henry6 Sam1 CMStPnP Note the difference in labor costs in the below article as well: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/20/post-office-vs-amtrak-which-one-is-more-wasteful/ On my last trip to Dallas, the Texas Eagle had an engineer, a conductor, and a trainman. The conductor and trainman spent most of their time in the dining car whilst the train was moving. The dining car (cross country cafe car) had three servers and the cook. Or maybe we should call him the heater upper. The lounge car had an attendant. The three coaches had two coach attendants, and the sleeping car had an attendant. The boarding process at Temple is labor intensive. The station agent opens the gate and makes sure that everyone in line has a ticket. The conductor or trainman inspects the ticket (now read with a scanner) and points the passenger to his or her car. The car attendant marks the passenger's destination on a seat check and hands it to him or her. Once on the train the conductor and/or trainman has a quick look at the seat checks to see who is getting off at the next stop and, then as far as I can tell, heads to the dinner. Or sometimes they camp out in the lounge car. The on-board service personnel stay on the train from end point to end point. But the operating crews change out five or six times between San Antonio and Chicago. The best is the engineer from San Antonio to Austin or vice versa. He or she brings the train from San Antonio to Austin or vice versa. That's roughly 2.5 hours northbound; 3.5 hours southbound, although it seldom takes 3.5 hours to run from Austin to San Antonio. Then he or she spends the day in a nice hotel in Austin or is driven back to San Antonio or vice versa. How or why this arrangement was worked out is unclear, but it does not seem to be very efficient. No wonder Amtrak needs more than 20,000 employees! Or does it? I take it, Sam, you are objecting to so many people: ticket gent, trainman, car attendent, conductor/trainman. Or is it that when finished their work they sit in the lounge? Efficiency and service are served with the number of jobs...the system of selling tickets and opening the gate followed by ticket check and direction to car, then direction to seat, then collection of tickets and checking for next stops, etc. seems to make the boarding and ticket cheking work well and gives the customer the feeling of being cared for. As for sitting in the lounge or the diner when not checking tickets, etc., where would you have them go or sit? Can't sit in people's laps; going to visit the engineer can't be done regularly or often safely; no baggage car to run to; only officials ride in office cars; and thre is no caboose on a passenger train. In the course of a day, how much just standing at attention do you expect them to do? We in America have to come to terms with labor: it is needed to get jobs done; each job is different; each job adds to the service or quality of service; each job is for the benifet of the customer. Jobs are not created to take money away from bottom liners.
Sam1 CMStPnP Note the difference in labor costs in the below article as well: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/20/post-office-vs-amtrak-which-one-is-more-wasteful/ On my last trip to Dallas, the Texas Eagle had an engineer, a conductor, and a trainman. The conductor and trainman spent most of their time in the dining car whilst the train was moving. The dining car (cross country cafe car) had three servers and the cook. Or maybe we should call him the heater upper. The lounge car had an attendant. The three coaches had two coach attendants, and the sleeping car had an attendant. The boarding process at Temple is labor intensive. The station agent opens the gate and makes sure that everyone in line has a ticket. The conductor or trainman inspects the ticket (now read with a scanner) and points the passenger to his or her car. The car attendant marks the passenger's destination on a seat check and hands it to him or her. Once on the train the conductor and/or trainman has a quick look at the seat checks to see who is getting off at the next stop and, then as far as I can tell, heads to the dinner. Or sometimes they camp out in the lounge car. The on-board service personnel stay on the train from end point to end point. But the operating crews change out five or six times between San Antonio and Chicago. The best is the engineer from San Antonio to Austin or vice versa. He or she brings the train from San Antonio to Austin or vice versa. That's roughly 2.5 hours northbound; 3.5 hours southbound, although it seldom takes 3.5 hours to run from Austin to San Antonio. Then he or she spends the day in a nice hotel in Austin or is driven back to San Antonio or vice versa. How or why this arrangement was worked out is unclear, but it does not seem to be very efficient. No wonder Amtrak needs more than 20,000 employees! Or does it?
CMStPnP Note the difference in labor costs in the below article as well: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/20/post-office-vs-amtrak-which-one-is-more-wasteful/
Note the difference in labor costs in the below article as well:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/20/post-office-vs-amtrak-which-one-is-more-wasteful/
On my last trip to Dallas, the Texas Eagle had an engineer, a conductor, and a trainman. The conductor and trainman spent most of their time in the dining car whilst the train was moving. The dining car (cross country cafe car) had three servers and the cook. Or maybe we should call him the heater upper. The lounge car had an attendant. The three coaches had two coach attendants, and the sleeping car had an attendant.
