I am disappointed. it is interesting to me that the Liberals blame the GOP for ruining the country and the GOP blames the Libs. Here are some facts that appaerntly do not matter to some, others will simply ignore:
This year Amtrak is celebrating its silver anniversary. Unfortunately, after 25 years of federal ownership and $13 billion of federal subsidies, Amtrak appears no closer to financial independence than the day taxpayer assistance began. This study shows that virtually every stated justification for continued Amtrak subsidies is based on myth, not reality.
Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation’s transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter work trips and just 0.4 percent of all passengers making intercity trips.
Amtrak’s typical riders are not low-income Americans. Only 13 percent have incomes below $20,000.
Amtrak has virtually no impact on reducing traffic congestion, pollution, or energy use. Even a doubling of train ridership would reduce energy consumption and traffic congestion by less than 0.1 percent.
Amtrak is by far the most highly subsidized form of intercity transportation. The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. On some of the long-distance routes, such as New York to Los Angeles, the taxpayer subsidy per passenger exceeds $1,000. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to close down expensive lines and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all the Amtrak riders.
We cannot continue to ask our children to pay for things we cannot afford.
One common denominator among all (eventual) failures of Democracies: economically we are very successful, so much so that we eventually vote ourselves more benefits than we can afford.
So the real question is: How do we fix Amtrak? How do we make it economically viable?
I will agree that the impact that Amtrak makes on our transportation system is negligible. But obviously rail travel works in Europe, why doesn’t it work here?
I by no means purport to be an expert in the subject, however my casual observations are:
The most successful example of Amtrak is the northeast corridor. Why? If you need to go NY to Boston or DC, from downtown to downtown, Amtrak is the fastest way to do it. Beats driving and beats flying.
The least successful examples of Amtrak are the long distance trains. NY to LA or SF? 3 days vs about 8-10 hours via air (including airport waiting and commute time).
Now don’t get me wrong, I love the long distance trains, but from an economic standpoint very few people have 3 days to spend going coast to coast. That’s why they are some of the biggest money losers. My observation is that to become economically viable Amtrak should focus on corridor trains - Northeast is a great example, Hiawatha is another good example. The Lincoln service which is being upgraded to 110 mph also has potential. Why? If you take those services, Amtrak is the fastest way to go from point A to point B. And if you take other corridors, like in IL the Illini which goes from Chicago to Carbondale (where you don’t have many air travel options) and things can start to look very competitive when you compare it to driving. Another promising idea would be Chicago to Indianapolis - quite frankly the once daily frequency currently there and at the very inconvenient times is not enough to draw serious ridership.
So the moral of the story here? Buy more equipment, upgrade more corridors for high speed, and compete to be the fastest mode of transport where possible. Sure, the US population density is a lot less than that of europe so it may not be practical to build “true” high speed everywhere, but by developing 110 mph corridors like Chicago
Its the way we do things in this countrry…put a teaspoon of water in the bottle to see if it will hold the water…next year we’ll add to it, maybe one, maybe two more teaspoons if the bottle appears viable enough…then after that we’ll talk some more and maybe…
…But the truth is half the teaspoon of water has evaporated with no significant results…and the same thing happens when two teaspoons of water are added the following year as half of that evaporates before anything good can happen…so instead of filling the bottle and making something happen, we waste time and money with those hoping for success pleading with those who have proven that it won’t work because they tried a teaspoon of water!
As for $$$ for defense and education. We are finding it is not how much money you throw at a problem so much is the quality of the solution or the real need of the products being purchased. The Defense Department bemoans the costly projects Congress foists on them, that they don’t want or need, but have to take while real needs go unfunded and ignored. In education we say pay teachers more and they will be better teachers but still our education systems is falling farther and farther behind the rest of the world. Amtrak is like both: Not enough money for the right things stingely given by Congress who claim they are actually throwing lots of money at something in hopes of a cure.
In the end we have a government of the politicians, for the politicians, and by the politicians (politician=government employee selected through many dollars received from lobbyists of special interest groups). If we could get Congress to act like a real board of directors rather than the businessmen they claim they are (reality: lobbied by big business not public need); thy must wake up to the real needs of the country for big business to grow and the country to prosper as a whole rather than only the special interests they represent by contribution.
One thing that never seems to be considered when comparing Amtrak to the European passenger rail systems are the taxes that people pay to support the European systems. I don’t know what the current rate is, but when I was in Germany between 1980-83 with the U.S. Army the German sales tax was 14 percent on everything, added to the price even before the item went on the store shelves.
The same people who scream about saddling our children with debt to pay for Amtrak have no problem saddling our children with debt to pay for a new aircraft carrier, or a huge tax break for the people who are getting rich sending your future children’s jobs to China.
I, for one, have no problem with tax money being used to fund things Americans actually use. Transportation infrastructure of all kinds is one of those things. On the other hand, I am offended that tax dollars are used to build a new stadium for millionaire athletes to play games in. I am offended that businesses choose where to locate a new factory based solely on which government will give them the biggest “incentive”.
It’s good to see more people taking the middle way, a pragmatic, non-ideological view of passenger rail service, rather than either of the two extremes, trains to everywhere or none.
The argument concerning long distance train always revolves around passenger traffic from point A to point Z and never the E’s to M’s and R’s to C’s. Such trains have to be studied and understood for the services they provide for all communities enroute and not just the end points.
I am especially offended by the original post as it is obviously from someone who has very little knowledge of the history of Amtrak. I would guess that the poster picked up some obselete talking points prepared by an anti Amtrak individual or group and perhaps added the current mantra that we are burdening our “children” with unacceptable levels of public debt.
