Originally posted by: xeemzor
Why is it that Amtrak is so uncompetitive in the US? When looking at the price of a ticket from Chicago to New York I was shocked to find that it was significantly more than an equivalent plane ticket, and took about 4-5x as long. I wouldn't the longer travel time if it cost less, but there is no way that I would ever pay more for an inferior service. I really would like to have an alternative to air travel, but that doesn't seem like it will be an option for a while.
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Why is it that Amtrak is so uncompetitive in the US? When looking at the price of a ticket from Chicago to New York I was shocked to find that it was significantly more than an equivalent plane ticket, and took about 4-5x as long. I wouldn't the longer travel time if it cost less, but there is no way that I would ever pay more for an inferior service. I really would like to have an alternative to air travel, but that doesn't seem like it will be an option for a while.
That's what always cracks me up. People complain about how crappy Amtrak is, but the amount spent by the govt on Amtrak is minuscule compared to air travel. Without the subsidies it gets, airlines wouldn't turn a profit either. Hell, even with current subsidies most can barely make a profit.Originally posted by: manlymatt83
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Why is it that Amtrak is so uncompetitive in the US? When looking at the price of a ticket from Chicago to New York I was shocked to find that it was significantly more than an equivalent plane ticket, and took about 4-5x as long. I wouldn't the longer travel time if it cost less, but there is no way that I would ever pay more for an inferior service. I really would like to have an alternative to air travel, but that doesn't seem like it will be an option for a while.
Because they aren't subsidized enough. Don't even get me started.
Airline industry? Majorly subsidized. Highways? Don't even ask. Amtrak's budget prior to this year was almost always cut (potentially still is). They need more money. The corridor services (Northeast primarily) pay for most of the cost of the long distance routes. I think I read somewhere that every time the Texas Eagle runs, they lose many thousands of dollars.
They do actually give pretty good discounts if you book more than 2 weeks in advance, and then after that, at least 3 days in advance. Also, the route you picked (The Lake Shore Limited most likely) is a heavy long distance route, so the prices are higher. Try the Texas Eagle or something else (and don't get a sleeper), and you'd be surprised at some of the prices you can find, especially if you look at their weekly specials or hot deals and use discount codes (check flyertalk.com).
And why is Amtrak inferior? I take it whenever I can wherever I can. I love the people, I love the service, the dining is often nice, and the experience is awesome
(owner of amtrakfan.com, which currently sucks but I'm working on it)
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
That's what always cracks me up. People complain about how crappy Amtrak is, but the amount spent by the govt on Amtrak is minuscule compared to air travel. Without the subsidies it gets, airlines wouldn't turn a profit either. Hell, even with current subsidies most can barely make a profit.
Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.
All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.
My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.
How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.
All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.
My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.
How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT
QF MFT
Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.
All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.
My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.
How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT
QF MFT
I'd like to disagree with Amtrak getting priority. My brother has recently used Amtrak a couple times to visit back home with us and every time, his train has had significant delays due to freight trains having priority on the tracks.
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: XabanakFanatik
Originally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.
All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.
My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.
How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT
QF MFT
I'd like to disagree with Amtrak getting priority. My brother has recently used Amtrak a couple times to visit back home with us and every time, his train has had significant delays due to freight trains having priority on the tracks.
And as a railroad manager I can assure you that the railroad was fined for it.
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Are midwest rail lines still operating near maximum capacity. About two years ago when I was working on an ethanol project that was cited as a major problem in siting an ethanol facility.
QFMF MISTRUTHOriginally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.
All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.
My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.
How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT
QF MFT
Originally posted by: techs
QFMF MISTRUTHOriginally posted by: EMPshockwave82
Originally posted by: HaiBiss
There are multiple reasons, but, the biggest one is mis-management. Amtrak took over from the Railroads, when they understood that there was no money to be made in Long Distance rail traffic for humans. This was caused in part by the automobile becoming really accessible to everyone and the US going towards air travel after WWII.
All the railroads got out of it because it was not a money maker, freight was where the money was, so the government stepped in an created Amtrak with the thought that it was going to be self sufficient after a short while. Amtrak never became self sufficient.
My question is why? They don?t' pay taxes as they are a government entity. Amtrak doesn't really have to own any land that the tracks are on, and yes the railroads have to pay taxes for all the land that the tracks are on, the tax breaks on those ended years ago. They don?t have to maintain a strong majority of the tracks they use as by law they are allowed to use the railroad industries tracks. And they get priority on the tracks, yes the railroad companies have to work around them. This is the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) rules.
How can they not be making money? Let me just say they are ran by the government, can anyone say POSTAL SYSTEM. MISMANAGEMENT
QF MFT
As I posted in another thread the postal systems rates have pretty much risen only with inflation over the last 40 years. And that's in a labor intensive industry that actually has a human being visit over 90 percent of every Americans home and business 6 days a week.
The Post Office didn't get a government bailout like the airlines. They didn't need it. The Postal Service runs COMPLETELY self sufficiently on its own revenue. Not one dollar of public funding.
