MidlandMike schlimm The use of passenger miles is misleading, as it inflates the value of LD service. The metrics that matter are number of passengers served, the revenue they generate and the actual cost to operate those trains, setting aside various fixed costs, overhead, etc. "The use of passenger miles is misleading..." (?) New York's MTA commuter trains & subway (and bus) routes carry as many passengers in 3 days as Amtrak carries in a year. So I guess by your logic, all ATK should be shut down in favor of putting all the effort in the MTA since the only thing that counts is the overwhelming number of passengers served.
schlimm The use of passenger miles is misleading, as it inflates the value of LD service. The metrics that matter are number of passengers served, the revenue they generate and the actual cost to operate those trains, setting aside various fixed costs, overhead, etc.
The use of passenger miles is misleading, as it inflates the value of LD service. The metrics that matter are number of passengers served, the revenue they generate and the actual cost to operate those trains, setting aside various fixed costs, overhead, etc.
"The use of passenger miles is misleading..." (?)
New York's MTA commuter trains & subway (and bus) routes carry as many passengers in 3 days as Amtrak carries in a year. So I guess by your logic, all ATK should be shut down in favor of putting all the effort in the MTA since the only thing that counts is the overwhelming number of passengers served.
Not at all. But by your logic, one person who rides Amtrak once from NYC to LA (about 3000 miles) is equal in public service to transporting 36 people in NYC on the Acela to New Haven? LD travel by train in the US is neither competitive in time or efficiency with airlines because of the distance and true cost, as is obvious by the public preference.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Yes,Schlimm, you do keep making the point, and from and accountants point-of-view and from a transporation-efficiency point of you, you are correct.
But that is unfare.
Why should a Kansas farmer subsidize the commuter that travels Acela or Northeast regional four times a week between Philadelphia and New York, but his son cannot enjoy a high-school graduation once-in-lifetime train tour to see the USA safely by hijself (and meet the people). Or have his elderly and handicapped grandparents come for a visit?
The whole Amtrak subsidy is tiny compare do the civilization in brings the USA. Libraries and concert halls and symphony orchestras don't exist on ticket sales either but require donations and in many cases government subsidies.
And then there is the very massive subsidy still existing, but hidden, to personal automobile transportion and over-the-road trucking.
daveklepper Yes,Schlimm, you do keep making the point, and from and accountants point-of-view and from a transporation-efficiency point of you, you are correct. But that is unfare.
I'm not sure if that's a typo but a pun.
daveklepper Why should a Kansas farmer subsidize the commuter that travels Acela or Northeast regional four times a week between Philadelphia and New York, but his son cannot enjoy a high-school graduation once-in-lifetime train tour to see the USA safely by hijself (and meet the people). Or have his elderly and handicapped grandparents come for a visit?
Because there are literally millions of people living in New York and Philly and millions of people each year riding Amtrak boarding at those two cities alone (and that's not counting Washington DC). Plus New York is the financial capital of the US and Washington is obviously our nation's capital. Without millions of people traveling to NY/DC (and Philly's no slouch) the country can't function as well. You can't say the same about Kansas. I personally have no problem with Kansas as it's a medium sized state and it's along the Southwest Chief which I have traveled to Los Angeles 3 times in the last 20 years. I think it's important to have Chicago and LA connected and the train has to go through some states to get there. I have a problem with North Dakota. It's the fourth least populous state but they have tons of stops on a route that connects Chicago to Seattle/Portland which are much less populated cities and to me less of tourist attractions than LA or San Fran (California Zephyr, also serving Denver and Salt Lake City). I think anything between Spokane and Minneapolis is worthless (Montana is way down on the population rank as well). I think it's hugely unfair the third most popular Amtrak city does not have a daily train to Chicago (and the one we have takes longer than transfering to the LSL or CL) but Rugby, ND does?
