Amtrak posts record annual ridership

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
http://news.yahoo.com/amtrak-hits-record-30-million-passengers-225659509.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Amtrak trains carried more than 30 million passengers in the past 12 months, the most in one year since the passenger railroad was created four decades ago, railroad officials said Thursday.

Ridership during the budget year ending on Sept. 30 was 30.2 million passengers, up 5 percent over the previous year. Ticket revenue was up by more than 8 percent despite significant weather-related disruptions in much of the country.

Amtrak has set ridership records eight out of the last nine years. A decade ago, it carried 21 million passengers a year.

"Amtrak is fulfilling its national mission and is part of the solution to meet America's growing transportation and energy needs," Joseph Boardman, Amtrak's president and chief executive officer, said in a statement.

Despite its success in attracting riders, Amtrak's critics in Congress are squeezing the railroad's federal subsidies and trying to take away its most valuable routes in the rail corridor that links Washington, Philadelphia, New York and Boston.

The House Appropriations Committee's transportation subcommittee last month approved a budget that sharply reduces Amtrak subsidies. In June, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla., proposed soliciting bids from other railroads for the right to service the 456-mile Northeast Corridor, which is the heart of Amtrak's operations. He said it was taking the railroad too long to achieve consistently high-speed service equivalent to trains in Europe and Asia.

Amtrak has proposed its own plan to upgrade its Northeast Corridor track and trains and to eliminate bottlenecks so that trains can travel up to 220 mph. Trip time between Washington and New York would be reduced to 96 minutes and between New York and Boston to 93 minutes. But the plan would be phased in over 30 years and cost $117 billion to implement. The railroad is seeking private investment to pay for some of the cost.

"Americans are returning to the rails in record numbers, yet Republicans are pulling out all of the stops in their rush to auction off Amtrak's assets to the highest bidder on Wall Street," Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, top Democrat on the transportation committee, said. "It makes no sense to tear apart a railroad and its workforce while they are succeeding at their jobs."

Amtrak was created by Congress in 1971 after passenger railroads failed in the face of competition from airlines and interstate highway travel. With the U.S. population expected to exceed 400 million people by 2050, nightmarish congestion is forecast for the nation's already crowded highways and airports.

Hopefully this will prevent yet another Republican attempt to dismantle the agency and sell off the assets. It's getting hard to even get a seat on a number of routes out of here if you don't reserve well in advance.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,299
740
126
Still very few of them post profits. Trains all over the world run in loss, its always a govt run or supported service to its people. Its not a profitable industry. Therefore it does not fit well in our capitalistic society.
As people in US get poorer and poorer they will use more and more public transportation, that does not mean that its good for our society as a whole.
This does not mean that I am totally against building rail road but we have to be very careful where we build it and make sure its will really help people. For example it cannot be good for a state or city where the rest of the public transportation is not good. You can build a train route that takes you from station A to Station B but noone will travel in them if after getting off the station they have take a $40 cab ride to go where they want to go or travel 2 hours in a bus to go where they want to go.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
http://news.yahoo.com/amtrak-hits-record-30-million-passengers-225659509.html



Hopefully this will prevent yet another Republican attempt to dismantle the agency and sell off the assets. It's getting hard to even get a seat on a number of routes out of here if you don't reserve well in advance.

So what. This doesn't say anything about the fact that Amtrak service is shit and never on time. Also does bring up the fact that it continues to lose money rather than make money. The number of riders only tells me that people are tired of driving and Amtrak can be cheaper in some cases that the price of gas. Still don't know why we continue to throw good money after bad.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
Well, IMO if the govt. supports highways then they should also support rails...
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
What their profit/loss for the year? compared to previous years? Is it improving?

Companies post high sales numbers all the time. The only thing I care about is cashflow/profit margin.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
Still very few of them post profits. Trains all over the world run in loss, its always a govt run or supported service to its people. Its not a profitable industry. Therefore it does not fit well in our capitalistic society.
As people in US get poorer and poorer they will use more and more public transportation, that does not mean that its good for our society as a whole.
This does not mean that I am totally against building rail road but we have to be very careful where we build it and make sure its will really help people. For example it cannot be good for a state or city where the rest of the public transportation is not good. You can build a train route that takes you from station A to Station B but noone will travel in them if after getting off the station they have take a $40 cab ride to go where they want to go or travel 2 hours in a bus to go where they want to go.

Most developed HSR systems operate at profit however those profits are generally diverted to cover regional service that does not operate profitably.

It is important to connect local transit to rail stations to make transfers easier.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Well, IMO if the govt. supports highways then they should also support rails...
I think they should too.
There are many rail companies out there with experience(Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, Norfolk Southern, CSX Corp, and others).
I don't think I agree with awarding all the contract to Amtrak exclusively though.

What is stopping those companies from developing passenger rails?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
I think they should too.
There are many rail companies out there with experience(Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, Norfolk Southern, CSX Corp, and others).
I don't think I agree with awarding all the contract to Amtrak exclusively though.

