Amtrak Wants To Compete With Planes And Roads

[Fishrrman]

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/11/11/amtrak-wants-to-compete-with-planes-and-roads/

Amtrak Wants To Compete With Planes And Roads
The railroad company has big plans for 2020: more service across the country and profitability.



By Aaron Short
Nov 11, 2019

Amtrak could become profitable as soon as next year as it beefs up short-distance service across the country as more Americans explore cost-efficient, less-polluting alternatives to driving and flying between cities.

The railroad company carried a record 32.5 million customers in the fiscal year that ended in September, a 2.5-percent increase from the previous year, Amtrak officials said on Friday. Its rise in rail ridership mirrors the growth in commuter rail, which has added passengers in suburban areas nationally this year compared with last year.

And Amtrak is poised to continue growing after it posted it best operating performance in history, losing about $29.8 million out of a total operating budget of $3.3 billion — or 82.6 percent less in losses than the previous year, the company said.

More at URL above...

Poster's comment:
Not sure how accurate this is as to the company becoming "profitable".
You'll note the article refers to the "operating budget", not the ENTIRE budget, which would include capital improvements/expenditures, etc.

[Cyber Liberty]

I always look to Amtrak when I want to spend 18 hours on a 6 hour trip.  

[GtHawk]

I always look to Amtrak when I want to spend 18 hours on a 6 hour trip.  

Have a friend here in Huntington Beach, CA that has an interest in a ranch in Northern California, he left  his wife there with the car and took the train home. It took him twice the time of the drive and left him in really agitated for two days. Needless to say, never again.

[dfwgator]

Our train infrastructure was built for transporting cargo, not passengers.

[roamer_1]

I always look to Amtrak when I want to spend 18 hours on a 6 hour trip.  

I like the train. And I would much rather take the train than drive or take a jet (I hate TSA and flying)

But Airplane prices for Greyhound services is never ever going to fly.

Now, Greyhound prices... I would be a happy guy, and might even visit back east more regularly.

[Absalom]

Observations from one who has traveled in more than 75 nations.
* Amtrak, US Government owned, was a response to the bankruptcy
of the privately owned NY Central and Pennsylvania Railroads.
* Europe, India, Japan, Australia ; among several, have first class
rail systems that are highly competitive w/autos and planes,
both in terms of cost and of timeliness.

[Applewood]

I once traveled to and from DC by Amtrak to visit relatives in the Virginia suburbs.  Going to DC was ok, but on the return trip, the train was held up for hours while some guy who decided to commit suicide by train was scraped off the tracks.  In the meantime, I was supposed to get a meal, but the train wouldn't feed us while we were stuck on the tracks.  I was one hungry and unhappy camper by the time I got home  after midnight. 

Anyway, I had enough of train travel.  It's too bad because if one has the time, it's a great way to really see America instead of flying over or driving by it.    I suppose the slow death of Amtrak has a lot to do with the fact that it is a government operation, and in this country at least, government operations never go the way they are supposed to.  Fraud, waste, mismanagement --all hallmarks of every government program.

@Absalom is correct.  In Europe and many other parts of the world, train travel is cheap and efficient.  I know a guy who was stationed with the Army in Germany years ago.  When he had leave, he traveled all over Europe by train.  He said it was the best way to go.  Why we can't make our train travel here more efficient is a mystery to me.

[catfish1957]

I like the train. And I would much rather take the train than drive or take a jet (I hate TSA and flying)

But Airplane prices for Greyhound services is never ever going to fly.

Now, Greyhound prices... I would be a happy guy, and might even visit back east more regularly.

Back in the mid '60's my parents took us on a train trip right when it was known that this was going to be a dying mode of personal tranportation.  They wanted me to know the experience, and I cherish that. 

[Applewood]

Back in the mid '60's my parents took us on a train trip right when it was known that this was going to be a dying mode of personal tranportation.  They wanted me to know the experience, and I cherish that.

My father worked for the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad, which was exclusively a freight hauler, but he had a rail pass that entitled him and the rest of us to travel by rail either for free or very low cost.  Dad always talked about us going somewhere by rail, but we never did.  It's too bad because we kids especially probably would have loved it.  Before Amtrak I think rail travel was a lot better than it is now.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I commuted to work by train several years while living in Europe. 

It works there as distances are modest, lots of people packed closely and surrounding a major city.

I would never advocate going that route here save in very selective locations.

It is the opposite of the freedom we here in this country enjoy as it makes one hostage to another entity to deliver on the goods.

And am sick of the times I encounter commuter traffic via rail here in cities like Houston and Austin.

Seems traffic is more entangled waiting for trains to cross roads(not to mention taking away car lanes of traffic to build the rail line), the opposite of what train promoters want one to believe.  Not to mention the deaths I read about when pedestrians encounter a train.

