As a Japanese i just realized what the US call short distance train route is equivalent to out long distance route. We are smaller than the state of california afterall.
Yup, so much ground to cover over here. I absolutely loved riding Japan's train system and wish more places in the US implemented a similar setup. Their mall-like stations connected to outlying suburbs was super convenient and I found myself getting more exercise as many places I went to were usually within a mile or two of a station.
Yeah, things are just so far apart in the US, and in the busy population centers things have long been designed with cars in mind. This makes trains either impractical in cost, or local politics. Especially the latter, as Local and State governments have a lot of power in the US, and it'll always be a tough sell trying to get land freed up for a train route, or winning against the locals who think a train going past their house would decrease their property value.
I rode AMTRAK around last year for a holiday. I was actually really impressed by their service and speed. We arrived on time, and the carriages had wifi in all units. Alcohol was available at their lounge too. Really nice ride for a low faire.
Take a look at brightlines they are looking to improve upon the railroad passenger industry and they work around the 200-500 mile range like Orlando to Miami and the tickets cost $18-40 last I saw in their video
Congress: cut your losses Amtrak: ok well make this a bus service Congress: screams Amtrak: fine then can we have more funding for it Congress: no Amtrak: (._.)
@@MrGtubedude theyll probably make an attempt soon, but itll get pushback from congress. They should just no include the long distance ones as part of the profitability goals they could be optimized.
Why not modernize the long distance lines? High speed trains are cheaper than airplanes and they pollute less. This plan makes no sense, except for the airline industry.
@@fanniemaeurmom3752 That would be bloody amazing, but astronomically expensive to buy rolling stock, buy and improve rails, set up catenary, etc. Sadly, it's just a dream at this point though. But if I had any say, there'd be a lot of moving of the military budget to that project.
@@fanniemaeurmom3752 Don't forget that the freight lines own most of those rails. To make high-speed trains practical, the company owning the passenger trains must also own the rail.
I wish we did eminent domain for high speed national rail but that would be “unconstitutional” China is a little bigger than US but they have waaay better rail
@@LadiesMan-bo2cc I would agree with you, but freight is really important for the economy. Although just buying up some freight lines could work for various coastal lines, such as Acela and some others.
This *sounds* like a true statement. The problem with this sort of argument is that "city centers" only matter in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and maybe Washington DC and maybe Boston. Every other "city" is really a regional population concentration where business concentration centers can be up to 30 miles away from the center of the city (e.g., Houston versus Westheimer area). Rail completely works connecting New York City to the rest of the northeast, because you step off the Amtrak and you're at your destination or a short subway ride away. That's the huge advantage of rail over air-- city center to city center. But if you step off your train in the middle of Dallas or Houston, then what?
Honestly, Amtrak itself really shouldn't be blamed for this dilemma. It receives its funding from Congress, and well, Congress has continued to refuse it more money for upkeep on these routes. Amtrak is being faced with a difficult situation that isn't of their own doing.
@@the.abhiram.r Honestly, if the govt. doesn't get it's act together and start funding the company IT created, then yeah, Amtrak should honestly just go full private.
@@the.abhiram.r if amtrak went private it'd immediately cut over half it's routes which provide important services to many areas across the country It's semipublic for a reason. It just needs more funding and direction. The government should use it as a jobs program and significantly straighten and improve its most important routes, including eminent domain on relevant properties. Fairly compensate landowners but do it
Billions of tax dollars get spent on our highway system, but we expect our passenger rail system to make a profit. There's something wrong with this picture.
States: You can't get rid of that route! It provides jobs and necessary connections! also States: You can't add a track there for high-speed trains! That would be... annoying! Or something!
That's correct. Some of the ACELA trains could actually go as high as 220 mph but the rails themselves can't handle the stress of the train going over 150 mph. AMTRAK needs to upgrade its infrastructure. I wonder if Mr. Anderson is making that happen.
The tracks through our town (Dwight, IL) was upgraded for high-speed rail use a couple of years ago. There was a fair amount of opposition to high-speed rail, mainly because all of the level crossings in towns would be torn up, and originally most of them were planned to be closed altogether. As it turned out, none of the level crossings were closed, but the ones in my town were modified so that there would not be 2 roads intersecting at any railroad crossing. This may be easier/safer for the trains, but it's a major pain for local motorists, and gets visitors to our town consistently confused. We also got a new train station out of it, which we didn't need. (It's an unstaffed building with restrooms (and no WiFi), and local residents worry that Chicago gang members will come down here and use it as a hangout.)
Us government : You make long distance trains to connect America Amtrak : Ok *10 years later* Us government : Why don‘t you make money ?! Amtrak : Because of the long distance route, I will need to cut them Us government : *NO* Amtrak : Then give me more money and opportunities ! Us government : *NO*
Hernando Malinche Capitalists are ridiculous. Amtrak fucking sucks because they're expected to make a profit, not "more efficient." Profitable Japanese-style high-speed rail would absolutely be a reality if America would actually fund public transportation instead of the trashy patchwork system we have now.
@@ellienash8204 there are no profitable Japanese high speed trains. In fact, Japan basically bankrupted itself with HSR construction and accumulated 300 billion dollars in long term debt in the 1980s. The JR national railway company basically defaulted and was privatised, while the state took on the debt. This debt has never been paid off and is a huge drag on the Japanese economy ever since.
@@ellienash8204 Amtrak sucks because it Doesn't make profit. Japan is roughly the same size as California. I'd be easy to make a successful route there, but what about the other lower 47? Not to mention the geographical differences between the two countries. Its easy to blame capitalism when there simply is no good solution. With the technological advances we have today the US does not need or have the demand for a nation wide public transportation railway system
China has a highly functional high speed rail system that covers the entire country, even the little cities on the NW fringes of China (although, the trains are a bit slower outside of the big cities routes). They are larger and more spread out than America. It's all about where you're willing to spend your tax dollars. We choose to spend ours on subsidizing the massively profitable oil industry and military industrial complex.
@@delucain Chinas railways also have 2100 billion dollars in debt as a result of building all these railway lines. I would rather not spend taxpayers dollars on this, or on fighting wars.
I'm British and used Amtrak on two different holidays. Both times I was very impressed with the customer service, comfort and low prices. You never get such comfort so cheaply in the UK.
@@张桓瑜 It isnt. Improper privatization is. In Japan privatization made their railways better. Before privatization, Japanese trains were late, dirty and so on. After privatization it became better. UK did not balance competition with privatization. Japan did.
@@CoolMan-ig1ol from what little I know, private enterprise in Japan has a stronger sense of civic duty. While they’re definitely driven by profit I doubt you’d see them so many of the unethical and straight up illegal shit US companies do, nearly as often.
@97RAVINEAVE If you knew your history, then you wouldn't have posted "Railroad Companies classic blunder was Not entering the airline business", as the railroads once did, but anti-monopoly issues ended that...
