Amtrak, America’s state-run passenger railroad company, faces a daunting dilemma. Its path to profit is to cut what its Congressional overlords seem unwilling to even consider eliminating.
I’m taking about long-distance rail service. Storied routes like the Empire Builder and Coast Starlight lose money. A lot of it. Every single year, without exception. All longhaul routes actually. And while Congress loves to berate Amtrak for losing money, when it comes time to cut loss-leading routes, suddenly these same members of Congress are up in arms.
Former Delta CEO Richard Anderson now heads Amtrak and wants to turn it into a profitable business. Currently, Amtrak’s only profitable sector is its busy service along the Northeast corridor. There, Anderson sees the model for what to do in other parts of the nation. To put the numbers into perspective, Amtrak lost $543 million on its longhaul routes 2018 while it earned $524 million from its Northeast Corridor operations.
As the aging longhaul passenger carriages near the end of their days, Amtrak has a strategic choice to make. Re-invest in money-losing routes or instead invest in a new generation of passenger cars that can more efficiently transport passengers on shorthaul routes. Amtrak estimates it will need as much as $3BN to replace its longhaul fleet.
The Shorthaul Plan
Rather than so many inefficient longhaul routes, Anderson wants Amtrak to run more frequent service on popular short- and mid-haul routes like between Atlanta and Charlotte or Cleveland and Cincinnati. Here, rail travel can realistically compete against flying and driving.
As the Wall Street Journal notes, Anderson told Congress:
The demand is clearly there for additional short-corridor service throughout the U.S., which includes both additional frequencies for existing routes and establishing new routes between city pairs. The present network simply does not fit the future.
But it does fit the perceived needs of many members of Congress. Amtrak faces a counteractive pull from its Congressional overlords: stop losing money, but don’t touch our loss-leading longhaul routes. See, Amtrak’s long-distance trains run through many Congressional districts. You think Members of Congress from rural districts are going to stand idly by while Amtrak threatens to cancel its link to their district?
Last month’s Congressional spending bill included language encouraging Amtrak to preserve long-distance routes. Congress was also not keen on Anderson’s proposal to reduce seat pitch in order to squeeze in more seats. The Senate also blocked an attempt by Amtrak to turn sections of its Southwest Chief service from Chicago to Los Angeles from train to bus. The vote was 95-4…
> Review: Amtrak Coast Starlight Superliner Bedroom Los Angeles To Portland
> Review: Amtrak Empire Builder (Superliner Bedroom)
CONCLUSION
I happen to think that in 2019 the notion of transcontinental train service is antiquated and unnecessary. As much as I enjoy traveling on Amtrak, it is not where I want to direct my tax dollars. But Members of Congress seem to disagree and they are the ones who pull the purse strings. Maybe its time for Congress simply to be honest. If Amtrak is treated like a public necessity rather than a whipping boy, then the public will have to deal with perennial losses. The Postal Service may lose a lot of money, but it is a constitutional requirement (Article I, Section 8). If Congress feels that Amtrak’s role is to indeed serve the entire country by train, then it should realize that Amtrak will (likely) always lose money…
What do you think about the future of Amtrak?
image: Amtrak
The postal service only loses money because Congress requires it to fund pensions for 75 years in advance. As far as I know, it is the only entity in the US, public or private, with a requirement anywhere near that long.
And take post to places that are not financially viable. So just for one letter they will fly out a plane hundreds of miles to deliver post to a person who probably votes republican but doesn’t think this is welfare and handout. So whatever Republicans get is not welfare, it’s their birthright and whatever everyone else gets is welfare.
AMEN! Your comment is so spot on!
You’re arguing as if the USPS doesn’t contract out mail delivery extensively, which it does, particularly in rural parts of the country. Regardless, you should know no tax dollars go towards these kinds of deliveries.
The power structure wants Amtrak out of business. Some places in this enormous country are only accessible by train, as bus service no longer exists. Don’t forget many of Amtraks passengers can no longer drive.
Do you have an example of a place that has long distance Amtrak service but no bus service? Number of passenger boardings would also make the case
If Amtrak service ended in a town, why would a bus company not fill the void?
