quote: The money-losing service, which relies heavily on government funding, says it is riding higher, illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of additional riders flocking to expanded routes in Illinois and California. Amtrak is chugging toward its fifth-straight record year for ridership nationwide, helped by high gasoline prices and congested highways and airports that seem to have encouraged people to keep their vehicles parked.
But Amtrak's headaches remain, and the biggest is funding. The service has never been out of the red since its launch in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.
It’s a good article. Nothing really mind-blowing or new but it is always good to get a positive message about Amtrak even if it surmises that they could do better.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
No, it is NOT really a good article when they have to throw in the standard "money losing . . . government funding" paragraph. We don't see that when it comes to air service, which would never have existed at all without a tremendous amount of government money. This seems to be one of many more or less standard paragraphs that all journalist seem to use.
Posted by DesertSpirit (Member # 3848) on :
Well your entitled to your opinion. I believe it's a good article.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Concurring with Mr. Harris, I do not think it is inimical to passenger train interests to refer to Amtrak as money losing. Nowhere does it say Amtrak is some kind of bloated pork barrel bureaucracy (and I really don't think it's the most bloated one in town FWIW), but it clearly notes that Corridor patronage AWAY FROM THE NORTHEAST is rising, and what somehow I think is of greater importance to many here is that the only negative said about the LD's is confined to the perennial whipping boy - The Sunset.
Quite simply, there is no way that a tri-weekly train serving the fastest growing region in the USA yet passes through only two intermediate traffic sources - El Paso and Palm Springs at people hours - and further does an "end run' around Phoenix - the Big Kahuna out there - can be considered meaningful transportation. "What's needed' (a 'good five cent cigar" moment) would be 'two a (Daily) day" and restoration of service directly to Phoenix in order to have anything meaningful - any further plans for Corridor service (less than "five a day"? FAGGEDIT) between the major city pairs en route would require greatly expanded track capacity and possibly even a separate ROW - and that is simply not in the cards at this time.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Of course, the AP author left no way for anyone to correct his perception about passenger rail.
If he happens to google this thread, roadways are federally subsidized to the tune of about $34 billion each year, air is federally subsidized at $13 billion per year, waterways and canals are federally subsidized with $6 billion a year, and Passenger rail gets a little over $1 billion.
So which system loses the most money?
Posted by Kiernan (Member # 3828) on :
Mr. Norman, I like the two each day idea. Someone told me once that when ridership on a city bus system starts to decline, the trick is to increase service. This makes the system more convenient and brings back riders. It seems to to me that the same thing might work for Amtrak. The Southwest Chief is quite convenient here in Santa Fe, but not so in other places. And I've always thought that the Sunset Limited needed to run more than three times each week. I think that two trains each day on the long distance routes would help a lot and that ridership would go way up.
If you're going to run long distance routes, you have to do it right.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I do wonder when Congress will correlate a rise in ridership with a demand for more Amtrak, or a demand for more intercity passenger rail per se.
Posted by gp35 (Member # 3971) on :
Texas Eagle tri-weekly was as bad as the Sunset. Texas Eagle now daily is doing very well. I think Amtrak understands this but is paralyzed by the lack of equiment needed for a daily Sunset. Lets just wish the Sunset survives to one day see a daily service.
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Another problem with the Sunset Ltd is that it stops in Tucson in the middle of the night. I wonder if they ran it daily and left much earlier if that would help? Also, is there a way they could get into Phoenix? Wouldn't they do a lot more business serving that city better?
I think the Cardinal would do better if it were daily and if they could somehow change the schedule so the scenic trip is in both directions and things were not in middle of night in Cincinnati and Indianapolis. Also, if they resumed baggage check and had real sleeper service. I don't understand why they bother to start/end this train in NYC; if it ran only to DC they could use Superliners, couldn't they? And then those superliners could share equipment with Capitol Ltd at times, couldn't they? Also, they need to fix up the Indianapolis station; when I was there in the middle of the night I was a little nervous. This should be done by the city of Indianapolis or the local businesses around it, IMO--it's really pathetic that a city with so much civic pride in its downtown, which has basically fixed up and reused the old train station, with a fancy hotel right around the back, can let the station area get so sleazy it looks like a crime scene.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Expanding service (particularly the Sunset)would depend on the availability of equipment (which there is none). Equipment costs money. When was the last time Amtrak purchased new rolling stock (With the exception of some of the corridor services)?
This is, I'm sure, an oversimplified observation, but this is what the situation appears to be: Amtrak has just enough support to keep it alive, but so little support it remains a system in poor repair. Killing it (especially in an election year) would be political suicide. However how many officials/candidates are going to make Amtrak part of their agenda during an election year?
Voters are fickle and ungreatful.Give them a public service and they complain about their tax dollars...take something away and they protest and threaten via ballot.