And the trains that pass by seem to be sparsely ridden, so why in the hell do it in the first place?

[mountaineer]

On our most recent visit to Europe,  we eschewed the rental car and used rail services exclusively.  It's great and convenient there, not so much here.

[dfwgator]

On our most recent visit to Europe,  we eschewed the rental car and used rail services exclusively.  It's great and convenient there, not so much here.

There they use trains to haul people,  here we use trains to haul freight.   It's very difficult to do both efficiently.

[roamer_1]

Back in the mid '60's my parents took us on a train trip right when it was known that this was going to be a dying mode of personal tranportation.  They wanted me to know the experience, and I cherish that.

My bucket list vacation... What I would like to do, if I had the dough...
Take a cabin on the Empire Builder... Whitefish MT to Chicago
Take  cabin on the City of New Orleans... Chicago to New Orleans
Tour the South with an emphasis on the Civil War and Small Town America
Cabin passage on a River boat (paddle boat)... Somewhere in the South to Alton Ill.
From Alton Ill to Great Falls MT Navigating the Missouri on a river raft.

Now, that might be better the other way around (Rafting the Missouri might be better going downstream)... But you get the idea.

I had the luxury of having a ride over to Chicago in a sleeper cabin once before... The food could have been better, but IMHO, that was the best travel I have ever experienced.

If I could do THAT for the cost of an airplane ticket, that is how I would go.

[truth_seeker]

I always look to Amtrak when I want to spend 18 hours on a 6 hour trip.  

Thde choo-choo frm greater Lost Angeles to Flagstaff was reorted to me a few years ago, and very unreliable.

That report from two+ family groups. Going to Flagstaff for college (NAU).

Calif has had major train routes, for decades. Ridership is a few that commute, a few that vacation, and it rarely ccomes up in conversation.

People gave sighs of relief, when Gov. Gavin Newscum shut down the boondoggle known at the Train to Nowhere.

[Hoodat]

A government monopoly wanting to compete?  Yeah, right.

[The_Reader_David]

Viable passenger rail service depends on sufficient population density.  Other than within metro areas, the Northeast corridor is pretty much the only place we have population density comparable to Europe.  I like traveling by rail when there's enough demand for it to have a regular schedule with lots of trains at convenient times (for instance in the UK or between Philly and NYC or as a way of commuting, as I did both my last two years of grad school at Penn and when I went back to visit Penn on sabbatical).  I live in Kansas now.  There is way rail service will compete with the automobile (and air travel for getting to far away places) out here in the Great Palins.

[roamer_1]

Viable passenger rail service depends on sufficient population density.  Other than within metro areas, the Northeast corridor is pretty much the only place we have population density comparable to Europe.  I like traveling by rail when there's enough demand for it to have a regular schedule with lots of trains at convenient times (for instance in the UK or between Philly and NYC or as a way of commuting, as I did both my last two years of grad school at Penn and when I went back to visit Penn on sabbatical).  I live in Kansas now.  There is way rail service will compete with the automobile (and air travel for getting to far away places) out here in the Great Palins.

That is and ain't true... Many on the Empire Builder's route (Seattle to Chicago) are very reliant on the rail... Not very long ago it was not uncommon to go on up to Whitefish (15 miles north of here) to pick up people and freight... No more...

But that is largely to do with how the feds tried to make rail travel profitable - in their wisdom, they just jacked the rates till no one can afford to go by rail...

Quite the other thing should have happened. Rail is uniquely the only form of travel that can handle influx... Too full? Stop along the way and bolt on another car... And the same the other way around...

I think LOWER prices would make it more attractive. And standard, reliable pricing at that.

On average, I think it is about 400 bucks round trip for a ticket from Whitefish Mt to Chicago Ill...
For that, in about a day and a half, you can travel the roughly 1800 miles in reasonable comfort, with good access to food and drink and zero effort...

WAY better than by car. And you arrive refreshed, and probably quicker by some hours - I have made that ride in 22 hrs by car, but that is really flying low, and it takes half the time I am there just to recover from the trip! Just to do it again on the way back... 

But to my point: If the rail were cheaper, it would leave some room for folks to rent a car at their destination... For instance, not many folks will use the train to get to Missoula, which is 120 mi south of here, because once they get to Whitefish they have to rent a car to drive the 120 miles to get on down to Missoula, and the same going back. For that extra cost, they might as well use air and get there way quicker direct, at a pretty comparable price (assuming of course, advanced booking).

In that way, I think they have priced rail away from markets they could otherwise pick up... And thereby make the difference in volume... Not to mention butts in the seats meaning more concession, which also cannot be ignored...

And berths should be standard - No one wants to sit in a dang airline-style seat for a day and a half... At least a bunk available to sleep in would make it more attractive.

[Bigun]

A government monopoly wanting to compete?  Yeah, right.