Amtrak no longer living hand to mouth after being funding-starved for decades

https://fortune.com/2024/05/06/amtrak-infrastructure-biden-transportation-railroads-travel-stephen-gardner-federal-goverment/

by bovermyer • 2 years ago

31 17 2 years ago

fortune.com

germinalphrase• 2 years ago

Amtrak will never be successful until they can control their scheduling. During my last (and perhaps final) attempt to take the train from Saint Paul, MN to Madison, WI - the train was six hour late arriving in Saint Paul. I could have driven the same distance and arrived at my destination before I even stepped foot on the train to depart.

StableAlkyne• 2 years ago

A lot of it isn't the fault of Amtrak -- freight companies are legally required to pull off and let Amtrak through, unless the train size exceeds the length of the pull off

As a result, the freight companies just make the typical train longer than any pull off on the route, and they no longer have to yield to passenger rail. The downside is passenger rail becomes fantastically late because they always are the ones to pull off

jimbobthrowawy• 2 years ago

I think longer trains have more to do with operational costs than not wanting to pull onto a siding. That's just a nice bonus for them. Really surprised this wasn't anticipated when they implemented those rules though.

eddy162• 2 years ago

Amtrak just added a new train from Minneapolis to Chicago to fix this exact issue as delays on the Empire Builder tend to be worst in the plains/mountains, so hopefully you can give them another chance: https://www.amtrak.com/borealis-train

rayiner3• 2 years ago

Amtrak owns the tracks from DC to New York (and mostly from New York to Boston too). There’s no freight rail anywhere on that corridor, and Amtrak takes priority over most of the passenger rail on those lines. Service on that route still sucks. My wife and I commuted daily on Amtrak from Baltimore to DC/Wilmington and it was horrible. Barely above a developing country in terms of timeliness and reliability.

xnx2• 2 years ago

Is there a reason the US needs Amtrak at such great cost for the amount of service delivered? Buses seem like a cheaper, faster, and much more flexible option.

eesmith3• 2 years ago

Have you tried traveling long distances by both approaches? I have. By train is so much nicer.

Some years back I took the train from San Diego to Santa Fe. First class from San Diego included a glass of wine. On the sleeper from L.A. to Albuquerque I had both a private bed and dining service. Try that in a bus.

I rode RTP to Philadelphia by Amtrak, and Atlanta to Tallahassee by bus. The train has more legroom, better toilets, no need for seat belts, and I could get up to stretch.

For those who get motion sick, a train is much better than a bus.

Intercity bus terminals are increasingly being replaced by roadside stops, making them significantly harder to use. ("The closure of central locations is fueled by high operating costs, government underfunding and a hedge fund buying up and reselling Greyhound's real estate." - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/greyhound-bus-network-in-c... ).

Train stations are much harder to move, or get sold off by hedge funds.

xnx2• 2 years ago

No doubt that current train service is better than bus, but that is including hundreds(?) of dollars of subsidy per ticket. A bus with that type of subsidy would be a luxury coach.

focusedone• 2 years ago

We traveled on Amtrak for vacation recently, partially as an experiment because neither of us had traveled by train before.

It was a very good experience and we will absolutely use it again. Probably will for our next vacation.

The cars obviously needed some love, and the routes / schedules are limited to the point that it wouldn't really make sense to use for business travel. It was clearly a situation of 'this is a good thing that could be great with some funding'.

Anyway, as a recreational Amtrak user I'm thrilled to see money go their way.

culopatin2• 2 years ago

What makes it a good experience? When I look at Amtrak is more expensive than flying, slower than renting a car and driving for the same money.

TechRemarker• 2 years ago

Ditto. Enjoy traveling and often looking for the best deal, as we care much more about the destination that getting somewhere in luxury. When close enough driving always seems best, after a certain distance flying is cheaper and of course much faster. Every once in a while look at train options to see how the time and cost compare but in my limited lookups, the train was more expensive and often total time longer. The idea of always sounds relaxing.

srhtftw• 2 years ago

Amtrak can be fun but service can be highly variable.

A few years ago my wife and I took an Amtrak from Oakland to Chicago with a brief stop in Colorado to visit a hot spring. We weren't impressed with the menu on the first leg of the trip so we bought take-out meals in town before boarding. Boy were we lucky we did - the train didn't get restocked properly and ran out of food a day early. Many onboard got to enjoy some intermittent fasting...

Now I tell people to by all means enjoy Amtrak but always make contingency plans.

rayiner3• 2 years ago

Amtrak has not been “funding-starved for decades.” https://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=1502. Amtrak is publicly subsidized about the same as the average for Western European rail systems.

“The report estimated operating subsidies over a nine-year period between 1995 and 2003. A report from the European Union, Panorama of European Transport, lists total rail passenger kilometers for 1995, 2000, and 2004. I averaged those and divided them into the average annual subsidies. Converting to miles results in subsidies ranging from 14 cents a passenger mile in the U.K. to 32 cents in Austria. France was 20 cents and the subsidy for nine western European nations as a whole averaged 22 cents. By comparison, Amtrak subsidies, figured the same way, averaged 21 cents per passenger mile.”

Amtrak no longer living hand to mouth after being funding-starved for decades

Related Stories