Amtrak Barred From Regulating Freight Railroads on Delays

If the underlying law is not changed -- and I don't see it being changed anytime soon -- this could expedite Amtrak's exit from long-distance routes that no longer make any sense to have.  I don't think that is a bad thing necessarily as it will focus Amtrak on routes where there is some rationality to rail service instead of serving the political whim.

It's my impression that very few routes are profitable. And I doubt that even the profitable ones would exist without "political whim"

Does the US want or need to have a passenger rail system, or do we not?

Here are a couple of quotes from a recent article:

quote:

The government-subsidized railway carried a record 31.2 million people last year, a 55 percent increase since 1997, according to a study by the Brookings Institution.

quote:

Amtrak turns a profit on only four of its more than 40 routes, the study showed, all of them in the Northeast corridor, a shortcoming that raised the hackles of some Republicans in the last Congress.

The source: http://azstarnet.com/business/...7f-cd42d2f7bcee.html

As has been said many times, these clowns apparently are oblivious to the fact that there's not a passenger rail service ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that turns a profit. It's a public service. Freeways don't "turn a profit," either.

If its run by the government there is no need to turn a profit.

Passenger rail travel will only be profitable when, and if, it will return to the private sector.

Why do you think passenger rail travel was turned over to the government in the first place?

Rusty

The problem is funding as usual and behind the all the expert opinions in the debate over the need for long distance trains, I doubt there would be a debate if they were ( historically) funded outside of the political process. I recent testimony, the Highway Trust fund was announced to go broke two years from now. A professor suggested user driver fees for highways in testimony. Of course, then there are the state of bridges etc. None of this is political, it's the way things are. There is not enough money to maintain what we have and if we ever get away from finger pointing as a issue solving process, someone will recognize that all of public transportation is dependent on federal subsidies. To me the issue is there is not and never was any balanced transportation planning done. Now it's a game of crisis management. It was all political games of "whats in it for me" instead of common sense. What would an airline ticket, the cost of highway tax, an Amtrak ticket cost without the propping up of sunk costs? I think everything would come to a screeching halt. Nothing could be affordable enough for folks to use. Even the airlines with their subsidies have to resort to user fees. We seem to want all this and not pay for it, and so there is this fantasy about the private carriers doing, in effect, charity work.. Then what about private airlines issues and having to prop up their own balance sheets by increasing user costs? 

Because of too much Government legislation and a diversion of funding was going to roads and air travel.

So... Privately run passenger service would then be profitable with government funding?

Rusty

Last time I took Amtrax I went from LA Union Station to Florida on the Sunset limited, it was 12 hours late, I did not mind got a private room half way through for a forty dollor tip. worth it and then some. I looked at it this way I got to ride the train free for 12 hours, I was in no hurry. 

Depends on your political philosophy.  Mine is - yes, let's have a subsidized and useful passenger rail system.

Others want government shrunk, then drowned in a bathtub.  It is a democracy - vote the philosophy you agree with.

I have lifetime travel benefits - retired pilot.  I loved flying the big jets, but absolutely hate riding in them, even for free.  I want to go to the station, buy a ticket on a train, and go somewhere.  As above, that is not possible in the US.  Easy in Europe.

opinion.

John, you're a more than-half-full-glass kind of guy!   I like your style!

Just got my tickets to Salt Lake City. The only way I travel. I like the getting there as much as the being there. looking forward to my four hour layover in Chicago, nice walk to Navy Pier then a great lunch on the way back at one of the many good restaurants. Heck I even staying an extra day in Chicago on the way home.

Enjoy the journey

Clem K

The last two long distance trips I took on Amtrak were very enjoyable.

1. Philly to Miami and back. 1 1/2 hours late getting into Miami. Had to wait on a fuel oil truck in Jacksonville caused the delay. 15 minutes late arriving in Philly on the return trip.

2. Philly to Indianapolis via DC, Arrived about 1/2 hour early coming into Indianapolis.

Took Amtrak for the first time in a very long time this past April to spend the day in Baltimore and see and Orioles game.  It was the best ride I've had going to Baltimore on my own: relaxing, a great way to see some things you can't see from a highway, got to talk with the Conductor for a while about baseball and overall if I get to take the train to Baltimore or anywhere else again, I'll do it in a heartbeat.

Don't know, nobody has tried it here in the states. Sounds like its time.

I know along the Eastern Corridor I could make some good coin.

Back to original topic, wasn't there a quote once about a pig being able to go cross country, but we can't?

It's just a shame that passenger rail travel gets such a bad treatment in the US.  It seems to have much greater priority in other countries, even to the point of it being the only way people want to or can travel.

Exactly, Rusty. And passenger rail won't be returning to the private sector because the private sector CAN'T DO IT at a profit. That's been known for half a century.

All this foolish talk about turning profits. Don't these people realize that every time they get in their cars and go somewhere, it doesn't "turn a profit?" Taxpayers pay for much of it.

yep the only profit is at the pump.

