• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Should be the Future of Amtrak

What Should be the Future of Amtrak

  • Continue Subsidies at Current Level

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Stop Subsidies for Amtrak completely.

    Votes: 20 39.2%

  • Continue Subsidies, and Maybe More, but Improve Service

    Votes: 26 51.0%

  • I have never ridden Amtrak, and never will.

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Total voters
    51
Media_Truth

Media_Truth

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
11,375
Reaction score
2,650
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
 
Media_Truth said:
What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
Click to expand...

Passenger rail in Europe is often much, much better than in the US. The TVG in France is excellent.
 
Media_Truth said:
What should be the future of Amtrak?
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
Click to expand...

France has quite a few populous cities that are all fairly close to one another. The closest thing the US has is the Northeast Corridor, which is not nearly as densely packed. So of course it would be cheaper to run passenger rail service in France.

Much of the expense that the US faces is maintaining tracks that run through hundreds of miles of basically nothing - and often going up some high mountains.
 
Media_Truth said:
What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
Click to expand...

Years ago, my Father-in-law(God rest him) had the terrific idea of keeping the rails intact, but exiting the passenger traffic venue. He proposed, and still today it makes sense to me, to use rail only for commerce, by loading and unloading semitrailers onto flat cars. I am fairly certain that interstate passenger travel by train has outlived its usefulness, but cargo would be a natural. The only proviso would be a better guarantee of delivery. I have tried using it and was scared away by the cavalier approach they took. Though that would seem an easy fix with the computer systems we have today.
Regards,
CP
 
Media_Truth said:
What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have taken Amtrak twice. I like it. I am planning another longer trip soon. Much more humane way to travel.

That said, i think we put it back in the hands of private carriers with the provision that the main carriers must provide passenger routes. There will be better service and a bigger priority for on-time performance. Also a bigger probability of high speed connections.
 
Amtrak should implement the "hub and spoke" model and deploy high speed rail between hubs.
 
my vote is don't expect it to make a profit, but keep funding it. making a profit isn't the most important aspect of a public service.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
France has quite a few populous cities that are all fairly close to one another. The closest thing the US has is the Northeast Corridor, which is not nearly as densely packed. So of course it would be cheaper to run passenger rail service in France.

Much of the expense that the US faces is maintaining tracks that run through hundreds of miles of basically nothing - and often going up some high mountains.
Click to expand...

Amtrak does not have any tracks. They run on other railroad's tracks. This is very costly for the railroads hosting Amtrak because Amtrak always has the right of way and the other railroads have to put their trains in sidings while Amtrak passes.

Amtrak is a needed and well used along the East Coast. They also have a few areas in California where they are used. However, their trains through the Midwest and often through the Northwest are usually empty or close to it. They should abandon their routes that have few riders. However, government being what it is will never allow that.
 
Media_Truth said:
What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
Click to expand...

It's asinine for something to lose money. Amtrak should be downgraded to being more of a local subway system. If that doesn't work then off with it's head. They had passenger trains in the 19th century for God's sake. Next up: The US postal service. Sell it off and let private business run it. If you have to rely on heavy subsidies then they shouldn't be around in the the first place.
 
Love Amtrak. The depot is close by and it is especially great when weather conditions are poor. I hate driving in heavy rain or foggy conditions. When I was still employed I appreciated the time I could devote to going over presentations that would be a distraction if I were driving in the metro- area .
 
Media_Truth said:
What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.
Click to expand...

The country would be better off doing like China did and heavily investing in high speed rail. I have taken trains all over southern and central China, you can make a 550 mile trip there, with all the stops, in just a little over 4 hours. They are crazy fast, and inexpensive. When you consider the ordeal of air travel with security and flight delays, it's far faster than flying unless you are going over 800 miles.

The way I see it, we either go all in on high speed rail, or just give it up. It's foolish to keep subsidizing the current antiquated Amtrak system we have.
 
Helix said:
my vote is don't expect it to make a profit, but keep funding it. making a profit isn't the most important spect of a public service.
Click to expand...

It isn't? How then does one determine worth? Subsidies? You have a lot of folks to convince that your favorite picadillo is tasty to others.
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
It isn't? How then does one determine worth? Subsidies? You have a lot of folks to convince that your favorite picadillo is tasty to others.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

i'd say that certain forms of public transportation in a country that is a public transportation desert are worth it.
 
Helix said:
i'd say that certain forms of public transportation in a country that is a public transportation desert are worth it.
Click to expand...

Certain forms? Rather undefined isn't it? I can't imagine that you would expect others to fund those things to which you approve, do you? In the world today, it would seem incumbent upon one proposing a gift from the Federal Treasury to give a good(likely financial) reason to join that idea.
Better measure? What is it?
Regards,
CP
 
BahamaBob said:
Amtrak does not have any tracks. They run on other railroad's tracks. This is very costly for the railroads hosting Amtrak because Amtrak always has the right of way and the other railroads have to put their trains in sidings while Amtrak passes.

Amtrak is a needed and well used along the East Coast. They also have a few areas in California where they are used. However, their trains through the Midwest and often through the Northwest are usually empty or close to it. They should abandon their routes that have few riders. However, government being what it is will never allow that.
Click to expand...

I have not experienced "near empty" trains. Sometimes, I get a seat to myself. I believe they usually run the number of cars required for the maximum occupancy leg of the overall trip, if that makes sense.
 
