Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Big_Boy_4005
I am willing to blame "W" for a lot of things that are wrong in this country, but if Amtrak dies on his watch, I would consider it a mercy killing.[}:)]

Not a mercy killing, but a murder.
"If we just keep denigrating it in the media, cut its funding every year (while generously raising funding for AIR and HIGHWAYS) this monster that consumes all of the DOT's budget will go away...
I know it will because that's our right-wing creed. Anything run by the gov'ment is bad. Repeat after me..."

See how that works? Tell a lie long enough, and people believe it.

Yeah, like the myth that Amtrak is only for well-heeled tourists who spend lots of money. A visit any major terminal will dispel that whopper.

Or that "trains are best for short-distance corridors while LD trains run empty..."

Uh-oh. The average LD traveler travels by 800 miles on a train.

Or this one... most of Amtrak's travelers are vacationers or pleasure travel, like rail buffs. So it shouldn't be subsidised, since as well all know, airlines carry mostly business travel...

Uh-oh again. The majority of travel in the U.S. over 100 miles distance is, my goodness, for personal reasons. That gem from the Bureau of Transportation Stats.

Yep, just what the boys at Cato, Heritage, et. al., dribble.

You appear to have bought that BS hook, line and sinker.

Are you going to recommend killing highway funding? AIrport funding? The costs of law enforcement and the millions of other indirect subsidies our government provides non-rail transportation.

Sure. Amtrak is evil and must be stopped. Kill all travel choices. We're railfans. We know what's best for you!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. For instance, using my favorite, Chicago to New York. If the thing ran like it did in 1973 when it left Chicago at 4pm and arrived in NYC at 10 the next morning ithout fail, people would use it. But it doesn't. It leaves late in the evening to insure the 12 or so connecting passengers from the west don't miss it and have to stay in a hotel at Amtrak's expense.

Mitch, I assume you wrote that response with a straight face.
You surely don't blame Amtrak for the pathetic timekeeping on ex-Conrail lines?

Tell me again JUST HOW Amtrak runs, owns and operates that particular freight route?

[Anonymous]

Mitch's blame should then go towards the freight railroads, since freight-related delays have risen astronomically in the past decade.

Amtrak adjusts its schedules based on freight interference and delays.
If in doubt about this, check the performance and running times of the Southwest Chief, Empire Builder, Sunset Limited, Coast Starlight and California Zephyr west of Denver.
The first two are generally impecable whilst the others generally run on rails hosted by a hostile railroad.

(It would be interesting to see how cheerful these railfans will be if that hostile railroad starts treating them the same way it treats Amtrak.).

Blaming Amtrak for such problems is like blaming the renter for a landlord's problems!
Except the landlord, in this case, usually escapes any scrutiny.

[BaltACD]

Transportation....all forms of it in this country is an entitlement to the US population.

How much 'profit' does the Interstate system return to it's owners....directly none....indirectly through economic activity...enough.

How much 'profit' does the Air Traffic Control system return...directly none....economic aciivity generated through air travel...enough.

So why do we expect Amtrak to turn a direct profit on its operation? The economic impact from Amtrak, while not rivaling either the Interstates or Air Traffic Control, is sufficient to justify its continued existance. Secondarilym Amtrak or more precisely Rail Passenger Transportation is the only mode of transportation that can be expanded with the absolute minimum of expenditure when compared to the costs required to expand either the Interstates or build more Airports and Air traffic control facilities.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by artmark

I'm afraid folks won't support any greater funding of passenger service because of their fear that it will be a lot more bad service. If there had been some extension of quality long distance service to use as an example perhaps there would be some hope of positive public pursuesion. F
Mitch

What does Amtrak need to do to please the public and its critics? Pull rabbits out of its pockets?

Do you consider the Coast Starlight adventure bad quality service? I know arriving sometimes in LA after Midnight isn't great, but that's mostly due to the host RR.

How about some of the other LD trains, that generally run well with the on-board services?

If your ire is at timekeeping, check your complaints at the freight RRs' door.

It isn't a coincidence that Amtrak trains have better OT performance on the less congested routes, such as the Empire Builder and Southwest Chief.

Rail-friendly RR hosts also help.

Your logic about quality could also fall apart in another area. The freeways in my area are filled with cars and potholes. So more money shouldn't be invested in fixing them?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities.

That is right on conceptually, but unfortunately it's way too late to undo the damge done by years of government interference (read subsidies) with what used to be a lot closer to free market transportation. Like it or not, nobody is going to un-build the highways or airports and air traffic control system, so for rail passenger service to play in today's reality (which is anything BUT an efficient or free market), it must be government subsidized. The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes is every bit as ludicrous as the idea that the airline industry EVER turned an actual "profit" (ignoring for a moment all the years the airlines can't even turn their make believe "profits," without their extensive government subsidies, they couldn't exist much less turn a REAL profit).

