Consumer Affairs.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/amtrak.html
People who review mostly complain, whether irlines, busses or trains. However, reading the content of some of the 408 reviews, even by once loyal customers, suggests Amtrak is a very poorly run organization, with poorly thought out systems and procedures and incompetent and/or uncivil staff.
I was on a trip from Gallup, NM to San Bernardino, CA on the night of November 19. The train was already late for almost 1 hour. Juan ** was the one who collected my ticket before I boarded the train. I requested an aisle seat from him, he did not respond to me, instead, he just wrote a seat # and handed to me. I assumed it was an aisle seat. But when I got on the train, I realized it was not an aisle seat, I got a window seat, and with another passenger seating next to me. The wind/air blew all over my face and my neck, I could not slept well. And there were so many empty seats during the whole trip, he did not assign me an aisle seat which I wanted. Therefore, I switched to an aisle seat myself since I could not stand for the cold wind.
And there was another lady in our train, she just fell asleep and laid her legs to the seat right next to her, which no one was seating there. The conductor Irene ** woke her up, and told her to put her legs back to her own space. She was so cold and mean to customers! And later on, the conductor Irene ** found out that I switched my seat, she woke me up, and requested me to go back to my own seat. But my neighbor who sat next to me at the window seat already felt asleep, I did not want to wake him up to walk back to my seat, and I explained to her that the wind blew my neck. She responded that "the wind blow everywhere, if you do not want to wake him up, I will." Therefore, she woke up my neighbor, and requested me to go back to my own seat. And there were so many empty seats available at this time! After negotiating with Irene and Janet, Irene said she would try to find me am aisle seat after new passengers finishing boarding at the next stop. However, after boarding, and the train took off again, I walked over and asked her. She said, “unfortunately, there were no seats available.” But it was so obvious that there were so many aisle seats available!!!
Here is the second issue. I requested to change my ticket by adding money and stop by Union Station instead of San Bernardino. I made this request when I was boarding in Gallup, NM by talking to Juan ** and the previous conductor. They said I need to talk to the conductor for the next shift (which Irene was the next one, she was not there at that moment). Later, when Irene took the shift, I explained to her. She literally wanted me to call the Amtrak customer service myself. She said if I could not get it change myself, I had to be kicked off from the train in San Bernardino. Therefore, I was on hold on Amtrak customer support forever until my phone almost draining out of the battery, still not get a hold of a customer support.
Finally, I almost get an agent, but I was too lucky that the train passed through Victorville area, the phone signal was lost, I was disconnected. And I talked to Juan **, he told me that I should change the ticket at the stop Flagstaff. But no one ever told me I am supposed to change at Flagstaff. This is my first time get on the train in my life. But ** said to me that “It is common sense that everyone should change the ticket at Flagstaff, you want to get my name to complain? My name is Juan." Do you expect a person who get on the train first time to know everything? And I made this request at the beginning when I was boarding, no one even mentioned about the Flagstaff, they assume all passengers are experts, which they said "common sense".
At the end, I had to get off at San Bernardino, and took the metro-link to Union Station, with my stiff neck and stiff face because the wind blew my face and neck the whole night. And I had to show up work late because metro-link was a lot slower than Amtrak to travel to the Union Station. This is my first time to take the train, and my worst customer experience ever in my life in all types of transportation!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Wedensday all LD trains except 49 arrived Chicago early. Is it because RR construction season is over and weather is not bad?
Despite the nasty weather in the NE all trains arrived NYP early except LSL which was 9 minutes late. As well all trains along the NEC arrived within Amtrak's 30 minute window.
Sam1In 1953, according to my PRR System Timetable, Number 29, the Broadway Limited, took 16 hours to run from NYC to Chicago. It departed NCY at 5:00 p.m., and arrived in Chicago at 8:00 a.m.
In 1967, the Broadway,#28 eastbound, it did it in 15 1/2 hours, leaving Chicago at 5:00 pm, arriving in New York at 9:30 am. The westbound, # 29, left NYC at 6:00 pm and arrived in Chicago at 9:00 am. The 1962 NYC 20th Century Ltd. kept the same schedule westbound as the Broadway, 6 to 9, 16 hours. Sad that 50 odd years later, it takes so much longer. Real progress!
daveklepper According to the Hungeford 1911 book. the fastest NY - Chicago trains, either via PRRor NYC, took 18 hours. Over 100 years ago, 18 hours, wow! I strongly recommend the Capitol Limited. And, just for the experience, you might want to pay the just short of exhorbidant step-up to Acela for Washingtonj - NY.