The government ran private passenger rail out of business with the spending spree on highways and airports. The railroads however were not allowed to shed the now hugely unprofitable passenger services because congress would not let them. This led to the eventual creation of Amtrak to continue service but to relive the burden from the railroads.
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
I think they should too.
There are many rail companies out there with experience(Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, Norfolk Southern, CSX Corp, and others).
I don't think I agree with awarding all the contract to Amtrak exclusively though.

What is stopping those companies from developing passenger rails?

Not disagreeing with the original comparison of rails to highways but these are all freight rails. There are no other passenger rail companies in the US.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
If they are setting a record number of passengers why cant they ween themselves off federal money?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
As soon as roads do the same you'll have an argument.

I have an argument. Amtrak provides a service. If the service is being used in record numbers why cant they ween themselves off federal money?
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0
If they are setting a record number of passengers why cant they ween themselves off federal money?

They don't charge enough even with the record setting number of passengers to cover the expense of maintaining the current system. To pay for this, they would have to charge more, and then they would not be anywhere near as competitive with alternate modes of transportation. Conclusion, rail, like solar power is too expensive today to warrant its widespread use in the US.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
If they are setting a record number of passengers why cant they ween themselves off federal money?

Why don't you name us other major transportation modes that are not dependant on govt' money...
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
I have an argument. Amtrak provides a service. If the service is being used in record numbers why cant they ween themselves off federal money?

If the government backed a real HSR system it could happen.

I see no reason for Amtrak to give up it's subsides since it competes against other subsidized modes of transport.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Strange, they increase ridership numbers tremendously yet still manage to lose a ton of money. Typical dimlib way to run something.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
They don't charge enough even with the record setting number of passengers to cover the expense of maintaining the current system. To pay for this, they would have to charge more, and then they would not be anywhere near as competitive with alternate modes of transportation. Conclusion, rail, like solar power is too expensive today to warrant its widespread use in the US.

Regional rail is the strongest segment that should be considered for improvement. Nobody logical is saying you should take a train (even HSR) from NYC to LA instead of a plane or that such a system should be built in the first place.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Why don't you name us other major transportation modes that are not dependant on govt' money...

What are you saying? Because other modes of transportation like roads and air use federal money. Amtrak should be immune to scrutiny about their subsidy to provide a service at below cost?

Roads have a gasoline tax and in some places tolls. Air has federal taxes, fuel taxes, landing fee's to help pay for their use. If either isnt cutting it then raise the cost. On a per passenger\mile basis. Trains consume far more money than any other mode of transportation.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Not disagreeing with the original comparison of rails to highways but these are all freight rails. There are no other passenger rail companies in the US.
My question was why can't they develop passenger rails since they clearly have experience with freight. Boeing develops freight aircraft, and they also develop passenger aircraft.

K1052 answered that they did have them until congress lobbed them all together to form Amtrak due to massive losses they were incurring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Railroad#Passenger_train_service
 

xBiffx

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2011
8,232
2
0

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
What are you saying? Because other modes of transportation like roads and air use federal money. Amtrak should be immune to scrutiny about their subsidy to provide a service at below cost?

Roads have a gasoline tax and in some places tolls. Air has federal taxes, fuel taxes, landing fee's to help pay for their use. If either isnt cutting it then raise the cost. On a per passenger\mile basis. Trains consume far more money than any other mode of transportation.

Only toll roads have their full costs paid for by user fees and fuel taxes have been insufficient to pay road costs for about 20 years, the Highway Trust Fund itself would have gone insolvent starting in 08 had it not regualrly received huge sums from the general fund. That also doesn't count the billions spent on construction outside that by various capital projects.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
If the government backed a real HSR system it could happen.

I see no reason for Amtrak to give up it's subsides since it competes against other subsidized modes of transport.

If there was a real market for it then it could be profitable enough the govt wouldnt need to fund it at all.

I see a reason to drop the subsidy. It creates a false market where people use it more than they would due to it costing less than it should. If Amtrak had to generate a profit on their own merits. The cost of the ticket would be more but ridership down. This would get them off the govt tit, possibly make it profitable for other players to enter the market, and increase quality of service The problem with that is what exactly?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
If there was a real market for it then it could be profitable enough the govt wouldnt need to fund it at all.

I see a reason to drop the subsidy. It creates a false market where people use it more than they would due to it costing less than it should. If Amtrak had to generate a profit on their own merits. The cost of the ticket would be more but ridership down. This would get them off the govt tit, possibly make it profitable for other players to enter the market, and increase quality of service The problem with that is what exactly?

To level the playing field the government would have to suspend all financial support for roads outside the fuel tax.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
To level the playing field the government would have to suspend all financial support for roads outside the fuel tax.

I dont see them as apples to apples. One is infrastructure, the other is a service.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,767
46,573
136
I dont see them as apples to apples. One is infrastructure, the other is a service.

Yet they are in direct competition for transporting goods and people....

Amtrak does own assets btw, like the one the Republicans want to strip away and give to a private company.