Even the 30 million passenger trips on Amtrak are hardly a transportation milestone. Planes carry roughly two million passengers a day, or about as many passengers every two weeks as Amtrak carries in a year. For every person who rides Amtrak, more than 100 drive their cars from one city to another. Beyond the Washington-Boston corridor, trains account for 0.5% of all intercity trips, meaning that in most parts of the country Amtrak is an inconsequential and anachronistic mode of intercity travel. Building more lanes on the most congested interstate highways would be a far more efficient way to move Americans than continuing to fund Amtrak at $1.5 billion a year—or spending $20 billion on high-speed rail, as President Obama wants to do.
Do I hear any hip hip horrays for the Journal's editorial board? Surprise; you don't hear 'em from me.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
I'm not a subscriber, so I am not able to read the entire article. But just based upon what is quoted above, and this line near the beginning:
"Here's what Amtrak didn't trumpet: It lost a near-record amount of money in fiscal 2011"
I have to say that if the author's figures are factually correct, then there really isn't any disputing it. As much as I enjoy train travel, in 100% of the cases it has been novelty transportation for me. I take a train trip to take a train trip---not to get from Point A to Point B (I use planes and cars for that). The one exception are the state commuter trains, which are heavily used and take a lot of cars off the road. When executed properly, commuter trains are fantastic. Even for the longer-haul commuter runs such as the San Joqauins (although the route that the SJ's take leaves a lot to be desired, and it dumps you in Bakersfield where you have to take a 2.5 hour bus ride to Los Angeles).
If Amtrak long-distance trains were to go belly-up tomorrow, would it really effect anything? Not really...sure, it would mess up people's travel plans in the short term. But in the long term it really wouldn't matter. There is a teeny-tiny portion of the population that refuses to get on an airplane (either due to fear or medical reasons), so they would be hardest hit and would have to drive. But truly, if Amtrak trains died tomorrow it would not have a big impact on the economy or transportation. One of the issues that I have always had with Amtrak is their management. I see all of these billions of dollars being poured into their bank account over the years, and in the end they produce an "eh" product. Amtrak has always been hit and miss. You get a great crew and then you get a horrible crew. The people who do great are those who want to do well (not because they have to do well). I'm not a railroad manager (nor do I want to be one), but I've seen so many things over the years that makes me smack my forehead and say, "Why are they doing it this way??".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I must wonder to what extent the Editorial Board accepts that the excessive loss per passenger numbers arise from the Long Distance trains - even though they are a "pay as you go" operation with the Class I roads.
Even the most staunch advocate here must accept that first and foremost "Raison d'être" for the LD's is to garner political support for what really counts - and that is the Corridor. Most of Amtrak's $1.3B or thereabouts appropriation goes for Corridor maintenance. Not only is this where most of Amtrak's ridership is generated (with far less loss per passenger, if any) , but it also serves six regional rail agencies - and two Class I's and several Short Lines. While all of these entities do pay their way with user fees, to keep the Corridor in condition to handle the traffic volume it does falls upon Amtrak.
The Board is not about to question the need for NJTransit - a lot of WSJ employees make their home in New Jersey.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Thankfully, the Wall Street Journal doesn't (yet) make national policy. Amtrak did win a small legislative victory recently, despite the bad press from "Murdoch's Minions."
It seems to me thqt all this loses sight of one important fact. To wit: many communities have no other means of transportation. Many people can't fly (or there is no airport near them)or drive. All these people are cut off from travel any where with out rail possibilities.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mike, as I noted over at Railroad Net, the Journal's Opinion/Editorial pages have been "silly symphony', "looney tunes', whatever, long before the Murdoch clan were turning out the Adalede Bee, or whatever Dad's rag back in Australia is known as. That the positions taken at the Journal's Op-Ed pages are inimical to the interests of this Forum's constituency is simply a price to be paid for having our First Amendment active rather than simply some insertion within the Congressional Record.
As a Journal reader of now fifty years standing, the ONLY editorial of theirs I make it my business to read is that titled "In Hoc Anno Domini' and which has been printed every Christmas Eve since 1947. While there are Biblical references within such, it really is non-sectarian. But it expresses the opinion of how in a world where everything changes, nothing changes:
Refernce to Mike's "victory over the evil forces of Sen. McCain", doesn't Bull's Bridge, which I drove over the Housatonic en route to Reunion last June, deserve Federal funds?
Sorry, Ms. Train Lady, there are also analogies to your immediate posting.
Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :
GBN, You may not like the message, but I don't believe the facts are incorrect. The editorial goes on to point out that outside of the northeast corridor, Amtrak only carries 0.5% of intercity travel. Then it goes on to point out that intercity buses (Bolt, Megabus, Coach USA) had a 24% increase in ridership in 2010 and that the fares are considerably lower than Amtrak. The suggestion that the WSJ is making is that we should scrap Amtrak; improve interstate highways; and take the bus. Where I think the WSJ goes off the rails is in implying that Amtrak needs to get rid of "all that overhead" (their term). I hope you would agree with me that railroads, in general, have to operate with some archaic rules that prevent getting rid of "all that overhead". But that's a different issue. Furthermore, it seems to me that giving the traveling public an option between the $20 bus ticket (and all that it implies) and a $150 plane ticket (and airports!) is where Amtrak should position itself.
Posted by Ocala Mike (Member # 4657) on :
Found this on another rail forum. It's the other side of that "scathing" editorial in the WSJ.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)