4 ms·

Amtrak is in a sorry state as well. They announced recently that they are going to perform much needed maintenance on NY Penn station (which they own, and which

Amtrak is in a sorry state as well. They announced recently that they are going to perform much needed maintenance on NY Penn station (which they own, and which the MTA's LIRR uses) [1]. From former Amtrak CEO David Hughes: "The accumulated deferred maintenance and lack of attention really makes it almost a third-world operation." [2] [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-crash-philadelphia-highlights-aging-infrastructure/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-crash-philadelphia-highli... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/nyregion/nj-transit-schedule-penn-station-repairs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/nyregion/nj-transit-sched...

ams6110 9y ago
Amtrak should have been euthanized decades ago. They have been abysmal for years, perhaps somewhat better in the Northeast. The Northeast routes should have been sold off to regional transit authorities and the rest of the system shut down.
- rayiner 9y ago
  You're not wrong. The northeast system is absolutely viable--bankrolled mostly by business travelers who get a lot of value out of being plopped down in the middle of Manhattan or D.C. at the end of the trip. The underlying rail is viable for commuter lines too. Otherwise it's a boondoggle and diverts money that could be better used elsewhere.
  - crzwdjk 9y ago
    It's hard to say whether the long distance trains are viable as a transportation service, because they're also in the "land cruise" business and oddly enough that part seems even less profitable. It's the source of a lot of the expenses, especially for things like food service. Amtrak has actually tried cutting the diner on one of the Florida trains and dropping sleeper prices by $100, and is making considerably more money on that train, so there's still some potential to get close to 100% cost recovery on LD service if Amtrak gets out of running the land cruise business, which it seems reluctant to do because of tradition.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      I'm not sure that works long term. Even budget airlines offer meals and long haul flights, and Amtrak long distance routes are often 15+ hours long.
- volkl48 9y ago
  That's failing to understand what Amtrak is, what it does, or why it exists. There are effectively 3 types of services Amtrak runs. 1. Long distance trains. These are the 1-2x a day or less cross-country runs, the legacy of pre-1971 history, effectively. Because they run 95%+ on freight company rails in most cases, they're often very late, very slow, and often do not provide a very practical service or even come close to generating reasonable revenue number. Amtrak runs these at the behest of the federal government, who picks up the tab for their losses. It's easy to say, "cut these!", and not necessarily wrong. But while it's not a very good service, it gets Amtrak into 46 states. It's often the only transportation option of any kind in those rural areas besides driving yourself. Even buses don't serve a lot of the places Amtrak rumbles through. The losses are relatively small per year, and as such Congress is generally loathe to kill service that affects THEIR state. That's the political angle. The other angle is that it serves as a placeholder of sorts for the future. It keeps the idea of long-distance passenger rail in existence. It keeps the right to run that 1-2x a day service over those lines active. It's a lot easier to negotiate to run a couple more trains a day than it is to negotiate to start running on a line you don't run on. It's a lot easier to get community support to expand/improve a thing that exists than convince people to bring what they've never had before. Many recent expansions of the state supported services (more on what that is next) have been over that. 2. State supported services are what they sound like. States pay Amtrak to run service. States may buy equipment that Amtrak runs or it may be part of the general Amtrak fleet. States pay for the operating costs/number of trains, capital improvements, etc. Amtrak serves as the operator fulfilling the contract. Many of these provide "real" service that is regularly used by people where it operates. Some states are putting in enough in upgrades to even get time-competitive with driving. There is no reason for the federal government to be altering how Amtrak handles this. If states want to, they're perfectly free to hire someone else. Attempts at that have mostly not gone well. 3. Northeast Corridor. Pretty much vital to the Northeast, without exaggeration. It moves more people than planes or buses do between most of the 1-2 city hops. It's badly in need of billions of $ of improvements, which is the primary issue with it, not Amtrak's management of it. Even as it is it's critical infrastructure. It turns an operating profit, but doesn't cover capital expenses. It would probably be a legal and political nightmare to try to split it up among the states or come up with a successor given how many states are involved in it, it needs to be one entity.

ams6110 9y ago

Amtrak should have been euthanized decades ago. They have been abysmal for years, perhaps somewhat better in the Northeast. The Northeast routes should have been sold off to regional transit authorities and the rest of the system shut down.

rayiner 9y ago
You're not wrong. The northeast system is absolutely viable--bankrolled mostly by business travelers who get a lot of value out of being plopped down in the middle of Manhattan or D.C. at the end of the trip. The underlying rail is viable for commuter lines too. Otherwise it's a boondoggle and diverts money that could be better used elsewhere.
- crzwdjk 9y ago
  It's hard to say whether the long distance trains are viable as a transportation service, because they're also in the "land cruise" business and oddly enough that part seems even less profitable. It's the source of a lot of the expenses, especially for things like food service. Amtrak has actually tried cutting the diner on one of the Florida trains and dropping sleeper prices by $100, and is making considerably more money on that train, so there's still some potential to get close to 100% cost recovery on LD service if Amtrak gets out of running the land cruise business, which it seems reluctant to do because of tradition.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I'm not sure that works long term. Even budget airlines offer meals and long haul flights, and Amtrak long distance routes are often 15+ hours long.
volkl48 9y ago
That's failing to understand what Amtrak is, what it does, or why it exists. There are effectively 3 types of services Amtrak runs. 1. Long distance trains. These are the 1-2x a day or less cross-country runs, the legacy of pre-1971 history, effectively. Because they run 95%+ on freight company rails in most cases, they're often very late, very slow, and often do not provide a very practical service or even come close to generating reasonable revenue number. Amtrak runs these at the behest of the federal government, who picks up the tab for their losses. It's easy to say, "cut these!", and not necessarily wrong. But while it's not a very good service, it gets Amtrak into 46 states. It's often the only transportation option of any kind in those rural areas besides driving yourself. Even buses don't serve a lot of the places Amtrak rumbles through. The losses are relatively small per year, and as such Congress is generally loathe to kill service that affects THEIR state. That's the political angle. The other angle is that it serves as a placeholder of sorts for the future. It keeps the idea of long-distance passenger rail in existence. It keeps the right to run that 1-2x a day service over those lines active. It's a lot easier to negotiate to run a couple more trains a day than it is to negotiate to start running on a line you don't run on. It's a lot easier to get community support to expand/improve a thing that exists than convince people to bring what they've never had before. Many recent expansions of the state supported services (more on what that is next) have been over that. 2. State supported services are what they sound like. States pay Amtrak to run service. States may buy equipment that Amtrak runs or it may be part of the general Amtrak fleet. States pay for the operating costs/number of trains, capital improvements, etc. Amtrak serves as the operator fulfilling the contract. Many of these provide "real" service that is regularly used by people where it operates. Some states are putting in enough in upgrades to even get time-competitive with driving. There is no reason for the federal government to be altering how Amtrak handles this. If states want to, they're perfectly free to hire someone else. Attempts at that have mostly not gone well. 3. Northeast Corridor. Pretty much vital to the Northeast, without exaggeration. It moves more people than planes or buses do between most of the 1-2 city hops. It's badly in need of billions of $ of improvements, which is the primary issue with it, not Amtrak's management of it. Even as it is it's critical infrastructure. It turns an operating profit, but doesn't cover capital expenses. It would probably be a legal and political nightmare to try to split it up among the states or come up with a successor given how many states are involved in it, it needs to be one entity.