahall – joins frequent and vocal passenger rail proponent Rep. Corrine Brown of Florida. The combination of those four key representatives suggests the measure could enjoy strong bipartisan support in the House – no small achievement given the body's current gridlock and one that speaks to Shuster's perceived role as a moderate on the issue.

The most recently-passed version of the legislation – the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 – expired on September 30, 2013, and is considered a reasonable and stable source of federal investment for Amtrak and intercity rail across the nation. That it was approved by a Congress controlled by the Democrats at the time and signed by President George W. Bush demonstrates recent precedent for bipartisan agreement on passenger rail authorizations.

Our allies at the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) recently released an assessment of the bill here.

RAIL Magazine's assessment of the bill's provisions are similar, although not identical.

As NARP outlines, the measure does include a number of valuable reforms to contribute to more efficient, responsive operations by Amtrak, including:

• A comprehensive, ongoing approach to upgrading the Northeast Corridor (NEC) – defined in the legislation as the rail line owned and operated by Amtrak between Boston, Mass., and Washington, D.C. – to the tune of a $14 billion loan to Amtrak over the bill's four-year authorization period along with a $300 million grant requiring corresponding matching investment from the states served by the NEC [for our thoughts on the NEC, see our post here];
• An effort to restore intercity rail service between Florida and New Orleans that was suspended after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but never restored;
• Studying and developing recommendations for rail-oriented development around Amtrak stations, as well as opportunities for Amtrak to leverages its assets by allowing private sector entities to install utility infrastructure such as power transmission, telecommunications systems and other activities, thereby generating ancillary revenue to support its operations;
• Creating a Route Advisory Committee for state-supported routes to ensure their viability and investigate opportunities by which operators other than Amtrak may be contracted with to operate the service – a nod to efforts in Indiana and Oklahoma to explore contracts with service providers other than Amtrak. This provision includes fairly strong protections to avoid abandonment of service at all costs;
• Allowing Amtrak passengers to travel with domesticated animals, such as cats and dogs;
• Evaluating the railroad's boarding procedures in comparison to best practices within the rail transport industry; and
• Reform of Amtrak's food and beverage program. Although Amtrak's food and beverage operations are a small-minded bugaboo of Amtrak opponents in Congress, the program's continual – and significant – operating losses distract the Congress from properly investing in the railroad's capital and operating needs. By introducing some measures to direct Amtrak towards a more sustainable food and beverage operation, perhaps some hostile opposition can be reduced by political opponents the next time Amtrak requires decisions on overall operating support. While RAIL Magazine supports the continuation of the kind of hospitality that's unique to passenger rail passengers among other modes of travel (see our post here on the charm of dining aboard a train), this program has become too easy a target to avoid some reform measures.  

However, a number of elements in the proposed legislation are more concerning:

• The overall investment levels for both operation of the national route network and capital investment in the NEC top out at just under $1.5 billion in the final year of the bill, fiscal year 2018. Amtrak's budget request in those same categories for fiscal year 2015 is $1.62 billion. Although Amtrak's record ridership in recent years have made its operations more efficient via greater revenues, its capital needs have grown. The authorization levels proposed in PRRIA barely keep pace with inflation;
• A total lack of capital investment beyond the NEC. While it's true that the overwhelming majority of the rail miles owned by Amtrak directly are contained within the NEC, routes across the country have benefited from capital investment supported by the current PRIIA of 2008, which established a series of capital grants across the nation. This legislation profoundly constrains Amtrak's ability to grow ridership on its state-supported corridors and long-distance routes;
• Tightening on the screws on potential high-speed rail projects. Although some analysis of this proposed legislation argued it prohibits HSR investments outside the NEC, that's not quite the case. What the bill does do is place tighter checks and approvals required for Amtrak to either purchase new rolling stock for procurements in excess of $1 million [Sec. 24318, (f)] or to advance capital projects in excess of $1 billion [Sec. 304, Large Capital Projects]. While not referencing HSR projects directly, those would likely be only types of projects that would be subject to this heightened litmus test

Ultimately, we agree in large part with NARP that the PRRIA does not substantially improve investment levels or regulatory benefits for the long-term betterment of the nation's passenger rail network. The lack of a substantial re-imagining of federal passenger rail investment is likely driven by strong opposition to federal spending – in general, or for Amtrak and HSR, in particular –  large majorities in the House of Representatives. In many cases, House members oppose any ongoing support for Amtrak, so Shuster's ability to draw co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle might be the absolute best this iteration of the Congress can achieve. As a result, the PRRIA – as underwhelming as it is – may be the most plausible mechanism for a predictable level of support for Amtrak, while advocates can hope that alternative mechanisms emerge in coming years to make a more significant investment in the nation's passenger rail network. 