Parrish said:
Love Amtrak. The depot is close by and it is especially great when weather conditions are poor. I hate driving in heavy rain or foggy conditions. When I was still employed I appreciated the time I could devote to going over presentations that would be a distraction if I were driving in the metro- area .
Click to expand...

I really enjoy the trains also. I like the big, wide seats, with nearly-full-recline capability. I like being able to get up and walk around. I like having a nice dinner in the dining car, and communing with other travelers. I like the fact that they announce "quiet time" in the evening, before sleeping hours. All-in-all, I think it's well-run.
 
train service will never compete with airlines. The cost per passenger is just much higher. Where it makes sense, and is often profitable, is travel between cities not more than a couple hundred miles apart. Or possibly down the heavily populated east coast.

Btw; Amtrak does pay for the use of rails, and often is delayed to let freight service pass down the track.

Amtrak is the only public transportation service to many small towns.

Building high speed rail in this country, unlike where it has been successfully built, like China, here there are many roadblocks to construction. Basically high speed rail works best on elevated track. And our geography isn't conducive to high speed rail. It can take years to get all the permits, regulation hurdles, and land acquisition before a mile of track ever gets constructed. That gets real expensive real fast.
 
Media_Truth said:
I have not experienced "near empty" trains. Sometimes, I get a seat to myself. I believe they usually run the number of cars required for the maximum occupancy leg of the overall trip, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

My vision does not exclude the necessary transport in major cities, but quite honestly, though worthy is a small fraction. I would imagine the intercity trains produce profit. I was really considering the grand scheme for millions miles of nationwide under-productive rail.
Regards,
CP
 
Moderate Right said:
It's asinine for something to lose money. Amtrak should be downgraded to being more of a local subway system. If that doesn't work then off with it's head. They had passenger trains in the 19th century for God's sake. Next up: The US postal service. Sell it off and let private business run it. If you have to rely on heavy subsidies then they shouldn't be around in the the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that no transportation system stands on it's own - especially the infrastructure. Amtrak pays hefty fees to the owners of the tracks, who must maintain the infrastructure. Roads are much worse to maintain. They need constant repair - sometimes every 2 or 3 years. Likewise for bridges and other infrastructure. Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 billion in 2017, with $194 million of debt. That amount of debt is nothing compared to road budgets.
 
concernedpuma said:
My vision does not exclude the necessary transport in major cities, but quite honestly, though worthy is a small fraction. I would imagine the intercity trains produce profit. I was really considering the grand scheme for millions miles of nationwide under-productive rail.
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

The point that some of the posters have made is that the rail is shared with freight trains. And as was mentioned, the freight trains have priority. The tracks were productive long before Amtrak, and they continue to operate for freight.

During the last big gas-price rise, a lot of companies started shipping more by rail, to avoid the increasing freight charges.
 
Waddy said:
train service will never compete with airlines. The cost per passenger is just much higher. Where it makes sense, and is often profitable, is travel between cities not more than a couple hundred miles apart. Or possibly down the heavily populated east coast.

Btw; Amtrak does pay for the use of rails, and often is delayed to let freight service pass down the track.

Amtrak is the only public transportation service to many small towns.

Building high speed rail in this country, unlike where it has been successfully built, like China, here there are many roadblocks to construction. Basically high speed rail works best on elevated track. And our geography isn't conducive to high speed rail. It can take years to get all the permits, regulation hurdles, and land acquisition before a mile of track ever gets constructed. That gets real expensive real fast.
Click to expand...

Excellent points. Amtrak Joe (Biden), early in his first term, pushed for a high-speed link between Orlando and Tampa. It was supposed to run parallel to the Interstate Highway, so that folks could see it accelerate past the cars. The project involved some Federal funds, but it also required both Orlando and Tampa to put up money for their local transit to serve the Amtrak passengers, on arrival. When the price-tags started getting publicized, local politicians were pressured to back out. The whole thing fell through.
 
Media_Truth said:
I really enjoy the trains also. I like the big, wide seats, with nearly-full-recline capability. I like being able to get up and walk around. I like having a nice dinner in the dining car, and communing with other travelers. I like the fact that they announce "quiet time" in the evening, before sleeping hours. All-in-all, I think it's well-run.
Click to expand...

A few years back, my better half and I took the Autotrain to Virginia. It was great! I guess my concern is asking you to continue subsidizing our great trip or those like it for others. Self funding and the future is what we are discussing, yes?
Regards,
CP
 
concernedpuma said:
A few years back, my better half and I took the Autotrain to Virginia. It was great! I guess my concern is asking you to continue subsidizing our great trip or those like it for others. Self funding and the future is what we are discussing, yes?
Regards,
CP
Click to expand...

As mentioned, I'm of the opinion that no transportation system stands on it's own - especially the infrastructure. Even a bike trail doesn't stand on it's own. I'm glad you enjoyed your train ride!
 
Media_Truth said:
I have not experienced "near empty" trains. Sometimes, I get a seat to myself. I believe they usually run the number of cars required for the maximum occupancy leg of the overall trip, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

You are not traveling West of Chicago then. They have few riders.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's asinine for something to lose money. Amtrak should be downgraded to being more of a local subway system. If that doesn't work then off with it's head. They had passenger trains in the 19th century for God's sake. Next up: The US postal service. Sell it off and let private business run it. If you have to rely on heavy subsidies then they shouldn't be around in the the first place.
Click to expand...

Asinine to lose money? What would you say to someone who's casino went bankrupt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom