Ryan
Court Jester
I did. At least he took the time to register instead of the usual "guest post and run" routine.
Is Amtrak LD Truly Relevant
- Thread starter Wildcat
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
While I can't explain why, he made two subsequent posts as a guest.
Rob Creighton
Train Attendant
Is Amtrak long distance truly relevant? From a personal foamer standpoint, my answer is yes. As a tax payer I'm happy to pay for Amtrak funding. I'm also happy to pay for highways, national parks, monuments, affordable air line pricing and everything else. That said it becomes difficult for the average person who has very little emotional attachment to trains to understand why we're paying for a rail system that is perceived as: chronically late, poorly run, expensive to maintain and not utilized (outside of the NEC) by even a significant minority of the population.
Case in point, a friend of mine's nephew was traveling from Chicago to visit my friend in Des Moines. My friend chronicled the train's tardiness on Facebook: First posting when 3 hours late, then four hours late, then expressing his frustration that he had to practically "drive to Missouri" to pick his nephew up because Amtrak doesn't serve Des Moines. Then finally posting the train arrived...nine hours late, and pointing out that the place he picked his nephew up was "a dump." Of course, other friends of his peppered his post with comments like, "that's it...I'm officially never taking Amtrak." "Just be glad the train stayed on the tracks." This is the perception a lot of potential riders and public has about Amtrak, especially outside the North East Corridor.
It's easy for those of us who love trains, even someone like me who isn't all that plugged in to the current state of Amtrak, to explain the reasons why Amtrak has problems: Lack of equipment, consistently starved for funding, poor understanding by politicians for what Amtrak is and could be, Amtrak and how politicians use the agency for their own grandstanding purposes, resentment from the freight railroads. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. At the end of the day the potential Amtrak rider doesn't care about any of this. They want to get where they want to go on time and with the least hassle possible. They may understand an occasional delay because of mother nature or a train hitting a car or truck, but that's it. Unfortunately there are 40 years worth of Amtrak's "trips from hell" floating around out there dogging the company.
Between the perceived public reputation of Amtrak, how it's used as a political football by politicians and chronic equipment shortages--might Amtrak do a better job and create a better reputation for itself by curtailing some long distance operations and creating more corridor and mid distance trains? I'm not saying you need to cut all long distance trains, but maybe have 1 or 2 from Chicago to points west, 1 from Chicago to New York and 1 from Chicago down towards New Orleans. Then perhaps focus on corridor and mid-distance trains throughout the rest of the system? I'm not familiar enough with Amtrak's schedules these days to determine if this is workable, I'm just spit balling.
Ideally the solution is to educate our elected officials on why Amtrak was created. How politics and starvation funding have hurt and hindered the company. How investing in equipment, infrastructure and the rider experience may not make it profitable--but might help us create a cleaner environment, might get more people to ride the system and could create a reliable transportation alternative that is worth supporting. That unfortunately, probably won't happen in our current political environment.
Case in point, a friend of mine's nephew was traveling from Chicago to visit my friend in Des Moines. My friend chronicled the train's tardiness on Facebook: First posting when 3 hours late, then four hours late, then expressing his frustration that he had to practically "drive to Missouri" to pick his nephew up because Amtrak doesn't serve Des Moines. Then finally posting the train arrived...nine hours late, and pointing out that the place he picked his nephew up was "a dump." Of course, other friends of his peppered his post with comments like, "that's it...I'm officially never taking Amtrak." "Just be glad the train stayed on the tracks." This is the perception a lot of potential riders and public has about Amtrak, especially outside the North East Corridor.
It's easy for those of us who love trains, even someone like me who isn't all that plugged in to the current state of Amtrak, to explain the reasons why Amtrak has problems: Lack of equipment, consistently starved for funding, poor understanding by politicians for what Amtrak is and could be, Amtrak and how politicians use the agency for their own grandstanding purposes, resentment from the freight railroads. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. At the end of the day the potential Amtrak rider doesn't care about any of this. They want to get where they want to go on time and with the least hassle possible. They may understand an occasional delay because of mother nature or a train hitting a car or truck, but that's it. Unfortunately there are 40 years worth of Amtrak's "trips from hell" floating around out there dogging the company.