Who Has A Subway?

Buffalo Metro Rail's University station

What constitutes a subway is pretty simple: a passenger train operating below ground, in a tunnel. Sometimes, though, commentators will equate any kind of heavy rail metro – or even light rail, gasp! – to a subway network, regardless if it goes underground or not. For our purposes, we include any kind of rail subway with two or more stations – heavy rail metro, light rail, streetcar, commuter rail – as a subway. Here's a simple list of metropolitan regions that currently operate a subway network in the U.S. and Canada (info on exact subway segments of the Mexico City Metro is unavailable), followed by systems that incorporate a single subway station. By our count, there are 18 subway systems in the two nations, along with another four light-rail systems with a single subway station. That amounts to 619 total stations. They are arranged by the year their first subway station opened, from oldest to newest, with the year opened and number of unique subway stations in parenthesis (cities with multiple subway systems are noted as appropriate):

Subway Networks: Boston, Mass. (1897; 28 stations [11 green] [10 red] [4 blue] [3 orange]); New York, N.Y. * (1904;  231 stations [30 IND 8th Ave] [12 IND Concourse] [14 IND 6th Ave] [25 IND Queens Blvd] [16 IND Fulton St] [13 IND Crosstown] [15 BMT Canarsie] [5 BMT Nassau St] [14 BMT Broadway] [31 IRT Broadway] [10 IRT Eastern Pkwy] [18 IRT Lexington Ave] [2 IRT Jerome Ave] [7 IRT Pelham] [1 IRT White Plains Rd] [3 IRT Flushing] [2 42nd St Shuttle] [4 Rockaway Park Shuttle] [1 Franklin Ave Shuttle] [6 PATH] [2 LIRR/MNRR at Grand Central Terminal, Penn Station]) Philadelphia, Pa. (1907; 44 stations [23 Broad St/Spur] [9 Market-Frankford] [5 PATCO] [5 Trolleys] [2 Regional Rail]); San Francisco, Calif. (1918; 19 stations [10 MUNI] [9 BART]); Newark, N.J. (1935;  6 stations [4 City Subway] [2 PATH]); Chicago, Ill. (1943; 18 stations [9 Red Line] [9 Blue Line]); Toronto, Ont. (1954; 59 stations [26 Yonge/University/Spadina] [28 Bloor Danforth] [5 Sheppard/Yonge]); Cleveland, Ohio (1955; 2 stations – RTA Red Line); Montreal, Quebec (1966; 68 Stations – Montreal Metro, all subway); Washington, D.C. (1976; 47 stations [16 Red Line] [17 Blue Line] [10 Green Line] [4 Orange Line]); Edmonton, AB (1978; 6 stations – ETS); Atlanta, Ga. (1979; 10 stations [6 Red/Orange Lines] [4 Blue/Green Lines]; Baltimore, Md. (1983; 8 stations – Baltimore Metro); Buffalo, N.Y. (1985; 8 stations – Metro Rail); Pittsburgh, Pa. (1985; 5 stations – PAT); Vancouver, B.C. (1985; 12 stations [4 EXPO Line] [8 Canada Line]); Los Angeles, Calif. (1993; 18 stations [14 Red Line] [2 Purple Line] [2 Gold Line]); St. Louis, Mo. (1993; 2 stations – MetroLink)l Seattle, Wash. (2009; 5 stations – Central Link)

Single Subway Stations: Portland, Ore. (1998 – Washington Park); Dallas, Texas (2000 – Cityplace/Uptown); Minneapolis, Minn. (2004 – Airport/Terminal 1 Lindberg); San Diego, Calif. (2005 – SDSU Transit Center)

NOT Subway Networks: Miami Metrorail (1984); San Juan Tren Urbano (2004); Honolulu HART (2017)  

*The total number of unique subway stations is our estimate, but we'd be glad to clarify the number, given the complexity of the city's network.

