Amtrak is hinting that long-haul train service will remain, but will be scaled back from current levels. I’d call that wildly optimistic thinking.
Speaking to Skift’s Brian Sumers, Amtrak CEO Richard Anderson explained:
There will always be a place for the experiential long-haul train, because Congress has told us clearly that that’s an important part of our mission. What we do is follow the law at Amtrak. The laws are clear that the national network is an important offering.
Probably today, we operate 15 of them, including Empire Builder across the northern western half of the U.S., the Zephyr from Chicago to San Francisco, the Southwest Chief, and the Coast Starlight. In an ideal state, we probably would operate somewhere between five to 10 and instead focus our efforts and resources on short-haul intercity transportation, because that’s where the demand indicators are for Amtrak.
His first point is most important. Amtrak, officially known as the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, has a mission that far exceeds profit. Congress has deemed long-haul rail service as a public necessity and continues to allocate money for it, even though it loses money.
In that sense, Amtrak is just like the U.S. Post Office. Many see the USPS as bloated and inefficient. It is. But there’s a constitutional authority for it (Article I, Section 8) and Congress has deemed it a public necessity. Congress sees Amtrak in the same way. It’s not just about profits.
Thus, Anderson is wise to say there will likely always be some form of longhaul train service in the United States. Where I think he is over-optimistic is to think that he can cut the number of longhaul routes by 2/3…or even 1/3.
Which Amtrak Longhaul Routes Would Be Cut?
Which Members of Congress will support eliminating long-haul rail service from their districts? I’d say the answer is none of them. Ok, the Empire Builder is losing money. You eliminate that and Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota lose their only longhaul route. Trying cutting the Sunset Limited and many southern and western states lose their longhaul rail service. Suddenly, Amtrak becomes “vital” to the district.
Even if there is general agreement that some longhaul routes should be cut, I do not expect Congress to be able to decide which ones. Thus, until they all go (which won’t happen), they all stay.
> Read More: Amtrak Wants To Turn European
> Read More: Amtrak Faces A Daunting Dilemma
CONCLUSION
I’ve traveled onboard the Coast Starlight and Empire Builder, checking off a longstanding item on my bucket list. I greatly enjoyed the experience and offer a full review below. But it was far more a novelty than a practicality. With airfare cheap, gasoline inexpensive, and Amtrak losing so much money, I just don’t see how long-haul train service can be deemed a public necessity. But I’d certainly miss it if it was cut. That’s the Amtrak dilemma for Anderson, Congress, and taxpayers…
> Review: Amtrak Coast Starlight Superliner Bedroom Los Angeles To Portland
> Review: Amtrak Empire Builder (Superliner Bedroom)
image: Amtrak
Seems like the US Constitution is behind the times.
I’d rather travel by train than air craft because you get to see more of the US than if you fly. Advantages of train travel, relaxing, getting to meet a lot more people and again…. The views,
@Howard – Nothing in the Constitution that requires train service. The post office comparison isn’t really a great one. Amtrak was created in the 1970’s as a bill in congress.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a postal service either. Congress just has the right to create one.
I prefer rail over air simply because guess what real food better seating and a much more comfortable ride. I don’t really care how long it takes as long as I don’t have to endure the cattle farm called an airport
While Amtrak may not be a necessity to a traveler in Chicago, Minneapolis or Seattle there are no other modal options for communities along the line like Cut Bank, MT or Rugby, ND. Having been abandoned by Greyhound and EAS, small towns like these need options beyond the private automobile. Commerce in “Flyover” country matters too, especially in Congress.
Exactly. Those type of towns are the places where Amtrak makes a huge difference.
