Can Amtrak compete?

Question

In this era of low-cost airlines, high-cost fuel and busy, restrictive schedules where people haven't got the time to be riding through the countryside for hours on end to get to their destination, can Amtrak really compete, especially on their long distance lines.

Answer 1

Can Amtrak Compete?  Interesting question.

Well lets see.  

The answer would be a definate yes.  Why?  

Trains can do something that planes can't.  Increase their capacity per unit.

Planes are limited by three major factors.  Weight, fuel, and capacity.

Trains do not have these limitations.  

In aircraft, the more weight you have to lift, the more fuel you have to burn to get the plane airborne.  Its a simple matter of physics.  Planes burn their maximum possible rate at take-off and landing.  What this means is the heavier the plane is the shorter the distance is before they must land to refuel.  Hence $15.00 per bag sur-charge.  

Trains are not hindered by this factor.  Their rule is simple, to increase capacity, you just add more cars.  As long as you do not exceed the combined tractive effort of the locomotives, you can make the train as long as you want, up to a maximum lengh of 6000 to 9000 feet.  

Today, we are used to seeing very short Passenger trains mainly because everyone is used to looking at the Commuter Trains that go from town to town.  The Amtrak Coast Starlight, (which I will be on tomorrow), is a 13 to 15 car passenger train that travels from Los Angeles to Seattle.  If Amtrak needs to add equipment to increase their capacity, they can do this, provided they have the equipment available.

Plus here is something the Airlines don't offer.  Your own cabin and free meals when you purchase reserved sleeper tickets.  Amtrak does not charge you for luggage, though there is a maximum, (two suitcases and one back pack per person).  

Does the trip take longer by train, yes it does, but its well worth it.  The food on Amtrak is very good, and the staff is excellent.  Travel by train is still safer than flying, and when you are done at the stations you don't have a desire to seek out the local Walgreens and ask for a tube of booty cream.  

My wife and I work for Department of Homeland Security in the Airports.  I can tell you this much, the airlines can't really compete with Amtrak, not that fuel costs have gotten to levels where filling the plane costs more than the tickets are worth.  Plus all of the Security that you are subjected to.  As one of the former screeners, I can tell you that I totally understand that your privacy is being invaded, and that many of the measures for US Citizens on domestic flights is totally un-necessary.

Personally, that is precisely why my wife and I travel by rail now, and have been for the past 12 years.  Not that we have anything against flying, its just that we work for these fools, and would rather not have to jump through those hoops.

Besides, if you are in such a hurry to get where you need to go, then by all means use the Airlines.  But if you can take a little extra time to "Stop and smell the roses", then Amtrak is really the way to go.  Plus, its not just about the train ride.  Its about the people you get to meet, and the views from the observation car and lounge car.  If you stay in your seat, or berth for the whole trip, you are missing 1/2 the trip.  You get to see things by rail that you don't get to see from the car, and definately not from the plane at 30,000 feet.

So here is my logic.  Why place yourself in a hollow tube with wings, that has one of the worst maintenance records, crewed by the damned, managed by the Merchants of Death, where if something goes wrong, 400 other people are totally screwed, the staff always starts their sentances with, "In the unlikely event," and then be told that your seat cushion can be used as a flotation device while you are flying over Utah, worse yet you are actually over water, and with a cushion under each arm, sharks actually look at you and think, "Ahh! Finger Food!"  Last I checked, tow trucks don't fly, and they don't make mid-air vehicle recoveries.

In either case, just enjoy your trip.

Answer 2

Compete??

It does not have to compete, really airlines and all passenger travel is subsidized in some way or another.

Railroads use far far less fuel per passenger mile, pollute less and you are much more likely to survive a passneger train crash than an airline crash.

The fares are set mostly by the level of funding so competing directly against any other form of transportation does not happen outside the lobbyist's offices.

If Amtrak were subsidized as much as airlines they would be able to pay you to ride them.

Answer 3

Yep, it is cheaper, connected to public transportation, no security waits and delays and safer. Airlines are no longer "low-cost" they high are expensive and they are raising their prices like crazy because of high oil prices. In fact, I think they are the future, the might sometime replace their trains with the new ones that go 400 miles per hour

Answer 4

Yes, Amtrak can and has, when given the edge (i.e., funding) to do so.  For instance, after the carrier upgraded its infrastructure to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania with high speed, electrified lines it was announced this March that regional air service between Harrisburg and New York City was ending, in part due to Amtrak.

While Amtrak just broke an all-time ridership record in 2007 and continues to remain a popular means of transportation as fuel prices rise it still barely receives enough funding to survive year to year.  Better funding and I think you will be able to see just how effective Amtrak, and rail in general, can be.

Answer 5

Check airfare from Detroit to Seattle and Amtrak from Detroit to Seattle.  Amtrak is 56 hours and $250.00 more, not including what you have to pay for in food.

United States does not have a good infrastructure for train transportation.  Try to find a direct router for Detroit to Atlanta, it does not exist.  We are in the middle ages in relation to Trains transportation.  We are not where close to Europe or Asia.  It is a pity.

I quote:  (Better explained from someone else)

How can we improve transportation options in the US, specifically rail transportation?

Compared to other developed countries, the US is far behind in terms of rail transportation. Our air transportation system is jammed and delays are now just accepted. The congested system also leads to a much higher chance of accidents; there are numerous reports of close calls on airports. Air travel is noisy and a big contributor in greenhouse emissions.