Have you taken Amtrak?
A bus?
Amtrak is an amazing ( my route Chicago to St. Louis) affordabil alternative to driving
Saves cars on highways…
Very comfy
Takes same amount of time as car
Can travel with many many people one might never meet
Can use bathroom without stopping travel
Incredible views
Often comes into “ back side “ of town where inhabitants of town live. Unlike highway drive where the chain gas stations and superstores sll look like the same exit no matter the location!
Comfort!!!
Once my Amtrack had to change to a bus instead due to track work
It was an extremely uncomfortable ride
I vowed never to take a bus again!!
Excellent comments.
What is spent on Amtrak is minimal compared to the wasted gift money we give to the third world. Invest in America and yes this means rail. Quit giving money to corruption based junk countries. Amtrak hires veterans also. They help with local economies as well. To bad some can’t see that, but like mamma always said: “you can’t fix stupid”.
The Petroleum, Auto Manufacturing and Highway Lobby would love to curtail long distance passenger rail service and have been hard at work towards that specific goal for many years. Anderson still thinks like an Airline Executive vice a Railroader. City pairs sounds nice, neat and simple. Most other advanced countries view their Passenger rail networks as part of their national infrastructure much like electrical grids and highways and fund them accordingly. That is, everyone but the U.S.
Not picking on anyone. But, look at the masthead of this piece. Live and Let’s Fly
This is a prejudiced piece. The author should not spew this pro Airline bias at a coffee shop in Williston, ND or Raton, NM. Or if he does, he had better leave a nice tip.
Bet the author does not fly back in economy with passengers who best wear knee guards.
When it comes to way too many airlines, their service is as horrible as Greyhounds. Many Americans can’t fly. Transcontinental trains are as necessary as the Interstates.
You apply ‘market-based principals to highways, why should New York Taxpayers pay for highways in North Dakota. No one lives out there and the traffic count in too low to warrant the expenditure.
It is one nation and Idahoans are taxed for Amtrak service. If Idahoans can’t have access to long-distance trains, neither should be New Yorkers. That’s why when Amtrak was incorporated as an independent agency of the Federal Government, the title of a National Railroad Network was a part of its mission statement.
It is a National agency as witnessed by the fact the president of the US is the one who appoints Amtrak’s governing board.
As a member of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, I call on our members to demand Airline centered, CEO Anderson be fired.
I disagree with a proposal to have rail service for some regions and not others. It’s bad enough knowing that citizens in certain rural area d.c in the plains states have limited or no rail service, but eliminating cross country rail service will be s big inconvenience to millions of consumers
Travelers should not be forced to travel cross country by air or bus because the elimination of rail service left them no choice. I live in San Antonio and traveled to my hometown, Milwaukee, wi. on the Texas Eagle on a regular basis. I love the trip and the scenery that is made possible by this scenic route. Losing it would be hard to accept.
So the college degrees have taught this “author” to be a self-centered, self-serving ass who most certainly avails himself of government services and subsidies when it suits him, but excoriates others who receive the same; or did college merely provide window dressing for one who arrived on campus with said entitlement?
Amtrak could be good but the routes are outdated. They also try to fool folks into thinking they service areas that are actually bus connections. A good example is that you can take the train from Chicago to New Orleans or Kansas City to Los Angeles but you can’t take the train from Kansas City to Denver or Phoenix to Los Angeles. I know they can’t serve every market but mid-haul would work for them if set up right. Most of the Amtrak lines are leased from the big freight railroads it seems so I don’t know why they can’t adjust routes and times better.
I don’t know how much this topic interests you, but obviously enough to write about it. I’d encourage you to look into a bit more if you’re really curious. There is one fundamental point in here that you–and most people–actually have wrong. The Northeast Corridor services only break-even (barely) when considering above rail costs. That is, revenue from ticket sales, food and beverage, station services, etc. cover the cost of operating the trains and paying employees, but it does not even come close to covering the cost of infrastructure–maintenance of tracks, catenary, bridges, tunnels, etc. If you include those costs, which, on the Northeast Corridor are Amtrak costs (not freight railroad costs), the Northeast Corridor services are actually huge money losers. The interesting twist is that in Amtrak’s opaque accounting, the costs of maintaining that infrastructure are spread across the entire network, including the long distance trains, even those that don’t serve a city along the Northeast Corridor. This, of course, skews the results of those trains to the significantly worse. And it is not limited to the long distance trains. There are actually apocryphal stories of states in the Midwest and elsewhere (who share some of the responsibility for running “state supported trains”–e.g., Chicago to Detroit, Chicago to St Louis, etc.) being charged for maintaining infrastructure and facilities out east that have absolutely nothing to do with their own trains.
