Is tourism part of Amtrak's mission?

[Guest]

My understanding is Amtrak's mission is to get people from A to B. However I notice many people take it purely for entertainment, i.e to sight see. Particularly foreign tourists do this.

Does Amtrak frown upon such uses of their system ? I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

 

[MStrain]

Money is money............

 

[dan72]

Well, the government subsidizes roads and airlines, and those are used for tourism (among other things) as well...

 

[Longhorn]

Within a week of registering with Amtrak.com, I got a lovely vacation brochure featuring Amtrak vacations and all the different lines.

 

[wayman]

Does Amtrak frown upon such uses of their system ? I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

I don't understand your question--why would any operation (regardless of funding source) turn away a paying customer, or ask the customer the nature/purpose of their trip before allowing them to pay for and use the service? If the service was a free service, then yes. But if the service is a pay service, I don't see any reason for rationing it, especially on a purpose-based criterion.

If you're saying you find it odd that a government-subsidized system would include *heavily advertising tourism* in their objectives, that's a different observation, and a more valid one. But if it builds ridership, and that ridership in turn may generate publicity through positive word of mouth, and that in turn may build ridership, then it's an extremely worthwhile (cost-effective) form of advertising.

 

[the_traveler]

I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

The government provides subsidies for the National Parks, and as far as I know, Yellowstone NP (the park itself) will not transport you to Everglades NP or Grand Canyon NP! (You can not walk into a building at Yellowstone and walk out the door in Maine or California or Texas - but the government subsidizes them too! )

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Anything that increases the number of tushes occupying Amtrak tush receptacles (i.e., the number of passengers Amtrak carries) is a good idea. Business, vacation, or any other reason. It all helps the Amtrak bottom line (pun intended).

 

[George Harris]

My understanding is Amtrak's mission is to get people from A to B. However I notice many people take it purely for entertainment, i.e to sight see. Particularly foreign tourists do this.
Does Amtrak frown upon such uses of their system ? I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

Who do you think builds and maintains the various cruise ship port facilities? Government, of course, adn for use of a serivce that has not conceivable serious transportation purpose.

who do you think builds and maintains such things as the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, etc in Washington?

Thern there are such "necessary" governmetn programs as the national endoument for the arts, etc.

 

[Guest]

Another way of phrasing my question is:

"Why is taxpayer dollar being used to subsidize people's vacations?"

When Amtrak asks for funding, do they say outright we need more money for this purpose? My guess is they tactfully ignore this but then why do they print fancy vacation brochures?

 

[Guest]

Who do you think builds and maintains the various cruise ship port facilities? Government, of course, adn for use of a serivce that has not conceivable serious transportation purpose.
who do you think builds and maintains such things as the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, etc in Washington?

Thern there are such "necessary" governmetn programs as the national endoument for the arts, etc.

My guess is the ports are mostly used for commercial purposes and not just cruise lines? National historic sites seems in a different category than plan site seeing. If site seeing is considered worthy of subsidy then why not subsidize anyone who travels to the florida beaches? Keep in mind I am just playing devil's advocate here

 

[nr272]

My understanding is Amtrak's mission is to get people from A to B. However I notice many people take it purely for entertainment, i.e to sight see. Particularly foreign tourists do this.

Going from point A to point B doesn't mean you can't enjoy yourself. Aren't people who are traveling or going on vacation also trying to get from point A to B? I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

[Rail Freak]

Who do you think builds and maintains the various cruise ship port facilities? Government, of course, adn for use of a serivce that has not conceivable serious transportation purpose.
who do you think builds and maintains such things as the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, etc in Washington?

Thern there are such "necessary" governmetn programs as the national endoument for the arts, etc.

My guess is the ports are mostly used for commercial purposes and not just cruise lines? National historic sites seems in a different category than plan site seeing. If site seeing is considered worthy of subsidy then why not subsidize anyone who travels to the florida beaches? Keep in mind I am just playing devil's advocate here

Since Uncle Sam subsidizes Amtrak & they subsidized my travel on Amtrak, would that mean Uncle Sam is double dipping our pax money?