You think it's unfair Kansas should have to pay for travel between Philly and New York. I think it's unfair for me to have to pay so people in Rugby can travel to Chicago daily and I can't. I think it's unfair that people from Harrisburg and Lancaster can't go to Chicago without transferring but have to pay so all five people who live in Thurmond, WV can. I think it's unfair that people from Houston have to take a bus to get to Chicago and only have trains stopping in Houston three days a week at all but they have to pay so Thurmond can get to Chicago. No better yet, I think it's unfair that people in Las Vegas, Nashville, and Columbus Ohio have to pay so people in Rugby and Thurmond can travel the country when they can't travel on Amtrak at all. I'd like to visit Vegas one day. I won't be on Amtrak. I did travel from Philly to Nashville once ... on a bus. You can guess how that went. How about the fact that there is no direct train between Chicago and Florida but there is one between Chicago and Seattle (roughly same train length and duration, Florida is a way more popular state and travel destination and the route would pass through both Louisville and Nashville as opposed to Malta, Montana). Amtrak can't function without NY/Philly/DC/Chicago/LA but they sure can function without Prince, WV and Malta, MT and still connect coast to coast. Run a single train between Minneapolis and Cincinnati via Indianapolis, Chicago, and Milwaukee, run a train (or better yet 2-3) between Seattle and Spokane and get rid of over 3,000 train miles and its fuel costs and 2-3 days of labor costs and no one relevant would lose train service (unless you think Rugby, ND is relevant). Think about how much money we'd save (or we can use that money to help bring back the more useful older routes like the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers, Floridian, Lone Star, Desert Wind).
Philly Amtrak Fanhttps://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616 I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap that could be canceled and save us some money (or the money could be used for more useful routes like a new Three Rivers). Amtrak should decide to keep/cut trains based on performance and not who's in charge of the Senate. They'd be in a much better financial state if they did.
Just remember those percentages are daily operating costs covered by revenue and does not represent the total cost of the service. If a train covers 100% of operating cost.....that is still below break even for the service.
Heartland Flyer is listed as covering 90% of operating costs in that report but it's still $3-4 million short of it's goal of break-even. Though Amtrak says it only costs $9.2 million to run and earned $7.3 million in revenue.
CMStPnP Philly Amtrak Fan https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616 I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap that could be canceled and save us some money (or the money could be used for more useful routes like a new Three Rivers). Amtrak should decide to keep/cut trains based on performance and not who's in charge of the Senate. They'd be in a much better financial state if they did. Just remember those percentages are daily operating costs covered by revenue and does not represent the total cost of the service. If a train covers 100% of operating cost.....that is still below break even for the service. Heartland Flyer is listed as covering 90% of operating costs in that report but it's still $3-4 million short of it's goal of break-even. Though Amtrak says it only costs $9.2 million to run and earned $7.3 million in revenue.
Philly Amtrak Fan https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L18616 I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap that could be canceled and save us some money (or the money could be used for more useful routes like a new Three Rivers). Amtrak should decide to keep/cut trains based on performance and not who's in charge of the Senate. They'd be in a much better financial state if they did.
To compare Amtrak to other transportation modes/companies, the federal government subsidizes many federal roads and their maintenance as well as air traffic control and other "costs" of air travel. While no form of transportation is fully self sufficient without government subsidy, IMO the infrastructure should be the responsibility of the government while the operating costs shouldn't be unless they are of national interest. It is of national interest for Amtrak to serve the major cities and states where people live and where people want to travel to. A train serving Orlando not only serves people who live in Orlando but people who wish to travel there and don't want to fly/drive. Routes should exist if there are a lot of people who live there and/or a lot of people want to go there. If no one lives there and no one wants to go there, serving that area is a waste of money.
Philly Amtrak Fan I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap ...
Knowing how the long distance trains fit into Amtrak’s business model and their impact on its outcomes is interesting. Maybe even important! But the long distance trains are not going away. Attempting to axe them would create a political firestorm. The best outcome would be to tweak the route structure where appropriate. And look for opportunities to control the operating costs while providing a quality service to most of the passengers.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1 Philly Amtrak Fan I think plenty of LD routes contribute well to Amtrak but there are some dead weights like Byrd Crap ... In 2016 every one of the long distance trains had an operating loss, which is the loss before allocation of depreciation, interest, etc. expenses. Excluding the Auto Train, which had an operating loss of $1.8 million compared to an operating profit of $2.1 million in 2015, the losses ranged from $58.2 million for the Empire Builder to $4.3 million for the Palmetto. The Cardinal lost $16.4 million, which was the second lowest loss after the Palmetto. Overall the long distance trains lost $492.4 million before allocation of capital expenses. If one assumes that they wear 10 percent of the capital expenses, the loss would have been $580.3 million. Ticket revenues covered approximately 48 percent of the operating costs of the long distance trains, which is better than some of the State Supported trains. Knowing how the long distance trains fit into Amtrak’s business model and their impact on its outcomes is interesting. Maybe even important! But the long distance trains are not going away. Attempting to axe them would create a political firestorm. The best outcome would be to tweak the route structure where appropriate. And look for opportunities to control the operating costs while providing a quality service to most of the passengers.