Between the perceived public reputation of Amtrak, how it's used as a political football by politicians and chronic equipment shortages--might Amtrak do a better job and create a better reputation for itself by curtailing some long distance operations and creating more corridor and mid distance trains? I'm not saying you need to cut all long distance trains, but maybe have 1 or 2 from Chicago to points west, 1 from Chicago to New York and 1 from Chicago down towards New Orleans. Then perhaps focus on corridor and mid-distance trains throughout the rest of the system? I'm not familiar enough with Amtrak's schedules these days to determine if this is workable, I'm just spit balling.
Ideally the solution is to educate our elected officials on why Amtrak was created. How politics and starvation funding have hurt and hindered the company. How investing in equipment, infrastructure and the rider experience may not make it profitable--but might help us create a cleaner environment, might get more people to ride the system and could create a reliable transportation alternative that is worth supporting. That unfortunately, probably won't happen in our current political environment.
As most people on this forum know, I am an Independent, not a Republican, Socialist, democrat or anything else so I hope that my opinion is considered as unbiased.
On the subject of government subsidies; when compared to airlines and the highway system, Amtraks receives the least amount of the US transportation budget. It is between 2% and 3%-that's it!
As pointed out, there would be no highway travel, no airline travel and no railroad travel without government subsidies. You would need to walk, but hey thats on government owned sidewalks too. Ride a bike- you need streets. Without government you could not reach any destination. If subsidies are fair or not can be debated but how do you intend to travel without them? Some amount of government is needed to serve the public interest, especially when private industry is not providing rail passenger service. If private industry is in fact interested in getting into the railroad business there are 100's of abandoned routes that I'm sure Washington would be most happy to talk to them about.
I am not a proponent of big government but in many cases it is necessary to have programs that serve the people. The debate that we are now having about the deficit would not exist if we would stop using trillions of taxpayer money to fight wars for the the financial elite, stop bailing out the crooks on Wall Street, and to stop passing laws that make it easy for corporate America to fire American workers and send millions of manufacturing jobs to China.
I am happy that Amtrak exists and the benefits of it being with us are numerous. Passenger rail ridership continues to grow because it is good for America. It is also the most energy efficient form of transportation that there is.
On the subject of government subsidies; when compared to airlines and the highway system, Amtraks receives the least amount of the US transportation budget. It is between 2% and 3%-that's it!
As pointed out, there would be no highway travel, no airline travel and no railroad travel without government subsidies. You would need to walk, but hey thats on government owned sidewalks too. Ride a bike- you need streets. Without government you could not reach any destination. If subsidies are fair or not can be debated but how do you intend to travel without them? Some amount of government is needed to serve the public interest, especially when private industry is not providing rail passenger service. If private industry is in fact interested in getting into the railroad business there are 100's of abandoned routes that I'm sure Washington would be most happy to talk to them about.
I am not a proponent of big government but in many cases it is necessary to have programs that serve the people. The debate that we are now having about the deficit would not exist if we would stop using trillions of taxpayer money to fight wars for the the financial elite, stop bailing out the crooks on Wall Street, and to stop passing laws that make it easy for corporate America to fire American workers and send millions of manufacturing jobs to China.
I am happy that Amtrak exists and the benefits of it being with us are numerous. Passenger rail ridership continues to grow because it is good for America. It is also the most energy efficient form of transportation that there is.
Last edited by a moderator:
NY Penn
OBS Chief
Now compare airline ridership to Amtrak ridership.
Ryan
Court Jester
You're still beating that drum?
NY Penn
OBS Chief
I'll keep beating that drum until someone proves the argument wrong. So far, I have not seen anyone do so.
G
George B
Guest
As I said, it is pointless to compare Amtrak to airlines….the contrasts and comparisons are endless and obvious. I suspect you will keep challenging stats and searching for numbers until you get one you like that will fit your argument.
Ryan
Court Jester
You should read Jishnu and Alan's posts again a little more closely. The data that you seek does not exist. When you have the data that compares the two on a level playing field, we anxiously await your results. Until then, you're just making stuff up.
the_traveler
Engineer
OK, I'll bite!
Airlines have more passengers because they have more flights than Amtrak operate trains! (Do I hear a drum beating?
RailFanLNK
Conductor
I learned years ago that a moron is born every 60 seconds in the USA and 16 years later they are given a drivers license and possibly a few years after that they are given the right to find an Amtrak forum and spout out a bunch of drivel about privatizing passenger rail. Lets just privatize everything and call it the US Business instead of the US Government.
