Why do we keep Amtrak(in US) on life support?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-12-08 07:08pm

The source of my question

Why does the US government keep this non-profitable passenger rail system alive? I doubt it's a major employer.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-12-08 07:11pm

Shep told me this thing was running like a dream though.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-12-08 07:14pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Shep told me this thing was running like a dream though.

He lives in the area served by the Northeast Corridor -- the only part of Amtrak that works well and makes a profit, IIRC.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-12-08 07:15pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Shep told me this thing was running like a dream though.

Do you mean in terms of how good it is to ride the train, or how well the company's doing? Because, according to the Reuters article, the company lost over half a billion dollars($635 million to be exact) last year.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2004-12-08 07:21pm

Never mind; I didn't hear the added part about where Shep lives.

That still doesn't change my point, though. Why do they keep the national Amtrak alive? It isn't necessary or profitable(largely due to airplanes) in most cases, and in the cases where the track is profitable, you could probably break it into a smaller, local line.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-12-08 07:29pm

Amtrak provides some benefits that don't really affect its bottom-line. For example, in certain areas it would be a complete disaster to force all of its users to take to the roads, since the infrastructure couldn't handle that large of an increase in traffic at once (which is also why Amtrak doesn't try anything like raising rates). That being said, I think Amtrak subsidies should be cut back. It's just not as useful as it should be, and IMO doesn't justify the cost outside of a few major areas.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-12-08 07:33pm

For starters, the system is a boondoggle. A fair amount of the loss on the longer routes is because congressmen force Amtrak to keep open unprofitable stations in their districts as a form of pork. So part of their losses come from their inability to eliminate unprofitable stops thanks to Bringing Home The Bacon.

Another major loss is that when accidents occur which are the result of bad maintainance by the private railroad companies who's track Amtrak runs on, Amtrak is forced to make the payouts for any damage claim, despite not actually being at fault for the accidents.

Yet another cause of loss is that Amtrak trains--despite supposedly having priority--are usually forced to sit and wait on sidings whilst high-priority container trains for the freight companies race past them. These massive schedule increases--no Amtrak trains except on the Northeast Corridor where they own their track have ever matched the schedules from the heyday of rail travel in speed times despite technology improvements--drive down bookings severely.

Beyond that, Amtrak is stuck with obsolete equipment because the government refuses to increase funding enough for the improvements while simultaneously not closing it down, so maintainance costs are huge and quality is poor.

So there are a variety of factors which make Amtrak simply bleed huge amounts of money, all of which could be easily rectified if someone just bothered to try and do it.

Veramocor · Post by **Veramocor** » 2004-12-08 08:26pm

So the governement shouldn't spend public money on a transportation system? Goodbye interstate system. I fail to see the difference between the vast amounts of money spent on an interstate system and that on Amtrak. I'm not sure how accurate this source is so I welcome others to find a better number:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020904b.cfm

"Congress is considering three competing proposals. President Bush's plan would boost highway spending by a generous 21 percent. Weighing in at $257 billion over six years, the president's plan (known as SAFETEA) is no bargain; it would waste tens of billions of dollars. But it's far better than what has been proposed in the House and the Senate."

Less than 1 billion dollars on Amtrak , 43 billion on highways.

Being originally from NY I've seen train systems run that are profitable/benefit the public more than more highways. The system just has to be more convienient than driving (LIRR routes). If anything the governemnt needs to give it a capital infusion and get more hi-speed trains lines.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-12-08 08:35pm

All I can say is THANK GOD for Amtrak while I was on trial in Camden. That Acela from Philly to NYC meant within about 90 minutes tops I was back in the sanity that is the Big Apple. It was nice to be able to take a day or two off, go home and be back in a matter of a few hours.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-12-08 08:48pm

I think it's because some people cannot simply let go of the idea of taking trains on long distance journeys like in the good old days. Rail is a great thing in the Northeast and some other built up urban areas, but for most people's travel needs air is the faster, cheaper, and safer route.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-12-08 08:53pm

As a Westerner, it rarely even occurs to me that one can use rail as passenger transport.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-12-08 08:59pm

I think they just need to make it easier for people to find their destination and know which train to take.

I tried to find a train ride home at the local metro station..... I don't think I've ever been more confused in my life.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-12-08 09:01pm

Veramocor wrote:So the governement shouldn't spend public money on a transportation system? Goodbye interstate system. I fail to see the difference between the vast amounts of money spent on an interstate system and that on Amtrak.