The boarding process at Temple is labor intensive. The station agent opens the gate and makes sure that everyone in line has a ticket. The conductor or trainman inspects the ticket (now read with a scanner) and points the passenger to his or her car. The car attendant marks the passenger's destination on a seat check and hands it to him or her. Once on the train the conductor and/or trainman has a quick look at the seat checks to see who is getting off at the next stop and, then as far as I can tell, heads to the dinner. Or sometimes they camp out in the lounge car.
The on-board service personnel stay on the train from end point to end point. But the operating crews change out five or six times between San Antonio and Chicago. The best is the engineer from San Antonio to Austin or vice versa. He or she brings the train from San Antonio to Austin or vice versa. That's roughly 2.5 hours northbound; 3.5 hours southbound, although it seldom takes 3.5 hours to run from Austin to San Antonio. Then he or she spends the day in a nice hotel in Austin or is driven back to San Antonio or vice versa. How or why this arrangement was worked out is unclear, but it does not seem to be very efficient.
No wonder Amtrak needs more than 20,000 employees! Or does it?
I take it, Sam, you are objecting to so many people: ticket gent, trainman, car attendent, conductor/trainman. Or is it that when finished their work they sit in the lounge? Efficiency and service are served with the number of jobs...the system of selling tickets and opening the gate followed by ticket check and direction to car, then direction to seat, then collection of tickets and checking for next stops, etc. seems to make the boarding and ticket cheking work well and gives the customer the feeling of being cared for. As for sitting in the lounge or the diner when not checking tickets, etc., where would you have them go or sit? Can't sit in people's laps; going to visit the engineer can't be done regularly or often safely; no baggage car to run to; only officials ride in office cars; and thre is no caboose on a passenger train. In the course of a day, how much just standing at attention do you expect them to do? We in America have to come to terms with labor: it is needed to get jobs done; each job is different; each job adds to the service or quality of service; each job is for the benifet of the customer. Jobs are not created to take money away from bottom liners.
Amtrak is a failed business model for a variety of reasons. Near the top is a bloated labor force. If one thinks that Amtrak is a public welfare agency, whose primary mission is to created jobs, they see nothing wrong with the staffing levels on the Texas Eagle. I disagree.
I would not have a conductor and a trainman. One or the other. And I would have him or her walk the train and attend to customer needs or at least give the appearance of doing so.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
I finally had an opportunity to read Food and Beverage Service: Opportunities Exist to Build on Program Improvement Initiatives. The numbers are scary. But the following items are my greatest concern.
Amtrak does not have a program-wide plan for improving cost recovery while maintaining service levels. Moreover, the planned initiatives will only result in small efficiency gains because they are being applied to the existing business model. Specifically, the initiatives do not adequately address losses on long distance routes or alternative business models for food and beverage service.
On 21 of the short distance routes food and beverage service breaks-even because Amtrak counts the state subsidies as revenue. This is unique accounting.
In 2005 the Department of Transportation Inspector General recommended that Amtrak implement pilot projects (food and beverages) to decrease losses. Nothing happened, and the business model remains largely unchanged.
If I remember correctly, one of the recommendations was to modify the dining cars on the Texas Eagle and City of New Orleans. One half was to be for table service and the other half was to serve as a lounge section. The lounge cars were to have been removed from these trains.
The dinning cars were modified and for a short time the attendant on the lounge car was removed. But the lounge cars were not removed from the Eagle and probably not from the City of New Orleans. The attendant is back on duty. Nothing has changed.
On a recent trip to Dallas on the Eagle the dining car had a lead service attendant, two attendants, and the cook. The loung car had an attendant. If nothing else it shows the power of Amtrak to ignore the wishes of Congress and the recommendations of the inspector generals.
CMStPnPMost of the privately run LD trains prior to Amtrak had three or more classes of service.
Really? Which lines and what were the classes called? Looking at my NYC 11/25/1962 TT, there are two classes of fare, coach and a seat in a sleeping car/parlor car. Various accommodations are priced as an add-on: sleepercoach, roomette, bedroom, compartment, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 The answer here to food and beverage service is: from a political point of view, it is a waste of money because it doesn't run the train or collect fares; from a private investor point of view it cannot be brought to the bottom line except as a loss; as an astute businessman, it is a neccessary adjunct to the service as a whole and the cost has to be hidden or otherwise absorbed--more riders could mean less loss and easier to hide; as a passenger, I want to have dinner or breakfast or lunch instead of waiting until I arrive.
