View Full Version : Amtrak chugs for record ridership
kg4kww
09-09-2007, 03:55 AM
Well we can thank high fuel prices for this bit of good news.
To Amtrak, it’s proof that despite vexing challenges, it’s on the right track.
The money-losing service, which relies heavily on government funding, says it is riding higher, illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of additional riders flocking to expanded routes in Illinois and California. Amtrak is chugging toward its fifth-straight record year for ridership nationwide, helped by high gasoline prices and congested highways and airports that seem to have encouraged people to keep their vehicles parked.
But Amtrak’s headaches remain, and the biggest is funding. The service has never been out of the red since its launch in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.
In trying to hash out the federal budget for next year, Congress is weighing how much U.S. taxpayers should underwrite the passenger service. Amtrak has requested $1.53 billion, nearly twice the amount the Bush Administration wants to give it. In the past, Bush has proposed giving the service nothing.
Full Story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20630319/)
KB1KIX
09-09-2007, 03:59 AM
Amtrak has a pitiful business model period.
Every other industrialized nation seems to have privatized travel over rail, and seems to succeed.
Wait a minute - in all those nations, rail travel is cheap!
Rail travel in the states is insanely expensive!
I'd be willing to travel by rail, take a few hours longer, just to avoid all the airport travel (I even have to go down south in a few months and was contemplating rail travel) - but my rail ticket was nearly double my plane ticket.
I can travel Calcutta to Mumbai several hundred times via rail before I catch up to the price of one air ticket.
Jonathan
KD7ZRT
09-09-2007, 05:18 AM
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Sep. 08 2007,20:59)]Every other industrialized nation seems to have privatized travel over rail, and seems to succeed.
Except of course Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Japan (until 1987), China, South Africa, Egypt, Canada, and a bunch more I don't care to count.
Oh, India too.
The whole reason we have Amtrak is because private passenger railroad operations were not profitable.
w2amr
09-09-2007, 01:17 PM
Quote[/b] (kg4kww @ Sep. 08 2007,20:55)]Well we can thank high fuel prices for this bit of good news.
To Amtrak, it’s proof that despite vexing challenges, it’s on the right track.
The money-losing service, which relies heavily on government funding, says it is riding higher, illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of additional riders flocking to expanded routes in Illinois and California. Amtrak is chugging toward its fifth-straight record year for ridership nationwide, helped by high gasoline prices and congested highways and airports that seem to have encouraged people to keep their vehicles parked.
But Amtrak’s headaches remain, and the biggest is funding. The service has never been out of the red since its launch in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.
In trying to hash out the federal budget for next year, Congress is weighing how much U.S. taxpayers should underwrite the passenger service. Amtrak has requested $1.53 billion, nearly twice the amount the Bush Administration wants to give it. In the past, Bush has proposed giving the service nothing.
Full Story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20630319/)
Good idea, Shut it down. That will put more cars on the road. The oil companies can use the business.
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Sep. 08 2007,22:59)]Amtrak has a pitiful business model period.
Every other industrialized nation seems to have privatized travel over rail, and seems to succeed. #
Wait a minute - in all those nations, rail travel is cheap!
Rail travel in the states is insanely expensive!
I'd be willing to travel by rail, take a few hours longer, just to avoid all the airport travel (I even have to go down south in a few months and was contemplating rail travel) - but my rail ticket was nearly double my plane ticket.
I can travel Calcutta to Mumbai several hundred times via rail before I catch up to the price of one air ticket.
Jonathan
You can't compare India to here.
Why do you think we outsource our call centers there?
The cost of living in India is a tiny fraction of what it costs to live in America. That is why stuff costs less there.
Furthermore, are you really willing to ride on an Indian train?
http://unhingedhospital.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/overloaded_train_hanging_india.jpg
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Rail fare in Europe - interesting. #Doesn't seem to be that much different from here.
Link (http://www.seat61.com/Germany.htm)
London to Berlin one way is about $150USD, and that's in a seat. #If you want a sleeper car you have to pony up substantially more.
Commuter trains such as NJ transit are substantially cheaper, however. #My XYL used to take the train to the city and I think it was in the region of $200/month. #The one way fare was a little over $10.
KD7ZRT
09-09-2007, 05:18 PM
Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 09 2007,06:37)]Rail fare in Europe - interesting. Doesn't seem to be that much different from here.