When you think about it, it actually doesn’t make a ton of sense that long distance trains are such bad money losers–service is usually once a day it’s an 8 or 10 car train with what, 10 or 15 employees on at any given time. The biggest costs are fuel, salaries and maintenance of locomotives and coaches, but most long distance trains actually have comparatively low expenses because the track–mile after mile of that great expense–is owned and maintained by freight railroads and Amtrak, much to the chagrin of freight railroads, only pays a nominal fee to use it. With higher ridership from more frequent trains, could Amtrak’s bottom line improve? Sure, but probably not as much as folks think, because an extra three trains a day from Chicago to Kansas City is barely going to dent the weight of maintaining Northeast Corridor infrastructure.
My point here is not, actually, to defend the long distance trains. There’s probably space for a couple, but I believe you are right–long distance trains are largely antiquated and a beast from another era. I believe the debate Amtrak is setting up is the right debate to have. Is it better to have a train from Chicago to Los Angeles once a day, or should there be multiple frequencies between Chicago and Kansas City, perhaps Denver to Colorado Springs, Los Angeles to Las Vegas? My point is, rather, that the debate over Amtrak is founded on a lie. Our tax dollars that go to Amtrak go overwhelmingly to stitching the Northeast Corridor together so that folks from Boston to DC can have their trains. That’s a fleecing of America that is perpetuated by Amtrak’s cryptic accounting and passing the buck onto the long distance trains. The real debate should be around whether Amtrak should be entitled to continue to own and operate the Northeast Corridor, whether rail service is the best means of moving people in the Northeast, and whether some of the dollars dumped into the Northeast are better placed into other regional services. Maybe the answer is a resounding yes that the Northeast Corridor services need to stay, but then a debate needs to be had around how best to maintain the underlying infrastructure and bring it into the 21st century. But if this debate stays focused on the long distance trains, we’re all just missing the point and continuing to obliviously kick the can down the road.
Many railroads, especially out West, were given huge land grants to fund their construction, with the requirement that the railroad would provide passenger service “in perpetuity”. The natural resources not only would generate freight traffic, but also form the economic engine for towns built on the land owned by the Railroad.
Amtrak’s formation released the railroads from that legal obligation to provide passenger service in perpetuity. The Southern Railroad refused to agree to join Amtrak but eventually were made to submit.
Splitting those natural resources away from the railroads and ending their obligations to provide passenger service made Warren Buffett very rich. Since he wants to give away his wealth, maybe this is a place to start.
Politicians will feel no pain as they are using other peoples money. Expect another financially dumb decision soon
I Agree. How do Congress expect people to commute,that does not have money to fly or drive? Wait until their nest eggs dry up and they do not have the money to fly, it will still then their would want it in the favorable of themselves. SHAMEFUL
Greyhound serves 3800 destinations. Many with more than once a day.
Amtrak only 500 destinations.
I travel all over this great country several times a year .
I have found Greyhound buses to be comfortable reliable and in most cases on time.
Most of the places I choose to go have no Amtrak service nor airline service.
I agree Amtrak trains are extremely comfortable but twice this year no dining car was available.
The heated food in a microwave was sickening.
I love traveling by train but some of the costs of a bedroom are outrageous.
I will never fly again except for an emergency situation.
I’m 83 years of age and have seen this beautiful country close up and personal
In all the years I have chosen Greyhound I have never experienced a road failure nor a delay because of a flat tire.
I agree Amtrak is great but do you think they will ever service 3800 destinations?
I have taken the coast starlight and the empire builder, and it is a beautiful way to see the country, losing these routes would be ashame.