However in high populated areas a profit could be made under federal subsidized stations, track, and cars.

This is exactly what the Federal Government has subsidized Air lines, and the Automotive industries in the past.

Secondly, allot of needless government regulations in the  50's, 60's and 70's, choked railroads from making any profits in the passenger industry. 

Don't forget.  The decline of passenger rail service happened with the rise of air and auto travel.  Railroad travel wasn't "sexy" anymore.  With decreased ridership, the railroads couldn't wait to dump passenger service.  Also as railroads began losing mail contracts to the airlines and trucking, the shrinking profitable passenger trains also began to dissappear. 

Air travel was nothing like the cattle call it is today.  There was a certain amount of glamor to it.  Auto travel was possible because of the interstate highway system being completed, low gas prices, cars that were land yachts and the freedom to travel on one's own schedule.

Rusty

There is definitely a role for rail passenger service, particularly for commuter routes in large cities, and intercity transportation in crowded "megalopolis" areas such as the east coast.  Even longer distance passenger rail service has a niche role to play.  The issue I have always had with Amtrak is that while we (the taxpayers) certainly subsidize other forms of transportation, we don't actually try to own and operate the cars, buses, and airplanes.  That makes no sense and it is one of the reasons why Amtrak has had such issues over the years.  It's not a criticism of passenger rail service in general, but a criticism of how we do it.  Provide a rail infrastructure where the democratic process thinks it should go, just like we do with roads and air (my vote would be for support as I've outlined above) and then allow private companies to operate the trains on that network.  There's no need for the government to run the trains.  The only reason we got Amtrak because the thought was in the 1970s that we didn't want a sudden collapse of passenger rail service in the wake of the PC bankruptcy.  Amtrak was suppossed to be a bridge, not a permanent rail transportation solution. 

For the time period studied (1995-2003), most European countries spent significantly higher levels of public funding on Passenger Train Operations than the U.S.

Charlie,

Your point makes perfect sense.  Distance-wise, Europe is much more like the US east coast "megalopolis" whereas the distances involved traveling cross the U.S. are very large, as you know.  So in the NE corridor, passenger train service is, in my opinion, beneficial and useful and when I have to go to NYC from DC, I prefer the train.  My guess is that our use of rail in this area is pretty close to what the Europeans do.  However, when we have to travel longer distances, such as vacations to the west coast, we fly because the time involved taking the train makes it impractical.  Moreover there are frequently delays.  I don't think we're unusual in this regard.

One can only hope that when the bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund occurs, or prior to 2015, national transportation policies will be reexamined, but based on past history, one gets the sense that a band-aid will be applied.

The surge in urban light rail bodes well but long distance trains especially those that run trough sparsely populated areas West of the Mississippi seem less than convenient for practical travel outside of land cruises, especially when they arrive and depart intermediate stations in the wee hours. More staggered runs might be a solution as in the days of yore, but that's not likely. Amtrak has always been ( like Conrail) a bridge solution that has never been resolved. Although more convenient, frequent runs see gains in ridership, they will never be self sustaining and affordable. Some routes like Chicago-Atlanta-Orlando seem like naturals..but..no funding.

I lived in Frankfurt (am Main) in Germany for 2 years.   I made some trips by train and also many by car. 

One point the distances are much much shorter.   I could be in Paris or Vienna in about 8 hours by car or train.   I could be Brussels or Geneva Switzeland in about 6 h ours as I remember.    the wall was still still up, but I guess Berlin was about 5 or 6 hours.    So the distances between major centers was small and the population density was high.

Point 2, the train was only convenient when you wanted to go to Center City.   To Vienna and Paris, my wife and i wanted to see the city and we didn't want the hassle of taking care of a car or driving in a big city.   On the other hand, for most of our touring, we preferred small towns and scenic areas in the mountains or on the coast.   These were generally not accessible by train.   And we preferred to free form our travel without reservations, just finding a small inn that looked nice when we were ready to stop.  It always worked.   Only once did we run into no vacancy.  On the train that was not possible.   We had to carry our bags and train stations like in the US are not in particularly nice neighborhoods most times.   So we had to try to pick hotels from a distance and make reservations.    And then we were sorta locked in.  

In the states, for example when I got to train shows.   My favorite is teh March Meet in Chicago.  My wife has suggested I take the train.   However, I explained that the train goes to Downtown Chicago.   the show is in a town called Lombard at least 20 miles away.   I would have to schlept my suitcase, and one or two boxes of things that I am taking to sell onto the train and from the train to something else to get to Lombard.  If I took a commuter, the nearest line I found is a few miles from the site.   And then I woiuld have to use the very expensive show hotel rather than the nearby Red Roof.   And I would have to travel on the RR schedule and limited to restaurants in the hotel, or within walking distance.    To me it is way too much hassle to try to do that.   And It would be a lot more expensive and a lot more contraining.