On the other hand, the Cardinal has the last time I checked either first or second on the bottom when it comes to both ridership and revenue. A train like the Southwest Chief might lose more net money but covers way more of its operating cost by ticket revenue than the Cardinal does. And if you get rid of the SWC how would anyone not on the Coast Starlight or Sunset Limited routes get to LA? Likewise, if you get rid of the LSL, you take away access from the Midwest/West to New York (LA could go Sunset Limited-Crescent but it requires an overnight layover in New Orleans between the trains). Which trains can Amtrak cut while minimizing the number of people who lose their service?
Philly Amtrak fan: You are simply repeating the point that Schlimm made. No, I do not think it is unfare for a Kansas farmer to help subisidize the NEC
as long as the NEC is part of a NATIONAL SYSTEM that ATTEMPTS to provide services that any US Citizen or visitor can use.
To be fare, Amtrak must remain a national system, not one serving only one class of people and a few areas where bean counters say passenger trains are the most efficient passenger transportation mode.
Just like handicapped access and hard-of-hearing aids in theatres. The ticket price does not begin to cover the added cost of these facilities that are needed by a few but available to anyone.
I answered you before you posted your post, but apparently I have to repeat the point. And I will repeat it again if required.
schlimm MidlandMike schlimm The use of passenger miles is misleading, as it inflates the value of LD service. The metrics that matter are number of passengers served, the revenue they generate and the actual cost to operate those trains, setting aside various fixed costs, overhead, etc. "The use of passenger miles is misleading..." (?) New York's MTA commuter trains & subway (and bus) routes carry as many passengers in 3 days as Amtrak carries in a year. So I guess by your logic, all ATK should be shut down in favor of putting all the effort in the MTA since the only thing that counts is the overwhelming number of passengers served. Not at all. But by your logic, one person who rides Amtrak once from NYC to LA (about 3000 miles) is equal in public service to transporting 36 people in NYC on the Acela to New Haven? LD travel by train in the US is neither competitive in time or efficiency with airlines because of the distance and true cost, as is obvious by the public preference.
I used to live in the New York area, and commuted on the NYC lines. To me my one trip on the SW Chief had as much value as 36 commuter trips on the old Central.
The LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run.
MidlandMikeThe LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run.
I would suggest you look at the occupancy rates as well as the total number of long distance passenger train riders compared to that of other modes. The former is mostly low and the latter is barely a blip.
schlimm MidlandMike The LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run. I would suggest you look at the occupancy rates as well as the total number of long distance passenger train riders compared to that of other modes. The former is mostly low and the latter is barely a blip.
MidlandMike The LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run.
As I recall, 48% load factor sticks in my head. The thing about trains is that there might be only one segment between 2 stations wher the train is fully loaded, and then empty seats as people get on and off. Even those commuter trains we mentioned earlier, start off packed at GCT in the evening, and then slowly empty out going up the line, until there is almost no one on board at the end of the line. So its average load factor was still 50%.
As far as comparison to other modes, as long as ATK runs the right number of trains so that they are all reasonably patronized, then I am OK with that. If LD trains are such a blip in the transportation universe, then why are you so concerned with elimnating such an insignificant entity.
MidlandMike schlimm MidlandMike The LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run. I would suggest you look at the occupancy rates as well as the total number of long distance passenger train riders compared to that of other modes. The former is mostly low and the latter is barely a blip. As I recall, 48% load factor sticks in my head. The thing about trains is that there might be only one segment between 2 stations wher the train is fully loaded, and then empty seats as people get on and off. Even those commuter trains we mentioned earlier, start off packed at GCT in the evening, and then slowly empty out going up the line, until there is almost no one on board at the end of the line. So its average load factor was still 50%. As far as comparison to other modes, as long as ATK runs the right number of trains so that they are all reasonably patronized, then I am OK with that. If LD trains are such a blip in the transportation universe, then why are you so concerned with elimnating such an insignificant entity.
AFAIK, that is not how load factor is calculated. Comparing commuter trains with any Amtrak opration is absurd.