Traveling from albuquerque to LA is my preferred mode of travel. As an aging baby boomer, driving has become more dangerous and tiring. I would be willing to pay a higher rate for the convenience, currently it is pretty cheap!
Matthew, perhaps you can point to a profitable passenger rail system out there somewhere on this planet? Unless you want to privatize amtrak? Then you should take a look at the disaster that has beseiged the UK since privatization with continued government subsidies.
Want to make some cash? Go buy some tech stock and leave amtrak be….you would take a bath if you tried to make a profit here.
Anderson is an airline guy who has no clue what the purpose of passenger rail transportation is.
When I lived in Chicago I used Amtrak to travel the U.S. I now reside in Las Vegas, NV. To travel by train I have to take a Greyhound regular schedule bus to LA, Salt Lake City, or Kingman, AZ. That’s ridiculous! Just like the politicians are ridiculous. I’m retiring soon and plan on traveling by train instead of flying. Yes, it take longer to get somewhere, but I enjoy the no-hassle approach. I purchase a roomette and all my meals are included. I love it!
I get that it’s symbolic but it’s funny that representatives don’t want Amtrak to cancel it’s “link” with their districts. How many people are you linking? Like 50 per day? Nobody is taking spontaneous trips to these places, they’ll find a substitute (ie a car)
Steve, 0ne of the points of Amtrak is exactly that it can reduce the need for a car. If, for what ever reason, you aren’t able to drive, Amtrak is great. Finding a car and a driver is pretty pricey. Don’t forget the long distance routes don’t just link Chicago to LA or New Orleans to NYC, they link all the destinations in between, large and small. When I was on the train last, many of the people on the Empire Builder were traveling from work in the Dakotas, back home. Lots of people traveling between the less populous places between Idaho and Minnesota.
Isn’t the very idea of a national train system to allow people to travel from place to place around the country? Making a profit would be nice, but isn’t really the stated goal. Does your local bus system expect to earn a profit? I expect not, but among the multiple advantages of transportation systems, whether your local buses or Amtrak are lessened congestion, fewer parking spots needed in downtown areas, less pollution, and more productive time while traveling. Given the plethora of advantages of rail, we need to invest more in our system, not less.
I just traveled with Amtrak from Houston, Texas to Portland, Maine… best trip I’ve ever taken !!!! I don’t fly any more so if you drop some of their routes I may be stuck ….no fair… train travel is amazing !!!!
I agree with AMTRAK’S head. But one possible solution is to go with Amtrak’s proposal, and hand back longhaul passenger operations to the major freight railroads, who would jountly invest in a midrange priced service similar to the American Orient Express but at a per passenger cost that would appeal more to the middle class.
For example, the cost would be more than a typical airfare between two points, but would offer the same perks as airlines used to offer, such as real food, and an emphasis on on board activities similar to cruiseship travel. Example, a gaming room or full service bar with live music.
There is a minor issue with that. Amtrak was founded because the freight companies no longer wanted to carry passengers. The government did not take away that right the freight companies gave it up. The thought is that Freight Companies felt that there was no profit in it the passenger business. So the government made a deal. They would create their own rail road and agreed to let the freight companies out of the passenger business. However in letting them out of the passenger business Amtrak, after it was created, would be allowed to run trains on their tracks. Hence the limited schedules for long-distance trains. And as for creating more Corredor’s that’s also going to be met with resistance from the freight companies. More trains on their tracks would directly interfere With their operations. The government as per a supreme court ruling cannot force the freight companies to cater to Amtrak since Amtrak is considered an extension of the government. Trains run on pre-existing agreements and the freight companies are hesitant to modify and expand such agreements. Simply put there is no profit in it for them to cater to Amtrak, the government or take back operation of passenger trains. The Profit they make from running freight ideally out weighs any potential profit they would make from passengers. Furthermore there would also be increased expenses of maintaining passenger equipment that would outweigh any theoretical profit. They are already are covering the cost of maintaining the tracks that Amtrak operates on outside of the Northeast corridor Since it is their property with, as one of the comments above states, Amtrak only paying A nominal fee for travel On those tracks. There is nothing enticing enough that would benefit freight companies to operate passenger trains again.