Actually state owned airlines are really common. Aer Lingus in ireland, icelandair, british air, air canada ect. Plus America hasnt had a "flagship" airline since 1975 when panam shut down. American Airlines dosent count since they havent offically been given the flagship label by the US government
Why does Amtrak *have* to make a profit, anyway? Does the interstate highway system make a profit? Shouldn't Amtrak be a national asset that we all benefit from?
Matthew Hill yes exactly - as a european, I was wondering the same thing in disbelief. The idea of public services that are financially unprofitable but benefit the country in other important ways seems to be utterly alien to most yankees. What a weird country…
As an American, I agree that a profit on a particular line is not necessary. A rail line that loses millions per year could be profitable to the economy overall. And those false accounting practices seem criminal! Seems the city slickers want to elbow out the small towns and the "fly over country".
@@jaxonmattox9267 I don't think cars/airplanes are necessarily better. Cars can get stuck in traffic, train is almost always faster than airplanes for small distances (around 300 miles, I think) - because of commuting to the airport and security checks. I mean no insult but Americans have no idea what proper, comfortable way to travel looks like. You guys either go through the hell of airport checks and cramped uncomfortable airplanes where you can barely move your feet or you drive staring at the road for hours then get stuck in some dystopian traffic congestion. Meanwhile I get a proper three course meal and work on my laptop in a nice & comfy train with big leather seats on my weekly 5hour commute between Slovakia and Prague. (I am a remote worker who has to be at the hq for meetings once a week.) Btw it costs just 24 euros for my ~300 miles commute in first class. If you could experience how nice and cheap traveling by trains in Europe is, you wouldn't think it's throwing government money out of the window :) Peace.
@@Miakois Comfortable travel was me driving Dallas to El Paso last week (9 hour drive). I sit in the comfortable bucket seat of my car and listen to the Joe Rogan Experience (or whatever else/music I want to) whilst cruise control pulls me along. I left my house when I wanted to. I had the ability to go wherever I want whenever I want at a very low price, rather than having to uber, walk, or ride buses. The freedom of a car makes it superior to all other transportation, until the distances become too far. If I needed to go to LA I could fly out on a red eye, be to LA at 9 am, make it to my 11 am meeting, then fly back and be home in time for primetime sports or my (nonexistent) kid's basketball game. Productivity onboard a train is the major upside, but that same applies to an airplane. I'd rather pay off debt than add to it anyways
Jaxon Mattox That’s a good response except for some rural parts of the country that don’t have airports large enough for general transportation; while on the other hand, the infrastructure of rail-lines and small stations is still intact from over a century ago. In those cases, it makes more economic sense to our country to utilize the rail lines at a deficit.
Wife is retired and has taken the Zephyr a half dozen times in the past several years. Fun adventure for her. Not for others that have to be somewhere at a certain time. Most passengers are retirees or those that have no other financial option getting from A to B. Have fun and check out the many great RU-vid videos on the Zephyr.
@@roaddog7542 I've been looking at a few, that's actually what inspired me to go. I'm flying from home to Oakland and heading all the way to Nebraska before flying back home. Get to see family for 4 days during that time.
We just took that route last week from Emeryville to Denver. Great views the whole way but definitely got side tracked by multiple freight trains. We were 4 hrs late in to Denver, which was no big deal for us but some other passengers had higher expectations. Pro tip: the steak in the dining car is worth it. Also, opt for the sleeper car if you can afford it. Free meals and much more comfortable and relaxing. It ended up being cheaper to book a roomette for 2 people than it would have been to book coach and pay for each meal. In a time of being treated like livestock by the airline companies, this was a refreshing and relaxing way to travel. Enjoy!!
California Zephyr is definitely fun. Definitely try the dining car for at least one meal. And you're definitely going to be late getting into Nebraska.
Before Amtrak, the freight rails gave their passenger trains priority. Always on time. Now, Amtrak has to wait for the freight rails since they own the line.
Thought it might be due to freight/cargo trains being longer & thus less likely to be able to fit into sidings, & thus less likely to be able to give way to passenger trains than the other way round.
@@lzh4950 No. It really boils down to money, even if the private Rail Lines still ran the passenger service, they would probably put them to the siding. Freight trains are still super profitable.
That’s because back then, the passenger trains were the money maker. Then air travel became a better long distance option, and passenger services began hemorrhaging money, and railroads started to go bankrupt. Then Amtrak was created to try and save passenger rail in the US
When I travel by train, I get a bedroom on one of the four long distance trains connecting me from LA to Chicago. I never take train if I have to be at my destination by a certain time. To me, the rail journey is more than half of the purpose of my vacation.
I looked up this journey and are totally surprised, that the average velocity is only 83 km/h. In France, the TGV high speed trains reach 350 km/h on some tracks and 250 km/h on average. Why are your trains so incredibly slowly?
@@0000-z4z Because that average includes doing 0 km/hr while the passenger trains wait for the freight trains to pass. Since most long distance tracks are owned by the freight companies, the passenger trains are treated like 2nd rate citizens, or the unwanted guests and get literally side-railed for longer periods.
@@surfeit5910 That's why a proper train system needs dedicated high speed tracks where fast passenger trains either have priority or slowly trains aren't allowed at all.
@@0000-z4z I suppose because the US is 18 times larger than France, and it will take a while to get highspeed across the plains states. Wild animal strike is an issue in the US, and tons of snow, along with tall mountain ranges. Gonna need some infrastructure before this high speed train is universal in the US.
So the subsidy of the FAA, Homeland Security, to the airline industry doesn't count. It's all about how you look at it. These people screaming let the market decide, seem to forget the subsidies given to the airlines in the wake of 911. Oh no! those subsidies impact national security, we need rail for national security as well.
Subsidies to the airline and auto industries instead of the railroads have been going on since the Interstate system was created. America decided it was a car and plane country a long time before 9/11.
We need rail FREIGHT for national security. Long distance rail travel is generally a luxury endeavor. There are almost no cities in the U.S. that do not have alternative intercity bus transport that's far more efficient (and privately owned) -- and any city without such service either has a not-too-distant option or (with sufficient demand) could obtain such service directly. Admittedly, the comfort of a train is much nicer than a bus... But even a bus stops for meal breaks, something that Southwest Air does not! (I had a cheap employer up had me travel from the SF Bay Area to Huntsville Ala several times. Plane was a "through" flight, but it stopped at 3 cities along the way, and 3 or 4 bags of peanuts wasn't very satisfying. -- I brought a sandwich along the next time I had to do that flight...) Short haul passenger traffic is only viable in a few locations (primarily the NE corridor). The Miami-Orlando plan (note that Richard Branson has dropped out of that scheme) is "privately financed" with tax exempt bonds (thus a public subsidy) and the localities have put up vast sums for parking facilities and some station facilities. The Florida experiment's "high speed" trains are planned to travel up to 125 mph. This is barely above the speeds that passenger trains regularly traveled in the U.S. in the 1960s.