Read the Commerce Cause of the US Constitution. It’s the duty of the federal government to promote commerce and that means supporting all modes of transportation, including rail. We started subsidizing roads in modern times in 1916 with the passage of the first Federal Highway Aid Act but we did not collect federal gas taxes until 1933. Meeting a public need was the goal, not profitability. Even then, this was a depression era measure meant to bring in income, rather than a user fee. Even now, the gas tax comes nowhere near the costs of highways. Airlines are more of the same. So expecting Amtrak to be completely self supporting when every other mode is massively subsidized is a hollow argument. We are a modern society and that means we need a full portfolio of transportation needs to needs of the public.
I’m so behind. My son’s videos about the railway system is from the 70’s back when the railroad supported itself and all other ways of travel were supported by the government. I guess sometime between then and now they had to rely in the government to step in and help with stuff. My son is wanting to take a trip from the Midwest to the Grand Canyon and on to the West Coast to see the ocean and mountains. He plans on going by train. He is saving his money to buy souvenirs on his trip. I hope they don’t stop long haul trips by Amtrak all the way out there.
What these young uninformed folks don’t seem to know is that there has NEVER been a time in US rail history that it was profitable to carry passenger traffic across most all of the routes. Passenger rail service has always been subsidized. In the beginning the private carriers only carried people because Congress mandated. The private companies wanted right-of-way for their profitable freight traffic and in exchange they were forced to provide for human beings also. There is no reason to let the private carriers off the hook simply because we’ve separated passengers from freight into separate companies. There would be increased demand for passengers on long haul routes if Amtrak weren’t under constant internal and external attack from blood sucking socialist “capitalists” who believe in grabbing every “free” lunch they can extort.
But now we have airplanes and interstate highway systems. The question is whether longhaul train service, as nice as it is (and I love it), is still worth the cost.
Matthew,
I am making an assumption that you live in a major metropolitan area. You may correct me if I’m wrong. It seems that public policy is dictating that if one lives in less densely populated areas of the country, that individual have no right to a public transportation option. In other words, they have third world status as far as transportation availability goes.
Apparently they are undeserving of mobility sans automobile. Is this truly what living in America about? Very sad indeed.
The points F.K. Plus listed about the massive subsidies the highway and air travel systems receive yearly to operate respectively is often overlooked or ignored. Furthermore rail travel is more efficient per mile than traveling by car or plane. Both have their place as does rail travel.
The author used the current dynamic of cheap gas and cheap airfares as rationale for making cuts to Amtrak.
Neither are guaranteed to remain that way. Airfares have been generally artificially cheap since deregulation occurred many years ago. Service has suffered greatly from this. The old saying that you don’t get what you don’t pay for could not be more true.
The question of fuel prices rising is not an if, it is a when. Did we all forget about all the past energy crises that have occurred? History always repeats itself. Once that occurs not only will the cost to operate your car go up so will those cheap airfares because jet fuel will rise. Airlines run on razor thin margins and part of the reason is the cheap airfare many seem to think is a right. As soon as the jet fuel rises again they will be back in the hole. The rest of the world seems to see the value of rail as a form of travel. Even 3rd world countries do better than we do. Why? Investment into the system. We in America are so short sighted. Most only focus on the here and now and have no vision or insight beyond the moment.
If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, then modes of transportation options will be less. If you want other modes or more frequency of service, go live in more populated area.
Yes Charles. Why should farmers for one, have decent options. They should all move to the cities so we can starve
A consultant I once heard speak said you can’t get access to a scarce resource anywhere (not church, not the PTA, not a Fortune 500 company) without being engaged in the political process. Who values US long haul passenger rail? The most powerful population cohort – the boomers. As you said long haul passenger rail is going nowhere. Beyond power politics, for most folks along existing routes it is faster and cheaper to take the train for trips 5 hours or less than it would be to take a plane. This is true when taking the time impacts of security and airline hub and spoke routes into account. Long haul travel’s primary constituency is folks who do not care about speed of travel – the wealthiest population cohort swelling the retiree ranks by thousands each day. As you are probably aware since you have ridden the LH trains they are packed to the gills. Usage and fixed cost allocation ratios would improve if Amtrak would add capacity not reduce it. The market is increasing and properly applied political pressure could overcome the conniving fat cats who attempt to use the people’s resources and call it capitalism and call it socialism when the common man wishes to take part.