Privatization would also hurt because the average company is not going to generate enough profit to cover infrastructure needs. Amtrak on average generates enough profit yearly to cover it’s own operations. All government money goes into infrastructure projects such as maintaining equipment, tracks, bridges, etc. Tracks, catenarywires, signals, railcars and many other things require constant maintenance. Which with trains running daily adds up to be quite a large expense. The issue that the UK is facing right now is exactly this. Privatization eliminates government grants and state funded trains. In the UK Tracks are falling into disrepair and equipment is having issues because without government grants and funding There is not enough money being generated to cover the massive cost of maintaining tracks and equipment. Congress along bipartisan lines have continued to provide funding for Amtrak because it is necessary to do so.
National rail service in this country is in an essential need and There is nothing wrong with Congress continuing to fund this need. However I do believe that they need to be a bit more clearer to the general public as to why they continue to fund Amtrak and explain how detrimental it would be to eliminate it or it’s funding entirely using the UK’s model as an example.
Having lived for many years in North Dakota and having ridden the Empire Builder many times I can assure you that long distance trains are just as important for many of the intermediate cities and towns along those routes as the Northeast Corridor is to the large cities along it. The Empire Builder provides the only public transportation link between many of the intermediate towns and provides the equivalent of corridor service for those communities (albeit with only one train a day in each direction and at some stations at very inconvenient hours). While few passengers ride the Empire Builder all the way from Chicago to Seattle or Portland or vice versus, I have frequently found the train filled to capacity with people traveling between intermediate points. Taking away the Empire Builder for those intermediate communities would be the equivalent of taking away the New York City subway system for New York City. What is needed is much more intercity train service, especially in the regions between the east and west coasts.
There is no dilemma.
We need more short and medium distance trains.
We also need long distance trains linking these areas together.
Amtrak’s accounting is very misleading; the long distance trains have a fantastic farebox recovery on operating costs (95% prior to the CEO Anderson, who has done everything possible to downgrade service and thus discourage travelers from riding)–no other public transportation comes close, and definitely not the northeast corridor.
Yes, new equipment is needed. And yes, it will cost money. But train cars last decades, so the investment will pay dividends for a long long time.
For some reason, CEO Anderson is not pursuing a growth strategy, as previous Amtrak directors have.
Short distance corridors (maybe 100-200 miles) should have trains several times daily, to hourly.
Medium distance corridors (maybe 600 miles) should have trains at least a couple of times.
Long distance routes should be served at least twice daily.
The more trains (and passengers) that share facilities, the cheaper the fixed costs. I’m thinking about a station–building and staff costs. Those costs become minimal when a given station serves both short and long distance trains many times per day. Eliminating the long distance train actually increases the relative costs to operate that same station.
We need new Amtrak leadership that actually is interested in growth, not cuts.
One more thought on long distance trains–it is often very difficult to get tickets (and even harder to get a sleeping car room). In my personal experience, medium and long distance trains are usually completely sold out for large segments of their route. If the trains are full–particularly profitable sleeping car rooms–the answer is to run more and longer trains, not to cut them.
Absolutely right!
Additionally, like the highway system, government should own and maintain the road, recouping some of the cost via usage fees.
Full agreement….they, the deciders have skimped on maintenance and up grades for decades and wonder
Why is everything worn,old, ..etc
.we need a network of faster modern trains with excellent service and value..
. The privatize ttain or shrink them pro car air travel ate shills for oil and the god of america, the persoal auto…which we all must own because there is no alternative….how about all the hidden costs of not having good trains…car comgestion,accidents,deaths,pollution and on…..what in the end are the real costs on society for the destruction of a once world class passenger railroad system.
…by the by in many states Republicans crushed the inter city projects and the tunnel to NY to hurt Obamas recovery numbers in the dark days of 2010
I’m curious why the new service has to replace the old? If you can make money on the new service why not initiate it? Certainly even if you change nothing else the increase in profits would push Amtrak into the black?