According to the Hungeford 1911 book. the fastest NY - Chicago trains, either via PRRor NYC, took 18 hours. Over 100 years ago, 18 hours, wow!
I strongly recommend the Capitol Limited. And, just for the experience, you might want to pay the just short of exhorbidant step-up to Acela for Washingtonj - NY.
In 1953, according to my PRR System Timetable, Number 29, the Broadway Limited, took 16 hours to run from NYC to Chicago. It departed NYC at 5:00 p.m., and arrived in Chicago at 8:00 a.m.
Amtrak is replacing the full length dining car and Sightseer Lounge car on the Capitol Limited with a combination dining/lounge car, as per this announcement:
"Beginning January 12, 2015 through February 28, 2015, the Dining car and Sightseer Lounge car will be removed from the Capitol Limited for maintenance and replaced with a Diner/Lounge car. Meals normally provided in the Dining car will be provided on one side of the Diner/Lounge car and the opposite side will serve as the Lounge car."
I suspect the car is similar to the cross country cafe cars that run on the Texas Eagle and, I believe, the City of New Orleans. They are more than adequate, although the staff may need to increase the number of seatings to accommodate the Capitol's passengers.
According to the current published timetables, the time to travel from Chicago to New York on the Capitol and a NEC Regional connecting train, at least on February 28th, as an example, would be 20 hours, 57 minutes. The time for the Lake Shore Limited is 19 hours, 53 minutes. The Lake Shore leaves Chicago at 9:30 p.m. and arrives in NYC at 6:23 p.m. the following evening. The Capitol leaves Chicago at 6:40 p.m. and arrives in Washington at 1:10 p.m. the following day. The NEC Regional train leaves D.C. at 3:30 p.m. and arrives in NYC at 6:57 p.m.
When I travel from Temple, TX, which is the closest station to my home, to NYC, I book via the Capitol and a connecting NEC Regional train. As a rule I get a better rate than going on the Lake Shore Limited. Also, the Superliner equipment on the Capitol is more comfortable than the low level equipment on the Lake Shore Limited.
I am taking a trip from Arizona to the east coast. We leave Flagstaff, AZ on February 3rd on the "Southwest Chief" connecting to the "Lake Shore Ltd." on February 4th. to NYC.
I checked the Lake Shore past performance on the Amtrak website. The arrival times in Penn Station are horrorable! Four to fourteen hours LATE. There is a notice, on the website, warning of delays through January 12th.
My question is: Will these delays be solved after January 12th?
I have read the articles in Trains Magazine concerning this situation. They are not very encouraging.
Can anyone out there give me some insight to this situation? I have e-mailed Amtrak concerning this and am waiting for their response.
One alternative would be to take the Capital Ltd to Washington, DC and then up to NYC. I just noticed that Amtrak just pulled off the dining car and lounge car off this train. I sure do not want this, however, might just have to put up with it.
I paid a lot of $$$ for accomodations and this is how I'm treated?
Fustrated!
Steve
Unconfirmed report all LD trains arrived NYP early. The closest was LSL only 7 minutes early. All NEC trains arrived close to on time as well. Two western trains late Chicago this date but Builder early. Horrors..
Overmod schlimm Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for simply pointing out we do not need a self-appointed forum censor who attempts to stop his thread from evolving to where members have freely chosen to take it? Yes, but... Seriously, there's a difference between someone saying he's trying to bring a thread back on topic by posting something on topic, and someone complaining that a thread is drifting and people should stop it. IMHO the former is nonreprehensible speech. Far be it from me to complain about evolutionary thread drifting* -- A former music lover... (and, come to mention it, root beer aficionado) *(And that even though the first-listed official Kalmbach rule for Forum use is "Please keep discussions on topic"... ;-})
schlimm Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for simply pointing out we do not need a self-appointed forum censor who attempts to stop his thread from evolving to where members have freely chosen to take it?
Yes, but...