State-Level Tyranny Against Transit in Indianapolis, Nashville

High-capacity transit projects – whether they're any mode of rail or bus – are substantial and lasting investments in public infrastructure that deserve thorough scrutiny by elected officials, technical experts and the community at-large. There needs to be an open and transparent planning process as well as an honest determination of the project's costs. And then the voters should have a chance to have their say on the matter, either by voting for referenda, ballot measures or elected officials that determine wither the project moves forward to implementation. These are all signs of responsible and effective direct or representative democracy in action.

However, a pair of recent developments in two states – Indiana and Tennessee – mark a dangerous trend in state-level usurpation of that process. In both cases, local or regional initiatives to improve transit options have been subverted by state-level legislative interference on issues that are best determined by local residents and their duly-elected office holders.

In Indianapolis, a multi-year effort – Indy Connect – is underway to improve transit service on a number of key travel corridors and has been exploring all modes to transform the region's mobility network. The plan is multi-modal, encompassing new rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, enhancements to the existing IndyGo bus system, new and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure along with upgrades to the region's roads and bridges. The process has enjoyed strong support from area business leaders, elected officials and community groups, how have contributed their input and needs to the development of the plan.

So, what's the holdup? Well, in Indiana, the State Legislature must approve a funding source that's already been developed through the process, then allow counties in the region to hold referenda to join the network. After delaying the initiative by shuffling the matter through a handful of committees over the past several years, a number of state legislators expressed concerns that the process could ultimately select light rail as the preferred mode for a given corridor. Apparently, these lawmakers are philosophically opposed to light rail, regardless of whether local voters or elected officials determine its the right choice for their community and choose how they wish to distribute local tax revenues.

The final legislation permitting the local funding source and allowing countywide referenda on the plan did ultimately pass the both houses of the Legislature this week – and is expected to be signed into law by Governor Mike Pence – it included an outright ban on selecting light rail as the locally preferred alternative for any Indy Connect corridor. Whether the ban includes commuter or regional rail – an option for the proposed Green Line – is yet to be determined. While the legislation is a step in the right direction, its ban on light rail represents state-level subversion of the will of local and regional citizens, as legislators elected from districts not impacted by the plan impose their beliefs on people they do not represent. Isn't there a word for that? Oh yeah, tyranny.

A similar series of events is unfolding in Tennessee. State leaders there are even less supportive of transit than their counterparts in Indiana. Again, a group of Middle Tennessee elected officials – led by Nashville Mayor Karl Dean – along with business leaders and community groups cultivated plans for a 7.1-mile BRT line, dubbed the Amp, to serve as the first route of a larger regional transit network that would compliment the existing Music City Star commuter rail line. The project has progressed through the required planning process, including environmental and financial impact studies and was recently awarded $27 million in federal investment through President Obama's proposed FY 2015 budget under the Small Starts program. Seems like everything is in order to move forward, right?

Well, both houses of the Tennessee Legislature have advanced bills that would impose likely fatal restrictions on the project, or reduce its effectiveness to the point where it could hardly be considered BRT. Mayors of the state's four largest cities wrote letters of opposition to the bills, while state legislators representing communities far away from Nashville imposed their leverage over the locally-developed project. Note the conflicting statements opposing legislators told WSMV TV:

"This is a good example of why government's not working. For example, on this issue, I've had no one discuss this project with me," said state Sen. Jim Tracy – who represents Shelbyville, an hour's drive south of Nashville. "This is a state highway that this project is being discussed on."

"It looks like the legislature is meddling with Nashville," said state Sen. Thelma Harper of Nashville. "We wouldn't do the same thing with Murfreesboro. We wouldn't do it with any of the rest of them."

Tracy comes across as a whiny child complaining he doesn't have a say on a matter that doesn't impact him or his constituents, while Harper projects the concerns of residents who have the most at stake in the project.

This type of thing has happened elsewhere. In 2009, a committee of the Wisconsin State Legislature eliminated the ability of regions in the state to form Regional Transportation Authorities, even after several had already been created. In New Hampshire, state leaders in various offices have stymied attempts over several decades by local Nashua officials to extend commuter rail service to Boston across the Massachusetts state line.

The examples of state-level middling in both Indiana and Tennessee are case studies in hypocrisy, as those state legislatures most likely to impose their will on local transit projects are usually those who claim to be the strongest supporters of local control of government. If they truly believe that those closest to a decision will make the best one, than put the matter to a vote by those who will pay for and use the service, either via referendum or ballot measure or the elected officials they select to represent them. At the same time, these same leaders hardly make a peep when a state department of transportation moves on a substantial highway or road project, initiatives that are hardly ever subjected to the same level of legislative maneuvering and interference.