 

[Steven B]

Leisure travel is necessary to sustain any mode of transportation. If the only people flying were business travelers, the airlines would all go out of business. And Amtrak is ideal for leisure travel, because of its slower pace and scenic views.

Besides, tourism is a vital part of the US economy, so it's in the government's interest to support it whenever possible. There are lots of cities/states that are highly dependant on tourist dollars.

In my area, Amtrak sponsors several music festivals, museums and other attractions. If that sponsorship leads to more people riding Amtrak, everyone wins.

 

[TVRM610]

Why is is it odd that a country would put money into something that would allow people to enjoy seeing.. the Country.. many parts that can only be seen by rail.

Also.. very very few people (if any) take Amtrak for there vacation, i.e. do nothing other than ride a train. People USE amtrak as there way to get from point A to point B on there vacation, which last I checked was part of Amtraks main goal... to get people from point a to point B.

I'm sorry but I think this is a bit of a crazy idea, why would Amtrak "frown" on some body travelling on there train?

 

[puck71]

"Why is taxpayer dollar being used to subsidize people's vacations?"

If you're against that, then there's a long laundry list of things to rail against, so to speak. Have you ever visited a museum or national park for free? Many of those are subsidized by tax dollars. The other primary mode of vacation transportation (airlines) are subsidized too, why pick on Amtrak? I guess your car itself isn't subsidized, but what about the roads you drive on (and rest areas, free maps, etc.)? Many tax dollars help to subsidize tourism in one way or another, sometimes intentionally and sometimes coincidentally.

 

[AlanB]

I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

Ever drive down an Interstate Highway and see a scenic overlook? Why did the government subsidize that? Business travelers don't stop at scenic overlooks, or at least most don't.

 

[Guest]

"your car itself isn't subsidized"

It may have been through tax incentives.

 

[AlanB]

Who do you think builds and maintains the various cruise ship port facilities? Government, of course, adn for use of a serivce that has not conceivable serious transportation purpose.
who do you think builds and maintains such things as the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, etc in Washington?

Thern there are such "necessary" governmetn programs as the national endoument for the arts, etc.

My guess is the ports are mostly used for commercial purposes and not just cruise lines? National historic sites seems in a different category than plan site seeing. If site seeing is considered worthy of subsidy then why not subsidize anyone who travels to the florida beaches? Keep in mind I am just playing devil's advocate here

We do subsidize those who drive to the beach. Last year a bit more than $50 Billion of general revenue monies were dropped into the budget for our roads and highways. That's on top of the nearly $70 Billion (IIRC) collected in gas taxes by the Fed that also went into the budget. And that's just Federal monies. Still more money comes into play from the States and local municipalities, although much of that money goes to the small streets and avenues that you find in your local towns and not towards the Interstate highways and major highways.

 

[AlanB]

Another way of phrasing my question is:
"Why is taxpayer dollar being used to subsidize people's vacations?"

When Amtrak asks for funding, do they say outright we need more money for this purpose? My guess is they tactfully ignore this but then why do they print fancy vacation brochures?

Well first off, most of the "subsidy" (I hate that word, we don't use it for other things that get money), doesn't go to operations. The bulk of the money goes to capital expenses, loan payments for the loans taken during the years that Amtrak didn't get proper funding, and other things. Like the $100+ M that Amtrak pays every year into the Railroad Workers Retirement Fund for retired RR workers who never ever worked one day in their lives for Amtrak. Thank Congress for that one!

The best estimates, since Amtrak doesn't provide the numbers in a way that we can tell, are that somewhere between $300 M to $500 M actually goes into the operating budget. All the rest is Capital expenses and other items.

And then, Amtrak has no way of really knowing if someone has booked a ticket for essential travel or if they booked a ticket to play tourist. There is no place in the reservation process where someone is asked that. So they couldn't report such a thing to Congress and trying to collect such data would only add further expense.

As for that fancy brouchure, that I believe is paid for by both Amtrak and the private company that actually runs Amtrak vacations.

 

[Gord]

Another way of phrasing my question is:
"Why is taxpayer dollar being used to subsidize people's vacations?"

When Amtrak asks for funding, do they say outright we need more money for this purpose? My guess is they tactfully ignore this but then why do they print fancy vacation brochures?