The answer here to food and beverage service is: from a political point of view, it is a waste of money because it doesn't run the train or collect fares; from a private investor point of view it cannot be brought to the bottom line except as a loss; as an astute businessman, it is a neccessary adjunct to the service as a whole and the cost has to be hidden or otherwise absorbed--more riders could mean less loss and easier to hide; as a passenger, I want to have dinner or breakfast or lunch instead of waiting until I arrive.
And if it could be included in the fare as with planes instead of as an extra-cost item no one would be able to raise the phony objections that they do. I am in fact sure that the crap I eat on planes is exorbitantly expensive to provide (probably something like $20 for the cold sandwich I had the last time I flew) because of the cost involved in loading it on a plane and wheeling it by hand down a narrow aisle, but it is included in the fare and invisible. If they were to charge $20 extra (by which I mean if you were paying for what you are already paying for but on a separate accounting) people would be throwing a fit over the $20 cold sandwich and $5 soda- highway robbery!- when in fact they are already paying for it. Just look at the debate over baggage fees. This whole ignorant debate reminds me of the farcical argument in Its a Mad, Mad World.
henry6 But it had to be chartered and made exclusive by a government somewhere along the way....and the rights of way were possibly easements rather than purchase of land...and a lot of other indirect government incursions.
But it had to be chartered and made exclusive by a government somewhere along the way....and the rights of way were possibly easements rather than purchase of land...and a lot of other indirect government incursions.
The company was not charted by the government; it was incorporated in accordance with Texas law. To that extent you could say that it was granted a state charter. Its ability to operate was due to being granted a franchise (usually by the city) to serve an area, for which it paid and is paying franchise taxes. How anyone could view this as a subsidy is beyond me.
The company's rights-of-way were secured in part by eminent domain. It paid the landowners for the rights-of-way. In most instances the company (shareholders) pay the owners what they asked, which arguably was above the fair market value of the land. How anyone could view this as a subsidy akin to the cash subsidies received by Amtrak is beyond me.
I keep telling myself not to respond to the postings about subsidies. They are irrelevant. It does not matter whether a particular form of transport got a subsidy or was mistreated by the government. It is done and over with. The key questions is where does passenger rail makes sense, how should we pay for it, and what form should it take? But sometimes I read a posting that I cannot help but respond to.
CMStPnP DwightBranch See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it. Well unlike most of the posters here I do ride Amtrak LD and average about once a year. I'll ride the Texas Eagle up to Chicago and back for Christmas from Dallas. Believe it or not my Airline FF miles are used for both the rail fare and the sleeper accomodations, so I usually pay little cash or nothing at all. I think they should keep the LD trains but I think the Food Service loss is ridiculous and while I might be able to look the other way if it was a small gap. This is a huge gaping hole in Amtraks subsidy that should be filled with better management.
DwightBranch See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it.
See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it.
Well unlike most of the posters here I do ride Amtrak LD and average about once a year. I'll ride the Texas Eagle up to Chicago and back for Christmas from Dallas. Believe it or not my Airline FF miles are used for both the rail fare and the sleeper accomodations, so I usually pay little cash or nothing at all. I think they should keep the LD trains but I think the Food Service loss is ridiculous and while I might be able to look the other way if it was a small gap. This is a huge gaping hole in Amtraks subsidy that should be filled with better management.
I too am a frequent train traveler. To date this year I have taken the Eagle from Temple to Dallas (3), and Temple to San Antonio (2). I have ridden the Pacific Surfliner from Anaheim to San Diego (2) and Anaheim to Los Angeles (2). Also, I have taken the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to San Francisco and the Silver Star from Jacksonville to Miami. I support passengers trains by ridding them. Having said that, if I were in charge, I would discontinue the long distance trains in a minute and focus the resources on short corridor trains.
How do you use your frequently flyer miles on Amtrak. I have Southwest miles, and I am a Guest Rewards member?
oltmannd henry6 Ok..here's an excercise which might or might not clear up the question of subsidy. Name one program, business, service, or publicly performed actvity that is not subsidized by any level of government. directly or indirectly. There are none. But, there is the order of magnitude of the subsidy. We could provide subsidized rides into space because it would be "fun" or fund a rehab of the SS United States - but neither would give much bang for the subsidy buck.
henry6 Ok..here's an excercise which might or might not clear up the question of subsidy. Name one program, business, service, or publicly performed actvity that is not subsidized by any level of government. directly or indirectly.
