Comments on: Transit Doomsday

By: Cliff

Cliff — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:32:04 +0000

While even the long-distance trains operated by Amtrak may only have a capacity of 200-300 passengers at one time, many riders board and deboard along most routes, resulting in far higher numbers overall for most trips as ridership turns over. This occurs in high-density corridor operations as well as on long-distance routes.

Add to this the fact that Amtrak now serves many markets not served by any commercial air service or intercity bus service, and the balance of transportation infrastructure becomes far more skewed against those who do not wish (or cannot) drive where they need to go.

That said, there is no excuse for Amtrak going over eight years without settling collective bargaining agreements with their operating personnel, and it can only be explained by Congressional and White House meddling, brought on by the highway and airline interest’s powerful lobbies in Washington.

To see how few riders are on board the typical Amtrak train, try and make reservations for one of today’s Acela departures, or perhaps get a sleeping car room on the Chicago - New York or New York - Florida trains.

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:55:54 +0000

First it should be noted that the contract was agreed to late yesterday, Thursday the 17th, so this news story is already moot.

That said however Norman, there aren’t any Amtrak trains that few people ride. The Amtrak train with the least amount of ridership, the Sunset Limited, carried an average of 203 passengers every day that it operated during the last fiscal year. IIRC Acela, Amtrak’s premier service, can only carry about 300 passengers per train.

The Sunset’s normal capacity is just over 300, so again on average at least 2/3rds of the train is sold. I don’t have the actual numbers for Acela handy, but I don’t think that they average much better than 3/4ths of the train sold on average.

By: Schuyler

Schuyler — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:54:37 +0000

Norman, perhaps if Amtrak (note spelling) HAD the money to do what you suggest, then maybe they could also pay the employees what they earn and deserve. Right on the face of it, the funding for Amtrak is an absurd joke. As you know, the US is the only nation in the world that doesn’t recognize that PROPERLY subsidized transportation is a necessity. As much subsidy should be going to rail as goes to highway, and to air. I don’t have the numbers right here (perhaps someone else does?) but if you actually write out the total subsidy numbers for these three modes(including all the air traffic control costs for air), the pittance provided for Amtrak becomes more obvious. It’s in the zeroes. Or lack of them for Amtrak.

And no, I don’t work for Amtrak, or for any consultant retained by Amtrak. I am simply a sensible observer.

By: Norman Mars

Norman Mars — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:43:52 +0000

Perhaps if Amtrack would spend our tax dollars to upgrade and operate the trains in the locations where they are needed and where people actually ride them, like the Northeast corridor, and quit wasting money operating trains that few people ride, but that our politicians want to keep running to show those of is in rural America what great things they’re doing for us (at our expense), the workers who are about to strike could be paid a fair wage and this crisis could be averted.