Britain sprinkled some magical free-market pixie dust on their rail network some years back and then shortly after found themselves with the highest rail fares in the world (http://www.bbc.co.uk/politics97/news/08/0828/rail.shtml).
Fares
New York to Washington D.C., 204 miles $111 (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak)
London to Liverpool, 205 miles £12.50 (http://www.seat61.com/UKtravel.htm) = $25.36 (http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=12.5&from=GBP&to=USD&submit=Convert)
Maybe English railfares were the world's highest in 1997, but not anymore.
g0slp
09-09-2007, 08:22 PM
'Walk-on' fares in the UK are horrendous.
However, if you book well in advance, & are prepared to accept restrictions on travel (such as, inter alia, only certain trains or after certain times) then fares such as that mentioned by n2nh are available.
Mark G0SLP
KD7ZRT
09-09-2007, 09:12 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 09 2007,13:07)]New York to Washington D.C., 204 miles $111 (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak)
The Acela Express is expensive, for sure. The 151, 111, 181, 183, and 79 regional trains will all make that trip for a more reasonable $67.
Quote[/b] ]
London to Liverpool, 205 miles £12.50 = $25.36
Portland, OR to Bellingham, WA, 262 miles, $29
A trip I made this spring was Los Angeles to Portland, 966 miles by road, likely approaching 1000 miles by rail, for a mere $89. Every seat on the train was full as we left Sacramento.
n2cfj
09-09-2007, 09:28 PM
Quote[/b] (KD7ZRT @ Sep. 09 2007,14:12)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 09 2007,13:07)]New York to Washington D.C., 204 miles #$111 (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak)
The Acela Express is expensive, for sure. The 151, 111, 181, 183, and 79 regional trains will all make that trip for a more reasonable $67.
If you belong to AAA or a bunch of other organizations you get 10% off that price.
NY to DC:
Train approx 3 hrs. Sleep or read on the way.
Drive approx 4.5 to 6 hrs (depends on traffic & the weight of your foot) concentrate on driving on the way.
Plane Midtown to LAG 1 hour. LAG to DC (includes check in & security) 3 hours. Regan to downtown 1 hour total = 5 hours if there are no weather delays.
Is this rocket science?
Quote[/b] (n2cfj @ Sep. 09 2007,17:28)]Quote[/b] (KD7ZRT @ Sep. 09 2007,14:12)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Sep. 09 2007,13:07)]New York to Washington D.C., 204 miles $111 (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak)
The Acela Express is expensive, for sure. The 151, 111, 181, 183, and 79 regional trains will all make that trip for a more reasonable $67.
If you belong to AAA or a bunch of other organizations you get 10% off that price.
NY to DC:
Train approx 3 hrs. Sleep or read on the way.
Drive approx 4.5 to 6 hrs (depends on traffic & the weight of your foot) concentrate on driving on the way.
Plane Midtown to LAG 1 hour. LAG to DC (includes check in & security) 3 hours. Regan to downtown 1 hour total = 5 hours if there are no weather delays.
Is this rocket science?
Ah, I see, the listing I got was for Monday Morning and there was only the $111 listing and the Acela at $156 (both of which are down from a few years ago).
I got $67 for the NY- Washington price a week from now. A week from now the London - Liverpool price was £13.50, or US$27.38.
Flying from New York is always involved. Travel to the airports is always a mess, especially in the rush hours. Worse now you have to get there a couple of hours early for security checks and may still get bumped.
BTW, if you really try, driving from Orlando to Tampa 55 minutes and NY- Washington can be done in 3hrs and 15 min., but I'd personally advise against it.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
John, you may be seeing a higher fare because of supply and demand.
Many business travelers use Amtrak, some even have monthly passes!
One of my former cow-orkers used to commute from Albany to NYC every day on Amtrak. I'm sure he wasn't paying $60/day to commute! He actually had a monthly pass, and it wasn't $1200/month. It was something like $300/month.
KA8DKT
09-10-2007, 01:31 AM
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Sep. 08 2007,23:59)]Amtrak has a pitiful business model period.
Every other industrialized nation seems to have privatized travel over rail, and seems to succeed. #
Wait a minute - in all those nations, rail travel is cheap!
Rail travel in the states is insanely expensive!
I'd be willing to travel by rail, take a few hours longer, just to avoid all the airport travel (I even have to go down south in a few months and was contemplating rail travel) - but my rail ticket was nearly double my plane ticket.