The problem is that LD trains cost so much that they are a drain on limited resources that could serve more passengers on corridors.
You ignore the fact that few people have the time and/or money to spend 18-45 hours to get somewhere they could fly to in 2-4 hours.
MidlandMike As I recall, 48% load factor sticks in my head.
In 2016 Amtrak’s average load factor was 50.9 percent. The average for the long distance trains was 57 percent compared to 55.4 for the NEC and 42.4 for the State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor trains.
The average load factor for the Acela was 61.2 percent. The Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Capitol Limited, Southwest Chief, City of New Orleans, Texas Eagle, and Lake Shore Limited had average load factors between 60 and 62 percent, except for the Capitol Limited, which had an average load factor just north of 64 percent.
Load factor is just one metric. There are many others.
schlimm MidlandMike schlimm MidlandMike The LD trains I have travelled were well patronized, which tells me that there are enough people with a preference for rail travel to fill the trains that do run. I would suggest you look at the occupancy rates as well as the total number of long distance passenger train riders compared to that of other modes. The former is mostly low and the latter is barely a blip. As I recall, 48% load factor sticks in my head. The thing about trains is that there might be only one segment between 2 stations wher the train is fully loaded, and then empty seats as people get on and off. Even those commuter trains we mentioned earlier, start off packed at GCT in the evening, and then slowly empty out going up the line, until there is almost no one on board at the end of the line. So its average load factor was still 50%. As far as comparison to other modes, as long as ATK runs the right number of trains so that they are all reasonably patronized, then I am OK with that. If LD trains are such a blip in the transportation universe, then why are you so concerned with elimnating such an insignificant entity. AFAIK, that is not how load factor is calculated. Comparing commuter trains with any Amtrak opration is absurd. The problem is that LD trains cost so much that they are a drain on limited resources that could serve more passengers on corridors. You ignore the fact that few people have the time and/or money to spend 18-45 hours to get somewhere they could fly to in 2-4 hours.
We should have a Choice how get from point A to B by Trains, Planes, and Car. We should have choice in USA.
conrailmanWe should have a Choice how get from point A to B by Trains, Planes, and Car. We should have choice in USA.
You do. It's known as a a free market. And if Amtrak LD trains were not heavily subsidized, it's doubtful many would ride them. In 2015, the SWC had 367,000 riders, only about a quarter of whom rode LA - CHI. In contrast, 6 million flew, about 60 X.
Seeing this exchange is why I don't comment on posts about Amtrak because it always boils down to 3 or 4 regulars stomping on everyone else--who seem quite happy with the idea of the US having no passenger trains, just to prove themselves right
Not an expert on Amtrak stats but I believe load factor is a percentage based on average seats available and open for sale on a train which makes it misleading. Again it is NOT an indicator of break even or success. Many long distance trains have far fewer seats available than a corridor train and carry far fewer passengers but have higher load factors because they have less seats available and open. An average Chicago to Milwaukee Amtrak train of 6 Amfleet Coach Cars would probably carry more passengers than say for example the Empire Builder between those two cities. The Chicago to Milwaukee Train would have a lower load factor compared to the Empire Builder in most cases because the seats available on the Chicago to Milwaukee train are possibly 2 times what the Empire Builder has.
Though I would say that a Chicago to Milwaukee Corridor train is more efficient operating cost wise with 6 Amfleet Coaches as it does not carry a Dining Car, Lounge Car, Baggage Car, or any Sleeping Cars. Only the Sleeping Car produces measurable amount of revenue that would even approach covering the cost of haulage. Baggage Car....NOT, Lounge Car.....NOT, Dining Car.....NOT.
Also a mystery to me why some Superliner equipped trains need to tow a new single level viewliner baggage car when there are Superliner Coach-Baggage Cars in the fleet that could do the same task without the cost of adding another car to the consist. That looks fairly stupid to me operating cost wise but........what do I know.
mdw Seeing this exchange is why I don't comment on posts about Amtrak because it always boils down to 3 or 4 regulars stomping on everyone else--who seem quite happy with the idea of the US having no passenger trains, just to prove themselves right
From my perspective, I don't care either way about LD trains. As they have no impact on my life. I think the Rocky Mountaineer has proven already that Long Distance Passenger Trains can be profitably run on the right routes if properly managed. However, we need to also be honest about that model. Higher prices, no sleeping cars, revenue sharing via sale of hotel nights, extra optional packages sold for tours enroute, merchandise and gift shop catalog hyped on the train. Rocky Mountaineer takes the siding and stops a lot more than the Texas Eagle, in my view, so Rocky Mountaineer management not overly concerned about speed of the train. In other words the Rocky Mountaineer model is light years apart from Amtrak's model.