It's not that the government shouldn't spend money on such things; when transportation systems work they're a great boon to society as a whole. The problem is that while the interstate highway system is both useful and if not profitable in itself worthwhile. The problem is that aside from some specific regions Amtrak is not really useful or worthwhile. The Interstate has become a virtual necessity and is in regular use all the time.

Veramocor wrote:Being originally from NY I've seen train systems run that are profitable/benefit the public more than more highways. The system just has to be more convienient than driving (LIRR routes). If anything the governemnt needs to give it a capital infusion and get more hi-speed trains lines.

As Marina has said, Amtrak is a flawed system as it stands and reform (which you seem to be talking about) would certainly not hurt it. A working commuter system would be a really benefit to a lot of cities and regions.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-12-09 02:05pm

Rail is a great thing in the Northeast and some other built up urban areas, but for most people's travel needs air is the faster, cheaper, and safer route.

Definetely agree on this, was checking prices to go from Orlando to Philly the other day, checked various airlines, and I checked amtrak.com. 160 round trip from Orlando to Philly on US Airways, about 2 hours 45 minute trip. On amtrak it would have been a 27 hour trip for 203 dollars round trip. So absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to take the train on a long trip like that.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-12-09 02:17pm

The government doesn't care enough about cheap transit as it does the transit business that airline companies create. Hell we could have given billions to amtrak to get better equipment etc and significantly decreased the large amount of airplane use after 9-11 when the airline industry was about to fall apart. But no, we have to support the economy so we'll put billions into making an industry that's too big for its own good not collapse under its own weight.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-12-09 02:59pm

Regional Rail can work well (Amtrak NEC, Metra, etc.) but I don't really see the need for long-distance passenger rail.

Post by **Coyote** » 2004-12-09 03:04pm

In the East, Amtrak was a lifesaver to me going from one airport to another. I used to ride it a lot out West before service was cut.

It should be re-worked but not abandoned...

... it is also being kept around in the event that it comes in handy for mass troop movement requirements.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-12-09 03:05pm

If Amtrak service began to be cut back, it would make little sense not to simply suspend all services except the profitable Northeast corridor, which could then be worked only using the newest and fastest Accela and Accela Express locomotives. Without radical changes, which will not happen, its simply not going to be profitable any other way, and cutting back some unprofitable lines while keeping others will simply drive down rider ship across the entire system. That I'll just make everything worse, while seriously reducing the systems usefulness. We can easily afford to keep subsidizing the line, and that's what we should do.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Yet another cause of loss is that Amtrak trains--despite supposedly having priority--are usually forced to sit and wait on sidings whilst high-priority container trains for the freight companies race past them. These massive schedule increases--no Amtrak trains except on the Northeast Corridor where they own their track have ever matched the schedules from the heyday of rail travel in speed times despite technology improvements--drive down bookings severely.

That sort of thing is completely screwing up all US railroads. No line owns track coast to coast, which is the route much freight takes, and scheduling issues and the need to give certain trains priority (espically those hauling fresh fruit and vegetables) on long single track lines means the system often slows to a crawl. The freight lines still make a profit, but it's at the cost of cutting back maintenance in many cases and it keeps a lot of traffic away. It probably doesn't help much that since our systems peak in the 1940's and 50's we've lifted up or otherwise abandon something like 100,000 miles of track which is quite limiting to the options the lines have for routing trains.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-12-09 03:06pm

There is a provision that was made many years ago. As long as Amtrak accepts government subsudies, they must continue to maintain an office station in Charleston WV.

So declared Robert C Byrd.

And it was good, for it was how Nitram came to visit me before we were wed.

Losonti Tokash · Post by **Losonti Tokash** » 2004-12-09 03:06pm

When I lived back on the west coast, I preferred riding a train to driving. Granted, I was delayed so much that I could have driven there and arrived before the train left the station, but there is something to be said for a form of transit that lets you walk around.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-12-11 05:56am

Howedar wrote:As a Westerner, it rarely even occurs to me that one can use rail as passenger transport.

This is because freight is so much more profitable, and doesnt sue your ass off if something goes wrong the railway companies have actively discouraged passengers to use their services.

Its a case of the business(of moving passengers) being profitable but the penalties for defaulting are too high.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-12-11 07:59am

Wicked Pilot wrote:I think it's because some people cannot simply let go of the idea of taking trains on long distance journeys like in the good old days. Rail is a great thing in the Northeast and some other built up urban areas, but for most people's travel needs air is the faster, cheaper, and safer route.