Tourism brings in billions in spin-offs; hotels, restaurants, attractions, car rentals, gas and so on. My $1,000. Amtrak ticket is only a part of the $3,000. I may spend while vacationing in America. I can't think of any democratic government that isn't spending huge amounts on this major industry and employer. When I travel Amtrak, I see many tourists aboard. IMHO if promoting tourism isn't part of Amtrak's mandate, maybe it should be. Here in Canada, Via Rail heavily promotes tourism.

Gord

 

[George Harris]

Another way of phrasing my question is:
"Why is taxpayer dollar being used to subsidize people's vacations?"

When Amtrak asks for funding, do they say outright we need more money for this purpose? My guess is they tactfully ignore this but then why do they print fancy vacation brochures?

Tourism brings in billions in spin-offs; hotels, restaurants, attractions, car rentals, gas and so on. My $1,000. Amtrak ticket is only a part of the $3,000. I may spend while vacationing in America. I can't think of any democratic government that isn't spending huge amounts on this major industry and employer. When I travel Amtrak, I see many tourists aboard. IMHO if promoting tourism isn't part of Amtrak's mandate, maybe it should be. Here in Canada, Via Rail heavily promotes tourism.

Gord

Go to an embassy or consulate of any country other than the US's embassies and consulates and you will see all kinds of things encouraging tourism to that country. Of course their taxpaers pay for it. All involved consider it a very good thing to do. (Hello US Gov'mt: Anybody home?) Our country makes it difficult for the foreign tourist.

 

[wayman]

Go to an embassy or consulate of any country other than the US's embassies and consulates and you will see all kinds of things encouraging tourism to that country. Of course their taxpaers pay for it. All involved consider it a very good thing to do. (Hello US Gov'mt: Anybody home?) Our country makes it difficult for the foreign tourist.

"Foreign tourists" just sounds too similar to "foreign terrorists" for the US Gov'mt to be comfortable with letting them into the country just now. All you have to do is mumble just a little and they sound the same. Can't be encouraging that, oh no indeed!

 

[the_traveler]

Who do you think builds and maintains the various cruise ship port facilities? Government, of course, adn for use of a serivce that has not conceivable serious transportation purpose.
who do you think builds and maintains such things as the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, etc in Washington?

Thern there are such "necessary" governmetn programs as the national endoument for the arts, etc.

My guess is the ports are mostly used for commercial purposes and not just cruise lines? National historic sites seems in a different category than plan site seeing. If site seeing is considered worthy of subsidy then why not subsidize anyone who travels to the florida beaches? Keep in mind I am just playing devil's advocate here

I suppose airports like O'Hare, JFK, Logan, LAX (the airport), etc... should not be built by the government either, since they promote tourism. So why not just let Continental Airlines or American Airlines or UPS or FedEx or ... build them and pay for them. Why should we (taxpayers) pay to promote tourism and bring tourist to those cities. And since we can't tell who's actually flying for a business purpose and who's flying for leisure (and we can't discriminate), why not just shut them down!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

Ever drive down an Interstate Highway and see a scenic overlook? Why did the government subsidize that? Business travelers don't stop at scenic overlooks, or at least most don't.

Rest stops by the side of the road are certainly valuable, and a scenic overlook doubles as a rest stop. I have to wonder if, given a decision to have a rest stop somewhere along the road, picking a location where it will also be a scenic overlook really adds much to the cost. It probably depends on the details of the location in question.

 

[AlanB]

I find it odd that a government subsidized system would include supporting tourism in their objectives.

Ever drive down an Interstate Highway and see a scenic overlook? Why did the government subsidize that? Business travelers don't stop at scenic overlooks, or at least most don't.

Rest stops by the side of the road are certainly valuable, and a scenic overlook doubles as a rest stop. I have to wonder if, given a decision to have a rest stop somewhere along the road, picking a location where it will also be a scenic overlook really adds much to the cost. It probably depends on the details of the location in question.

While I have indeed seen many a scenic overlook that does double duty as a rest stop, I've also seen a fair amount that don't. I don't consider a scenic overlook without restrooms, a rest stop. And again, there are scenic outlooks out there that don't have restrooms. I pass two in the State of New Jersey everytime I go to PA to visit family.