Both Indianapolis and Nashville are taking important steps to enhance their transit networks by locally-developed and funded infrastructure projects that create jobs, fuel economic development and radically improve mobility options so local residents can get to employment, health care, retail establishments, community services and much more that achieve a high quality of life. Although both communities are primarily considering improved bus networks as the cornerstones of their plans, these developments set the state for future rail transit routes. Local citizens and their elected officials should be the ones that determine what's best for their communities, not a presumptive and dictatorial process commanded by rabidical philosophies in state capitol chambers.

RAIL Magazine Applauds Reauthorization Proposals from Obama, Camp

President Barack Obama inspects a new Green Line light-rail vehicle at Metro Transit's Saint Paul maintenance facility before his address at the neighboring Saint Paul Union Depot. Photo by White House Photographer Pete Souza

Yesterday, a pair of important developments took place that present encouraging signs for the process of reauthorizing the nation's surface transportation legislation, currently known as MAP-21. In Saint Paul, Minn., President Barack Obama announced his Administration's FY2015 budget will include a proposal for a four-year reauthorization of MAP-21, including full details on corresponding revenue sources to support the $302 billion investment. The President identified a number of tax loopholes that would be closed under his proposal as the sources of revenue to makeup the pending shortfall derived from the nation's transportation trust fund.

Meanwhile, Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.) - Chair of the House of Representatives's Ways and Means Committee - also announced a proposal that would deliver $126.5 billion over the next eight years to the trust fund, resolving the fund's forthcoming insolvency. Camp's proposal would target overseas bank accounts that are currently havens for tax-free stockpiling of capital. Among others, Rep. Bill Shuster (Pa.) - Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - signaled his initial support for Camp's proposal.

The twin proposals address the fundamental challenge of the reauthorization process: identifying new revenue to support levels of investment necessary to maintain and expand the nation's surface transportation network. During the legislative process in 2012 that ultimately produced MAP-21, revenue sources were not revealed to the public until passage of the legislation was imminent, and those sources were only stop-gap measures, hence MAP-21 was a two-year bill. Along with the more than 4,000 members of the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) – which publishes RAIL Magazine – we are encouraged by these developments from leaders in both parties at the federal level.

"The Community Transportation Association and its members embrace yesterday's proposals by the President and Chairman Camp as very positive indicators that reauthorization of our nation's surface transportation legislation is closer now than before," said CTAA Executive Director and RAIL Magazine Publisher Dale J. Marsico, CCTM. "The revenue sources identified by both leaders suggest robust support for investing in our nation's transportation network and are a recognition of the vital role that network plays in connecting Americans with the jobs, heath care, social services and all the other elements of strong communities necessary for a good quality of life. Our nation's community and public transportation network is a vital part of overall transportation infrastructure."

For the most in-depth coverage of the impact of MAP-21 reauthorization on the nation's community and public transportation providers, visit CTAA's MAP-21 Central. 

Why Rail Supporters Must Push for Investment in Bus Transit Capital

Sacramento Regional Transit's light-rail and bus networks share
cross-platform connections at the city's Sacramento Valley rail station.

Judging by the title of this post, you may surprised by its inclusion on a blog primarily focused on passenger rail topics. And, indeed, we don't spend much time on bus issues here, and occasionally get into discussions of the relative utility of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) versus light-rail and streetcar projects. But all that is nuance compared to the reality of the current state of federal investment for the capital needs of the nation's bus transit operators.

The simple truth is effective passenger rail systems cannot realize their full potential without strong, complimentary networks of bus transit routes. There is not a single rail transit operation (heavy rail metro/subway, light rail, commuter rail, streetcar) that doesn't offer convenient connections to local bus routes. I know the importance of this first-hand as a daily rider of both bus and rail here in the Washington, D.C., region. Bus routes help satisfy many of the first mile / last mile needs of passengers and are crucial mainline transit carriers on corridors without quite enough density to support rail transit. The majority of transit trips – each day, each month, each year – happen on a bus.

