Return to Article: Amtrak CEO: Rail service will suffer under 2008 budget
-
70546
I say stop giving Amtrak taxpayer money and let them go bankrupt. I recently had lost my ticket and rather then waive the 75 dollar application fee, the customer service rep wouldn't let me speak to a manager and then let me refund about 1200 dollars of unused tickets I had. His comment was "I am glad you are refunding your tickets because this will allow us to sell these seats at a higher rate". This is where your tax money is going, they DON'T care because the government is there to bail them out!
-
27597
The first and only time I looked at riding Amtrak was today. I am not looking forward to a 5 1/2 hour drive from New Jersey to upstate NY. The trip would probably take just as long if I tried to fly, with getting to the airport, going through security, and all that, plus it would cost a ton. So I looked at taking Amtrak.
If the explanation for why a train from Penn Station to Syracuse takes longer than driving (and costs $130 for two people) is that the roads are subsidized and the trains aren't, by all means, subsidize the trains. Speed 'em up, make 'em cheaper, and I'd be happy not to have to sit behind the wheel of a car for 5 1/2 hours.
-
22245
Sorry for the omission..I do agree that regional passenger rail lines are necessary, and have no problem upgrading them. Obviously, a 200 mile trip via train makes good sense, particularily for business people. Many familes, however, prefer the independence and flexibility of a car. This country isn't Europe (thank goodness), and our recreational way of life is not centered about going from one city to another. I've spent quite some time over there, and the scale is much smaller, cities, cars, streets, etc. My only point is that long-haul passenger rail travel is too expensive, serves few people, and is an antiquated way to travel 3,000 or so miles at the public expense. Privitize AmTrak and let's see how they do. Remember the deregulation of the airlines in the late '70's? I do, and many good carriers left the market. Amtrak cannot be subsidized based on romantic and phobia considerations anymore.
-
22244
Christmas Tree--
You present a false dichotomy. There are three, not two types of passenger rail under discussion: commuter rail, cross-country rail, and regional rail. Washington to Richmond, Chicago to Indianapolis and the like are very different from NY to LA. The longest hauls are the province of the [heavily subsidized] airlines. What we are discussing is an alternative means of making these short but longer than commute length trips. Certainly it will entail infrastructure costs--so does maintaining the highways overused for these purposes because air travel is generally not an economically feasible alternative (not to mention the public health costs of all that unnecessary driving).Some of us think this is worth exploring. In any event, trying to obscure the issue by equating a 200 mile trip with a 2,000 mile one is quite definitely going "astray."
-
22224
Unfortunately this article, and subsequent posts has "gone astray", like many other public discussions. Part of the problem is that the original article was not well-written. Basically, you have to divide the issues into two categories: commuter trains (short distances, maximum occupany), and long-haul(cross country)passenger trains. Although communter trains are not glamorous, they are more efficient than autos when going into a major city to work. Funding them helps the environment in many ways, and is a necessary component of our modern infrastructure. The second issue, which I was really addressing dealt with long-haul trains. Aping Japan or France would be very expensive re upgrading of tracks, switches, etc. None of the dreamers in favor of this approach mention that. Again, ridership is minimal compared to air travel, and our monies are better spent looking ahead, not back. Send them to the museums & Christmas Trees!
-
22215
Sorry, I meant to point out that trains, not planes are infested with stupid, egotistical fools with cell phones and no consideration.
-
22183
Oops, forgot another point! At least for the present, planes are infested with yapping, egotistical cell phoners.
-
22181
Buses? No, the working poor can't afford buses, either. Last time I checked, bus fare and train fare were about the same, and a train ride is a lot more comfortable than a bus ride. And buses don't go to nearly as many places as they used to, either. Buses cost as much as a train, and only get used because they do still go more places than the few remaining trains do, and possibly on a higher frequency schedule. I've taken commuter buses and commuter trains over the same route, and the trains were more comfortable _and faster_. I've taken inter-city buses, too, for charters and I'll still take a train instead, if I have the choice - faster, more comfortable, and I get a dining car in the bargain!
Pretty much the only advantage an airplane has over a train is the speed for long-distance travel. For shorter, i.e. inter-city instead of inter-state, trips a train may be competitive speed-wise (depends on whether it's a local stopping at every town, or a high-speed express mainly serving endpoints), and is definitely competitive ticket-dollar-wise (traveler's dollars) and more than competitive efficiency-wise (everybody's tax dollars). An 800-passenger plane may well be more efficient than a train, because of shorter travel time over a long distance. You will not, however, see those 800-passenger planes anywhere except on very high-density, very-long-distance routes - 99% of air routes will continue to be served by the same small planes currently used, the same ones that have been replacing larger, higher-capacity, planes over the last several years.
Of course it's the plane's fault for boarding and deboarding waits - that's the way that mode of transportation is designed. The boarding wait could be shortened by half if the false "security" nonsense were eliminated, but that's a whole 'nother rant. Intermittent train delays are due to other things - the same things that occasionally add extra time to air trips, too (weather, breakdowns, congestion due to redirection of other flights/trains, etc.). The _recurring_ train delays are due to the short-sighted under-funding of rail infrastructure - failing to put as much money/effort into track structure as into highway structure. Fixing that will offset some of the money currently being poured into highway [re]construction.
-
22179
Dear "Christmas Trees":
We're not talking about cross-country trains. If I'm going NY to LA, I fly too, just like I'd take the interstate over the surface road. The distance-based comparison to France, Japan, etc. in the U.S. is regional rail: NY to DC, Atlanta to Charlotte, etc., not cross-country (or commuter) rail.
