Amtrak hits record 30 million passengers

[thundley4]

marmar   (1000+ posts)             Mon Oct-17-11 10:13 PM
Original message
Amtrak hits record 30 million passengers   
   

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. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqs2j...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2137155

More propaganda from the AP.  I read the article but saw nothing about how much AMTRAK is costing in taxpayer money.

The company is projecting an operating loss of $507 million for the fiscal year ended in September -- even more than its $420 million loss in 2010 -- and next year, it expects to lose $616 million. Amtrak... hasn't had a profitable year since it began operations in 1971.

Link

[Tantal]

Amtrak usage is up because gas prices are so high. As usual, the leeches have found a way to use the federal government to pass their travel expenses on to those of us who actually pay taxes.

[BattleHymn]

Amtrak's operating loss can only be fixed with high-speed rail.    

[jukin]

The more people AMTRAK moves, the more the taxpayers pay for it.

Like I said, it's all about the volume that makes the right profit to earnings ratio.

[MrsSmith]

Amtrak hits record 30 million passengers   

wow, that must have made a real mess on the tracks!!      

[Bodadh]

Just looked up fares. Using the same departure and return dates to Washington DC Greyhound was $26 with a advance perchase, $40 web only fare, $98 standard fare, $110 refundable. Amtrack was just $46. I would take Amtrack only because I could plug in my computer, you can get a seat by your self without some meth head becoming your new best friend for the next four hours, and a flushing toilet. Tho the last time I took it some one jack up the crapper.

[ScubaGuy]

wow, that must have made a real mess on the tracks!!      

I'm going to hell for this.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAOhBBEQwE8&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

[DumbAss Tanker]

Unlike a lot of Conservatives, I regard AmTrak as a reasonable infrastructure expense.  It is a capability that can't be reconstituted once it's retired, and there are quite a few things from terrorists to volcanic activity that could cause wide-scale shutdowns in air transportation.  It would be nice if it made a profit or broke even, but it's worth what it costs to keep the capability warm-based.

High speed rail, on the other hand, at least outside the mega-city zones, is money down a rat-hole.  The technology isn't cutting-edge, it's just expensive as Hell (As is land acquisition for the rights-of-way, since unlike AmTrak they can't run over existing trackage), and the passenger throughput is as low as the cost is high.  Any state that buys into the Federal 'We'll pay 50/60/90/whatever of the cost to build it' line is asking for a white elephant that will have annual operating costs that break the bank even faster than the public employee unions and 'free' college for all would. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Amtrak: even when the government ruins the economy so much to force you to ride it, it still loses money.

Unlike a lot of Conservatives, I regard AmTrak as a reasonable infrastructure expense.  It is a capability that can't be reconstituted once it's retired, and there are quite a few things from terrorists to volcanic activity that could cause wide-scale shutdowns in air transportation.  It would be nice if it made a profit or broke even, but it's worth what it costs to keep the capability warm-based.

It's like the police, military and disaster aid: it will never MAKE money. It will be a perpetual expense.

But the ability to mitigate extraordinary circumstances that would unduly disrupt our society make it worth the losing investment.

The problem is: no one labels it as such and we have people like VP Joe "Choo-Choo" Biden running around talking it up as if it has a ROI.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The problem is: no one labels it as such and we have people like VP Joe "Choo-Choo" Biden running around talking it up as if it has a ROI.

True, unfortunately our side has just as many people who delusionally believe themselves to be master strategic planners as theirs does, ours are just biased to spending no money instead of spending too much money. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Admitted without aregument.

[Tantal]

Unlike a lot of Conservatives, I regard AmTrak as a reasonable infrastructure expense.  It is a capability that can't be reconstituted once it's retired, and there are quite a few things from terrorists to volcanic activity that could cause wide-scale shutdowns in air transportation.  It would be nice if it made a profit or broke even, but it's worth what it costs to keep the capability warm-based.

If we actually had to move massive amounts of people for the events that you described, we aren't going to be doing it on semi-luxurious passenger trains. BNSF will be moving them in cattle cars. I still think we could do without it.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Amtrak hits record 30 million passengers

Now that I think about it: this title could really be misconstrued.

[Tantal]

Now that I think about it: this title could really be misconstrued.

Probably a non-union scrub driver.

[TVDOC]

I'd like to humbly disagree with DAT and SSB vis-a-vis the concept of preserving Amtrak as a contingency resource into perpetuity, for several reasons.......

First being that the infrastructure (trackage/right-of-way) is already paid for, and is used very profitably by railroad freight, and is therefore not going anywhere anytime soon.  Rail freight is still the least expensive means of transporting many types of cargo over long distances, particularly chemicals and other hazardous materials that are difficult to move by other means.  The only "perishable" in the equation is passenger rail coaches, which are easy to produce quickly if the need is there, or rerouted from other applications for emergency passenger service.

Second, I'd like to see the percentage of the 30 million passengers that Amtrak carried on routes other than the NE corridor (Washington DC to Boston with the metropolitan stops in between)........I'd hazard a guess that that figure is likely 15% or less.......meaning that if Amtrak abandoned passenger service everywhere else except the NE corridor their losses would very likely be considerably less (if not eliminated entirely).