Seriously, there's a difference between someone saying he's trying to bring a thread back on topic by posting something on topic, and someone complaining that a thread is drifting and people should stop it. IMHO the former is nonreprehensible speech. Far be it from me to complain about evolutionary thread drifting*
-- A former music lover... (and, come to mention it, root beer aficionado)
*(And that even though the first-listed official Kalmbach rule for Forum use is "Please keep discussions on topic"... ;-})
A internet forum is like any other forum of human communications among multiple parties - it goes where it goes as each party states his own ideas about what he has 'understood' from all the prior converstaion. No multiple party conversation has 'stayed on topic' in the history of mankind. Humans aren't built that way.
Have fun and quit the female dog act. The emphasis is on FUN!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
schlimmOr a forum policeman reprimanding someone for simply pointing out we do not need a self-appointed forum censor who attempts to stop his thread from evolving to where members have freely chosen to take it?
Overmod schlimm blue streak 1 Relatively few enough folks respond to posts these day as it is without a "forum policeman" directing what should be on a thread. Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for saying he's trying to stop thread drift... ?
schlimm blue streak 1 Relatively few enough folks respond to posts these day as it is without a "forum policeman" directing what should be on a thread.
blue streak 1
Relatively few enough folks respond to posts these day as it is without a "forum policeman" directing what should be on a thread.
Or a forum policeman reprimanding someone for saying he's trying to stop thread drift... ?
blue streak 1Will try to stop thread drift.
Will try to stop thread drift.
1. Last weekend NEC very good on time except for one broken down train.2. A ripley's beliieve it or not all LD trains arriving Chicago December 25 early. Yes that was all.
3. today some up to 39 minutes late but many early.
I don't disagree with your tax analysis, Sam. Yes, the roads are paid for out of all types of taxes, some of which come directly from the operation of motor vehicles. But a significant amount comes from more general taxes. I have no difficulty with that, and the North American economy is based on that model.
Where we differ is that I also have no problem with the same pool of general taxes that help fund the road network also being tapped for passenger rail and transit projects. The difference is one of perception and nomenclature. Because passenger rail is identified as a subsidy it gets perceived as "bad". The equivalent support for roads is called "investment" and therefore "good". The capital cost of building rail transit lines is an investment, just as a new interchange or widened highway is. Those latter also have become mighty expensive. Often transit is the more cost-effective investment due to its smaller land footprint and higher capacity for moving people.
It is easy to pick out the costs associated with a single LRT line because it stands alone. We never see the annualized cost of operating an equivalent piece of roadway, or potential roadway. Only a very small percentage of a population regularly uses most specific stretches of road. Many road expansions get justified including soft costs, such as putting a value on people's time and wear&tear to cars stuck in traffic jams, as part of the cost-benefit study. In reality, a new road often does little more than create more traffic and congestion, so a subsequent audit using the same criteria might tell an ugly story. But nobody ever does one.
Each of the four C-Train (LRT) lines leading into downtown Calgary has proved very popular, and in rush hour are jam-packed. But they still only carry a minority of commuters and off-peak travellers. That does not mean they are an expensive failure, merely that the network is still skeletal. Cross-town traffic in particular remains ill served and driving is, realistically, the most viable option. If and when more lines are built, the percentage using the system will grow accordingly. A "small" percentage of users may well show an urgent need for expansion rather than a misuse of tax dollars.
John
cx500 Let's rephrase this to be correct. It should read "Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, AND SUBSIDIZED by property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc." That subsidy includes property tax paid by the railroads, thus forced in a small way to support their competitor. And he has ignored that even lower income folks who rent still pay property tax.
Let's rephrase this to be correct. It should read "Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, AND SUBSIDIZED by property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc." That subsidy includes property tax paid by the railroads, thus forced in a small way to support their competitor.
And he has ignored that even lower income folks who rent still pay property tax.
Sales taxes, property taxes, etc. fall more heavily on lower income people as a per cent of disposable income than middle and upper income people.
My key point, however, is that middle income and upper income people pay substantially more in taxes than low income people. They are paying for the nation's roadways. Not the poor or working poor!
American motorists are not being subsidized. They pay for the roads that they use, although the revenue trail is difficult to follow. One thing is certain. The nation's roadways are not being funded by little green men from Mars that deliver bags of cash to a secret desert location where they can be picked up for the general fund.
Sam1Sales taxes have a greater impact on poor people than middle class or wealthy people.
Sales tax is a consumption tax. So if I am dirt poor or fabulously wealthy I pay the same amount of tax for each amount consumed. As a percent of income of course it will have a larger impact on the poor because the poor person is paying the exact same tax as the wealthy person but with less income. As an issue of fairness, however, both the wealthy and the poor person is paying the exact same tax on the same item. The government is not stepping in to subsidize either class. Which in my view is how taxes should be assessed.
Where we end up getting into trouble, national debt wise is with the income redistribution models trying to make the impact of a consumptioin tax the same across different income levels. Which is self defeating economically and makes us all poor vs lifting any lower income class higher.
Below is a good comparison among the states of tax systems.
http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf
blue streak 1 Sam1 What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes? Whoa Sam1: Do not know what other states do but here in Georgia 1% of the State sales tax goes to roads and 2% of our local sales taxes (local any where from 4 - 7% ) go to roads and bridges. Now since sales taxes burden to lower income persons disproportinally they are supporting the roads with more of their total income. Note: Sales taxes are also placed onto gasoline not a per gallon tax ( state -- 7cents per gallon ) but on total amount of gasoline retail costs per last quarter. That retail cost is including the sales tax so a tax on a tax.
Sam1 What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes?
What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes?
Whoa Sam1:
Do not know what other states do but here in Georgia 1% of the State sales tax goes to roads and 2% of our local sales taxes (local any where from 4 - 7% ) go to roads and bridges. Now since sales taxes burden to lower income persons disproportinally they are supporting the roads with more of their total income.
Note: Sales taxes are also placed onto gasoline not a per gallon tax ( state -- 7cents per gallon ) but on total amount of gasoline retail costs per last quarter. That retail cost is including the sales tax so a tax on a tax.
Sales taxes have a greater impact on poor people than middle class or wealthy people. But the notion that the poor, most of whom don’t drive, are underwriting the cost of the nation’s roadways is wrong. Most of the monies for the nation’s highways come directly or indirectly from motorists, although the revenue stream is not always clear and easy to follow.
According to the Census Bureau, in 2013 14.5 per cent or 45.8 million U.S. residents lived in poverty. Approximately 33.9 million were adults. Most of them don’t have a car because they cannot afford one. They make up a substantial portion of the population that does not drive. A high portion of their income, which in many instances is supplemented with a variety of federal support programs, i.e. food stamps, public housing, rent vouchers, Medicaid, etc., goes for food, clothing, housing, transportation, and medical care. Most food does not attract sales tax. This is especially true if it is bought with food stamps. In many states essential clothing items are at least periodically exempted from sales tax. Most of the poor use public transportation, if they are mobile at all, which does not attract sales tax. Neither does housing and medical care!
Most of the sales taxes, as well as property taxes, excise taxes, income taxes, etc. are paid by the two top quintiles of income earners in America. Most of them drive or at least own a car.
The IRS Sales Tax Tables give a good indication of the spread between sales taxes paid by lower income people and those paid by people in the top two brackets. In Georgia a couple filing a joint return with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $20,000 in 2012 could deduct $163 in sales taxes; those with an AGI of $60,000 to $70,000 could deduct $485, and those with an AGI of $90,000 to $100,000 could deduct $551. In Texas the deductions would be $273, $816, and $1,019.
In 2011, the latest year for validated IRS statistics, persons with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $100,000 to $500,000 paid 74.6 per cent of the federal personal income taxes. The top 2/10s of one per cent paid 21.1 per cent of the personal income taxes. These are the folks who supply most of the monies to the general fund that are subsequently used for a variety of purposes, including transfers from the general fund to the highway trust fund. The same thing happens at state, county, and local governments.
For anyone who takes the time to study taxation in the U.S., it should be clear that upper income people in effect are subsidizing lower income people. And this is true for motorists.
Poor people, as well as many low income (working poor) pay few if any taxes, especially after the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is factored into the equation. In effect they get back whatever sales, excise, etc. taxes that they might have paid. Who covers the EITC? The top brackets, most of whom drive.