Matthew. Your perspective is from that of a person with means who lives in an urban area. It ignores the people without cars or who have mobility impairment issues and who live in rural communities. It also ignores that rail is the most efficient way to move people in an ever growing country with the least carbon footprint. Getting rid of any trains when we are facing an environmental cataclysm is the height of irresponsibility. The Amtrak subsidy is a minuscule joke in the scheme of the federal budget. Amtrak covers 95% of its costs from revenue. The entire amount of the Amtrak annual subsidy is the amount of one large freeway interchange. For this small subsidy, the US has a national rail passenger system to build on. Conversely, if you get rid of the trains, they’re almost certainly gone for good. Amtrak is needed, and no route can be cut. It’s time to expand Amtrak to bring the economic benefits of rail passenger service to more communities.
Matthew. You appear to be a young whippersnapper. Your values and capabilities do not reflect those that use and need long-distance train service. CEO Anderson needs to be canned. Amtrak is not there because of cheap gas, it is there because United Airlines service stinks and those who are older and require oxygen concentrators find airline travel impossible. Stop speaking as to the needs of others, when you are them. Who are you to predict the transportation needs of the future? Gas will not always be cheap. PS. Planes are the ones that need be restrained. Considering their carbon footprint compared to long-distance trains. Especially, after a more environmental conscious DOT puts into proper perspective the pollutants planes create. Other aspects of the benefits of trains. Winter snowstorms. Amtrak gets through while Aircraft can be grounded for days
-why is a FLYING magizine talking about TRAIN travel??????????
Why not?
Yes, it is still worth the cost of having the options of taking the train instead of the plane, not everyone likes to fly. But a lot of us would love to leave the driving to others so we can sit back and enjoy the scenery. Keep the Sunset Limited, that’s my train.
Highways and airplanes! Let give Amtrak a fraction of the $$subsidies they get for needed improvements.
As a family that travels solely by Amtrak, we are already distressed by the cuts to meal service, etc that management has thrust upon us. As an aside, why, with all the cuts to our dining options, have they not lowered the cost of rooms, which include the cost of our meals?
What about those people who live 150 miles from the nearest airport and the cheapest flight is 3 times what it costs to take Amtrak? Add the fact that Amtrak goes 4 blocks from where I live but no station so someone still has to travel 45 miles to pick you up. Without Amtrak if you live in North Central Montana you only have access to Great Falls (nearest airport) 2 times a week . Don’t worry I will be contacting my Senator. The best thing about MT politics, he knows my name.
Those people should choose to live somewhere else if they want cheaper transportation options.
Why should I pay for your highways and airports if I don’t use them? Maybe you should move near me so I don’t have to pay for your transportation options.
If a resident of a rural community does not drive or can not drive then by removing transportation options you are taking away their mobility. You and government are, in effect, telling me where to live. That is taking away choice. That is taking away freedom. It goes against the basic tenets of living in America.
The problem is The Northeast Corridor is the money loser for Amtrak, not the long distance trains. Revenues are based on passenger miles, and the Long Distance train carry passengers long distances generating plenty of revenue. Amtrak doesn’t make money operating trains on the Northeast Corridor when you pencil in the backlog of deferred infrastructure costs in the billions on it. Amtrak cooks the books by charging the NEC costs to other services, particularly to the Long Distance trains. If you look at Amtrak History it has always lost revenues when it cuts long distance train service, but it did nothing to reduce its overhead costs so it ended up in worse shape. Amtrak’s best performance came during Amtrak President W. Graham Claytor between 1982-1993. Claytor bought additional Long Distance equipment and extended routes of some long Distance trains. The results were Amtrak Cost recovery went from 48% in 1981 to 72% by 1989. Claytor predicted that if his policies were maintained Amtrak could reach 100% cost recovery by 2000. Instead Amtrak Management bet the farm on the ACELA and cut back long distance services resulting in Amtrak almost running out of cash and forced a bailout in the billions of dollars of Amtrak.