I echo some of the others who have said how much they would miss this service. I have gone from southern Iowa to Salt Lake City, and back, many times on the California Zephyr. Yes, it takes a little over a day; but there is so much less boarding hassle than with an airplane. Also, some scenic parts of Colorado, ie. the tunnels, cannot be duplicated; even with a car. So exciting!!
This makes me want to cry. Other civilized countries offer excellent train service and they subsidize it. I for one, hate to fly and only do it if absolutely necessary. I get searched and shoved into uncomfortable seats with my knees jammed against the seat in front of me. I hate it. My son has ear problems that prohibit him from flying. His main mode of travel is the train. And of course, there are many parts of the country that are only serviced by the train. So sad that this is happening.
Anderson and his airline thinking have got to go. He’s bringing down the railroad by, among other things, discontinuing dining cars.
I agree! When I heard last year that an airline ex-CEO was taking over, I cringed! I love AMTRAK, and have been a loyal customer since 1974. I have lost count of how many times I have traveled coast to coast by train, as well as how many times I have traveled from Northern to Southern CA. I love the trains! In the past I also loved flying, but I hate having to fly now; being pushed and shoved through security, wedged into seats with no leg room (and I am not a large person – average height and weight), makes flying a dreaded experience these days. I am claustrophobic, so unless I want to drive cross-country by myself (I don’t), my only — and favorite option is the train. I can’t afford the sleepers, but have figured out how to be quite comfortable on a 3 1/2 day train trip in coach. The scenery is beautiful, I can have personal or social time, read, sleep, listen to music or books, and meet people from all over the world. Train travel reminds us all that it is not all about the destination, and the stress of getting there by a certain time — (so it’s okay when we are occasionally delayed) — it’s about the journey. That is a lesson that many people should be more aware of as we travel through life. Please, do not get rid of the long-haul routes!
Amtrak came into being because of fact long haul services aren’t profitable. However vast parts of Northern border and the Southwest would have zero transportation service without. Unless we want to increase finding for essential air service subsidies, airfare will never be viable.
Not republican or democrat. No respect for anyone in congress. Why is everything always political? Amtrak wants to focus on shorter connections vs. cross-country. Isn’t that their decision on how to structure their business? Has nothing to do with republican or democrat voters. Maybe it does, and if that’s the case we are all hopeless.
Compaired to the rest of the world, guess we are 50 years behind on our passenger trains look at Japan Bullet trains super fast and safe, France, Spain, Germany, Even China all have high speed rail service trains run between 150 to 250 mph carries millions of passengers every year, yes we are still in the stone age
@Todd Pierce, it isn’t up to Amtrak’s inept and airline management to decide how this country is served by passenger train service. It’s up to Americans, the ones that ride the trains.
Amtrak CEO Anderson, who use to head Delta, literally has no idea how to run a railroad. He’s said disparaging things about his company’s product — the long-distance trains, the ones that, by geography, serve the majority of Americans and are Amtrak’s “brand.” He’s verbally attacked them, calling them “money losers.” What kind of CEO attacks his own company’s products?
This horrible CEO sounds like his speeches are written by the Heritage Foundation and other so-called “think tanks” which constantly attack tiny Amtrak and never offer ideas for improving passenger rail service.
The fly-boy writer of this article, who flies thousands of miles a year (via taxpayer-funded airports and air traffic control systems), hypocritically looks condescendingly down on the common American people who actually like to ride trains,.
“Anderson wants Amtrak to run more frequent service on popular short- and mid-haul routes like between Atlanta and Charlotte or Cleveland and Cincinnati.”
I would be surprised if Cleveland to Cincinnati is actually a popular route, since there is no train that runs between the two and you would need to change trains in either Chicago or Washington DC.
I have traveled Amtrak long-haul regularly for the last 18 years or so. I always go sleeper. I observe that sleepers sell out more and more often, and it have to reserve farther in advance as time goes by. That would indicate that at least sleeper ridership is on the increase. I haven’t checked out about coach.
I keep wondering why more sleeper cars aren’t added. Trains often have only one or two sleepers. That means perhaps 5o seats per car. It also makes sense that the daily train norm might be increased.
I have not flown since 2000. I don’t intend to every fly again unless it is unavoidable. And yes, long distance driving is tiring and inefficient.