And yet, despite the fundamental role buses play in our nation's transportation network, investment for bus capital needs – namely to buy new buses and construct new garages and maintenance facilities – actually decreased during the most recent version of the nation's surface transportation legislation, known as MAP-21 this time around. Although the two-year bill boosted levels of investment in formularized programs for both bus and rail transit, it completely eliminated the dedicated source of funding for new buses and bus facilities. Rail transit operations found their investment streams held steady for both maintaining aging infrastructure and launching new projects.

Not only was this outcome profoundly unfair to the nation's bus systems and the millions of people who use them, but it undercuts the ability of passenger rail systems to best serve their passengers. Without new buses to replace well-traveled vehicles and new or upgraded facilities to keep them maintained, the reliability of connecting bus routes decreases, ultimately impacting rail ridership. Moreover, rail advocates find a more receptive audience for additional transit projects of any kind when elected officials and community leaders recognize the value of all transit options, including effective bus service in smaller urban and rural communities. Do not underestimate the importance of this perception when legislation to fund high-speed, intercity and local rail projects comes before Congress or state legislatures.

What can be done to resolve this disparity? In short, simply restore the bus capital program in whatever legislation ultimately succeeds MAP-21. The process of hearings and constituent input for its reauthorization is already underway on Capitol Hill.

The Small Urban Network of the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) – the organization which publishes RAIL Magazine – has identified four key priorities to help meet bus transit  needs around the nation, most importantly the restoration of $890 million for bus capital needs that was the standard level of investment in the legislation that preceded MAP-21.

The trouble, though, is that most observers expect that Congress will not increase investment levels in the reauthorization process, given that the transportation trust fund that delivers investment for surface transportation programs is now bringing in lower levels of revenue than needed to support those programs. Efforts to raise new revue – such as increasing the federal gas tax or instituting new revenue methods, such as Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – have no legitimate support by leaders in either party at the national level. Congress will have to scramble to move funds around just to keep investment at its current level.

As a result, cuts were necessary. In MAP-21, those cuts were borne, in large part, by the elimination of the bus capital program while the rail capital programs remained whole. The impact of that decision has been that many transit systems are running buses well past their recommended retirement age and construction of new bus facilities has ground to a halt.

Some public transportation advocates believe somehow more revenue will appear during the reauthorization process and the bus capital program will be restored without impacting current levels of investment, including rail programs. There is absolute consensus that such an outcome would be desirable for the entire industry. All advocates should make this case loudly and repeatedly.

However, the likelihood of new revenue materializing is minuscule in the current political environment. In such a world, many rail advocates seem like they would be okay with maintaining MAP-21's imbalance of investment between the bus and rail programs. Those same advocates also claim that changing that balance would amount to a modal fight and disrupt the chances of reauthorization legislation succeeding in Congress, essentially arguing that bus advocates should take what they're given and go home with their tail between their legs.

Bus advocates at this stage have nothing to lose by arguing against this imbalance, as their investment levels in MAP-21 were already decimated. It is highly unlikely that Congress would not simply extend the current structure of the legislation if a new agreement was not reached before MAP-21's October 1 expiration date. Were that the case, bus advocates would do no worse than they're already doing by receiving nothing. Rail wouldn't do any worse, either.

Accordingly, its in the interest of all sides to take measures to restore the bus capital program in whatever surface transportation legislation comes next. No one benefits when bus programs are pitted against rail operations, which MAP-21 succeeded in doing. The outcome is less effective transit networks for all passengers, whether they take bus or rail.

RAIL Magazine's Exclusive Interview with Amtrak President & CEO Joseph Boardman

Photo by Adam Sullivan, railpictures.net

Last week, Amtrak unveiled the first of its Cities Sprinter (ACS-64) electric locomotive fleet for use on the Northeast Corridor (NEC). On Thursday, February 6th, Vice President Joe Biden joined federal, state, local and Amtrak officials in welcoming ACS-64 #600 in Philadelphia. The following day, #600 hauled its first revenue trip on the NEC from Boston to Washington (see video below).

Photo courtesy of Amtrak

As part of the debut run, RAIL Magazine Editor Rich Sampson interviewed Amtrak President & CEO Joseph Boardman onboard the train (Northeast Regional #171) between the Baltimore Penn Station and BWI Airport stations. They discussed not only the arrival of the ACS-64 fleet, but also forthcoming equipment orders, how the railroad has attracted record ridership while reducing operating costs and the railroad's future in moving Americans from coast-to-coast. While discussing Amtrak's relatively steady position in comparison to discouraging news recently out of Canada of pending service cuts, Boardman explained that "you can't cut your way to prosperity." We couldn't agree more.