Amtraks model is to make LD fares and prices so attractively low priced and accomodations/service so average that they attract the most passengers vs. attempting to turn a profit or attracting passengers that would pay a larger cost of the service. Hence Amtrak will probably never be successful with LD trains as it has no real intention of taking the steps necessary to really recover more of the costs of operating LD trains. Nor does Amtrak feel an obligation to do so as it regularly states publicly that running money losing LD trains is an obligation of being a National Carrier. Which also explains Amtraks propensity to stop at every little hamlet they can along the line with a LD train.....no matter the ridership gained vs. impact on schedule. Any ridership gained at any cost is a good thing for a LD train in Amtrak's view. Not the same view of the very limited to non-stop Rocky Mountaineer however. Rocky Mountaineer would rather keep the padding in the schedule and have a better ontime operating performance.
mdw-who seem quite happy with the idea of the US having no passenger trains
As far as I know, NOBODY on here is "happy with the idea of the US having no passenger trains."
CMStPnP Also a mystery to me why some Superliner equipped trains need to tow a new single level viewliner baggage car when there are Superliner Coach-Baggage Cars......
According to one of the San Antonio based Texas Eagle conductors, whom I know, the coach/baggage car on the Eagle had insufficient space to handle all the checked baggage during heavy travel periods.
The NEC serves most of Amtrak's passengers and covers its above rail costs. My point is about serving the most people. Other corridors are developing and provide a valuable service. Subsidizing a one-off train ride is not the mission of Amtrak. Providing a needed, efficient transportation service is the mission. Running trains more than 500-600 miles is the competitive limit for passenger rail service. Given that Amtrak is underfunded, especially by the GOP, the financial resources should be used in the manner that serves the most people for each budgeted dollar.
The American public votes on this every year by making its choices of how to get from A to B and it ain't by LD trains.
CMStPnP mdw Seeing this exchange is why I don't comment on posts about Amtrak because it always boils down to 3 or 4 regulars stomping on everyone else--who seem quite happy with the idea of the US having no passenger trains, just to prove themselves right From my perspective, I don't care either way about LD trains. As they have no impact on my life. I think the Rocky Mountaineer has proven already that Long Distance Passenger Trains can be profitably run on the right routes if properly managed. However, we need to also be honest about that model. Higher prices, no sleeping cars, revenue sharing via sale of hotel nights, extra optional packages sold for tours enroute, merchandise and gift shop catalog hyped on the train. Rocky Mountaineer takes the siding and stops a lot more than the Texas Eagle, in my view, so Rocky Mountaineer management not overly concerned about speed of the train. In other words the Rocky Mountaineer model is light years apart from Amtrak's model. Amtraks model is to make LD fares and prices so attractively low priced and accomodations/service so average that they attract the most passengers vs. attempting to turn a profit or attracting passengers that would pay a larger cost of the service. Hence Amtrak will probably never be successful with LD trains as it has no real intention of taking the steps necessary to really recover more of the costs of operating LD trains. Nor does Amtrak feel an obligation to do so as it regularly states publicly that running money losing LD trains is an obligation of being a National Carrier. Which also explains Amtraks propensity to stop at every little hamlet they can along the line with a LD train.....no matter the ridership gained vs. impact on schedule. Any ridership gained at any cost is a good thing for a LD train in Amtrak's view. Not the same view of the very limited to non-stop Rocky Mountaineer however. Rocky Mountaineer would rather keep the padding in the schedule and have a better ontime operating performance.
Johnny
CMStPnPAmtraks model is to make LD fares and prices so attractively low priced and accomodations/service so average that they attract the most passengers vs. attempting to turn a profit or attracting passengers that would pay a larger cost of the service. Hence Amtrak will probably never be successful with LD trains as it has no real intention of taking the steps necessary to really recover more of the costs of operating LD trains. Nor does Amtrak feel an obligation to do so as it regularly states publicly that running money losing LD trains is an obligation of being a National Carrier. Which also explains Amtraks propensity to stop at every little hamlet they can along the line with a LD train.....no matter the ridership gained vs. impact on schedule. Any ridership gained at any cost is a good thing for a LD train in Amtrak's view. Not the same view of the very limited to non-stop Rocky Mountaineer however. Rocky Mountaineer would rather keep the padding in the schedule and have a better ontime operating performance.