And anyone who doesn't think airlines are massively government supported, is an idiot.
The smallest of examples are airports. The government builds road and bridges to get to airports. Seizes land to build airports. Provides air traffic control far beyond what the airlines contribute to it. Does anyone believe the couple of bucks added to an air fare is covering the costs of increased security? Dream on. How about the huge amounts of money the government has spent on developing security devices for airline safety? The taxpayer is the one paying. Not the airline.
If the government put the same amount of money into rail they would be buying rights of way sufficient for truly high speed rail on the northeast corridor. Then the railroads would have sufficient ridership to generate the cost efficiencies the airlines have. And it would cost far less to travel by rail. In fact, the government is so controlled by airline interests that they intentionally keep Amtrak from competing.
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Just Google it, the information's not hard to find. For example, they received a $15 billion bailout after 9/11.
And don't get me wrong, I could care less if Amtrak disappeared tomorrow. Passenger rail is a thing of the past IMO, I don't know why the govt is still trying to push it. Just saying that I think it's funny people bash Amtrak and its subsidies when airlines around the world, not just in the US, rely on massive government subsidies to stay in business. Like rail, it's one of those businesses that isn't really practical without significant government backing.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Comptetitive against whom?
There are no other rail lines in the USA to comptete with.
You can't really compare air travel and rail travel.
Air has been the cheaper way to go for a couple of decades at least if you're going more than a short distance.
When Amtrak took over passenger service in the 70's, it was because air travel had put rail travel out of business.
They did this almost purely because of the special interests involved in rail travel.
Yes, rail is a relatively inexpensive means of commuter travel, but that's about it.
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Comptetitive against whom?
There are no other rail lines in the USA to comptete with.
You can't really compare air travel and rail travel.
Air has been the cheaper way to go for a couple of decades at least if you're going more than a short distance.
When Amtrak took over passenger service in the 70's, it was because air travel had put rail travel out of business.
They did this almost purely because of the special interests involved in rail travel.
Yes, rail is a relatively inexpensive means of commuter travel, but that's about it.
But couldn't rail be an effective means of transportation between close major cities? To give you an example, if Amtrak existed in a competitive form I could get to Chicago from Columus in about 7 hours for cheaper and without any hassles. From there, I could then take the Metra to within 2 miles from my house. I wouldn't have to deal with TSA, delays(once it took me 4 hours just to get out of O'Hare), or shitty food. Hell, most Amtrak trains ever have power outlets. I would have no problem paying $50-60 for this service, even though it takes longer. As of recently, I have switched to Megabus as my main means of transport because I couldn't stand O'Hare anymore and it's a fraction of the cost($8).
Obviously, much beyond 7 hours and it becomes impracticable, but there has to be a market for people who just want to go within a 300 mile radius.
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Comptetitive against whom?
There are no other rail lines in the USA to comptete with.
You can't really compare air travel and rail travel.
Air has been the cheaper way to go for a couple of decades at least if you're going more than a short distance.
When Amtrak took over passenger service in the 70's, it was because air travel had put rail travel out of business.
They did this almost purely because of the special interests involved in rail travel.
Yes, rail is a relatively inexpensive means of commuter travel, but that's about it.
But couldn't rail be an effective means of transportation between close major cities? To give you an example, if Amtrak existed in a competitive form I could get to Chicago from Columus in about 7 hours for cheaper and without any hassles. From there, I could then take the Metra to within 2 miles from my house. I wouldn't have to deal with TSA, delays(once it took me 4 hours just to get out of O'Hare), or shitty food. Hell, most Amtrak trains ever have power outlets. I would have no problem paying $50-60 for this service, even though it takes longer. As of recently, I have switched to Megabus as my main means of transport because I couldn't stand O'Hare anymore and it's a fraction of the cost($8).
Obviously, much beyond 7 hours and it becomes impracticable, but there has to be a market for people who just want to go within a 300 mile radius.
I agree. Routes likes Boston to NY or LA to las vegas would be pretty popular I think.
I think over all, the geographic layout of America makes trains less appealing then flying. Whereas in Europe trains are still a legitimate travel option
Originally posted by: xeemzor
But couldn't rail be an effective means of transportation between close major cities? To give you an example, if Amtrak existed in a competitive form I could get to Chicago from Columus in about 7 hours for cheaper and without any hassles. From there, I could then take the Metra to within 2 miles from my house. I wouldn't have to deal with TSA, delays(once it took me 4 hours just to get out of O'Hare), or shitty food. Hell, most Amtrak trains even have power outlets. I would have no problem paying $50-60 for this service, even though it takes longer. As of recently, I have switched to Megabus as my main means of transport because I couldn't stand O'Hare anymore and it's a fraction of the cost($8).
Obviously, much beyond 7 hours and it becomes impracticable, but there has to be a market for people who just want to go within a 300 mile radius.
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Still, I think regional services have a viable shot.
Originally posted by: xeemzor
Why isn't Amtrak more competative?