There are a few people in the top brackets who don’t drive, i.e. the person who lives in Manhattan and never learns to drive, but they are few and far between. They pay a variety of taxes that find their way into the general fund(s). Some of these monies flow back to highway funds. But they are a very small percentage of the whole. To claim that they are a significant factor in subdizing motorists is nibbling at the edges. They don't even move the needle.
Sam1 said
"Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc."
And he has ignored that even lower income folks who rent still pay property tax. They pay indirectly since the landlord must use a portion of their rental payment towards the property tax. Naturally they also pay the various consumption taxes and in many cases probably some income tax.
Motorists who continue to drive also reap the benefit of mass transit. Add another 1,000 cars to a congested road and you can easily end up with virtual gridlock. A transit option, although it may seem superficially expensive, can be a very cheap way to relieve pressure and keep traffic moving.
For decades North America has focussed on a road-based system of moving people within cities. We have a long way to go to catch up and create transit networks that provide a significant percentage of commuters with a truly viable alternative. I believe New York City is probably one of the best exceptions. In the meantime raw statistics can be cited to imply new transit starts elsewhere are a failure.
I think both sam and daveklepper are missing a key difference between taxpayers subsidizing highways vs subsidizing Amtrak, particularly long distance. For sake of discussion, let's say I pay a typical amoun of federal and state income taxes, state sales tax and local property taxes. But let us assume I do not drive an automobile. Dave implies that I therefore do not derive any benefit: "but what about those who are part of the small minority who pay taxes and do not drive? If you are going to complain about the many subsidizing the few who ride long distance trains, then also complain about the small minority who pay a disproportionat share of the tax burden because they don't drive" But that is not true. Everyone of us benefits directly from highways and local roads every day in terms of the transportation of goods and the ability of service personnel to acess our dwellings for repairs and indirectly through the benefit of living in a viable economy. However, if Amtrak long distance disappeared overnight, very, very few would notice its absence. Unlike some, I am not a proponent of making everything paid for by user fees. Infrastructure is a traditional and valuable government task. But running a heavily-subsidized long distance train service that so few use or could even potentially use (unlike local commuter and mass transit) seems to me to be a poor allocation of funding.
daveklepper but what about those who are part of the small minority who pay taxes and do not drive? If you are going to complain about the many subsidizing the few who ride long distance trains, then also complain about the small minority who pay a disproportionat share of the tax burden because they don't drive. But subisidization of long distance trains happens to be popular. Why? "I may may use that train but I want it just in case I need it." or "I never use it but Grandma uses it once a year to visit us." or "I would have to close my business if it were not for the people who arrive by train."
but what about those who are part of the small minority who pay taxes and do not drive? If you are going to complain about the many subsidizing the few who ride long distance trains, then also complain about the small minority who pay a disproportionat share of the tax burden because they don't drive.
But subisidization of long distance trains happens to be popular.
Why? "I may may use that train but I want it just in case I need it." or "I never use it but Grandma uses it once a year to visit us." or "I would have to close my business if it were not for the people who arrive by train."
"There is a relatively small percentage of the population that does not drive, for a variety of reasons, that pays state and federal taxes (directly and indirectly) that are part of the monies transferred to the highway trust fund. But they probably are a very small part of the population."
As noted a small percentage of the population that does not drive pays a variety of taxes, just like motorists, and some of these taxes find their way into highways. But they probably represent a very small percentage of the total population. They are a marginal factor.
Many of the people who don't drive are too poor to afford a car. In many instances they are net tax consumers as opposed to tax payers.
What per cent of the population that does not drive does not pay taxes or only pays marginal taxes? Here is a hint, at least with respect to federal personal income taxes, although they are not the only tax stream for highway support. In FY11, according to the IRS, 46 per cent of U.S. citizens filing a federal income tax return had Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of less than $30,000 a year, and 56 per cent had adjusted gross income of less than $40,000 per year. Their average tax liability was $933. On the other hand, 13.4 per cent of filers had AGI of $100,000 or more, and they paid 74.6 per cent of federal personal income taxes. This is the reason for the argument that when the total income stream is taken into consideration upper income motorists are subsidizing lower income motorists.