Trust me. The Pentagon will get its raise. But the Pentagon does not masquerade as a business. Amtrak on the other hand does. Also, defense is in The Constitution, Amtrak is not.
I’ll never understand the retardation of some americans, yes it is expensive to rule and dictate intercontinental trade, but without it your country wouldn’t be number 1, and China would looooove to take that “super-expensive military budget” off your hands if it meant having the world economy on the palm of its hands.
@@ETM4Real Yes, it's necessary, but the DoD wastes alot of money unnecessarily with equipment and incompetent and inefficient contractors, while soldiers and othe personal get very low wages and poor working conditions, wich makes alot of them work in the private sector. This doesn't just happens in the DoD, every department has rhia kind of problems, they waste money on unnecessary and unefficient things, but actually necessary stuff get underfunded.
@@Zekiraeth, pretty simple really. You just roll up alongside on horseback with your posse while gunning them down to do a heist, just like the cowboys used to do it. 😂
Having traveled long-distance Amtrak a few times, I've greatly enjoyed each trip I've had! It was beautiful, scenic, comfortable and stress-free :) and, in my humble opinion, does offer a public service which has more than a monetary value. Also, optimising short-/medium-distance trains should also include electrification (like CalTrain commuter train in the Bay Area) and acquiring more slots for more frequent and reliable service, perhaps even making some fully highspeed (California, Cascadia, around Chicago, Florida, etc).
Problem is Amtrak doesn't own most of the rail they go on so they can't just change the tracks or put electric in. Plus is would cost more money than the government would like to front Amtrak to make the changes.
Went on a trip from California to Wisconsin by train. It was fantastic and relaxing. But the train broke down a few times a day and late to every stop.
@@mrslinkydragon9910 he Freight companies are the ones who ditched the passenger service in the first place as being major money losers. No way do they want them back.
It'd be nic if amtrak could build all new lines, but they cant/wont because the public support isnt high enough to pass a bill or enact legislation to build new rail lines that would inevitably cause issues with emminent domain etc. @@mrslinkydragon9910 Like James said, frieght carriers dont care about passenger rail. They killed it off because it wasnt profitable.
I rode on the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles once. I genuinely think everyone should ride on it once in their lifetime. It was absolutely beautiful.
i've taken it several times during college. it's great when you have lots of luggage and plenty of time, and even the reserved seats have the space on par with a first class flight. plus you can get up and walk around any time you want, hang out in the viewing car, meet people from all across the country. i hope it's still around in a few years so i can take my daughter along.
The problem with that is many states dont want train tracks built through their land. Yes it really sucks. They demand train service, but they dont want the tracks. When this country spends money on infrastructure, we tell Amtrak to pay for its own track building rather than working to build the cross country infrastructure. I can see a need for passenger only tracks crossing this country, and allowing companies like Virgin or Amtrak or whoever to have trains operating on the passenger only rails, and thus not being bogged down by freight. But is that profitable? I dont know. Because building and maintaining rails is the most expensive aspect of trains short of staffing needs for trains.
Wouldn’t a feasible idea for this issue be for the feds (with potential for individual states to offer a slight thing on top of that) to offer low interest loans TO freight rail companies just for them to build Amtrak predominantly 80-120 mph rated double track rail WITHIN said freight line’s ROW as well as to offer significant tax breaks/incentives to said freight companies for giving/building Amtrak their very own ROW themselves? A true Private-Public Partnership?
@@darthmaul216 There are no unused tracks. The railroad industry massively downsized its physical plant and most most traffic onto one or two major routes. The rest was torn up
The problem is that we also desperately need more freight rail, too. It's 40% of our freight for a fraction of the carbon, so the more of that, the better. I think the better thing to do would be to nationalize the entire rail system, let the four major and whatever minor freight railroads (and any smaller or new RRs) lease the tracks, then use their right of way to build out an electrified system that includes passenger HSR.
That exist in europe, i didnt know it wasnt a thing in the us. They are cheaper than that and since trains mostly dont run full, and europe is a lot more dense than the states(not as big and 500 million in the EU alone, and especially when compared to inner us where you can go hundreds of miles without a single town) .It just makes sense.
As an American taxpayer, I don't know how I thank you enough. I guess that's what negative numbers are for. In 30 days of tourist travel on long distance routes you'd probably suck in $3000 in government subsidies.
You mean "West Camden?" Yeah, Philly is a bit of a joke. Best things about it are Rocky Balboa and the cheesesteak...one is make believe, and the other was invented in NJ.
Riding a plane in a lot of ways is like really slow teleportation. You don't spend or really even see anything for the entire trip, you're where you departed and then where you land. On the train you actually go through and can see things on the way, sometimes you can get out and see what a place is like on the trip.
Never understood people who said you don't see anything from a plane. It's the best view in the world. I rode Amtrak Cascades and you know what I saw? Tree trunks. We were just a little path cut through the forest. If I wanted that view I could have driven I-5 and seen more. Flying out of PDX, the whole Cascades are laid before you. Y'all are probably the types who close the window shade and watch Braveheart on your phone and then complain that you didn't see anything.
Auto Train is such a weird situation. It serves on dedicated route where most of the cars carry freight, even if it does belong to the passengers, and the only stop the train makes is for a crew change...which technically speaking is possible to do without stopping the train at all
The sole reason Amtrak was created was to take over the burden of operating the long distance routes. If Amtrak cuts them then there is no reason for Amtrak to even exist. This is why operating these routes should take priority over being profitable.
@Matthew Herrington and the rail companies have thouse. And uses it for freight. What SHOULD happen is running freight and passinger service on the same train.
Well regardless of the initial "sole" reason it was created, the best reason now in 2019 is to connect smaller distance cities with the speed and comfort that competes with airlines. That's what makes the most money because that's what people are paying for.
@Stinger Grail No it was not. The government for decades was forcing the railroads to continue to operate money-losing passenger services that they had stopped wanting after WWII when it became clear the car had won; and left to their own devices they would have just dropped them. Amtrak "allowed" them to donate the routes, trains and stations to the government in exchange for allowing them to stop losing millions of $$ every year running nearly empty trains. Amtrak didn't create the Chief or the Crescent or the Empire Builder, private railroads did, and Amtrak took them over.