You could not possibly be more incorrect.
Yes Noel. It’s axiomatic in railroading that the money to be made is in hauling passengers or freight longer distances. Anderson’s vision of a disjointed network of isolated corridors is a recipe for huge deficits and larger subsidies.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that requires train service”?
Huh? There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the federal government to fund a highway system or a civil-aviation system either. Three American presidents–Jefferson, Monroe and Jackson–vetoed congressional appropriations for road building because they lacked the constitutional authority to fund roads–a job which at that time was left to counties. The Constitution is silent on federal funding of transportation improvements.
President Jefferson sent away a delegation of New Yorkers seeking federal funds to build the Erie Canal. In the 1950s President Eisenhower tried to strangle President Truman’s 1946 Federal Aid Airport Program, saying, “It is time for the federal government to stage an orderly retreat from civil aviation.” He believed airport and air-traffic-control improvements should be financed by the cities–most of which lacked the money–and the airlines–several of which were still on federal subsidy.
Ike’s failure to fund a modern airport and air-traffic control infrastructure was one of the great scandals of the mid-20th century, as newer, bigger and faster airliners overwhelmed the nation’s primitive airport and airways system. Between 1951 and 1961 more than 1,000 airline passengers, crew and even bystanders on the ground were killed in mid-air collisions and failed landings attributed to lack of radar, Instrument Landing Systems and poor runway lighting. As late as 1961 airliners were still colliding in mid-air, like the Dec. 16, 1961 accident over in which a United Airlines Boeing 747 and a TWA Super Constellation collided over New York Bay and the United jet plunged into a block of apartments in the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, killing eight people on the ground. The body of one TWA passenger was found in a tree on Staten Island. A told, 128 died.
ALL forms of transportation lose money, and all of them rely on federal subsidies. The Interstate highway system was supposed to be paid for by receipts from a new federal tax money, but the revenues never matched the expenses and every two years Congress simply writes a $20-$30 million bailout check to keep the highways maintained. Airline passengers pay a ticket tax which is supposed to cover the costs of the FAA administrators, the air-traffic control system, the NTSB and federal grants to cities for airport development and modernization, but the receipts from the tax never match the expenditures, so Congress budgets a subsidy to keep the civil-aviation infrastructure going. The airlines don’t get the subsidy because they don’t own the infrastructure–but they benefit from the subsidy because it provides them with the fundamental hardware and human systems they need to conduct their business. Just because the carriers themselves are not subsidized doesn’t mean there are no subsidies to air travel. Take your eyes off the airlines for a minute and start looking at the airports and the FAA. The airlines are just the parsley on the fish. The protein is in the infrastructure, and it;s subsidized.
Beating up on a meager network of passenger trains because “they’re subsidized—oooh! ” is a puerile exercise masquerading as a serious policy discussion.
F.K. Plous
Chicago
Long haul is for the people going end to end, and yes, there are alternative travel methods for the coast-ers. If you need to go from Minot to Fargo flying is outrageously expensive. Spokane to Cut Bank, Pasco to Sandpoint, St. Paul to whitefish… these are all Empire Builder trips that riders need and travel, which are not affordable as flights and should be available as public transportation.
It is timely that tomorrow is another anniv. of “911” On that tragic day, all air line service was stopped and beside cars and buses, the only practical way for long distance travel was by rails. Please do not forget.
Removing the long distance trains from serving the urban and remote areas seems shallow and ill timed.
With the unstableness in the world, all forms of transportation are vital. With the middle east in disarray, petroleum is in the cross hairs of our enemies. The cross country trains should have feeder north/south corridor trains that do not offer the amenities that inflate costs.