Click here to listen to the full discussion.

An Economic Fallacy: Long-Distance Trains Are Less Subsidized Than The NEC

On February 4, 2014, the United Rail Passenger Alliance (URPA) – a North American intercity rail advocacy group – released a report assessing Amtrak's FY 2013 metrics and concluding that unlike common perceptions, long-distance trains are more effective and less subsidized than Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) operations. (Take a look at Amtrak's numbers here, and our in-depth backgrounder on the NEC here).

First, we should be clear that RAIL Magazine is a strong proponent of all Amtrak services: NEC, corridor and long-distance. Your blogger has ridden several long-distance trains (Crescent, Lake Shore Limited, Vermonter, Capitol Limited, California Zephyr) and appreciates their value that's misunderstood by many: collections of smaller corridors that do very well despite limited resources.

Unfortunately, the central premise URPA's assessment is statistically misleading: the report argues that the distance one passenger travels is more important than the price one passenger pays. Essentially, it claims that if one passenger travels 1,000 miles and another travels 50, the 1,000 mile traveler means more. The reason why Amtrak doesn't base their operating budget on this is because the person who travels 50 on the NEC pays far more than the the person traveling 1,000 on a long-distance train.

Here's URPA's claim verbatim from the report: "the critical factor is that any passenger carrier, including Amtrak, exists to move people over distance. The best single measure of performance in this activity is "revenue passenger miles" (RPMs), not the simple number of sales transactions (ridership)."  

They base everything - everything! - on passenger miles traveled, not ridership. Yes, long-distance trains are less subsidized per passenger mile traveled. Quite the opposite is true per passenger carried.

A good analogy would be a passenger on an airline flight who claims that since a first class seat is empty after takeoff, they should just get to sit in it at coach fare. They don't understand the inherent economics of value pricing.

Just because there's empty seats on an NEC train doesn't mean that the train is losing money. Capacity does not automatically mean efficiency. URPA basically argues that since Amtrak's long-distance trains operate at or near capacity – which no one argues – that it inherently means that if there were more capacity, it would be met at a similar level. The report doesn't ask the question whether long-distance trains are meeting demand with the ideal amount of capacity. 

On page 6 of the report, URPA presents a apples-to-nothing comparison in regards to Amtrak's travel share on the NEC. While it claims that Amtrak only serves 2 percent of travel in the NEC (which they choose to define as all vehicle trips, including private automobiles), they never provide a similar percentage of traffic for intercity trains versus nationwide travel data. I haven't looked at the data, but I'd guess Amtrak's long-distance share of nationwide travel is infinitesimal. This is not even an apples-to-oranges comparison, but an apples-to-nothing measure. 

If Amtrak ran its books the way URPA thinks they should, there would be no more Amtrak, no more long-distance trains. The economic goal of transportation isn't to move one person the greatest distance. The economic goal is, in fact, to move one person the shortest distance for the greatest revenue.

The bulk of the report is a hack job on Amtrak and the NEC, hoping to raise suspicions by claiming Amtrak's data is unaudited. They scold Amtrak for making capital upgrades to the NEC while also not recognizing those capacity upgrades not only support the railroad's own NEC operations, but the vitality of the numerous commuter rail systems that utilize segments of the route. 

It's a real shame a group that claims itself to be advocates for intercity passenger rail spends the majority of its time attacking the nation's only intercity passenger rail provider. URPA seems to operate in a fantasy world where Amtrak has unlimited fiat over the freight railroads. We all know they don't. So, they're very limited in what they can do to make improvement to long-distance trains. The current struggles with both the Empire Builder (freight delays) and Southwest Chief (BNSF's planned decommissioning of the Raton Pass line) illustrate Amtrak's limited ability to make improvements on infrastructure it does not own.

UPRA often chooses to direct its fire at Amtrak rather than the real culprits: governments at all levels who refuse to make legislative and regulatory changes in favor of long-distance trains.   

In the meantime, how about celebrating that Amtrak - unlike VIA Rail and the Canadian federal government, which have been slashing intercity passenger rail across Canada - is not only maintaining and expanding its network, but also carrying more riders on all phases (NEC, corridor and long-distance) while reducing operating subsidies? To find that kind of productive advocacy, you may want to direct your attention to the National Association of Railroad Passengers.