I can't recommend Amtrak's long-distance routes enough: Their trains are unbelievably more comfortable than planes or buses. You can get up and walk around, even grab a coffee from the cafe car and sit in the observation car. Your seat is spacious, with its own electrical outlets and armrests, and big windows with beautiful views. There's something romantic about riding away from the roads, through empty plains and sweeping mountains. But perhaps the biggest advantage of riding Amtrak is the people you meet along the way. People who want the fastest trip will take a plane. People who want the cheapest trip will take a bus. People who want absolute privacy will drive. So the train ends up collecting this diverse bunch of travelers, voyagers, explorers, students, foreigners, the elderly...people with stories to share, who make great conversation partners. It's one of the reasons I'm sad they're getting rid of the dining cars, because they sit you with strangers at mealtime (due to limited space) and it's the perfect excuse to make a new friend. We need to get this Delta CEO guy out of this job. Amtrak's purpose is to connect the nation via rail, not to make money. We need to elect a Congress that understands this, and send the Delta shill packing. I don't want trains to become like planes: cramped messes where you get nickel-and-dimed for everything. The fact that he uses fraudulent accounting to make the long-distance routes look more unprofitable than they are--which I'm glad Wendover touched on--is proof positive that his agenda is to destroy Amtrak's core mission of linking America. He needs to go.
...sadly today, after Greyhound first bought out a number of regional bus lines, and then their biggest competitor Continental Trailways, they gutted service to hundreds of small communities nationwide. For example we no longer have scheduled through bus service to and along the Oregon coast to the Bay area (a much nicer ride than I-5). There are a few small local lines but fares are high and service is infrequent. There is no way for people from Portland to just to spend a day at the coast (Seaside, Cannon Beach, LIncoln City) anymore unless you own a car. Bus travel isn't as cheap as it was anymore either. I priced a round trip to Washington DC from Portland last year and it cost slightly more than going coach on Amtrak, and almost as much as the airlines. It also involved four transfers each way (there used to be direct coast to coast buses), a couple that had you sitting around in some out of the way stop (sometimes in the middle of the night) for several hours. With the train there was only one transfer in Chicago
If any of this were true, then they wouldn't be hemorrhaging money, per passenger, you may feel something about the rails. But it is cheaper to fly about anywhere now, I looked it up myself. And the rails still lose money. Your story about first class accommodations is either a harkening back or precisely why air travel beat rail decades ago. I did a test, one way flight New York to Atlanta on January 15th. It is $84 bucks, AMTRAK is $131 for coach, and takes 18 hours. Get over your nostalgia.
@@johnobrien2055 ...I've ridden the train to the Bay Area from Portland (about the same distance and time) several times. No having to get to the airport a couple hours before the flight and no TSA to deal with. Not being stuffed in what amounts to a "medieval torture device" (average airline economy seat). Not having the person in front of you effectively sitting in your lap all the way when they recline. Not having to pay extra to get to/from the airport to the city centre, particularly if it's via taxi, which in some cases can be almost as expensive as the ticket itself (even Uber/Lyft isn't all that much cheaper when it comes to airport service either). Not having to spend time in traffic to get to/from the airport to the city centre. Oh, and you forgot the extra 25$ - 35$ per bag for each piece of checked luggage. Add all those extra costs and inconveniences, and suddenly the train is not as bad. It isn't "nostalgia," it's just a saner, more comfortable, and less stressful way to travel.
Lets say this again so those in the back can hear: Amtrak doesn't need to be profitable - it's purpose is not to enrich stakeholders, it's purpose is to provide transportation and stimulate the national economy by promoting the movement of people across the nation. Both of which it does! Could it be improved? Sure. But it doesn't need to make a profit - it's an investment, not a private cash cow.
@@tayf85 By that logic, the Interstate Highway System would be a HUGE money sink, as we don't charge tolls for access. But nobody argues to stop servicing the freeways too because of the downstream benefits. It's the same case with anything infrastructure, education, medicine, or other utilities: barriers to entry have to be subsidized so that we can reap the much greater benefits down the line.
@@doujinflip You are confusing the economic value of the transportation network (e.g. the railway or the highways) with the passenger service (Amtrak). You aren't comparing apples with apples.
@@tayf85 The idea that it's accumulating "debt" is a politically charged myth. It receives funding, and delivers financial results (in addition to other non-monetary returns) by strengthening the economies of where it goes. Amtrak returns a national average of $3 in economic activity to the communities it serves for each $1 spent on it (in other words a 3 to 1 return rate). A recent study on the rural Heartland Flyer route showed that for the $3.5 million spent per year operating it, the communities along the route received almost $18 million in directly associated revenue. This is why we fund it. It's an economic driver in addition to being one of the most energy efficient forms of transportation per user. Again, it's funded for the value of it's indirect return. By definition that makes it an investment. For it to be "loss making" it would have to cost more than the value it returns.
@@HighIronProductions Amtrak being quasi-public confuses me on how they've avoided bankruptcy for so many years. Does Amtrak have to take out loans or sell shares/bonds just like any other business, or is the federal government actually nice enough to help them out somehow? EDIT: After a little more reading, it seems the government (in one form or another) does just bail them out year after year. There are a few private-business-like features to Amtrak, but ultimately it is very much a government-run entity.
yeah, but its holding Amtrak back from working on and maintaining the most popular routes that a lot more people rely on. If Amtrack makes a high speed route- that would be the best. If the farmers didn't protest against it. Theres supposed to be a high speed route from San Diego to Seattle but there is so much resistance against it. I think Amtrack should either cut the routes or upgrade it. And the people in buttplug butt fuck nowhere should deal with it
Well Amtrak at one point was luxurious everywhere and that's the long distance trains. Now Amtrak is using new Locomotives which to me nd most of the other people in the U.S. thing they aren't good. Personally I don't like the looks, but if they do there Job that's what matters (anyway lets get to the main point) They also got rid of there dinner which ruins the first class point. Right now they are doing good, but one day it would be cheaper to get a team of chefs than get prepared food. If you get what I'm saying.
I don’t like the idea of a publicly owned corporation. If it’s supposed to be a public service let’s treat it like one. Buy rights to tracks/pass laws requiring passenger trains get the right of way, expand service, upgrade infra for high speed trains on longer distance routes. Not because it would be profitable, but because it would be publicly useful and much better for the environment than our main mode of travel, flight.
@Hernando Malinche we have that here in germany with our train company. what has happened after making it that form we get the worst of both sides, the execs are doing everything to pad their paycheck, while the owner has to keep putting money into it for it not to collapse. and the service has become shit
They tried it this way in Germany, and it didn't work out. They turned the state railway ("Deutsche Bundesbahn") into a public owned company ("Deutsche Bahn AG") in 1994. In order to get profitable, they cut investments everywhere, removing costly electric switches, cutting personal, etc. Today, the German railway network is in a bad condition, and personal is missing. Only about 75% of trains are on time, even though the tracks are owned by the DB, and passenger trains have the right of way! When my mother was a child, the saying was "Wenn Du sicher sein willst, dass du pünktlich ankommst, nimm die Bahn!" ("If you want to be sure to arrive on time, take the train!"). Today, it's more like: "If you want to arrive at all, better take the car." Now, the DB plans on making the biggest investments in Germany's 180 year railway history, investing more than 150 billion Euros in the next ten years.