Ok..here's an excercise which might or might not clear up the question of subsidy. Name one program, business, service, or publicly performed actvity that is not subsidized by any level of government. directly or indirectly.
There are none. But, there is the order of magnitude of the subsidy. We could provide subsidized rides into space because it would be "fun" or fund a rehab of the SS United States - but neither would give much bang for the subsidy buck.
The investor owned electric utility that I worked for received no direct subsidies, i.e. cash payments from any government entity or any other source.
If you stretch the definition of subsidies to mean police and fire protection, streets and sanitation, schools, etc., a look at the company's financial records would show that the taxes it paid (federal and state income, sales, excise, franchise, inventory, property, etc.) to all levels of government not only covered its footprint but the footprints of numerous other activities. Not only did the company cover the cost of all these services, it even covered the cost of its numerous regulators.
People frequently confuse the tax code provisions that allow a business to deduct its legitimate business expenses as a subsidy. That is incorrect. However, if only one business gets a deduction, one might claim that it is getting a subsidy, but it is different than a direct cash payment. Our company took claimed no business expenses or took no deductions that were not available to every investor owned electric utility in the United States and, in fact, were available to an over whelming majority of businesses.
henry6 And what will that prove? Few here are involved enough in food service to give an honest answer and few are professional railroad managers to give an honest answer. A poll here is noting more than fanati's exuberance for beloved trains or political POV. McDonald pocketbooks will vote one way, gourmonds will vote another way, Libertarians will say flat no, Republicans will say privatize,and Democrats will say yes. And it still will mean nothing. I'll vote yes from a nostalgic standpoint but side with the Republican viewpoint if it were truley researched and planned and well executed if privatized and yes also from a business service point of vew, too, if that's what a Democrat stands for here. No, this poll will prove nothing, I'm afraid. The arguements have been made and heard,minds have been made up. Those with points of view political or othewise, are dug in and holding their forts. This merry-go-round has run its many circles and the machine is out of brass rings.
And what will that prove? Few here are involved enough in food service to give an honest answer and few are professional railroad managers to give an honest answer. A poll here is noting more than fanati's exuberance for beloved trains or political POV. McDonald pocketbooks will vote one way, gourmonds will vote another way, Libertarians will say flat no, Republicans will say privatize,and Democrats will say yes. And it still will mean nothing. I'll vote yes from a nostalgic standpoint but side with the Republican viewpoint if it were truley researched and planned and well executed if privatized and yes also from a business service point of vew, too, if that's what a Democrat stands for here. No, this poll will prove nothing, I'm afraid. The arguements have been made and heard,minds have been made up. Those with points of view political or othewise, are dug in and holding their forts. This merry-go-round has run its many circles and the machine is out of brass rings.
It is encouraging people to think outside the box vs "maintain the status quo". I hope you are familar with that management paradigm and how it benefits us all.
daveklepper Here is a thought for Mr. Boardman if pushed to the wall. Where coach only service is now provided, let there be two classes, business class, always all reserved on all trains, and regular coach which can remain non-reerved where it is currently non-reserved. The business class has the standard amenities that business class travelers enjoy now. But the price should be raised and meals included and the additional price should cover the cost of meals. The third level sleeping car, should cover both the cost of meals and the costs of the addiitonal service. And every attempt should continue to be made to increase quality and variety and lower costs. For those traveling basic coach, upgrades to business should be sold on train as available, box lunches available at stations, etc. The only problem is for business class and sleeper passengers who pay for a meal they don't want. Probalby a minority.
Here is a thought for Mr. Boardman if pushed to the wall. Where coach only service is now provided, let there be two classes, business class, always all reserved on all trains, and regular coach which can remain non-reerved where it is currently non-reserved. The business class has the standard amenities that business class travelers enjoy now. But the price should be raised and meals included and the additional price should cover the cost of meals. The third level sleeping car, should cover both the cost of meals and the costs of the addiitonal service. And every attempt should continue to be made to increase quality and variety and lower costs. For those traveling basic coach, upgrades to business should be sold on train as available, box lunches available at stations, etc. The only problem is for business class and sleeper passengers who pay for a meal they don't want. Probalby a minority.
