I question the notion of its profitability because Amtrak has a $5.8 billion backlog of deferred maintenence on that infrastructure. If it were truly profitable there would be no such backlog. Jeff
For comparison, European countries, which have trains that do work, get between 15% and 20% of their transportation funding.
You get what you pay for.
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 02-09-2002).]
There have been several different ideas expressed lately about what to do with Amtrak. I hope that some kind of restructuring or something can be done to save long-distance trains. I really don't care if Amtrak is gone or not, but I sure hope that some type of long-distance trains are left.
Hopefully with a new arrangement, long-distance trains can again become a quality form of transportation
------------------
Elias Valley Railroad (N-scale)
www.geocities.com/evrr
The NEC is a high density, high frequency, heavily traveled rail corridor between Washington and Boston. It also serves New York City, and a whole lot of other places in between.
This is about the only part of the Amtrak system where Amtrak also owns the infrastructure. Amtrak was forced by Congress to take ownership of the infrastructure in 1976 when Penn Central went bankrupt and Conrail was formed from the ashes. The NEC infrastructure not only serves Amtrak trains but other commuter systems and a good deal of freight traffic, too. Amtrak's Acela trains and Acela Express (formerly known as the Metroliners) are the primary Amtrak routes. Some long distance trains also pass in and out of the NEC.
Supposedly, the NEC is the only part of Amtrak's network that is profitable. I say "supposedly" because nobody has ever really done a thorough independent audit of Amtrak's finances, and Amtrak's bookkeeping practices are confusing at best. I question the notion of its profitability because Amtrak has a $5.8 billion backlog of deferred maintenence on that infrastructure. If it were truly profitable there would be no such backlog.
There are some who believe that Amtrak was starting to turn a profit before it was burdened with the NEC infrastructure. That would not surprise me in the least. If I understand it correctly, the vast majority of Amtrak's subsidies since 1976 have gone into the NEC, not the long distance trains.
Amtrak, as an institution, seems to have a distinct NEC bias. This is probably the result of Amtrak's political dependency on Congress which is located in Washington, which is served by the NEC. Congresspeople ride the NEC all the time. They do not ride long distance trains very often. For many Congressmen, the NEC is about all they know of Amtrak. 
George Warrington's Amtrak career was spent on the NEC operations, which further explains Amtrak's NEC orientation.
The rail corridors in California and the Pacific Northwest, which you and I are most familiar with, are state funded systems. Amtrak does not own any equipment (at least in California), it does not select routes or determine policy. Amtrak was simply hired by the western states to run these state owned trains. Not so with the NEC, which is a regional service funded by the entire country.
In my humble opinion, Amtrak, as the NATIONAL Railroad Passenger Corp, shouldn't be concentrating its efforts on a regional corridor, it should be concentrating on the national system. The NEC should be the responsibility of the Northeastern states, as it is out our way. Amtrak's main responsibility should be the long distance trains, as it was originally set up to do.
The ARC agrees that the NEC is sucking resources (both financial and human) away from the national system and proposes that it be spun off, but still under the same umbrella organization as Amtrak. The ARC also wants to put a layer of bureaucracy between Amtrak and Congress to shield Amtrak from day to day political whims at the Capitol. That, in my mind, would be a good thing.
I hope that helps. If I've gotten any of my facts wrong someone is sure to correct me.
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 02-11-2002).]
------------------
In memory of F40PH #757099-8
March 29, 1976-November 18, 2001
quote:
Originally posted by JeffDavis:
It looks like Amtrak might finally be coming to an end. They had their chance and they blew it. They cant give good serveic so they shouldnt be around anymore. Please don't spend any more of my taxes on them.Jeff
Sounds like a troll to me. Can you give us concrete facts about the service you received? Can you explain, in some cogent fashion, why you believe Amtrak had a chance and "blew it?" Or are you just trying to start a fight while waiting in that long line for your plane to board and taxi and taxi and taxi?
Some good points, Mr Toy ... As usual, food for thought.
The improvements had their effect on ridership, and presently 60% of Amtrak riders originate and/or terminate on the NEC. The West Coast accounts for about 15%, the balance is intercity plus midwest short-haul stuff. At a guess, I'd say long-haul patronage is less than 20% of Amtrak riders.
As for all the other users of the NEC, it should be pointed out that they all pay Amtrak for the privelege -- as much as $8 per car mile. Plus the states and freight railroads have been asked to come up with a share of the $ for capital improvements. Of the $12 billion Amtrak says is needed by 2020, they've said they expect to collect half from the states and other users.
So it's really not quite as if all your hard-eared tax dollars are being sucked up by the NEC. After all, that's where the majority of the riders (and the revenue) are. Currently, it costs $210 round trip on Acela Express between PHL and WAS. What's a San Diego - LAX trip on the Surfliner cost?
We enjoy good service here, but we certainly pay for the privilege -- and so do all the other NEC users.