Now as for cross-country/long-haul freight on rails vs. on roads, that's another discussion.
And as for "subsidies" we subsidize air and road travel pretty heavily. Highways, airports, NTSB, NHTSA, FAA, DOT and state equivalents are all, in whole or part, financial support structure for air and road travel in that they assume costs the inustry would otherwise have to bear. Do you suggest we eliminate those functions? At least it would create an even playing field.
-
22171
Another side to this issue is the energy costs of airplanes vs. trains transporting passengers long distances. While railroads make good sense in bringing commuters into and out of cities to work, I'll bet that a 747 going from New York to LA uses far less fuel than a diesel-powered train. Now Airbus has unveiled a monster plane that can carry up to 800 passengers. Wanna bet that it's still more fuel efficient than a train? As for the comment about waiting around to board a plane, that's not the plane's fault. As an ex-commuter who spend several miserable years commuting into New York City, I probably logged hundreds of hours in Penn Station due to track problems, weather delays, etc. Factor that in and I still say that long distance passenger trains belong in museums, or under Chrismas Trees.
-
22151
Buses, that's how the working poor travel around the country on our expensive roads, which also carry a lot of trucks. Face it, railroads are anachronisms today, and, except for freight, belong under the Christmas tree, not being subsidized with our tax dollars.
-
22149
High-speed trains are faster than airplanes when you factor in the time required at the airport waiting to get on a plane (two hours) and the time sitting on the ground waiting to take off or waiting for an arrival gate. Is air travel for the working poor or middle class? For that matter, is cross-country highway travel between major cities for the working poor? It's done by the middle class; Of course, meaning the largest group of citizens is putting a load on the expensive interstate highway system.
Look at the distance between major cities in this country that would be well-served by high-speed rail service (Chicago to St. Louis, St. Louis to Kansas City, Kansas City to Denver, Los Angeles to San Francisco, etc.).
-
22138
French, Japanese, look on the map! First, high-speed rail travel is expensive, not for the working poor or middle class. Second, the fastest train around is still slower than a jet plane, and doesn't serve as many cities as airlines do. Third, look at the size of Japan and France compared to our huge country. Millions more for what? Reality check time.
-
22119
Well said Mr. Zellich.
And might I add that if we were willing to make a public/private investment in rail to accomplish what the Japanese, and just recently the French have done in high-speed rail, we certainly wouldn't have to worry that it's just retirees riding the rails. Not that that is remotely true anyway, as anyone who has been in Union Station, Penn Station, South Station, etc. will attest
-
22110
"Taxpayer" apparently has no problem with the massive subsidies for highways, and for airports and air traffic control. It seems to not occur to him/her that the point of subsidizing public rail transportation - both local and long distance - is to take part of the heavy load off the highways and urban streets, and put it where it belongs, on dense-traffic-optimized railways, ultimately saving money all around. "Taxpayer" doesn't mind subsidizing freight traffic, apparently, but doesn't understand that the same argument applies to passenger traffic. Of course, he/she also doesn't understand that you can't "force the freight onto trains and stop the subsidy of trains" because 1) the trains don't go everywhere the trucks do (partly a result of people like "taxpayer" not supporting railroads in the past); and 2) forcing the freight onto trains would be a subsidy. Who does "taxpayer" think is going to make up the difference where shippers currently find highway shipping either cheaper or faster (therefore more economical in at least one way) than rail? The long-distance bulk shipments like grain and coal already move by rail or river; pretty much everything else is too small and has to be delivered to too many individual end-points to ship on rail or river. A lot of small shipments travel by block container trains, but still have to be broken up at the few major container yards and delivered to all points of the compass by truck.
There are a lot of things wrong with the way Amtrak is set up, but getting taxdollar subsidies is not one of them. Amtrak needs to be expanded, not reduced or eliminated.
Another Taxpayer
-
22103
I resent the fact that we taxpayers continue to subsidize the rail riders for no good reason other than to preserve a passenger service that is past its day! The government should stop all subsidies to Amtrak and save us the money that is lost in this operation each year. I think it is possible that we benefit from freight subsidies but they also should be questioned and studied to determine if they are reasonable. Train freight seems to be a good alternative to trucks for long hauls and bulk items (wheat) but we need to stop the long haul trucks and force the freight onto trains and stop the subsidy of trains. This will reduce the use of oil and production of greenhouse gases by trucks and move it to trains were we can work on reducing it even more.
-
22100
Who rides Amtrak? Given the rotten state of our lousy USA airlines, the question is why doesn't everyone ride Amtrak? Apparently some people still like to sit trapped on an overpriced airline airplane on the ramp for up to ten hours or more and then possibly have their luggage lost or stolen, too. It's long past time to revisit re-regulating our horrible airlines with their unspeakably awful so-called "service". They all stink. Unless I can fly on a foreign carrier, I take Amtrak whenever I can.
-
22075
Save Amtrak, why? Who rides the rails these days except geriatrics afraid to fly, and a few sightseers headed for the Grand Canyon. While I don't have the exact numbers regarding ridership, the monies are better spent on airline safety and hazmat control. Millions of people fly around the globe each day, and millions of people are in danger of chemical incidents thanks to our Muslim friends. They are probably gearing up for the next big attack, and it won't be on an Amtrak train. Wake up America, we're still losing!
-
22055
We really need to save the rail services in America. It is an avenue of transportation that may be very critical to move people from one place to another should other levels of transportation become paralyzed. Amtrak is a valuable source to the American economy with a rich history in transportation. Please save our rail services and provide funds to save this form of transportation. It is not an option to abolish or reduce funds.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.