Most of the privately run LD trains prior to Amtrak had three or more classes of service. Amtrak decided on the two classes of service on the LD trains for who knows whatever reason. They used to have business class in the NE Corridor but I think they got rid of it. Even on the Chi-Milwaukee Corridor they had two classes at one time but then got rid of it. Either their computer reservation system can't handle multiple classes or they can't market it properly.
DwightBranchSee how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws.
Please do not make sweeping such generalizations or assumptions. I, and several others here, favor a real passenger rail network, which would mean modern fast frequent services in the many corridors where it is rational. Opposition to the pathetic "food service" and long distance trains of an era 60 years ago is not disingenuous.
henry6 It is apparent we have three views: don't subsidize trains, subsidize trains, don't understand what subsidizing is all about. The only one's who will change their minds are the latter and they will eventually, when understanding, drift to one or the other of the two former. What has to be understood is how all governments deal with transportation and define "subsidy". If you subscribe to the concept that traffic cops, canal locks and waterways, airports, highways and roadways, air traffic controllers, passenger trains, bus stations, are all the same when it comes to subsidies, then you can move forward with a rational and intermodal transportation system in an efficient and hopefully intelligent manor. If you deny any one of those items as subsidy, then you will continue with the system we have now for whatever it is and it is worth. .
It is apparent we have three views: don't subsidize trains, subsidize trains, don't understand what subsidizing is all about. The only one's who will change their minds are the latter and they will eventually, when understanding, drift to one or the other of the two former. What has to be understood is how all governments deal with transportation and define "subsidy". If you subscribe to the concept that traffic cops, canal locks and waterways, airports, highways and roadways, air traffic controllers, passenger trains, bus stations, are all the same when it comes to subsidies, then you can move forward with a rational and intermodal transportation system in an efficient and hopefully intelligent manor. If you deny any one of those items as subsidy, then you will continue with the system we have now for whatever it is and it is worth.
.
In the long run, it might be politically reasonable to have the gov't subsidize the capital costs and expect the operations to cover the operating costs, particularly if the capital gets you more capacity than it would doing any other alternative.
That might pass the "smell test"
e.g. an upgraded NEC might be cheaper than building more lanes on I-95 or an airport in NJ.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
DwightBranch CMStPnP To answer an earlier question. Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it. As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like. I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract. I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis. When I lived in Denver I was forced to pay a sales tax to build our $4.8 billion dollar airport. Burger King, McDonalds, etc. has a store there without a roof that uses the roof I paid for. Therefore, I am subsidizing your lunch when you eat at Burger King. I therefore insist that no restaurants be allowed to operate at DIA, because it amounts to my buying someone's lunch. See how ridiculous and obtuse this argument is? That is why those of us who support food service as an accompaniment to passenger travel think the arguments of the opponents are disingenuous, that you just oppose Amtrak in general and are grasping at straws to try to end it.
CMStPnP To answer an earlier question. Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it. As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like. I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract. I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis.
To answer an earlier question.
Once upon a time there was a food and beverage cart on the Chicago to Milwaukee run that was used by Amtrak and pushed up and down the isle. No idea what happened to it.
As for continuing the conversation I don't see why not. A lot of railfans in this thread are really not vigilant against taxpayer waste and any money thrown at passenger train service is OK. Thats fine and my suggestion is they cover the cost then out of their wallet instead of using other folks money and shrugging their shoulders at waste. If you don't want to read the topic then don't click on it. I don't think shutting down conversation because you think your point of view is the only valid one is acceptable or very adult like.
I would like to see the fine print of this contract because I am fairly confident there is significant graft in it. Makes no sense to me why Amtrak needs 12 seperate commissaies open. Makes no sense to me why they have not moved to cashless vending as the airlines have to reduce fraud. Amtrak is clearly wasting money with this contract.
I don't think onboard food and beverage will ever be profitable either BUT losing this much money.....it needs to be looked at again why and where the money is being spent in detail. It is very telling that joe citizen can't even get the details of this contract. Might just ask my Congress Critter to obtain it for me for further analysis.
When I lived in Denver I was forced to pay a sales tax to build our $4.8 billion dollar airport. Burger King, McDonalds, etc. has a store there without a roof that uses the roof I paid for. Therefore, I am subsidizing your lunch when you eat at Burger King. I therefore insist that no restaurants be allowed to operate at DIA, because it amounts to my buying someone's lunch.