On the long Amtrak Routes, it looks like the Wolverine line in Michigan between Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac is included, but that should fall under the medium haul/state supported lines. I've been on it many times and is actually performing well.
I live in Phoenix, az.. Were one of the largest cities in the usa and have 0 Amtrak stations. For us to ride a train we have to take an hour long Greyhound bus ride to the Amtrak station in Maricopa, az...
Sadly Amtrak skipped the stop in Phoenix AZ to move to Maricopa AZ some years ago. The official reason was the route via Maricopa AZ is a bit faster... But I would not be surprised that the main reason was that the freight operator(s) wanted Amtrak out of Phoenix because of lack of capacity... Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
OMG I can totally relate! I live in Gilbert, and once when we were in Downtown Phoenix I started wondering, "why the hell isn't Phoenix connected to the Amtrak system?" Then I did some research and found out that back in the 70's they did, but then Union Pacific had to come along and drive Amtrak out.
They wont be. They actually make massive losses. The latest financial report however simply ignores asset depriciation of tracks and rolling stock. Apart from asset depreciation (which is 800 million dollars in costs), Amtrak also has a massive maintenance backlog worth 33 billion dollars on the NE corridor (and probably more than that) Perhaps most absurdly, it counts passenger subsidies as revenues (300 million in costs). It also does not account for capital expenditure, which is mostly for replacing existing rolling stock and track equipment (1.6 billion dollar). The statement that it is close to making a profit is therefore a blatant lie. In any other industry, the CFO would end up in jail for securities fraud for publishing such a financial report..... Concluding, Amtrak actually made a loss of about 2.7 billion dollar (not accounting for the maintenance backlog) rather than a loss of 30 million. It is nowhere near profitability. The only way they would get close to that is to stop running trains.
While in Japan, trains are 99% percent on time with delays in seconds. Most delays are because of passenger behavior, medical emergency, outside interference and natural disasters. Fast trains need their own set of tracks, gauge and grade separation. This is why Shinkansen got its name meaning "new trunk line". They already have pre-packaged ekiben meals at least in most long distance lines.
And as such, its goal should be to provide transportation, not to make money. t should of course operate efficiently but given that it has so many unprofitable routes that can not be cut for national reasons, it should not be required to maintain profitability. Or maybe it should be split into Amtrak 1, completely subsidized non for profit company providing national routes and Amtrak 2 that will operate all profitable routes, will be for profit and will not be subsidized...
@Rick K Non for profit does not have to mean complacency or corruption. There are a lot of non for profit entities in the US that are well managed. Perhaps like Gates Foundation, most Hospitals and Universities. But I find the current situation with Amtrak untenable. They are required to make money and be for profit but they can't get rid of money losing routes. And then they are blamed for inefficiency...
@@danieldefo8170 i still have an objection to the concept that amtrak is a "public service/welfare project"... i mean, in my humble opinion, it still is a drag that amtrak is losing money. if they don't make a profit, then their quality and price is *fully* dependent on the government supporting it. so i do think the long-distance routes are necessary, but that perhaps the responsiblity should be rather directly in the government's hands. so once again; amtrak being profitable isn't just "oh no, very bad thing", it can and probably *will* be the way to improve the american rail system. it probably won't be all bad. i hope, at least.
Im realizing i should be very happy living at the other side of the ocean in europe. Im complaning about public transport all the time but after seeing this im more than happy with the train services over here
Don't be happy with your public transport, keep advocating for improvements whenever you can. Otherwise you'll one day be in the same situation where the government doesn't care and an operator that is just trying to squeeze profit from rail lines.
@mike a Trains aren't going to work in the US if they only run at an average of 40-50mph, run once a day, and are delayed seven plus hours by freight trains. If you run them frequently + on time, provide decent food on board, and make stops in small cities towns that don't have other transportation options people will ride them. This doesn't even touch on the fact most train stations over time have been moved from city centers and dumped into industrial areas that are inconvinent. Integrating them with mass transit in cities will only add to their popularity. There are millions of people without cars and a generation growing up that understands they need to drive and fly less, they'll be there if you build them.
"This route, connecting Boston, New York, and DC, and a number of smaller cities" Hold up, wait a minute. Philadelphia is more populated than TWO of those cities you mentioned in that sentence fragment. It is actually the fifth largest city in the USA. *AND A NUMBER OF SMALLER CITIES*
James Shewan true but Philadelphia is just in the middle of the root. As a Philadelphian, we will always be an essential part of Amtrak’s profitability. I think Philadelphia might be the city that benefits the most from amtrak.
I got 500 hours experience in Railroad Tycoon 2. I know all about long range passenger hauls across USA. Remember to put hotels at ends, employ Pullman and don't forget sanding towers.
The notion that public transit should be profitable is nauseating - even the places where it ostensibly is, the vast majority of the money comes from station real estate, not operations.
thundercracker yep, that’s generally the best model. Run a train between two cities, support the cities with either buses or metro depending on load, then put stations in undeveloped areas between cities. Buy up the land before announcing the station locations, then either sell homes/apartments to cover initial costs or lease to cover operating losses. Keep the route cheap, make the real money on real estate (which people won’t mind anyways: it’s a real increase of value due to improvements to accessibility). I’m pretty sure that Japanese private railways already use this strategy, like Tokyu running a ton of cheap railways potentially at a loss but developing luxury apartments and department stores close to the stations.
@Craig F. Thompson ...airlines still enjoy subsidies from three sources First, there is airport construction, expansion and maintenance (which is totally funded for solely by federal state and local taxes). Next there is the national ATC network that keeps our skies safe which is also totally government funded. Third there is the oil industry (which produces aviation fuel) which also receive s subsidies and kickbacks (the latter through tax loopholes and cuts) from the government as well. Several years ago I read a story in a business publication that pointed to the airline industry's return to profitability was due significantly in part to all those damnable fees they charge for services that used to be included in the ticket cost (even after deregulation). For example, even after fuel costs declined and aircraft became far more fuel efficient, a few airlines were still found to be assessing a "fuel surcharge" as part of the ticket price which in some cases wasn't an insignificant amount. The airlines were already in trouble before 9/11 much of which they created themselves by route over expansion, fleet overexpansion, overbooking, consolidation, brand loyalty programmes, and the disastrous fare wars they initiated to undercut each other on competitive routes (I remember being able to fly from Portland OR to the Bay area for 29$ each way with a guaranteed seat).
I took the Empire Builder train from Chicago to Seattle in 2018. That was a three day trip that was scenic, slow and very enjoyable! Best way to "see the country". The journey is the whole point of riding a train.