Years and years ago, I started traveling Amtrak between Chicago and Detroit during the November- February part of the year. Why? Because I got sick of sleeping on the floor of a terminal at O'Hare or Midway (now they keep a supply of several thousand cots on hand, but not back then). I got tired of driving through slop at 10 mph because of the road conditions and number of accidents due to weather.

The last 10 years or so we've had milder weather, but we still get ice storms this time of year, and fog, and windstorms. For the past 2-3 weeks delays at O'Hare have been 1-3 hours all day, almost every day. And if the winds are gusting up to 60-70 mph (which happens a couple times of year in this area) the airlines won't be flying. Zero-zero visibility plays havoc with air travel - and this month there have been two days when I couldn't see more than two blocks from my office window. The day before Thanksgiving the airports shut down for 5-6 hours because there was super-cooled rain and ice falling out of the sky. It's reality in this area that air travel shuts down a certain number of days per year for weather reasons - but the trains keep running.

During that part of the year, door-to-door, trains are faster, safer, and more reliable - a train is the very last thing to be stopped by upper-Midwest winter weather. And if you DO get stuck you have food and a toilet on board and reserve power for heat, at least for a few hours, after which you can huddle for warmth - ever get stuck in a car in a blizzard? It gets cold and you have to piss into leftover 7/11 cups, after which you can either dump it out the door - becoming even more cold as what little body-warmed air escapes - or stack it somewhere, where it will act as a piss-scented "air freshener". At the time the train was cheaper, too, but I don't know if that's still the case.

In the week or two after 9/11 Amtrak saw a huge jump in ridership... which didn't last.

Hmm... I'm in favor of keeping it in areas like the Northeast where folks actually use it, but it's completely unreasonable to demand it break even, if not show a profit, but also at the same time force it to continue unprofitable routes. That makes no sense. It also means that it is the only transportation system expected to be self-supporting - both the roads and the airlines are heavily subsidized by tax money, why shouldn't the railroad?

There actually IS one railroad still operating passenger service in the US other than Amtrak - the South Shore and South Bend railroad that runs between South Bend, Indiana and the Chicago Loop. Still runs both frieght and passengers, although it's not well known unless, like me, you ride frequently (in my case, Monday through Friday to and from work). There are actually serious plans to expand it to Valpariso and Lowell/Crown Point. As far as getting into the Loop from where I live it's faster (40 minutes versus 90) and cheaper ($136 a month vs. much more considering gas, wear on vehicle, and the minimum $179 just for parking in the subsidized employee garage at work). More reliable? Well... the train is late sometimes, and it can be stopped by either weather or malfunction... I can also find myself lying under my overturned car on the Dan Ryan going "My, that was a bad accident...."

But, as that example demonstrates, rail is only viable where you have large numbers of people going in roughly the same direction(s) on a fairly regular basis. In other words, in heavily urban corridors. Which is why it doesn't work through broad swaths of the US which are sparsely populated.

In the 19th Century this was worked around by granting the railroads a broad swath of land on either side of their right-of-way, which land could be and often was sold off to raise money for capital improvements. The railroads of the time also benefitted from US mail contracts and light frieght to scattered towns, thereby creating a situation where it made economic sense to serve these small communities. But the airplanes carry the mail now, light freight is by truck, and many potential passengers have cars with which to drive themselves where they're going. The world has changed - do we lament the passing of the stage coach that was supplanted by the railroad?

Another proposed use of rail is to get people to and from hub airports rapidly and efficiently. In this area, that was pioneered by Chicago building an El to the O'Hare airport (it actually lets you off inside the terminal building). It was such a good thing that there is now rail access to Midway as well. Gary Regional airport and South Bend airport are both served by the South Shore. It's not the majority of passengers, but there are such passengers daily and they make up an important segment of the business.

So, while Amtrak is declining the greater Chicago area has actually seen and expansion of passenger rail in the past 20 years, not just in ridership but in actual construction of new routes, requiring new track to be laid (although existing track is used wherever feasible because laying track is expensive).

So yeah, railroads can be viable even in the 21st Century, even in the US. I'm rather fond of them myself, and it's certainly NOT from a dislike of airplanes!

But, again, let's cut the passenger service back to where it makes sense and it's a viable solution to moving people about.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-12-11 01:01pm

And given when my car died, Nitram and Tevar would have been missing a best man at that same said wedding. So, well, I'm rather attached to the system, call me crazy.