Speaking for the 99.7% of Americans who either don’t use or can’t use Amtrak, I will say this: I don’t “hate” Amtrak per se, what I hate is…
I am a railfan, and I would love the opportunity to legitimately travel by rail on a business or leisure trip if the opportunity came up, but the fact is my part of the country is not served by passenger rail, and other nearby parts of the country that are served by passenger rail are not served in a fashion convenient for utilizing it, and I have no incentive to go out of my way just to use it. Scheduling station stops at 2 am and going places other than where I need or want to go is no incentive to go out of my way just so I can say I rode the train.
It isn’t Amtrak so much as it is the way Amtrak exists. Trying to run a 21st century train with 19th century logistics just doesn’t cut it. Constanty feeding a bottomless pit with taxpayer dollars for an entity that has no real incentive to change for the better or provide a service that the other 99.7% of the nation can use doesn’t cut it. As has been pointed out in other posts on this topic, the ideal of rail travel is the late afternoon boarding, a fine meal, cocktails, partying till 1am (or reading, quietly conversing, working out, watching a movie, etc), then off to your own room with your own bed, waking up and having a good breakfast, and then arriving at your destination by 9 am. That is the image that would attract a clientele, and that ideal should be the focus of Amtrak’s resources, but tell me, where in the Amtrak Nation does this ideal ever exist? On the NEC? the LD’s? Can an airline or a bus line compete with that ideal? NO! Instead, Amtrak just has to compete with puddlejumpers on the NEC and Greyhound on the LD’s, so instead of focusing on the comparatively advantageous niche where there is no other real option for the traveler they waste their time on the competitive disadvantage, where there is a viable option for the traveler.
I don’t need to read everyones’ opinions about what Amtrak should or should not be. Face the facts, NO ONE WANTS US…INCLUDING THE MANAGEMENT AND THE ‘SO CALLED’ BOARD OF DIRECTORS!!! Just as the public was so gullable to be convinced that Iraq was going to attack any day now, the same holds true for Amtrak. All you read or hear in the media is how much money Amtrak looses each year. You never hear about the amount of money our government waste on special projects that don’t benefit humanity in the least. We can throw money to under-developed countries (or even developed ones) with no questions of when we’ll get a return on it. Yet, Amtrak is always being told, we must show a return on the money it’s given. In other countries outside of the US and Canada, their rail systems are operated as an essential service, just like the police and fire departments are an essential service. This country doesn’t view Amtrak or any railroad in the same manner, eventhough it was ‘US’ that carried the bulk of every emergency personnel to where they were needed ‘DURING AND AFTER’ the terrorists’ attack on our nation. It was the freight railroads that transported much of the military equipment to the ports during almost every war this country has been involved in. Face facts people, the public which we serve is unappreciative and spoiled. Yet, to all you railroaders out there, GOD BLESS AND THANK YOU!!
In my comments I’m not assigning blame. I’m stating what the outside world is looking at when they make a dicision to increase funding for rail passenger service. The public has no idea of freight schedules or other inside problems. They see a lousey show, that’s all they know.
Another thought…Returning the passenger operations to the class 1s may have worked years ago when there was enough talent there to pull it off. Thirty some years later the class 1s would only do a watered down imitation of Amtrak. Today the class 1s would hire people from Amtrak, with its unsound 33 years of strange corporate culture, to run their passenger operation. Early on, in the '70s, Amtrak did a bad imitation of airlines.
For this all to work, the notion of passenger train travel, and railroading in general has to become important to the national culture, which it isn’t. When I first worked for the Chicago and North Western, where through passenger trains were hated by management, you still wouldn’t dare to stick one of the passenger jobs. They ran on-time and were important to the Company’s image as long as they still ran. These warps and fibers in the corporate upholstry have been lacerated beyond quick repair.
Speaking of on-time and time keeping in general on the railroad, I remember when you were on the railroad after 60 days you were required to purchase and maintain a railroad watch. This tool of yours in the form of fine jewelry at a cost today of $1,500 reminded you at every glance of the watch that time was important. You compared it with the company’s standard clock, and every one was in sinc with the stars. Now you can go to work with your wrist disguised as a bank time and temperature sign and that’s good enough. Time is now a shade of grey instead of being black and white.