My main point is that motorists, for the most part, pay for the highways that they use. They are not subsidized in any significant way, contrary to popular belief. The monies that are transferred from the general fund or generated from a variety of other sources, i.e. property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc. don't come from external sources. For the most part they come from motorists, thanks in part to their large base.
Many if not most people, when talking about highway funding, only take into consideration fuel taxes, motorist fees and tolls. But the funding stream is far broader than these sources. One should look at the macro picture as well as the micro picture to understand the total funds flow.
agdocsouter Don't want to get to pickey about losses per mile, but would like to question how much each state looses on their highways say per passenger mile, or vehicle mile, (probably pretty close to the same, from my observation of vehicle passenger loads). Wouldn't federal road funds be considered a loss, also, as the monies contribute to the national debt?
Don't want to get to pickey about losses per mile, but would like to question how much each state looses on their highways say per passenger mile, or vehicle mile, (probably pretty close to the same, from my observation of vehicle passenger loads). Wouldn't federal road funds be considered a loss, also, as the monies contribute to the national debt?
Highways are infrastructure. They are not intended to turn a profit, with the possible exception of some toll roads. The users are expected to pay for them. And they do.
Roadways in the United States are paid for by fuel taxes, motorist fees, property taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc.
To the extent that the fuel taxes and direct fees, as well as tolls, don't cover the cost of the roadways, they are paid for by property taxes (city streets and county roads) and/or transfers from the state and general tax funds. So who pays into the general funds. Motorists for the most part.
As of FY12 there were 211,814,830 licensed motorists in the United States. Or approximately 88 to 92 per cent of the adult population! Most of them pay state and federal income taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, etc. They pay directly or indirectly most of the monies that flow into the general funds, as well as the property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc., and it is from these funds that the monies to cover the difference between the cost of the roadways paid for by direct user fees and the total cost is drawn.
The monies in the general fund don't come from little green men from Mars bearing sacks of money to cover the deficiencies in the highway trust fund. Or from France! Or anywhere else!
Of those people who are not motorists, a significant portion of them are too poor to have a car. In Dallas, for example, 45 per cent of the people who ride DART's buses, as well as 23 per cent of the people who use the light rail system, don't have a car. Public transit is their only option. In many instances they are not tax payers; they are tax consumers.
There is a relatively small percentage of the population that does not drive, for a variety of reasons, that pays state and federal taxes (directly and indirectly) that are part of the monies transferred to the highway trust fund. But they probably are a very small part of the population.
The notion that motorists don't pay for the cost of the nation's roadways is wrong. Given the large number of motorists, they are the ones that pay for the roadways, but they don't see the total cost at the pump or other price points.
There is a subsidy for motorists. But it is not what many people think. Upper income people, because they pay more in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc., as well as federal income taxes, ares subsidizing lower income motorists. It has been that way since the get go, and it is likely to remain so.
In FY14 the Auto Train lost $4.3 million or 1.8 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. It had an average load factor of 72.2 per cent.
The long distance trains lost an average of 19.2 cents per passenger mile before depreciation, interst, and miscellaneous charges. Amtrak does not disclose the allocation of depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. However, it is probably fair to say that the loss incurred by the Auto Train, as well is the other long distance trains, is five to ten per cent higher after inclusion of the capital charges.
The NEC had an opeating profit of $482.2 million or 25 cents per passenger mile in FY14. The Acelas, which carried 30.4 per cent of the NEC passengers, accounted for 63.9 per cent of the NEC operating profit. The higher fares charged by the Acela is the major reason.
If one assumes that the NEC wears 80 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation, interest, etc., the NEC had a fully allocated loss of $96.9 million or approximately 5 cents per passenger mile. This is an educated guess; unfortunately, Amtrak does not allocate depreciaton, interest, etc. by service lines, although it says that it is working on an accounting model to do so. It has been working on the model for years.
Thought would check this last weekend sat & sun. Arrivals NYP from Bos Sat & Sun had only 2 rains more than 13 minutes late. Remember that number. From Albany latest was only 10 minutes late with more 10 - 20 early. From PHL only 3 more than 1 hour late 2 being Keystones. All others 13 or less late.
These numbers do not include LD trains which are not on regular status report.
A check from Richmond and Charlottesville did show every LD train shaving 1/2 - 1hour off time from those locations except the poor Cardinal which lost an additional hour.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.