Is tourism part of Amtrak's mission?

[jackal]

I don't think it's necessary to restrict governments from providing things that are not purely utilitarian. One example that occurred to me was personalized license plates. Should public funds be used to allow people to express their personalities in a fun way (that is, assuming any extra fees for personalized or special plates don't fully cover their extra cost)? It's not something necessary, but neither is it an unfair burden on taxpayers (especially since much of the additional cost is probably covered by the extra fees).

Amtrak's sort of the same--yes, its basic function is to provide essential transportation between cities and to smaller, rural towns (although I'm not convinced that if the LD system disappeared, economic activity in the rural U.S. would be substantially harmed), but people are also allowed to do fun things with it--take it for the scenery, enjoy a sleeper (which entails extra "fees" that mostly cover the cost of service), eat a decent meal on-board, etc.

I don't think it would be appropriate for the government to provide a service comparable to GrandeLuxe, but neither should it be restricted to low-income people and provide a simple, no-frills bench seat and sell only water and PB&J sandwiches.

 

[haolerider]

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?

I guess you don't have a real understanding of the tourism business. Every city, county, state and the entire country spends billions of dollars annually to entice tourists, both domestic and international to come to their "little corner of the world" - and the air and ground transportation companies spend money to entice these "tourists" to use their mode of transportation. The bulk of these expenditures come from tax money, whether it is a local sales tax, state tax or federal tax and each of these destinations is in competition with every country in the world who are all doing the same thing. I can't remember the exact statistic, but Tourism, as an industry is one of the largest employers of people in the country. This is not wasted money as you seem to imply, in fact if you use the commonly accepted theory of "multipliers", tourism is a huge source of increased taxation and employment to the economy. These tourists have to eat, have a place to stay, travel, buy souvenirs, visit local sights, etc and all that money is funnelled back into the economy. It's all just basic ecomonics.

 

[SUTTONK11]

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.

I don't believe this question - the goverment subsidizes every mode of travel in most countries and one of the main reasons is tourism. Why should any business frown upon a paying customer? So they can lose more money? Hey, this train has 10 empty sleepers that these people want to purchase but they are going on vacation so let's not sell them!!!! I may be wrong but I believe that vacationers are trying to get from point A to point B also - they would just prefer to go by train. What difference does it make if you are going from A to B for business or pleasure? The purpose of any mode of transportation is to get as many paying customers where they are going regardless of their reason for travel

 

[Radparker]

It's nice that this spurred some polite discussion. But, I gotta say, the original question comes off as trolling, i.e. just looking to start an argument.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I agree with Redparker.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

This article about a potential stop for Hope, AR certainly talks quiet a bit about tourism.

It also mentions that the only requirement for a stop in Hope, AR apparently is a 16 foot concrete sidewalk next to the tracks, two blocks long, which can be built in a few days. Kind of an interesting contrast with Amtrak's station requirements on a certain other route which goes east of New Orleans. But the Hope, Arkansas article in Wikipedia notes ``The city converted its railroad depot to a museum featuring the life and accomplishments of President Clinton.'' so maybe they have an intact building that can still function as a train station.

 

[TVRM610]

It's nice that this spurred some polite discussion. But, I gotta say, the original question comes off as trolling, i.e. just looking to start an argument.

Yea.. I'm with you there. The purpose of Amtrak is to transport people from point A to point B. People are getting from point A to point B weather for a vacation, business, or "essential transportation." I can't for the life of me figure out what the original poster actually meant. This is not a "rail tour" its just a form of transportation no matter how you look at it.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak's sort of the same--yes, its basic function is to provide essential transportation between cities and to smaller, rural towns (although I'm not convinced that if the LD system disappeared, economic activity in the rural U.S. would be substantially harmed), but people are also allowed to do fun things with it--take it for the scenery, enjoy a sleeper (which entails extra "fees" that mostly cover the cost of service), eat a decent meal on-board, etc.

Actually according to the report issued by either the GAO or the DOT, I can't recall which right now, not only do sleepers actually cover their operating costs they actually help to reduce the per mile subsidy of the coach passengers.

 

[tubaia]

It's nice that this spurred some polite discussion. But, I gotta say, the original question comes off as trolling, i.e. just looking to start an argument.

Yea.. I'm with you there. The purpose of Amtrak is to transport people from point A to point B. People are getting from point A to point B weather for a vacation, business, or "essential transportation." I can't for the life of me figure out what the original poster actually meant. This is not a "rail tour" its just a form of transportation no matter how you look at it.

In many ways, Amtrak is even better for Economic Development than the airline industry. For instance, I'm looking forward to my trip in August on the EB, which will allow me to stop for a two-night stay at Glacier NP, before I continue on my way to Seattle. Of course, I'll be staying in a hotel for two nights, eating several meals while I'm there, and taking at least one tour, not to mention way too many souvenirs. If I tried to do that with an airline (forget for the moment that they won't get me anywhere near Glacier), my trip could cost double (or more) for not being a two-direction-only flight.

The reason the railroads built places like the Glacier Park lodges in the first place was to encourage tourists to take their trains.

 

[micmac99]

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?

I guess you don't have a real understanding of the tourism business. Every city, county, state and the entire country spends billions of dollars annually to entice tourists, both domestic and international to come to their "little corner of the world" - and the air and ground transportation companies spend money to entice these "tourists" to use their mode of transportation. The bulk of these expenditures come from tax money, whether it is a local sales tax, state tax or federal tax and each of these destinations is in competition with every country in the world who are all doing the same thing. I can't remember the exact statistic, but Tourism, as an industry is one of the largest employers of people in the country. This is not wasted money as you seem to imply, in fact if you use the commonly accepted theory of "multipliers", tourism is a huge source of increased taxation and employment to the economy. These tourists have to eat, have a place to stay, travel, buy souvenirs, visit local sights, etc and all that money is funnelled back into the economy. It's all just basic ecomonics.

I live in Arizona and grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area; two parts of the country that have huge tourism industries, and lots of tourism and hospitality related jobs. People need vacations to relax and unwind; it's critical for mental health in my opinion. So I don't mind my tax dollars going to support tourism - I also like my tax dollars supporting other economic activities as well. I think Arizona relies way too much on tourism and hospitality to drive its economy at the expense of traditional manufacturing and the recently emerged fields like biotechnology (and funding for education to staff these industries with intelligent workers - Arizona ranks near the bottom of the states for education funding). On the other hand, the Bay Area's economy has been relatively balanced for decades with tourism being one of many strong suits.

 

[Konrad]

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.

As an Australian/Brit who regularly rides Amtrak I invite you to explore Australia on ourgovernment run and subsidised rail services - will that balance the books?

And after a 16 hour flight to the West Coast what better way to unwind and adjust to the local time than a couple of days in a viewliner bedroom?

 

[jackal]

As an Australian/Brit who regularly rides Amtrak I invite you to explore Australia on ourgovernment run and subsidised rail services - will that balance the books?

I will hopefully be doing just that here in a couple of months!

And after a 16 hour flight to the West Coast what better way to unwind and adjust to the local time than a couple of days in a viewliner bedroom?

You might not be very unwound attempting to do that, since you'll likely spend the whole couple of days waiting at the train station--there are no Viewliner bedrooms anywhere on the West Coast!

(You might get lucky if you're looking for Superliner bedrooms, though... )

 

[Konrad]

As an Australian/Brit who regularly rides Amtrak I invite you to explore Australia on ourgovernment run and subsidised rail services - will that balance the books?

I will hopefully be doing just that here in a couple of months!

And after a 16 hour flight to the West Coast what better way to unwind and adjust to the local time than a couple of days in a viewliner bedroom?

You might not be very unwound attempting to do that, since you'll likely spend the whole couple of days waiting at the train station--there are no Viewliner bedrooms anywhere on the West Coast!

(You might get lucky if you're looking for Superliner bedrooms, though... )

But there certainly are on the Cardinal - I head to NYC. But, of course, I meant to say Superliner. Point made, my mistake.

 

[jackal]

One thing about Australian trains--it's difficult to plan long-distance journeys, since they are all operated by different agencies! I do have to say that Amtrak has a big advantage here--you can simply go to one website, plug in LAX-NYP, and you're transported to the opposite side of the country with a minimum of hassle.

For a trip from Sydney to Cairns (where we pick up our friend's car), I have to do CountryLink to Brisbane and then Queensland Rail to Cairns. They're operated by different companies, so I have to visit two separate websites to do the bookings. On top of two different agencies, I have to learn all of the different agencies' names for the different classes--Tilt Trains, Sunlanders, Sunlanders with Queenslander Class, Economy seats, Economy berths, twin berths, triple berths, aaargh!

And they're not cheap, either--one-way, we're looking at around $472 each for economy class for a what amounts to the distance between San Diego and Vancouver--a trip that costs, on Amtrak, $127 per person. Even factoring in the exchange rate, the Australian systems work out to be 3.5 times more per mile than Amtrak.

 

[HP_Lovecraft]

A good example might be the DOWNEASTER Amtrak train in Maine.

The train original purpose had always been tourism-

Both so Mainers can take trips into Boston, and so Bostonians can take trips into Maine.

The train is heavily substidized, so the argument has always been that the train brings BILLIONS of dollars into the state, and specifically towns that are on the Downeaster route.

Before this year, the Downeaster had always seemed like a bit of a novelty- You could drive to Boston cheaper, and quicker in a car, or bus.

But this year, with the prices of has jumping from $3 to $4 has doubled the number of riders. The primary use has switched from a tourist novelty, to a genuine public transport. Some days, the train seems very packed, and an extra route was even added.

So, at least for the Downeaster, Tourism was always a goal, but maybe not for Amtrak? That was definetly a goal for the state of Maine. So many of the state-sponsored routes are setup like that where Amtrak is simply a contractor. It is often the state itself that sets priorities.