I can travel Calcutta to Mumbai several hundred times via rail before I catch up to the price of one air ticket.
Jonathan
Also, the rails in Europe actually go somewhere you might want to go.
For me to visit my friends in Rochester, NY, I would have to travel some 22+ hours on the trains, as I have to make two conections. I can drive there in less than 16 hours. And driving would cost considerably less as would flying.
-gary
If you think Amtrak is nuts, read up on liberal Seattle's light rail project proposal.
Prime example, Seattle is aggressively pushing for their light rail project at a tune of $208 MILLION to $210 MILLION per mile! The libs in Seattle are ridiculously inept and insane! $208 to 210 MILLION per mile... that's roughly $39,800.00 per FOOT to build their ideal rail system in that liberal city.
Contrast that to Seattle's already built heavy rail system, and I fail to understand the logic (twisted!) -- other than lining politicians and cronies pockets with millions upon millions upon millions.
Urban light rail... insanity beyond belief.
73.
KB1KIX
09-10-2007, 03:22 AM
Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 09 2007,21:31)]Also, the rails in Europe actually go somewhere you might want to go.
For me to visit my friends in Rochester, NY, I would have to travel some 22+ hours on the trains, as I have to make two conections. I can drive there in less than 16 hours. And driving would cost considerably less as would flying.
-gary
Dayton by plane for me was only 90 minutes to 2 hours.
Drive, would be about 6 to 9 hours.
Train - 22 hours!!!
Not to mention, Amtrak doesn't give you a colon massage while looking for contraband nail clippers!
Jonathan
n2cfj
09-10-2007, 02:44 PM
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service (Boston to DC) is probably their most profitable and efficient route. On that line they actually do beat the door to door times of fly and drive. Longer trips, ie NY to Chicago would be faster to fly, even with TSA's courtesy.
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Sep. 09 2007,22:22)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 09 2007,21:31)]Also, the rails in Europe actually go somewhere you might want to go.
For me to visit my friends in Rochester, NY, I would have to travel some 22+ hours on the trains, as I have to make two conections. #I can drive there in less than 16 hours. #And driving would cost considerably less as would flying.
-gary
Dayton by plane for me was only 90 minutes to 2 hours.
Drive, would be about 6 to 9 hours.
Train - 22 hours!!!
Not to mention, Amtrak doesn't give you a colon massage while looking for contraband nail clippers!
Jonathan
Train travel is not for everyone, nor is it for all parts of the country.
In this part of the country, it is good because the roads tend to get congested and the trains help you to escape from the congestion.
Quote[/b] (N2RJ @ Sep. 10 2007,11:29)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Sep. 09 2007,22:22)]Quote[/b] (KA8DKT @ Sep. 09 2007,21:31)]Also, the rails in Europe actually go somewhere you might want to go.
For me to visit my friends in Rochester, NY, I would have to travel some 22+ hours on the trains, as I have to make two conections. I can drive there in less than 16 hours. And driving would cost considerably less as would flying.
-gary
Dayton by plane for me was only 90 minutes to 2 hours.
Drive, would be about 6 to 9 hours.
Train - 22 hours!!!
Not to mention, Amtrak doesn't give you a colon massage while looking for contraband nail clippers!
Jonathan
Train travel is not for everyone, nor is it for all parts of the country.
In this part of the country, it is good because the roads tend to get congested and the trains help you to escape from the congestion.
Ryan's right. Rail travel in the Northeast Corridor is the best way to get there. Anybody who drives I-95 can tell you that it's too congested, especially the NJ Turnpike. Flying takes about 45 mins to an hour to the airport when traffic is messed up as usual. Then checking in and getting scanned, then waiting for boarding. The trip only takes an hour, but then you land outside the city and it takes another 45 mins - 1 hour to get where you want. 5 to 6 hours under normal conditions, and conditions are usually not normal.
With Amtrak, you go from downtown to downtown (midtown here in NYC). The trip is a bit more comfortable than air and no amateur proctologists looking for liquids in hidden places.
With the Acela, it's now well under 3 hours to DC.
Now if you're talking NY to Chicago, it used to be 16 hours for the 20th Century Ltd in the 1930s and now it's about 18 over the same route with modern equipment. Not for those in a big rush, but you do get there rested and lighter in the wallet.