@@cart.l I wouldn't call providing critical nationwide transportation coverage "pissing away taxpayer money". Do you know why government collects taxes? To SPEND that money to provide services. So the question isn't "Government spent money", since the job of the government is to spend money on behalf on citizens to such projects, that cannot be reasonably organized by private inviduals or singular companies. The real question is "What did you get in exchange for that money" and for that question "nation wide rail transportation service including the areas not commercially directly viable, but critical to said areas overall economic welfare" is a pretty good answer. People don't go around asking Pentagon "Hey did you make direct profit". The ROI on Pentagon is "No one has dared to invade USA directly in decades, so business and society can run in peace. Instead of without Pentagon probably having to now and then run in wartime disruptions."
@@aritakalo8011 The problem is is about 80% of the money is just lost to bureaucracy. A private company can get things done as fast as possible, as well as possible, for as cheap as possible. The government writes irresponsible contracts for ridiculous sums of money.
What surprises me as a Spaniard is that in the US the trains are late so many times. Bc people normally aren’t late (or not that late as here in Spain). However, what I like about Spain’s high-speed trains system is that if your train is late for more than 10 minutes or something like that they give you your money back.
I love riding Amtrak for peace of mind (and travel). I incorporate the layovers and I am still willing to pay the cost it’s just worth it, when you are not in a rush.
This really highlights one of the biggest issues with the US economy: too much emphasis on short-term profitability. Amtrak is the sort of thing that needs to exist *regardless* of profitability, and trying to make it profitable is only going to hurt us in the long run. Focus on short-term profitability is one of the biggest reasons our public transportation is so bad compared to just about any other developed nation. Public transportation should be operated as a public service, not a for-profit business venture. This alone could do more to stimulate our economy than everything else combined, because cheap, efficient transportation that anyone can afford enables many more people to get to jobs and pay taxes. Now I get it that Amtrak isn't as crucial for jobs, but working people also need vacations, and being able to get to fun tourist locations for cheap also helps in every way imaginable.
>Congress says spend less Oh yeah but billions more for military. I have bias towards trains, sure but hell I think its worth it too keep those long distance routes alive.
@@homiej2548 excuse me, the budget for MILITARY spending last year was about a trillion dollars. This year it will be well over 1 trillion. You communicate with me in the comments for what? How about a "hello" or something... "I'm misonformed?" No youre just thirsty for human contact. especially when the info is a google search away.
@@whitealliance9540 With a simple google search, the military budget is 718 billion dollars. That is far below 1 trillion. My original point still stands. Perhaps you need to complete some fact checking.
USA: Our long range Amtraks are so scenic, slow, relaxed and nice. Getting there is half of the pleasure. It is more political than economical. China : 200 000 km of high speed! rail exist.
Michał Prądzyński it’s totally different. America has 300 million people China has 1,400 million people. The video pointed out the Acela corridor was the only profitable part of Amtrak and that’s because its the densest area of the US. To put it in perspective, The US and China are roughly the same size. It would be as if all the land east of the Mississippi were as densely populated as the Acela corridor. That’s what China is basically. Then trains would make money.
The Coast Starlight goes from Seattle to Los Angeles. And you forgot to talk about the new purchases of the Siemens Chargers to replace all the p42s and all the other aging locomotives for the long distant trains and state funded ones.
Max Rico Right. But I’m treating the map more as a visual with only some routes being highlighted. I definitely noticed that, too, though. I’ve never traveled down to LA on that route but I’ve used it to travel between Portland and Seattle.
Is it fair to ask Amtrak to make a profit or break even...when we don't do the same for our highways? Estimates vary...but per some the USA spends a half trillion dollars on roads per year.
Two vastly different issues for each. Maintaining roads vs making Amtrak profitable each have their unique problems. Can’t say you can even compare the two.
Some states are moving towards toll roads to compensate. It is also notable that train routes were built in the US for profit, once they weren't profitable, they all shutdown. Amtrak was created in response to keep rail travel an option despite being no longer profitable.
Roads are pretty much universal : everybody uses them directly or indirectly whether it's to go meet a neighbor, have UPS deliver something, drive to the store, having that store supplied, ... That's not the case for rail.
I’ve taken AMTRAK across the country multiple times. I highly recommend it at least once to people. Watching the country go by from a sleeper car is so beautiful.
Rail shouldn’t be run for profit. It should serve the purpose of providing the best transport and cheapest transport to the most people. Efficient rail makes for an efficient economy
Unless you're deciding to make passenger rail transport entirely free, it's going to need at least brake even. Railroads, whether private or public are still businesses at the end of the day. Running them at a loss is not a sound idea. Just look at SNCF for example.
For those watching this in the future, both Texas Central and Brightline West appear to have folded since this video was made. Neither has as much as filed for permits to break ground for their respective "Amtrak killer" projects by 2020. Basically, Texas died and Brightline is just using their "HSR project in California" for marketing while not planning to ever build it. Texas Central has not raised any money and is effectively broke. A good chunk of their leadership team has jumped ship. It's not looking good. Brigthline continues to string us along with ever more fantastical proposals for their Express West route knowing full well that that will have to necessarily delay the project by decades. At this point nothing of the original project that they bought from Express West remains. They have removed all the cost controlling features that were supposed to make this project viable and now they are pretending like they are redoing the whole design and engineering from scratch. Everyone knows that the approvals alone for a completely new project will take at least a decade. Similarly, everyone knows that their new project is not economical because even the previous 20% the cost one was at the very edge of feasibility. Meanwhile Amtrak is buying the same intercity trains that Brightline and Railjet is using and expanding modern high-quality intercity service all around the country. Game, set, and match Amtrak!
Damn, really? Im a fan of amtrak but I was kinda hopin texas was gonna go through with it. I still hope for brightline, they have virgins backing, so someone has to know what theyre doing
@@tibbers3755 I hope I am wrong, but it's not looking good. FYI, Virgin pulled out of Brightline. Honestly, I have the most faith in Amtrak at this point. They are buying the same Siemens trains that Brightline is using for most of their more profitable and more popular intercity services. They have the actual money from the infrastructure bill. And they have the state support in most of the country.
this is the correct answer, people are tired of driving long distance and checking/waiting into customs. If all transportation had equal opportunities, HSR will dominate the whole economy
We need every transportation method, I mean holy shit have you driven on the highway lately? It would be so nice to have an option of taking a train or bus to work.... WE SHOULD BRING BACK RAILCARS TOO, THE CAR INDUSTRY BOUGHT EVERYSINGLE COMPANY OUT AND PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS, Google that, it's true. I mean railcar makes so much more sense than a bus, because fucking bus's take up space in a road while RAILCARS had their own lane in the middle.