Mitch
I think Amtrak is in a kind of Catch-22 where it doesn’t have nearly enough riders to offer convenient service or operate on dedicated track outside of a few selected areas. Ridership on the Builder for example is pretty good, but it isn’t nearly enough to justify more than 1 train per day and that’s not enough to attract enough of the corridor riders Mark mentioned, who also care about when they travel. Someone else mentioned the scheduling of the Chcago to New York train, but in the glory days there were many Chicago to New York trains leaving at different times on different railroads, so whether you were a connecting passeenger or wanted to get to New York the next morning, there were enough options available. Airlines and light-rail operate the same way(at least they used to). The proposition gets even worse for dedicated high speed rail, you can’t justify building such a line to run 4 or 5 trains a day on it. Consider how many people per hour such a line will move, then do the same with the right of way used instead as an Interstate highway. I wouldn’t be surprised if even the NEC is an inefficient use of expensive real-estate.
Disclaimer: please don’t take my challenge below as a disagreement with the many excellent responses to my post. I have learned more about Amtrak in the last 15 hours than I have in my entire life by such responses, and I am most greatful.
But, because I believe one learns more from challenging positions rather than acquiescing to them:
I am not sure I can buy the what appears to be the “Amtrak sticks around because that is what the voters want argument.”
Amtrak is a national instutition that is much more directed by Washington than the States–I would point to the posts about Nixon in support of this argument. National voters may hate Amtrak, they may love Amtrak, they may not care about Amtrak; but, I can guarantee that Amtrak will not sway ANYONE’s national vote. Considerations such as national security, entitlements, and labor/business will dwarf considerations such as Amtrak. I would be shocked if the number of people who went to the national poles with the idea that they were voting to keep or get rid of Amtrak couldn’t fit in a small telephone booth.
That is partially why I suggested that Amtrak might be better off split up. It brings the issue closer to the local level and local elections where voters consider such things when casting their ballots.
Some may argue that people do this in a more general way, in that some political views are government-subsidy friendly while others are not. However, it think this is a misnomer. There are very few people that think that all governmet subsidies are bad and few that think all are good. Most prefer the efficient ones and hate the useless ones. Without the ability to designate specific subsidies through the ballot, it is difficult to tell whether the voters think Amtrak is worth the price tag and runs on a voter mandate.
Given the level of knowledge that went into Mark’s and other’s posts, I more than realize I am way out of my league in suggesting that this means we should
I think Amtrak is in a kind of Catch-22 where it doesn’t have nearly enough riders to offer convenient service or operate on dedicated track outside of a few selected areas. Ridership on the Builder for example is pretty good, but it isn’t nearly enough to justify more than 1 train per day and that’s not enough to attract enough of the corridor riders Mark mentioned, who also care about when they travel. /quote]
I’d like to see some proof on these boards that Amtrak doesn’t have nearly enough riders.
Where’s the evidence?
Amtrak ridership is at an all-time high.
Then why is it hard to space on many of the LD trains during peak travel season? Not enough riders. I forgot. The overnight trains run empty, so saith the think-tanks.
Who said Amtrak has to run on dedicated tracks? The CHI-DEN service is well partonized as are a lot of other LD segments.
Ridership isn’t the problem. The issue is MONEY. Plain and simple. Build it and people will come. Amtrrak, thanks to a stingy Congress, has never been provided enough resources to
a) expand its routes
b) add equipment to carry more people.
Nearly every case where passenger rail has been added (with the exception of the Janesville Jooke and the KY Cardinal), ridership has exceeded projections.
I point to Maine and Oklahoma’s Heartland Flyer.
As well as making the Texas Eagle daily. That alone made that train one of Amtrak’s most heavily ridden, in terms of ridership, LD trains.
Those trains have been outstanding successes.
This statement reminds me of another post on this board where some railfan claimed every time he saw the Desert Wind in San Berdoo “it always ran late and empty.”
Baloney. Did he actually go on board and count heads? Or maybe his 2-3 visits were a representative sample as 365.
Fact is, he didn’t like Amtrak from the start. To back up his base
Please tell us how you derived that inaccurate figure. You’re a transportation expert who’s surveyed America’s traveling habits?