I am not adverse to seeing discussions on this forum on the merits and prospects for passenger rail operations by any forum members who have demonstrated some study of the subject. However, the original poster here has started with the ideological view that public debt is too high and we collectively can’t afford all the things we want our government to do. Perhaps that is a valid concern, but to suggest that eliminating the support for Amtrak will solve the problem is just a simple solution for simple minds.
You folks are right, let us take politics and ideology out of it. Then let us look at it as a matter of economics. I have heard it said time and time again on these posts, and rightfully so, that if it were viable to run passenger rail public companies would be begging to to get in on it. However, they are not. Amtrak is a economic benefit to comparatively few while it is a burden to, in effect, all of us. I know everyone on these forums loves trains, as do I. However, to try to make an arguement that most of the current services offered by Amtrak are successful, is foolish. We know that the NEC is the most used section of Amtrak, so what Amtrak needs is restructuring away from the dead routes and to make better use of the good ones. The problem with Amtrak is not a political one, it is a common sense one.
It is a simple fact that when Orville and WIlbur took off at Kitty Hawk, passenger service via rails began to die.
Unfortunately in our country politics and idiologies weigh heavily on business decisions and philosophies and vice versa. Big business want big returns and moving passengers by train, air, or highway, takes big investments with small returns. Government policies favor the big return guys instead of long term returns. Therefore, government has to stop up to the plate and build road, airports, supply air traffic control, build dams and locks on waterways because no individual investor or group of investors could see an ROI in a fast enough time frame. We don 't have to scrap our system, or ignore it, to change thinking; somehow it often just drifts into the right path. We are due to a drift.
If we’re going to get rid of things that cost us a lot but give us little, let’s take a look at airlines and highways. Especially airlines. If they had to pay the full cost of providing the service (including their terminals, the airways, and the cost of air traffic control), a ticket from NYC to LA would probably be in the thousands of dollars.
As has been said, we need to look at the total usage of the service, not the end to end. We don’t measure airline ridership only by the folks that travel end to end.
Passenger rail has never made money, but millions have ridden.
Amtrak has a purpose, just like other modes of transport. There are markets to create, if one is innovative, and provides true service associated with the product.
Face it, Amtrak is trying to be like it’s competition, crass, cattle carriers at best. Thus service, what can and should differentiate them from other modes, is lacking system wide. I say that because, too many folks are still willing to jump in the airborne cattle cars and pay $5 for a bag of 12 stale peanuts (some feel honored and lucky when they find a 13th in their bag. such a deal!).
If it’s Charter were changed to really offer that product and service worth being proud of, I would open my purse strings. In fact, if that were to happen, and the product was marketed to draw riders both short and long distance, the trains would be loaded every trip.
Amtrak is trying to do nothing more than stay alive in hopes of getting a real shot in the arm and be what it can be. As long as the Board of Directors in reality is the Congress of the United States, then all it can do is the best it can to stay alive. Long range and adequate funding is needed to be able to finance its capital projects and be able to attract attention to itself in a positive way. Like Congress did with Conrail… As long as Amtrak is kept where it is as it is…that is to keep it out of the way of freight railroads and their trains…it will not provide real rail passenger services when and where needed. But big business controls Congress and Congress controls Amtrak’s purse strings…and the powers that be want to keep it that way.
To be fair, the freight railroads are trying to make money and do their job as well. Sometimes freezing the whole railroad so the once-daily Amtrak can run through isn’t as convenient and easy as you think. Plus there’s plenty of times when Amtrak stings the freight trains that are trying to serve the customers/yards alongside the passenger lines.
Works both ways, believe me.
There’s only so much track to go around. Should there be more? Of course! But who will pay for it? That is the real question.
What is hard for me to understand, and for a lot of others familiar with railroading as we have known since the beginning, is why one passenger train a day can freeze a freight railroad’s movements. I will give speed, physics, signaling, lack of signaling, train dynamics, track dynamics, etc. as good arguments (and I do understand them) but they really don’t satisfy me to where I am going to go away. So much of this has been said so vehemently that I suspect these explanations as excuses and not as real reasons. Lawyers and CPA’s have had a greater effect on risk and returns than many want to admit. Lawyers tell management to fear bringing people on their properties even if they pay to ride; CPA’s will show how running a passenger train takes three or four people instead of two; investors say the risk isn’t worth it and return on investment isn’t enough to run the passenger train. Is that the real reason? or is the operating science really the truth? Or is it that today’s railroaders don’t have the skill and savvy their predecessors had?
I think a lot of it is that dispatchers don’t want to sting the amtrak. So they keep all movements to a minimum until that silver train is well out of the picture. Plus I think there’s rules about block length and other dispatcher-related things that have to be followed. I doubt you understand all the variables Henry. I work out here and I sure as hell don’t understand a lot of it. And once you do learn it, they change it all. And they don’t want that amtrak sitting there for 2 hours because a freight train went into the hole in front of it. They are actually trying their best to get amtrak through on time - it just becomes a hassle. A neccesary hassle, but one nonetheless. Also, it’s not like the old days when you had multiple dispatchers and operators. Our current dispatchers have a thankless job with a LOT of territory to cover. A whole lot. I don’t envy them many days.
Like one time when I was in cab signal territory. Dispatcher ran us ahead of the amtrak. Well, he then had to cross us over to get us out of the way. And the way he lined up the switches gave us a restricting in the cab. Which means we had to run the train length out at restricted speed AFTER the cabs went back up.
We were 150 cars.
Dispatcher was getting REALLY antsy with us - but there wasn’t a thing we could do. Rules is rules. There is only so much track, and we were working in a very busy stretch of railroad.
Note: I’m not a dispatcher, I’m just making observations of whet I’ve seen/expereinced. I may be way off-base in my thoughts here, but it is just my opinion. worth the paper it isn’t written on.