It's because in the 1920s when the automobile was mass produced consumers were drawn to the desire to travel at their own schedule. And so more and more decided to utilize the automobile rather than the rails. The expansion of the US highway system in the 1950s greatly helped to expand consumer mindset of automotive transportation being the primary method of transportation
@@rejvaik00 I want to see those people drive on the highways of today, like omg they'd have a panic attack anytime they looked at their car and thought about McDonald's.
Having spent nine years of my life living in North Dakota (to become a pilot), I can tell you that the long distance trains do matter. There is a lot of open space in this country, and not everyone can make the hours long drive to the nearest commercial airport, let alone afford a plane ticket. Anderson is a great businessman, but he does not care one iota about the product or who it's for. He might succeed in making that pile of junk company profitable, but if it means cutting the lifeline to what is geographically MOST of the USA, then we're moving backward, not forward.
Places like North Dakota show exactly why train service doesn't make sense in most of America. I live just north of North Dakota in Canada, to get anywhere by rail would take days. Woohoo I got a week-long vacation, let's spend 4 days in a seat to get there! Nobody relies on Amtrack as a lifeline. Only delusional socialists and railfans think that.
@@fastfiddler1625 Please explain to me the numbers for North Dakota and how rail would make sense. I can drive three hours to Fargo and get a round trip to Vegas for 200 bucks. Please explain to me how rail is even a realistic option.
@@TheOwenMajor Everyone doesn't have a car and can't drive. Prime example the elderly. So instead of drive three hours to Fargo and then take plane, it would be "Take a 3 hour long taxi and then take a plane". Rail is realistic option, when other options aren't an option. Which happens often enough for it to be worth the public good for to Budget some money for AMTRAK subsidies. Only wrong thing to do is to even try to pretend AMTRAK is doing anything nearing normal for profit business. It isn't. A for profit business would have cut most of the lines decades ago. Actually they did. These lines used to be served by large part by private business. Then it became unprofitable. However these lines even as unprofitable, were still NECESSARY. Thus AMTRAK was created to continue these NECESSARY services. At budget expense. Only problem was it was chartered as business and Congress keeps pipe dreaming, that these unprofitable public good services are somehow supposed to be run profitably. If it was profitable, private business would have kept running the long distance lines.
@@aritakalo8011 If you can't drive or get someone to drive you/ can't afford a car, how are you traveling? In your odd socialist world, you can't afford to buy a $1000 car, but you can afford to spend the week in LA. You can't drive a car, but you can travel across the country? You make no sense, even less when you are talking about spending billions helping nonexistent people.
Cutting long-distance on Amtrak will take a huge hit on tourism to America. You do not see America from 30,000 feet in the air, or on boring freeways used by long-distance bus companies.. You do see it in a train. Learn from the Canadians, as they have made their long-distance trains a rail journey that draws many millions of international visitors... Amtrak could do that as well, and provide connection to small towns and communities right across the land. But you need to improve catering services and the overall travel experience, and comfort of cabin... Not serve them up pre-prepared microwave meal options.. It can certainly be done, and done at a healthy profit... but are the airlines or other interested parties trying to stop Amtrak from succeeding....?
Look up what happened about 50 years ago. A set of CEOs from the automotive industry became the "saviours" of the inner city train services... Spoiler alert... They cut services, and caused the companies to all go out of business. Having an executive from the airlines... The primary competition for the long distance trains... Save the company is not actually saving anything. I wish congress would end the law requiring Amtrak as a public company. Let the smaller lines compete. See if Virgin can make rail work in California.
@@davynhainstock7503 I think the "Rocky Mountaineer" brings in a lot of tourism, but that is mostly used by international tourists. Via Rail does do Vancouver to Toronto, and vice versa, which is starting to be known now internationally, as well as other routes in the east of Canada. I am in Australia. Rail tourism is growing and is the new drawcard, so if Amtrak cut their long distance services in the U.S., they will be cutting themselves out of a growing market.
If there was really a market for such a thing, we would have seen these trains on the tracks already, operated by private railway companies. However, it seems that it is more profitable to focus on freight.
1:38 Wait, what? The company that runs the trains is state-owned, but the tracks are not? It doesn't make any sense this way round! Train tracks are a natural monopoly. In my opinion, the train running should be state owned, too, but I can understand why some people would want a sort of free market in that area. However, that's impossible with the tracks. America, you land of wonder...
@@beybladeguru101 Main lines should be government owned - if a private corporation wants to make a private extension of that line, they should own (and only own) that particular extension.
@@seanj4119 Even if you put a high speed train on it, the speed would not increase by much due to the fact that the track delays are primarily what kills that thing.
@@kennethsouthard6042 large amounts of that line in CA have little to no freight on them. I can give an example. the pacific surfline 777 every Thursday is 30-45 mins late. I just took 2 other surfliner trains and each were an hour late. The line has 0 freight during the day. Part of that route maybe in competition if California ever starts our high speed LA to bake to SF/SJ/OAK line
@@gdrriley420 I rode the Surfliner daily for 4 years from San Diego to LA. I can't speak for all of it but the portion from LA to somewhere in Orange County is owned by Metro Link and parts of the San Diego portion are owned by The Coaster. However, since those commuter railroads own it, they also have priority over it and make Amtrak take the backseat similar to the way the freight lines do over their tracks.
I'm one of the people that use a long distance route at least twice a year to visit family. If Amtrak cut this area from service it would severely affect my ability to visit that family.
@@isaacr.1348 because, as the video has stated, Amtrack's _raison d'etre_ is partly to connect America's smallest, poorest and most isolated communities.
@@isaacr.1348 AMTRAK doesn't since AMTRAK does job as ordered by their bosses.... The Congress. Congress cares, because they represent the constituents who AMTRAK serves and those constituents don't want to lose their often only good public transport option. Not every town comes with a regional airport.
Hydrochloric Acid But as previously explained (I believe by this channel) there is also subsidy to airlines for doing the same thing. So....it would seem sensible only to do one or the other! (And much as I prefer trains, the infrastructure advantages air travel has is significant.)
My Mother and I love the long haul trips. Those trios show our great country. Plus there are so many jobs for people that work for Amtrak a long those long haul trips. For many small towns it is Amtrak to bring mail and people to great small places. And that is nice. God Bless leaving those long haul trips alone.
I had my first trip from VA to FL on the AutoTrain about 2 months ago. The biggest problem is speed and delays. You're already bleeding $, what's a few more million dollars to buy the rails the trains run on and then giving all Amtrak trains priority. It would literally shave off hours of travel time if the damn thing didn't have to stop so much to wait for other trains to pass.
@@leonardwei3914 I had to bring a car down from NY to FL, best way to not tire myself out and not put miles on the car was the AutoTrain. It's only supposed to have a single stop to change crews. They were supposed to arrive at 1PM to VA and we were supposed to leave at 4PM arriving in FL at 9AM. The train did not get to VA until 9:50PM, did not depart until 10:30PM and we made it into Florida @ ~5PM. All of this because the train got stuck coming up via Atlanta and had to hold for over an hour for other traffic. Delays like that can get solved if Amtrak owned all the lines.