Good analysis! Some proponents of LD trains want a silk purse at a sow's ear price.
DeggestyI do not see how the Rocky Mounaineer could be considered transportation; I see it as recreation. Amtrak provides transportation.
Thats the core of the problem with their LD train approach, Amtrak sells it as basic transportation when they have no money to differentiate themselves via speed from taking the bus or bypassing stops at tiny towns (hopelessly uncompetitive time wise). If you have no money for infrastructure spending, and you have no real control over infrastructure vs what you can negotiate from the owner (Class I frieght railroads). You should select a marketing approach more compatible with the cards you have been dealt, in my humble opinion.
Your never going to close the gap on operating costs if you run as basic transportation and your average speed is less than the parallel interstate....and stop at every tiny berg regardless of how much they add to your ridership, showing really no regard for how long it takes in total travel time between point A and point B. Most people that I talked to that had bad experience on Amtrak also bitched about the accomodations being just average or less.
I would even venture to say that the Rocky Mountaineer is probably more compatible with CN and CP freight train operations because it keeps moving but not moving at such a speed that freight trains on the line are a huge problem with keeping schedule and they pull in a lot more sidings to wait vs. an Amtrak run. At least the last time I rode them, they did. Additionally, seems they have a superior working relationship with CN and CP operations vs. Amtrak. Just what I have observed, I could be wrong though. Amtrak seems a lot more confused on how to market LD trains than a for profit company like Rocky Mountaineer. VIA not much better than Amtrak in this area. At least VIA is attempting to compete in a small way though with it's upscale services. Amtrak hasn't even tried that yet.
Also, Rocky Mountaineer has multiple classes of service (three at last count) and each level is clearly delineated as to on board amenities and hotels you stay at. Amtrak has two classes of service and not so much clearly delineated. RM has much better onboard food vs. Amtrak.
I would be curious if RM makes a profit on it's food served but including the price of the food in the price of the ticket for First Class (minus the Sleeping Car operating cost), it is probably close to break even. Also, the RM trains are much higher seating capacity than your average Superliner equipped LD train but also more comfortable. I would be curious to know how many clients RM carries per trip but on the trip I took it was somewhere North of 500 passengers easily.
CMStPnPAlso, Rocky Mountaineer has multiple classes of service (three at last count)
Looks like only two classes on the Vancouver-Banff trips, $1169 - 1910, two days, one way.
Schlimm: The American public votes for Congressmen and Senators who wish to keep Amtrak long-distance trains running.
Lots of Americans will tell you they want long distance trains to keep running, even though they themselves have no intention of using them, unless circumstances make it necessary or obviously preferable.
In my ideal world, the massive subsidy to highway transportation would end. The massive Federal deficite would be reduced by provatizing the Interstate System into a system of self-supporting and decent-return-on-investment toll roads. Freight railroads would be profitable enough and customer-service oriented enough that they would willingly operate passenger trains, with fares that would allow some to be profitable. Others defined as social-wlefare services would be subsidized by tax-relief.
but again, lacking such an ideal sitution, if the USA needs subsidization of any intercity passenger service, it has to be by an Amtrak that serves the entire nation, not just cost-effetive corredors.
The idea of Amtrak "serving everyone" realistically while great ideally is realistically impossible. There are many metropolitan areas like Columbus, Louisville, Nashville, Las Vegas, Phoenix (if you don't consider Maricopa part of Phoenix). Technically the city of San Francisco isn't directly served by Amtrak but there are convenient Thruway connections off the California Zephyr and Coast Starlight. It would be near impossible to serve everyone and if it did imagine how much income tax would be required to do so. And how would serving everyone be defined? Everyone having a stop in their backyard? Everyone having a stop within 25 miles? Think about how many stations that would be. Currently I believe there's way less than 1000 Amtrak stations total. How many stations would it require to have an Amtrak station within even 100 miles of everyone living in the US? And that's not including the railroads themselves.
