Comments on: Amtrak loses $32 per passenger, rural airports lose even more

By: credit

credit — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:46:00 +0000

If the high speed trains ever get built, this may eventually lower the Amtrak losses. The way things are now, in most cases it does not make sense to take a train, it takes a long time and is usually not much cheaper than air travel, if at all.

By: Carrie Charney

Carrie Charney — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:10:33 +0000

In the Northeast, I find trains way more reliable than the planes. Here in the tristate area, air traffic control slows everything down as soon as the weather acts up. The smaller express jets between NYC and DC or Boston get held on the tarmack while the larger planes have priority to take off and land. With no need to be at the station a couple of hours in advance due to security lines and with fewer delays, train travel can take far less time. The comfort and ability to move about on the train doesn’t hurt either.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:11:58 +0000

If Amtrak is losing $32 per passenger, why can’t they increase their ticket prices? I do realize that might lower passenger counts, but they need to think how to increase their profitability–I mean, lower their losses.

Bill – my guess on why Europe rail traffic is better is that most of the countries heavily subsidize the trains. Also, Europe is 2.304 Million square miles and 592 million people and the continental US is just over 3.14 million square miles with about 304 million people (I am excluding Alaska and Hawaii as well as their respective populations). This means that we have more area to cover with trains and less people to pay the taxes and buy the tickets. From the economies of scale, it will be hard to make trains worthwhile or monetarily responsible here in the US–at least for the long trips.

By: Hapgood

Hapgood — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:22:23 +0000

It’s not surprising that Amtrak’s long-distance routes hemorrhage money. But it is surprising that they carry as many passengers as they do, even though it’s not many. I’d imagine that those trains might be appealing to retirees who fondly recall the “romance of train travel,” and who have no pressing need to arrive at their destination at a particular time. Those routes might also appeal to foreign visitors who choose to spend their vacation entitlement exploring the United States. But other than retirees, how many Americans have enough vacation time to travel from New Orleans to Los Angeles (and back) on the Sunset Limited instead of wedging themselves into a middle seat and getting there in a few hours on an airplane? Business travelers certainly won’t choose the train either.

In a large country where people have so little vacation time, what place is there for long-distance trains? With airlines and the TSA making air travel such an ordeal, you’d think that people would flock to the available alternatives. But trains are so time-consuming, inconvenient, and unreliable that they’re really not practical for most people considering a long-distance trip. That’s the conclusion I reluctantly reached when I did my own research. If you need to get to New Orleans from Los Angeles and have the time to “just say no” to flying, driving is probably a better option. You can choose where to stop, you can stay in a comfortable motel instead of a questionably-maintained (and expensive) sleeper compartment, and you’ll have a car when you get there (instead of the limited rental options available at Amtrak stations). So what really is the point of services like the Sunset Limited or the infamous “Coast Star-Late”?

If we’re going to insist that Amtrak turn a profit, the only recourse is to shut down all but the most profitable lines. Amtrak makes sense (and profit) in the Northeast, where the population density makes it a viable alternative to airlines. But outside of relatively short runs in densely populated areas, there’s no way train service can be profitable as it currently exists. It’s too slow for covering long distances in a fast-paced world.

Which of course raises the obvious question: Why do we insist that Amtrak make a profit at all? How many of the rail systems around the world are actually profitable?

By: OTC

OTC — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:04:43 +0000

I am saying we shouldn’t be spending $4500 per passenger to fly people out of Ely, NV and in many cases we shouldn’t be subsidizing rail travel that isn’t self-supporting.

Think about it, $4500 is a first-class ticket from JFK to Europe, and that’s what we’re paying to fly some one from Ely to Salt Lake City or Denver, it’s absurd and pure pork barrel politics. It’s only done so that the elected offcials can say that kept the airport open.

By: arthur

arthur — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:25:14 +0000

OTC, so you’re saying that we should have no roads, bridges, trains, airports???? I guess it’s time to go back to covered wagons…no method of human transport goes without subsidies…none. Passenger trains have been the whipping boy ever since the automobile manufacturer and oil lobby took control in Washington. Trains require much less subsidy than roads any day of the week.

By: BILL

BILL — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:56:05 +0000

HOW CAN EUROPE MAINTAIN AND PROSPER WITH RAIL TRAVEL,AND NOT THE USA.I THINK WE ARE BEING SCREWED
AND AMERCIANS LEFT TOFENDFOR THEM SELVS,CONGRESS BEWARE,THERE IS A COMMING STORM!

By: Karen C.

Karen C. — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:36:37 +0000

How does it work in Europe? Do they subsidize the trains?

By: OTC

OTC — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:59:40 +0000

Ah…nothing like seeing our tax dollars being pissed away.

If the free market cannot support the route, the route should not exist.