"10 Things Amtrak Won't Tell You"

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
". The company is projecting an operating loss of $507 million for the fiscal year ended in September -- even more than its $420 million loss in 2010 -- and next year, it expects to lose $616 million.

I find this stat really hard to believe. Are they actually saying that considering that Amtrak has changed little in the last two years (while ridership is still growing) that its losses are growing by 90M a year?

Can someone please veryify this? :help:
 
Useless article. Half those things that "Amtrak won't tell you" are already well-known, and are things Amtrak says regularly.
 
I'd like to see those loss figures verified.

As to some of the other stuff...well, when you are quoting the director of media relations it becomes pretty hard to say "Amtrak won't tell you" this. Usually these pieces involve some "insider" quotes from lower-level employees. I'll resist the temptation to apply any epithets to them...but it looks like it's time to see if I've got any subscriptions I can cancel.
 
Pathetic display of "journalism," I would've expected much better from a website with the Wall Street Journal logo at the top.
 
Acela150 said:
Ryan said:
Nice to see the comments section.
Click to expand...
I was scared to look... :ph34r: This article is a little extreme.. Anyone agree?
Click to expand...
At least last night they were all pro rail.

I particularly liked the one that pointed out that including a quote from the head of media relations pretty much destroys your "Amtrak won't tell you" premise.

Edit: not any more! Time to get in there and get to work! (I see that Alan is in there already).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gratt said:
". The company is projecting an operating loss of $507 million for the fiscal year ended in September -- even more than its $420 million loss in 2010 -- and next year, it expects to lose $616 million.

I find this stat really hard to believe. Are they actually saying that considering that Amtrak has changed little in the last two years (while ridership is still growing) that its losses are growing by 90M a year?

Can someone please veryify this? :help:
Click to expand...
The June 2011 Monthly report shows a projected net loss of $1,336.9 million dollars, but this is $37.7 million less than the FY2011 budget amount. Subtracting depreciation and other items totaling $861.8 million from the net loss, the actual loss is $475 million. Which is less than the budget projected loss of $561.9 million. Which, incidentally matches the operating subsidy Amtrak got in FY11.

Amtrak requested an operating grant subsidy of $616 million for FY12 which is the source of the loss number in the article. Amtrak likely did not expect to get that much funding, so in a normal year, ask for a little more than they need and figure on getting 5-10% less. The operating grant is where the House transportation funding proposed bill, which has not been voted on by the full House, has the biggest slash and burn cuts for Amtrak.

Amtrak's expenses are going up along with revenue. Personnel, fuel, materials costs are up. So the increased ridership and revenue don't neccesarily lead to lower loss numbers. All of this is Amtrak's reports and news releases, so the headline about things Amtrak won't tell you is silly and stupid.
 
I had it with Amtrak bashing!
angry.gif
I posted a comment to that article!
 
For some reason, I can't see the comments, so I'll comment here.

The Bolt Bus, which offers Wi-Fi and runs daily from New York to Boston, for instance, takes four and a quarter hours and costs up to $30. An Amtrak train on the same route can run as high as $164 and take up to five hours, 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
According to Amsnag, the highest rate is $168 for an Acela BC. This train makes the journey in 3:40. The lowest rate in the next 30 days is train 86 on 10/28. It's $49 and makes the trip in 4:19. But I guess it doesn't journalize well to write "But Amtrak can make the journey in as low as 3 hours and 40 minutes or as cheap as $49." In fact, I don't see where there is any $168 (or $164) rate AND a five hour, 10 minute run. In fact I can't find a 5 hour, 10 minute schedule from NYP to BOS at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
66 takes that long to make the run.

Edit: I went ahead and took your point and made it into a comment on the site, VF. We'll see if it garners any discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GaSteve said:
eagle628 said:
Pathetic display of "journalism," I would've expected much better from a website with the Wall Street Journal logo at the top.
Click to expand...
WSJ is owned by News Corp and is decidedly conservative in its editorializing, so the article was no surprise. :wacko:
Click to expand...
NOTE: Being fiscally or socially conservative is by no means inherently anti-rail. Full stop.

In countries like the US, UK, and Australia passenger rail has been arbitrarily turned into a partisan affair.

Gee, I wonder what those countries have in common? -_-

Elsewhere in the world conservatives are just as likely to support passenger rail as progressives.
 
Very misleading article. It ignores the fact that as a nation we spend MUCH more of our taxpayer dollars on roads and airports. Also, they completely ignored the fact that Amtrak trains run from Boston to New York in about 4 hours, Acela Express is 3 1/2 hours. Buses run late as well, many times it is much more than a 4 hour trip between New York and Boston, due to traffic.

Very misleading and poorly written article.
 
Wow, Alan - you're really a wiz with all of those numbers.

You know, this (and the Virginian Pilot article) got me thinking - if we took even a small portion of the time we spend here arguing about the finer points of Amtrakdom and instead spent it on commenting on articles like these in a coordinated fashion, we might be able to make some headway into the public perception of Amtrak.
 
Ryan said:
66 takes that long to make the run.

Edit: I went ahead and took your point and made it into a comment on the site, VF. We'll see if it garners any discussion.
Click to expand...
You're right. The overnight train, which should be a sleeper, and stops at every single stop, does take an hour longer than their precious bus.

...But honestly, it's worth the $19 and 4 minutes to be able to get up and walk around, grab a snack, use a restroom larger than a phone booth, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top