So, we have to subsidize Amtrak? Tell me that all other forms of travel aren’t subsidized, all taken into account. I doubt people realize just how many billions a year governments at all levels pump into air travel.
The bus company would not fill the void here because it is not profitable to provide public transportation to those spots.
People that want to cut Amtrak because it is unprofitable should also cut the New York City subway system. Whats the problem? you can ride the bus? you can take a cab?
Amtrak does not need to be cut, it needs to be radically expanded because of it’s potential as a green source of transportation.
Many people in Europe, China and New York City have seen the economic benefit their is to sustain an unprofitable mode of transportation to help tourists and commuters.
If you live in a town or part of town and a train serves your community daily at a predictable rate you are extremely more likely to get yourself out of poverty.
We can’t focus on what is the most profitable when you don’t take any return on investment from: more tourism, added economic benefit from people having jobs, less pollution leads to less healthcare costs, trains are safer than cars but not air travel so they are getting people in less car accidents if they are not driving to work.
If you want to talk about how profitable a bus is, take away that interstate highway welfare and see how profitable it is. Amtrak needs to be expanded the same way the interstate highway was and it will never be profitable and it never should be. It needs to provide the things in the above paragraph for the sake of those things as an investment.
Invest in the future with less pollution and less car accidents.
Matthew – One key point left out of your article is that no other passenger transportation mode makes a profit without massive subsidies, so why is rail expected to turn a profit with a subsidy which amounts to a tiny drop in the bucket in comparison to highways, airlines, waterways, etc.? No other developed country in the world neglects rail like the USA. We’ve been playing the same cut/slash/burn since Amtrak was created in 1971. When will we have a national passenger railroad system that serves the public instead of a severely dysfunctional skeleton?
This article is incredibly troubling. American rail will never be profitable as a private business. Ever. The whole point of it being a public entity is to provide a somewhat affordable mode of transportation that would never survive in the private sector.
It needs to start selling hop on, hop off tickets for specific lines. They have an 8 segment USA rail pass, but that goes across multiple lines. I am talking about a hop on hop off restricted to a single line of your choice over the course of one or two weeks. Different product. They don’t offer it. And since the journey is the destination in long routes, they need to figure out a way to entice high spenders with an exclusive set of offerings that isn’t competing with air travel but are their own experience entirely.
You used as an example Atlanta as sort of a hub for short haul trains. In addition to upgrading the rolling stock aging stations like Atlanta would have to be apgraded. That station for a modern city is deplorable.
What’s wrong with subsidizing transportation service? How much profit does the Interstate Highway System make? How much does the street in front of your house make? Welcome to a transportation system, it’s not about making money it’s about supporting the much larger economy. Expecting Amtrak to be profitable is a joke, and its time Congress get past that BS, but do ask and help them to be more efficient and useful.
And yes we can make Amtrak better with more short and medium haul service in addition to the existing long-distance trains. I’m just not going to hold my breath that the freight rail companies that own most of the track in this country are going to welcome new and more frequent passenger service on their tracks without huge payments for access and capital improvements. That has been the very reason these short distance trains haven’t happened yet.
Let’s begin with historical references. Passenger rail in the U.S. has not been viewed by policy makers as being truly needed or desired beginning with the first federal highway act nearly a century ago. “Public Policy” determined that personal transportation should be elevated to the preferred mode of travel, with air travel filling the ranks of second place. Beyond the public’s affinity for the automobile, there was and still is a great deal of money to be made in embracing the proliferation of highway construction as well as paved parking. The privately owned railroads could not begin to compete with all the interested parties having huge financial stakes in the rapid growth of the highway industry. Some of these interests include state highway transportation officials, construction aggregate suppliers, highway construction contractors, heavy equipment manufacturers, automobile and heavy truck manufacturers, the trucking industry, oil companies, and rubber companies to name just a few.