One other thing I'll note is that when I was looking up comparative statistics (or, rather, attempting to) I saw one report saying that Amtrak got an average of $10 billion per year in subsidies from 2002-09. Even taking a loose view of what counts as subsidies, I can tell right off that this is baloney (hint: That would mean Amtrak had gotten over $80 billion in subsidies over the last decade)...though it's one bit of baloney I wish were true because I know what could be done with that sort of money.
I think you have to add a few areas outside the NEC to areas people ride the train...there's a decent block in the MW and in California as well. But I think it is fair to say that Amtrak serves a number of areas poorly, albeit more by accident than by design (i.e. the fact that they can't run several LD trains on a given route to offer "sane hours" service to intermediate destinations or that they need to use a direct routing that skips a major city and passes 60 miles away instead).
I think you have to add a few areas outside the NEC to areas people ride the train...there's a decent block in the MW and in California as well. But I think it is fair to say that Amtrak serves a number of areas poorly, albeit more by accident than by design (i.e. the fact that they can't run several LD trains on a given route to offer "sane hours" service to intermediate destinations or that they need to use a direct routing that skips a major city and passes 60 miles away instead).
Ben_G
Service Attendant
Just wish they would bring back service to Las Vegas. The Desert wind from Salt Lake to LA. From what I seen that was a poular route at one time. Anyone know why they discontinued that route ?
For obvious reasons, I don't have hard ridership numbers...however, I think it wasn't very cost-effective. If I had to guess, the train ran slam full from LA to Las Vegas, and then ran mostly empty up to Salt Lake (that being a rather slow way to travel CHI-LAX). The result was likely a half-empty train that ran fully-staffed. Then they tried running it four days per week, and we all know how well that worked out. I'm surprised they didn't consider running a set of cars LAX-Las Vegas that would return on the next Vegas-LA train (sort of like the "Sparks Cars", the Denver-CHI sleeper, and the segments on the Texas Eagle and the Empire Builder that only run to Minneapolis and St. Louis).
Los Angeles to Las Vegas corridor service makes sense, be it at 79 MPH or 150 MPH. The Strip is reasonably compact, the station was right by the strip, and the trip isn't that long if you can work out a deal with UP. Of course, UP is also UP...
On the other hand, Vegas to Salt Lake is a dubious proposition simply because it takes a long time and most of your travel is going to be from Denver or even Chicago...and I don't see that much through traffic choosing an SLC-Vegas routing over the much tighter Chief.
the_traveler
Engineer
Wrong!!!!!!
While the tracks do run (semi) next to the Strip, the station was in Downtown Las Vegas. It was at the Union Plaza - built by the Union Pacific (UP)! And Downtown LV is IIRC over 5 miles from the Strip!
And how do you define "compact"?
A
Amtrak boy
Guest
It seems that this forum has attracted a whole bunch of rightists who want to privatize everything including Amtrak, who don’t realize that privatizing Amtrak will effectively destroy most of its long-distance routes, who keep talking about subsidies and cost effectiveness. But they’re missing the big picture. Not everything can be put into dollars. Amtrak provides the only long-distance service for upper Montana; it provides a way for people to see the country, a clean-energy solution to our nation’s pollution. It’s part of the American fabric and a key component of American heritage. Can you put a dollar amount on that?
The OP asked whether long-distance Amtrak service is relevant. The answer for most people is no. Most people would rather fly across the country than take the train. This is understandable. It works for them and who are we to judge? But as for me, I would rather get stuck in the middle of a field while kicking back on a train waiting for a freight to pass than getting stuck at the hellhole that is O’Hare waiting for a thunderstorm to end.
You have those conservative wackos from the Heritage foundation and the Cato institute criticizing Amtrak, saying it’s this many hundred dollars of federal grants per passenger to transport people on the Sunset Limited, this many for the California Zephyr. They say the federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing people’s vacations. What a bunch of baloney. I want my tax money subsidizing vacations of the middle class. It’s already subsidizing the lifestyles of the hedge fund traders and the kleptocrats’ corporate jets. If we give tax credits to corporate jet owners, why not have the feds help out Amtrak as well?
The OP asked whether long-distance Amtrak service is relevant. The answer for most people is no. Most people would rather fly across the country than take the train. This is understandable. It works for them and who are we to judge? But as for me, I would rather get stuck in the middle of a field while kicking back on a train waiting for a freight to pass than getting stuck at the hellhole that is O’Hare waiting for a thunderstorm to end.