I've expressed this sentiment many times before - put "Amtrak" (or invent some silly new name if you're so inclined) on the SAME BASIS as the airline industry - that is, acquire land for and build a nationwide high speed rail network connecting all the cities currently connected by the interstate highways, build and operate dispatching facilities for the network, and then charge the operator(s) of the passenger trains on the network (i.e., "Amtrak") a "user fee" - that of course does not come close to covering the sunk costs, fixed costs and maintenance of the system, and since the system is "public" there will of course be no property taxes to worry about (for the train operator(s), i.e., "Amtrak.") THEN, I submit to you that not only would "Amtrak" be "profitable" (in the manner of speaking applied to the airlines), but it would post profits a hell of a lot more consistently than any airline EVER has.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: I think the subsidies are really the problem to begin with. If nothing were subsidized, people would travel on the means that are most efficient and an industry would find a way to make money meeting the demads of such travel. As of right now, the subsidies mask such efficiency determinations, and allow people--to borrow a phrase--to export their transportation costs to other entities.

That is right on conceptually, but unfortunately it's way too late to undo the damge done by years of government interference (read subsidies) with what used to be a lot closer to free market transportation. Like it or not, nobody is going to un-build the highways or airports and air traffic control system, so for rail passenger service to play in today's reality (which is anything BUT an efficient or free market), it must be government subsidized. The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes is every bit as ludicrous as the idea that the airline industry EVER turned an actual "profit" (ignoring for a moment all the years the airlines can't even turn their make believe "profits," without their extensive government subsidies, they couldn't exist much less turn a REAL profit).

I've expressed this sentiment many times before - put "Amtrak" (or invent some silly new name if you're so inclined) on the SAME BASIS as the airline industry - that is, acquire land for and build a nationwide high speed rail network connecting all the cities currently connected by the interstate highways, build and operate dispatching facilities for the network, and then charge the operator(s) of the passenger trains on the network (i.e., "Amtrak") a "user fee" - that of course does not come close to covering the sunk costs, fixed costs and maintenance of the system, and since the system is "public" there will of course be no property taxes to worry about (for the train operator(s), i.e., "Amtrak.") THEN, I submit to you that not only would "Amtrak" be "profitable" (in the manner of speaking applied to the airlines), but it would post profits a hell of a lot more consistently than any airline EVER has.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes

Oops..left something out - that should read "The whole idea that passenger trains competing with government subsidized automobiles and airplanes should be profitable..."

[MP57313]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill
Amtrak’s existence has absolutely nothing to do with railfans or romantics. It exists because non-railfans – the people who use it – want it to exist. Amtrak has a substantial consitituency, and the funding it receives is demonstrative of the size and power of its constituency. There’s not enough of them to make it a great service, but there are enough of them that it will not go away.

This is borne out by the news articles that were published each time Amtrak squeaked through the annual budgeting process in the pre-Gunn, pre-Warrington years. Amtrak did not have much of an 'offense', but the 'defense' swung into action each time.

[jeaton]

Mark
If it's any consolation, there are many more people in your boat than my hypothetical taxpayer. I'm closer to your side of the curve, but in the event you change your mind about Amtrak subsidies, I'll cover you share.

Mitch

I am inclined to agree with your position on the "overnight" train runs. Sixteen hours or so for the 800 to 1000 mile runs with departure around 5:00pm just might bring back some business travel. Of course some improvement with on-time performance would also be necessary.

That part reminded me of earlier this year, while visiting family in Gainesville, GA, when cousin Mike was returning from a conference in New York. He had a scheduled 2:00pm departure from a New York airport and, with delays, finally landed in Atlanta at Midnight and got home about 2:00am. The southbound Cresent leaves New York about the same time and stops at Gainesville about 8:00am. So maybe it's name your poison. Take a chance flying, or take the train and plan on a good nights sleep.

Jay

[Anonymous]

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......

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. I have argued for reorganizing Amtrak into a National Rail Passenger Service oversight agency, wherein the proper incentives are put into play for the Class I's to take back the operation of passenger trains, and then sit back for 10 or 15 years and see if the private sector can come up with the necessary innovations that would make rail passenger service viable. A transferable tax credit for each passenger/mile served should be incentive enough to intice the Class I's to try it. If that doesn't amount to anything after a decade or so, then maybe a true national passenger rail service should go the way of the riverboat. If the Northeast states want the NEC to go on, then let them pay for it. Same for California, Florida, et al. If it's true that non-railfans are the ones who demand rail passenger service on a national scale, those same people may also support it on a state by state basis. At least then the 0.3% are forced to pay a greater share for their niche subsidy, which may cause them to rethink their support for this concept of rail passenger service. If not, then more power to them!

[Anonymous]

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!!


Glenn
A R E A L RAILROADER...A TRUE AMERICAN!!!

[Anonymous]

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.

Mark.. Thanks for your kind words.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[gabe]

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 get rid or split Amtrak up. I just want to see how these responses react to such an argument.

Thanks again,

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by up829

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 baseless position, he generalized about Amtrak.

The Desert Wind, which ran from Salt Lake to Vegas to LA, was well patronized, even in a February when I rode it.

The poster could have very well said the same thing about a certain flight he rode on a Tuesday or Wednesday, when passenger loads are less than other days.

I know I often sound contentious in these parts, but people need to prove their assertions.

• Reply
• Edit