The US currently doesn't have any high speed rail lines in this country. Japan, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Spain, South Korea...even Turkey has high speed rail! Acela, the US's sad attempt at high speed rail is much, much slower than comparable systems around the world. The US has planned a series of high speed corridor routes around the country but of course that hasn't gone anywhere. A planned high speed rail connecting the major cities in Texas was killed by the legislature in the mid-1990s after pressure was exerted by Southwest Airlines (American democracy at its best).

For supposedly being the richest and most developed country in the world, we are a third-world country in terms of transportation infrastructure. How do we change this? Is it simply a matter of paying higher taxes to update and upgrade our failing system? Are Americans simply too cheap?

Answer 6

if ALL transportation had to compete on equal footing, amtrak would do as well or better than most other modes of transport.  

a big problem is government funding.  as far back as the 1920's, the government chose to publicly subsides roads, highways, and interstates, as well as the FAA traffic control system and airport terminals and runways, and the lock-n-dam river systems.

the railroads are private businesses tho', and have to pay the infrastructure themselves, such as land purchase, track, signals, rolling equipment, locos, etc. since the 1960's, the governments have started to fund some passenger transit and amtrak, but still to this day, not freight trains.

highways/autos/semi trucks/buses get over 40$ BBBillion dollars annually in road infrastructure, and most is not tolled to recoup any costs.  the auto gas tax has been at 18 cents per gallon since the 1960s, and never changes with inflation or recognize the fuel economy of newer cars, thus less tax money per person flowing into government but more road money flowing out, being subsidized in part by general taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, police/fire/ambulance and other municipal services and budgets, electric lighting is paid by govt, etc.  roads/highways are also removed from govt property tax rolls, so there is no more revenue there either.   i should note, the only way the govt gets more TOTAL tax money every year from gas taxes is because TOTAL consumption goes up, due to adding new drivers, driving further distances, driving gas-guzzler SUV's, and other non-efficient uses of fuel, thru higher sales volume.

any taxes collected by highway fuel goes directly to highway trust fund, which is prohibited from sharing any money with rail or air, and is only now in last 15 yrs allowed to share a miniscule amount with other road-related items such as intersections, bike paths, sidewalks.

the airline industry generally gets around 15$ BBBillion a year thru various methods as well.  for example, most if not all airports are owned by municipal/government agencies of some sort, making all those thousands of acres of land property-tax exempt.  the feds pay for the FAA, the traffic control, the TSA security, etc.

the airline taxes that carriers and customers pay goes directly into an air trust fund, and can only be used for airport/airline related items.  the extra PFC facility charges that customers pay goes directly back to that particular facility to pay for airport expansion projects, and is not allowed to pay for other non-airline items.

amtrak gets about 1.2 BBBillion $ per year, and freights generally get nothing, unless it is for track capacity expansion in conjunction with adding passenger trains.  amtrak has to pay rent to the freight railroad companies over whose tracks they operate (amtrak owns about 600 miles of track, they operate over 21,000 miles on other companies' tracks -that is a lot of rent!).  the freights have to pay property taxes on every mile of property that their tracks and signals are on.  and the railroads have to pay to maintain every item of their infrastructure every year too, with no subsidies.

plus they and amtrak have to pay a diesel fuel tax that goes to general fed funds, not to any trust fund.  there is NO rail trust fund to keep any rail taxes or passenger charges for any rail infrastructure.

in many shorter-haul markets, amtrak does compete quite well, even at current slow speeds.  if the govt would fund and build highspeed europeanstyle rail and increase frequencies, they would compete quite well against others.  

the question is not whether amtrak can compete.  in spite of continual negative policies and funding, railroads are surviving.  if we spent 40 B $, or even 15 B $, every year on railroads passenger and freight, can you just imagine what kind of great transport system we would have????

the question isnt if amtrak can compete.  in fact, the question really is, "can the auto compete"?  if every road was tolled like it should be, if free parking was eliminated, if you had to pay a fee everytime to get in your car like you do to get into a bus/train/plane, and if the gas tax was raised annually to reflect inflation of construction materials and fuel efficiency improvements in cars, i actually think the car would fail miserably.  

the only way the car competes right now is because of the outrageous and unbalanced subsidies it gets from various sources.  look already at how people are complaining and cutting back on driving just bcs gas went to 4$/gal in usa (which is a bargain, btw, compared to canada or europe where the price is 7-10$ per gallon of gas).  

you can already see that the car is competeing less well in suburban areas, where home values are falling, the mortgage loan crisis is taking a toll, and foreclosures are mounting, bcs people cant afford to have both their cars and houses and the long commutes.  new homeowners/renters are starting to look at closer in suburbs and in cities again and are not wanting to buy in the suburbs/exurbs, look at the explosion of loft and condos in urban areas that are reviving cities, making them "hip" to live in again.  some of these people get rid of their cars and walk and use transit instead.  

car mfgrs are closing plants, announcing layoffs, changes in product mix by eliminating some SUV and truck models, etc.  airlines are also going bankrupt, laying off employees, etc.  and this is IN SPITE of all the funding that they already receive.  

thus, the car and the airlines compete only bcs of large subsidies.  and they keep crying for more money, and no tax hikes on fuel, no congestion charges to make transport more responsive to supply and demand, and the airlines are adding extra fees to everything in sight.

either fund rail too, and equitably; or remove the subsidies from the cars and air.

and lets see who can compete and who goes bankrupt then.

Answer 7

Yes, if they are funded properly and the freight railroads honor their agreements, I think they can compete.  They are much more fuel efficient, which is the bottom line these days.