You have those conservative wackos from the Heritage foundation and the Cato institute criticizing Amtrak, saying it’s this many hundred dollars of federal grants per passenger to transport people on the Sunset Limited, this many for the California Zephyr. They say the federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing people’s vacations. What a bunch of baloney. I want my tax money subsidizing vacations of the middle class. It’s already subsidizing the lifestyles of the hedge fund traders and the kleptocrats’ corporate jets. If we give tax credits to corporate jet owners, why not have the feds help out Amtrak as well?
henryj
Conductor
Actually this forum mostly attracts leftist, marxists and socialists(or progressives as they now want to call themselves) that want big government and the nanny state to take care of everything for them, at someone elses expense of course. Hey lets just go on and print all the money we need and do everything for everyone. Or didn't they try that in Germany in the 1920's and as if no one learned anything from that, most South American and African countries still try it today. I like the Zimbabwe trillion dollar paper bill. Of course the leftist, marxists and socialists are not wackos...only conservatives are considered wackos or terrorists on here. Right? Big government doesn't work, can't do everything, never has and never will.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
This getting way off topic and is bordering on gratuitous content free name calling and trying to prove points by random categorization and labeling. The real problem is that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum are unrealistic and dogmatic. Neither a government that is too big, nor a government that is too small works. The challenge is to figure out what the right sized government is and to get there. The efforts to get there are forever thwarted by extremists at both ends of the spectrum, because both extremes believe that they are privy to revealed truth, and therefore need not be rational or worry about any connection to reality. Behaviorally they are very similar unfortunately.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ryan
Court Jester
I try my hand at statistics and hope that someone with hard data can chime in. Total Amtrak ridership should be somewhere around 29 million passengers per year. on domestic flights the airlines serves about 170. million passengers annually. So at 17% of the total travel of the airlines, Amtrak gets. a "giant" subsidy of $1.8 billion or 2.9% of the federal transportation budget. Now help me fill in the amount of subsidies that the airlines receive.
A
Amtrak boy
Guest
The number of annual domestic airline passengers is actually closer to 600 million (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1) but that's beside the point. Not everything is about numbers. As I wrote before, Amtrak supplies various intrinsic elements that are impossible to quantify. The subsidy is small potatoes compared to the foreign aid going to Egypt, Georgia, Israel and all those other countries with questionable human-rights situations.
henryj
Conductor
I agree, there is an intangible element attached to passenger rail. But here is the Federal budget forecast for 2012 and subsequent years. Amtrak is zero after 2012. Airlines are getting something around 22 billion. Highways get the lions share, or almost 60 billion of the total 95 billion transportation budget. But I thought the highways actually were getting more like 200 billion. The rest must be buried somewhere else. Some of you 'smart guys' can dig into it for us. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_current_gs.php?year=2011_2016&view=1&expand=6065&expandC=401_402&units=b&fy=fy12
Ben_G
Service Attendant
Your dead on right with that location. My only trip by train to Vegas we got off and on in the rear of the Union Plaza Hotel and Casino downtown....Darn near missed the outgoing back to CHI due to a well paying poker machine. Running to the cash out cage with a bucket full of quarters took longer than I thought it would...Wrong!!!!!!
While the tracks do run (semi) next to the Strip, the station was in Downtown Las Vegas. It was at the Union Plaza - built by the Union Pacific (UP)! And Downtown LV is IIRC over 5 miles from the Strip!
And how do you define "compact"?IIRC, from the casino on the south end of the Strip to the casino on the north end of the Strip is OVER 7 MILES!
I thought the station the Desert Wind used was in one of the casinos? Or did I misinterpret some images and whatnot and assume that the casino was a "strip casino" versus a "downtown casino"?Wrong!!!!!!
While the tracks do run (semi) next to the Strip, the station was in Downtown Las Vegas. It was at the Union Plaza - built by the Union Pacific (UP)! And Downtown LV is IIRC over 5 miles from the Strip!
And how do you define "compact"?IIRC, from the casino on the south end of the Strip to the casino on the north end of the Strip is OVER 7 MILES!
Edit: Just saw the last post. Ok, mea culpa...I thought that casino was in a different location than it actually is.
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Past experience with these tables suggests that it is not worth paying too much attention to the out years numbers. OTOH look at all that money projected for HSR in the out years! It would be interesting to see how things evolve, and what the real 2013 numbers are when people actually start discussing those in 2012.
- Status