So if you have limited resources (rails/stations) you should put them to maximize ridership/revenue. The best way to pay for trains? Ticket revenue! The problem is Amtrak in this country as a political battle and not what's best for America. Almost none of the senators in the country care about national transportation, they care about the transportation of their constituents. That's why we still have Byrd Crap and no Broadway Limited because Senate Majority Leader Byrd can push around Pennsylvania's/Ohio's/Florida's, etc. junior Senators and get what he wants. If Amtrak themselves had to put together a nationwide map (and not just the NEC) for the same money they are given now, their map would look way different than it looks now, more people would be served, the net cost to the taxpayer would be less, and the cost cutters in Congress wouldn't see Amtrak as as big an expense as they do now.
I have no problem with a national LD system. I think passengers from New York should get to visit California and vice versa with minimal stops (if I had my way, there would be a transcontinental train from New York to Los Angeles via the old Broadway Limited and Desert Wind routes, serving New York, Philly, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles among others). But we should trim the fat and/or add some routes that would be beneficial. This idea that Amtrak absolutely has to serve Rugby, ND is insulting to the people of Las Vegas.
daveklepper In my ideal world, the massive subsidy to highway transportation would end. The massive Federal deficite would be reduced by provatizing the Interstate System into a system of self-supporting and decent-return-on-investment toll roads. Freight railroads would be profitable enough and customer-service oriented enough that they would willingly operate passenger trains, with fares that would allow some to be profitable. Others defined as social-wlefare services would be subsidized by tax-relief. but again, lacking such an ideal sitution, if the USA needs subsidization of any intercity passenger service, it has to be by an Amtrak that serves the entire nation, not just cost-effetive corredors.
Daveklepper, you might want to try spell check. We all mispell a word once in a while but this is a lot. I saw a post you either mispelled fair or unfair twice in the same post.
In order for me to use spellcheck, I would have to first write the material in a regular msword for windows document and then transfer it to the thread. I do this on occason, but sometimes do not have the time to do so. My spellcheck does not work for posted material. Coupled with Dislexia and my age of 85, and my only way to try to be accurate to find the mistakes and use the edit button which I do.
The argument regarding what is fair can go on forwever. You have not convinced me, and I have not convinced either you or Schlimm. Amtrak may not be available for everyone, but with bus connections it is available to possibly as much as 90% of the USA population, a large portion of which continue to say, we support long-distance passenger service even though we probably won't ever use it. When a handicapped or elderly person uses Amtrak to visit family, the whole family appreciates the Amtrak service, not just the person usiing it.
I agree the network could use some modification in the interest of better service for more people and more efficient use of available resources.
It's hard to tell if people really support LD service by their votes. As much as we on this board think trains and rail transportation is important, the majority in this country do not. Even if you do think transportation is important, there are other issues such as education, health care, crime/safety, etc. If one candidate offers more for transportation/Amtrak but another offers more for education, I'm not going to just vote for the Amtrak candidate. When voting, there are many issues to be considered and just because you vote for an Amtrak candidate doesn't mean you support Amtrak (or voting for a candidate who is against Amtrak doesn't mean you are against Amtrak). To me, the way to prove you want trains is to ride them.
As for the Thruway system, maybe Amtrak can replace some of the dead weight routes with buses. Have a bus from Huntington, WV to Charlottesville, VA to connect to the Crescent/NER in Charlottesville. Have a bus from Charleston/Huntington to Cincinnati to connect to a new Cincinnati-Chicago route. Run a train from the North Dakota stops to Minneapolis. The irrelevant stops can still have transportation and our trains are freed up to serve more populous cities or increase frequencies along some routes. Of course you'd have to either buy buses or find a carrier like Greyhound to serve places like Hinton, WV. But it still would be a lot less cheaper than wasting trains.
daveklepper In order for me to use spellcheck, I would have to first write the material in a regular msword for windows document and then transfer it to the thread. I do this on occason, but sometimes do not have the time to do so. My spellcheck does not work for posted material. Coupled with Dislexia and my age of 85, and my only way to try to be accurate to find the mistakes and use the edit button which I do. The argument regarding what is fair can go on forwever. You have not convinced me, and I have not convinced either you or Schlimm. Amtrak may not be available for everyone, but with bus connections it is available to possibly as much as 90% of the USA population, a large portion of which continue to say, we support long-distance passenger service even though we probably won't ever use it. When a handicapped or elderly person uses Amtrak to visit family, the whole family appreciates the Amtrak service, not just the person usiing it. I agree the network could use some modification in the interest of better service for more people and more efficient use of available resources.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.