Growing our western rail service is an investment in our future. If the turmoil in the world continues to fester, passenger rail service will be vital. In the days before Amtrak, passenger trains carried mail and that provided revenue to offset the lack of enough revenue from ticket sales.
States want these trains to continue and should contribute a share of the expense. A few years ago the west coast rail service was nearly extinct. With state and federal funding services the west has been thriving. Putting these long distance on the chopping block is unwise.
Neutral dispatching would be a giant step forward in keeping these trains running on schedule so that connections would made.
Please add road tolls to the cost of driving and car maintenance. I take the train frequently due to those expenses. Flying is not always faster since you now have to get through security and board earlier to sit and wait and then pray you make the connecting flight. There are not a lot of thru flights. I am a small person and I feel very cramped in an airplane.
Don’t forget the subsidies given to other transportation modes. Just how much and where those are can be a contentious issue, as it’s quite large and complex. For example, the airline industry (short hauls) gets about $300 million annually in direct, cash subsidy in the Essential Air Services program: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/office-policy/aviation-policy/337916/subsidized-eas-report-communities-outside-alaskamay-2019.pdf … Then there are the airport subsidies, the air traffic control system, etc., etc., etc.
There are many more Americans than the ones that fly about as they please. Many folks in small towns rely on these trains to visit family and even go to doctor’s appointments in the cities. Many cannot drive or fly there. The interstates can be dangerous, and airports are only in cities, far away from lots of these towns. Ride the long distance trains sometime and you will see a swath of American humanity, and you will see your beautiful country. Ride the Southwest Chief! Unforgettable.
p.s. Amtrak counts a short distance trip the same as it does cross country ones, so their numbers are off.
No, Amtrak is not profitable. Roads are not profitable. Air travel is heavily subsidized. Profitability is not the point; transportation is a public service that facilitates commerce. Air travel wastes energy and is a huge contributor to climate change; trains are much more energy efficient. Long distance trains may not be practical, but shorter, fast inter city routes would be a great addition to our transportation network.
Well, good for you and the novelty this is to you personally, but these are vital lifelines for the communities and the areas that these trains serve. Amtrak should be looking at expanding its rural and long distance offerings, not pulling back. This is clueless management at its worst.
#DeltaDick is destroying this rail system in the hopes of emulating a domestic air service that is deplorable at best.
He needs to go.
I live in the largest city in the USA, without any passenger train service; our passenger train service ended forty years ago. It was only a few years ago, when our esteemed ex-Governor vetoed a bill, which would have authorized passenger train service throughout our state, to all of the major cities, within our state. I would much prefer to take the train, rather than deal with the large trucks and lunatics on the interstate highways, which are full of potholes, and construction zones. We had wonderful train service years ago, including interurban trolleys. It is my sincere belief that the airlines had a hand in the demise of passenger train service in the USA. Why is it in China, Japan, and all over Western Europe, there are excellent passenger train systems, including high speed rail? We have none of that in the USA. It is an absolute disgrace the way passenger train service has been allowed to go down the tubes. The airlines, with their high priced lobbyists, have repeatedly pressured Congress to support the airline industry, and bail them out, whenever they had financial difficulties. A case in point, was how Congress bailed out United and American Airlines, after 9/11/01. If the lawsuits filed by the relatives of the victims had been allowed to go forward, United and American, would have been sued out of existence. Instead, Congress authorized a victim’s compensation fund, to essentially save those airlines. I would have let them go bankrupt, as United and American are no friend of the flying public. I’m curious to know where all the lobbyists are vis-a-vis restoring passenger train service in the USA. The USA was able to send twelve men safely to the moon and back; yet, it can’t even provide decent passenger train service for its citizens. I too, would like to take the train, as I would not have to deal with the TSA, or with those charming and smiling flight attendants on the commercial airlines. It should be noted that being a passenger on a commercial flight in the USA, is no different than riding the NYC subway. At least, on the subway, if I don’t like who I’m seated next to, I can always change my seat.