Third, outside of the NE corridor Amtrak owns absolutely NO route trackage, and leases its use from the freight carriers that build and maintain it, further, Amtrak use of these roads is subordinated to the owner's trains, making reliable scheduling for Amtrak trains impossible.  EXAMPLE:  Amtrak operates passenger service between Kansas City and St. Louis daily, and this train can take anywhere from 6 hours to 10 hours to complete the trip.......depending on how many times the passenger train is sidetracked to wait for freight operations over the same line, which are priority users.  The ridership on this single route averages only 30 passengers per run. (NOTE:  Express bus service between Kansas City and St. Louis takes 4 1/2 hours, and the fare is lower).  It's interesting to note that the cost of operating the Amtrak train over this route is approximated at $175,000 per run (including equipment maintenance and depreciation) compared to $785 for the bus carrying the same number of passengers over the same route.

Summarizing, outside of the densely populated areas of the NE, there seems to be no real logic to maintaining passenger service over the entire country, when there are reliable and profitable ways to accomplish the same service (if not better) using other means, particularly when the US taxpayer is footing the bill.

doc

[DumbAss Tanker]

If we actually had to move massive amounts of people for the events that you described, we aren't going to be doing it on semi-luxurious passenger trains. BNSF will be moving them in cattle cars. I still think we could do without it.

You've obviously ridden a different AmTrak run than I have!

 

Seriously, while they do have some 'Resort' trips and sightseeing cars and runs, type legacies of the old NP and SF among others, what will be moving the people around in that kind of emergency will be anything with wheels, including commuter-service cars like the Metroliner-based Budd pattern.  I really wouldn't expect there to be a lot of surplus freight rolling stock or non-AmTrak head-end power to tap into, because most of those foreseeable emergencies would suck up all the available cargo capacity as well. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don't think you would have to twist my ears too hard to scrap the passenger aspect of Amtrak. I suppose I was being careless in my overall approval of rail infrastructure.

Rail is a strategic asset that should be maintained.

Your point about Amtrack owning 0 rail trackage outside the NE corridor is particularly noteworthy. If the private sector is keeping our strategic asset and doing it at a profit, bless them; but it is an asset I would federally subsidize if push came to shove.

At least until we adopt my invention where everybody is put in a giant plastic canister and put inside vacuum tubes like when you go to the bank drive-up tellers.

[Tantal]

You've obviously ridden a different AmTrak run than I have!

 

 

Semi-luxurious in comaprison to the cattle cars that everyone will be riding.

[TVDOC]

You know......there is a way to maintain a good portion of the continental passenger service Amtrak attempts to accomplish at a vastly lower cost.  That would be to revert to the service that the commercial railroads used back in the late 60's and 70's when they were struggling to maintain passenger rail against the developing airline industry.

The method is an "intermix" train........freight carriers frequently operate regularly scheduled trains over most heavily travelled routes.  Instead of Amtrak operating its own rolling stock (specifically locomotives), they could simply contract with the freight carriers to tack one or more passenger coaches onto a scheduled freight run, and compensate the railroad for the pickup and drop-off of the coaches at origin and destination.

Once the logistics are worked out the cost to the freight carrier to pull a few additional passenger coaches would be a small fraction of those incurred by assembling, staffing, and maintaining an entire train for this purpose.

This, of course, makes too much sense for a government operation......and think of all those union jobs that would be lost........

doc

[DefiantSix]

You know......there is a way to maintain a good portion of the continental passenger service Amtrak attempts to accomplish at a vastly lower cost.  That would be to revert to the service that the commercial railroads used back in the late 60's and 70's when they were struggling to maintain passenger rail against the developing airline industry.

The method is an "intermix" train........freight carriers frequently operate regularly scheduled trains over most heavily travelled routes.  Instead of Amtrak operating its own rolling stock (specifically locomotives), they could simply contract with the freight carriers to tack one or more passenger coaches onto a scheduled freight run, and compensate the railroad for the pickup and drop-off of the coaches at origin and destination.

Once the logistics are worked out the cost to the freight carrier to pull a few additional passenger coaches would be a small fraction of those incurred by assembling, staffing, and maintaining an entire train for this purpose.

This, of course, makes too much sense for a government operation......and think of all those union jobs that would be lost........

doc

Not to mention, around here at least, the freight service that runs through most frequently is the coal run between the mines in Wyoming, and the powerplants in Colorado.  You'd never hear the end of the bitching from the whiny moonbats who were forced to hitch their commuter train behind a bunch of dirty, smelly coal cars.

[thundley4]

Not to mention, around here at least, the freight service that runs through most frequently is the coal run between the mines in Wyoming, and the powerplants in Colorado.  You'd never hear the end of the bitching from the whiny moonbats who were forced to hitch their commuter train behind a bunch of dirty, smelly coal cars.

Most of the rail cars here fall under one of three types.  Tank cars hauling corn and soybean products, grain cars carrying corn or soybeans, and automobile carriers, occasionally I'll see one loaded down with Caterpillar parts or vehicles.