Sure, but there a difference from bleeding from a scraped knee and opening up an artery. You cannot just say "blood is blood".
travelingengineerTrying to keep this simple, let me carry further my previous example of government-paid ("subsidized") capital improvements for those people who choose to walk. The sidewalks and walk-wait signals at cross-streets are rarely if ever used by those who only drive cars, but the elderly, disabled, children and those without cars must have them for their personal safety and mobility. So local governments have deemed these capital improvements to be a necessary expenditure for the general public (some of whom might or might not actually require them). Talk about subsidization!
Don't agree at all. Pedestrians pre-date autos. With roads, we needed a way to allow cars and pedestrians to share rights of way. Walkers preceded autos, so autos have to pay the freight for access to roads. Intersection signalling comes out of the highway budget predominantly funded from gas tax.. Walkers remain unsubsidized.
I see little rationale possibility for most LD routes to continue without impairing the rest of Amtrak's stated function - providing a transportation service for the greatest number of passengers. On corridors the concept can lead to a real transportation service. In those situations, we should look to Europe as a model to see what works, since in corridors, the concept is directly comparable. Some of the posters here (Don, Beaulieu, Sir Madog, et al.) are quite familiar with food services on the trains in Germany and France and Italy. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.
henry6 It is apparent we have three views: don't subsidize trains, subsidize trains, don't understand what subsidizing is all about. The only one's who will change their minds are the latter and they will eventually, when understanding, drift to one or the other of the two former. What has to be understood is how all governments deal with transportation and define "subsidy". If you subscribe to the concept that traffic cops, canal locks and waterways, airports, highways and roadways, air traffic controllers, passenger trains, bus stations, are all the same when it comes to subsidies, then you can move forward with a rational and intermodal transportation system in an efficient and hopefully intelligent manor. If you deny any one of those items as subsidy, then you will continue with the system we have now for whatever it is and it is worth.
Part of the problem with subsidies lies in the definition of subsidy. The biggest problem, however, is the distortion of the pricing mechanism caused by subsidies. When people don't know what an item or service costs, as reflected in the pricing mechanism, they tend to make sub-optimum choices.
Prior to the opening of the Texas electric utility market to competition, the rates for residential customers were subsidized by commercial and industrial users. This kept the residential price artificially low, which resulted in their using more electricity, with a variety of attendant downside consequences, than otherwise would have been the case. Once the market was opened to competition, the argument against subsidies was shown to be valid.
travelingengineerThank you, "schlimm," for your succinct re-focus. May I respectfully add (amused, if not elucidated, by some prior posts) that a repast in the Dining Car (not "dinning" car as spelled by another) is more than, say, eating a hamburger. Unless one is a true iconoclast, one can connect and perhaps even enjoy the at-table company of fellow travelers, always finding topics of common interest. For example, I have coincidentally shared meals thereon with Marcus J. Ruef (BofLE VP) - delightful, well worth my cost and I have totally forgotten the meal and its cost but not forgotten Mr. Ruef. The pleasure of eating out anywhere with one's family or friends, for example, is worth whatever its cost. For Amtrak, meal service is simply part of the "cost of doing business," like air-conditioning in a supermarket with the doors always open, whether a customer wants frozen food or firewood. Finally (as mentioned in a concurrent thread), may I opine that the cost of a Sleeping Car Bedroom may be more than that of a 1st class hotel room, but I can't imagine looking out the window of any hotel room all day for a week!
I wouldn't argue for a second that eating in the dining car and travelling in a sleeper are a wonderful thing to do. I love doing it, too! And, I'd like to do it in the future, too.
But, I don't think it's fair to ask the taxpayers of this country to subsidize my room and board on the train. I would like to travel on the SS United States to Europe on scheduled service rather than fly, but I sure wouldn't suggest the gov't subsidize the service just because it's a wonderful experience and people who don't like flying have no other way to get to Europe.
The subsidy per passenger mile on the LD trains is so high, it threatens to send all of Amtrak down the drain. This is the "elephant in the room" that Amtrak chooses to ignore. They have been "inside the box" so long they don't have a clue that there an "outside" where good ideas come from.
If we want there to be LD trains to ride, then we need to push to make them better economically. I'm not talking about "profitability", just some continued improvement that would take the focus and heat off them. They can probably survive on some combination of political will and "essential service" rationale (no matter how weak) if only they did better economically.
Warren Wilson
Good find! Nobody listening? That's par for the course for most of the public hearings that I have attended. It is why I almost never attend a public hearing. Instead, I work behind the scenes to get it done. Out of the spotlight where people are not forced to be defensive.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.