Nearly 100% of Americans haven’t ridden or can’t ride Amtrak?
That’s fiction, pal.
25 million Americans rode Amtrak last year. If the country has 280 people, how does that translate to not even 1%?
So about 10% of the public has ridden Amtrak. That’s 10x as much as your lowball figure. .
Amtrak also serves about 85% of this country’s metropolitan statistical areas, so the claim that 100% of people don’t have Amtrak service is groundless as well. The train may not serve every city at the best of hours, but that’s not Amtrak’s fault.
Amtrak serves 500 cities. The most any single airline serves is 150, if I recall correctly. I’d therefore say Americans have more access, in general, to rail travel than air.
I respectfully suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalizations.
I agree Amtrak would be better off if the service was better, but I have to disagree in general that a 1940s product would be a substantial improvment. The fact is
Streamliners failed not by their quality but because they went out of fashion. Part of that image thing I discussed. When the airlines came out with free meals and pretty girls to serve them, you know right where the business guys went. They abandoned the old, sometimes cranky men in favor of the then new mode. It is a differnt world now. A 16 hour trip versus a 24 hour, poorly timed trip with all the amenities would sell if handled correctly.
Mitch
I have seen similar stats that give Amtrak anywhere from 0.3% to 0.5% of the market.
Bear in mind that 25 million number represents tickets sold, not individual passengers. There are several "repeat visitors (guests?) included in the total. I purchased maybe 5 of those tickets, and there are a lot of folks who ride a lot more frequently than I do.
It is common in all transportation modes to cite number of tickets sold, without trying to distinguish how many of the tickets are from repeat travelers vs. one-timers.
Outside of the NEC and California, Amtrak has rather steadily lost market share. That is, the increase in ridership is lower than the increase overall increase in travel. Even on an absolute basis over the past 1-15 years, with the exception of the past year or two, Amtrak ridership has been just about flat.
The PRRs Broadway died running a 16 hour businessman’s schedule. How would recreating the 1950 Broadway work now when it didn’t work then?
It wasn’t the stewardess that got business traveller to fly. It was the extra nights they got to spend at home, flying in the morning an evenings instead of trying to sleep in a roomette. The PRR and NYC (and others) tried mightily to hang on to business travellers. They even tried to shave another 30 minutes off their schedules for a while, but by the mid 50s, the game was over.
The ridership numbers include hundreds of folks who commute on Amtrak on the NEC and it’s branches. Those people would total 500 tickets in a year, each. There are certainly many, many other riders making repeat trips, as well, particularly businsess travellers on the NEC.
Where do you get your numbers? Is that 25 million discrete people, or trips?
It is probably trips.
My wife took two trips on Amtrak this year, and so did I. Were we counted as two specific people or four trips? Probably four trips.
NYC has about 8 million but I doubt many of them ride Amtrak. A lot ride the subway, Metro North, and NJT. MN has an annual ridership of approx. 62 million. And that is trips. So obviously there aren’t a lot of New Yorkers riding Amtrak in comparison to Metro North. NEC ridership is about 11 million.
In the case of MN and the NEC I suspect that a lot of these trips are repeat business so 11 million different people are not riding Amtrak
Let’s talk a few moments about the extra night sleep at the end of a business day in New York. First and foremost. In my father’s post war era, most decisions were based on being modern. My fathers group was getting over the Great Depression, and the trauma of WWII. We were moving into the jet age and the space age in the '50s. We were moving into suburbia, and Heffner said it was OK to look at things in a glossy magazine that heretofore was unthinkable. They were going to be junior executives with a new slant. Disney predicted the future with superhighways where one wouldn’t even have to steer their car. You wouldn’t catch James Bond on the Limited, and you wouldn’t see the President of the United States on one either. Movies had shown people on trips with clips of trains going by. Now it would be clips of TWA 707s landing and Zsa Zsa Gabore stepping off
And something that doesn’t bode well for any mode of travel (besides the oil issue) is the digital age. It’s now possible to go “face-to-face” with someone half way around the world via video teleconferencing. Press the flesh? Why bother? I’m only a few minutes from my desk (or at my desk), and have zero possibility of a travel delay. No long lines, no crying kids (except that damned intern), etc, etc.