One can compile a similar list regarding vested interests supporting aviation. Historically, to cite but one example, in which local governments supported aviation to the detriment of rail passenger service follows: Substantial taxes were levied by local taxing authorities on railroads. Some of which were used to support local airport authority’s operating and construction budgets. These same taxes were used in come cases to provide direct cash subsidies to airlines operating to these same airports. Railroads were, in effect, supporting competing aviation interests. { New York Central Railroad Co. vs. Mohawk Airlines — Locations affected — Syracuse, Rochester, & Buffalo New York }
A modest amount of research will yield many more examples. Feel free to add to the list.
All of you capitalists out there, please make note of the following: Only about 15 per cent of the rail network in the U.S. was constructed with assistance from government in the form of land grants. Eighty-five per cent of the rail mileage was constructed with private capital with much financing originating with European banks interests. Actually the government investment was repaid handsomely thru discounted rates granted for government freight and passenger business including military armament and troop movements through two world wars as well as the Korean conflict.
Transportation is truly the lifeblood of rural America. As trains and busses stopped calling at communities casually referred to as ” flyover country “, we have witnessed the slow decay of an America we once knew as vital to defining us a nation. Now those denizens are but second class citizens to be castoff.
I am interested in hearing from anyone regarding there opinion on this post, whether it be agree, disagree, or ambivalent. Thank you.
One thing ‘Matthew’ and all promoters of flying in exclusion to all other manner of transportation fail to realize when they count pennies over taxes and government expenditures for rail, is the FAA. The government basically provides the ‘infrastructure’ of all air travel of any kind, including the military, by staffing air traffic controllers, paying 90% of any improvements or construction of airport facilities, buying, installing and maintaining the radar, computers, navigation aid and communications systems that establish the airways for planes to follow, and collect a pittance of a tax of each ticket sale. Controllers and support personnel except in a few situations and towers, are all government employees, some of the highest paid of all, and while you may not have gotten a Social Security increase during the Obama administration of just a pittance of an increase, that particular department of the government received buckets of money in salary and raises. The railroads on the other hand, pay for every mile of track out of their income, they purchase, install and maintain their own traffic control systems, they buy or rent locomotives and maintain them in house, and all their employees are paid from company coffers. AMTRAK rides on private rails, and just lately are being asked to pay for some of that wear and tear. Have the US government give the railroads an equivalent amount of money they give to the airline industry via the FAA and it’s services, and see what kind of rail system we have. To all who want to compare the wonderful rail systems of Europe to the US, remember, the whole of Great Britain is the size of North Carolina, and Germany is half the size of Texas. The rail system that existed in the 1920’s here in this country was described and proudly so, as being able to leave your home in California and travel to any major city anywhere in the US to your destination, and not have to walk more than 2 blocks, due to the interconnectivity of trolleys, interurbans, and transcontinental rail travel.
Its plain and, simple not all America people can drive. Therefore, American people rely on public transportation. Moreover,
Amtrak makes its affordable were as flying very costly. Less remember college students along with those who are elderly and unable to drive count on Amtrak. In addition, the author of the blog need to consider these people before spouting off. Kimberly
Greyhound serves 3800 destinations. Many with more than once a day.
Amtrak only 500 destinations.
I travel all over this great country several times a year .
I have found Greyhound buses to be comfortable reliable and in most cases on time.
Most of the places I choose to go have no Amtrak service nor airline service.
I agree Amtrak trains are extremely comfortable but twice this year no dining car was available.
The heated food in a microwave was sickening.
I love traveling by train but some of the costs of a bedroom are outrageous.
I will never fly again except for an emergency situation.
I’m 83 years of age and have seen this beautiful country close up and personal
In all the years I have chosen Greyhound I have never experienced a road failure nor a delay because of a flat tire.
I agree Amtrak is great but do you think they will ever service 3800 destinations?
What I find antiquated is the desire by people for the government to make a profit. Amtrak is a service like the Post office that serves a population beyond your blinkered elitist ideals about travel. If you want to privatize rail look at the UK to see where things would inevitably go, high prices for quite frankly a shit product. Ever ride Virgin rail? Your ideas are retrograde though I’m not surprised coming from a center right blog such as this.
Amtrak is great, the Acela between Boston and NYC was sold out both ways when I took it recently. But the tech corporations can’t make any money off it, so they want Amtrak gone so you have to go through some kind of surveillance system like uber.