@Jonathan Williams Nah, Amtrak ain't going anywhere. Even if it bled money forever, there's 0 way they would ever cut the service. Plus, the best study for this actually being a feasible solution is the NE Corridor they've been using for years.
@Jonathan Williams Debt ain't ever going away, the way "the debt limit" works in this country is idiotic and Congress is the only one to blame. Let Amtrak make money by actually helping it, worse case, imminent domain the rail lines. Done
*The Logistics of Resorts in the Maldives!* Would be nice to see this title some time😻 because it’s fascinating what they do over there in the middle of no where!
I think it's silly to expect transportation infrastructure to be profitable, nobody thinks that roads should turn a profit, but somehow when it comes to railroads that has to turn a profit?
Bravo to Wendover/Away on this superb presentation. One point is overlooked: Amtrak is so slow largely because it runs passenger trains on freight tracks. Freight trains do to tracks what big trucks do to roads. High speed rail is impossible on freight tracks. The three day trip from NYC to LA takes 12h by existing high speed rail technology. The freight companies claim to be able to move a ton of freight 400 miles on a gallon of diesel. Windmills built along the track can power electric passenger rail. Amtrak has two functions: run a passenger carrying service and maintain rail lines. The first is a competitive business like an airplane company or an auto manuracturer. The second is infrastructure, the natural province of the federal government like the interstate highway system or the FAA. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD UNDERWRITE AND OWN HIGH SPEED RAIL SPINES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, LIKE IN JAPAN, EUROPE, AND CHINA. THEN, IT CAN LEASE SPACE --- LIKE CSX DOES TO AMTRAK OUTSIDE THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR --- TO RAIL COMPANIES. AMTRAK COULD BE ONE OF MANY COMPANIES COMPETING FOR SPACE. WITH WIND POWER, FAST RAIL TRAVEL WILL BECOME THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TO FLYING. MOST CITIES/STATES WILL BE DELIGHTED TO connect to the high speed line. AMTRAK SHOULD END RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRACKS: THE FED SHOULD OWN ALL PASSENGER TRACKS, which should be placed next to freight TRACKS where possible. THE COST OF ONE SPINE, BY MY CALCULATION, IS BETWEEN ONE AND TWO YEARS OF THE TOTALLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, 40-YEAR OLD WAR ON DRUGS. WE CAN AFFORD IT. LET'S DO IT.
What about America x Iran x Afghanistan war? That isn’t going on still? Or did it end? But what you said is true. Even if there isn’t war, the army manages to spend trillions for unknown reasons.
(1) Delta CEO takes over Amtrak because it is struggling. But Amtrak is struggling due to congressional mismanagement and chronic underfunding, not a lack of airline CEOs. (2) Amtrak was set up to fail by design -- the politicians behind its founding created it as a transition toward the end of passenger rail in the US. Despite the best efforts of those politicians, Amtrak has not failed -- it may be "strugging" but it's also carrying more passengers than ever and expanding in states like Virginia and it's about to bring over an all new high speed trainset in the northeast corridor, and a fleet of new national coaches. (3) Amtrak is not profitable, and neither are 99% of US roads, airports, seaports, bike paths, urban public transit systems, etc. Simply because Delta or Ford or Greyhound themselves are profitable does not mean the underlying infrastructure they use is profitable. If Ford and Greyhound had to pay for the roads, they wouldn't be profitable either (even fuel taxes do not cover a majority of the cost of unprofitable US highways). Amtrak has to pay for the rails, because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (4) Amtrak trains are delayed due to freight service...no "but still" needed. If freight companies actually made good faith efforts to accommodate passenger rail, the vast majority of those delays would be erased. The remainder of delays are largely due to congressional mismanagement on underfunded infrastructure (such as the old coaches and aging bridges), not Amtrak leadership. (5) What you describe with the long distance network as "strong fan bases" are actually a huge catch all for people who do not or cannot drive (include disabled folks, retired folks, people with certain religious restrictions, children, people in poverty) and don't discount the fact that they serve smaller communities that are now rarely well served by intercity buses (Greyhound has massively cut rural service in the last several decades) not to mention mostly being totally unserved by airlines. Add in people who are afraid of flying and people who do not enjoy security situation at airports, and people who want a more comfortable option than intercity buses and you can see why passenger numbers on these lines are increasing, not decreasing as suggested. (6) Some of the policies Anderson is changing to cut costs will lead to more dissatisfied users, like getting rid of refundable cheap tickets and eliminating dining cars on multi-hour trains. You can't cut rail costs while also increasing usage, we're either trying to have a public railroad transporting the maximum number of people at the most affordable cost or we're trying to get rich, choose one. My point being here, call the problems what they actually are -- political and not based on profitability. We've decided to massively subsidize other forms of transportation (especially cars and trucks) and to not subsidize passenger rail because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Federal state and local governments spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year on roads (again, largely not paid for by user fees like fuel taxes and tolls) -- cars and trucks and road freight and intercity buses are also not profitable, but Amtrak is supposed to somehow compete with them on price or value or on time performance when only Amtrak is being held to this standard of profitability. Imagine an alternative scenario where the physical rail infrastructure costs (that is, leasing rail access from freight companies, stations, funding repairs and new rail construction, etc) were operated by a subsidized public agency and the remainder of Amtrak's costs (coaches, repairs, staff) were operated on a more businesslike model. In that case, Amtrak wouldn't look so unprofitable and political parties would have less bickering to do about funding basic essential infrastructure. Maybe we underfund rail due to corruption -- highway construction companies who wanted lucrative taxpayer funded payouts and freight companies who want passenger trains out in favor of more profitable freight. Maybe it was a lack of imagination, while other developed nations expand rail and use rail transport as a way of mitigating traffic, climate change, and accessibility concerns, the US languishes.
You did not get it. The point is that trains cannot compete on long routes and airlines cannot compete on short routes. Why try do everything when you should do what you are good at?
One thing that seems clear is that they need a lot more of their own rail lines. There are so many delays from the rail company that owns the line getting priority.
Eduardo Pérez The government! They do it already. Its better to just drop this attempt to make profit since to do that they would need to cut lines and those lines are the whole reason Amtrak exists.
If they ever manage an “over nighter” between Houston and So California without having to include MIssouri in my itinerary, I’ll think about taking a train.
The CEO needs to understand many rail companies around the world make a loss on their services, such as China's High-Speed Rail. The social benefits outweigh the losses, though, and the CEO should focus on providing better service, even if more subsidies are required.
The last time I rode an amtrak train I went from DC to St Louis and my train was almost 26 hours late. The trip was beautiful and relaxing though, just don't be in a hurry.
