# "... no one rides Amtrak."



## crabby_appleton1950 (May 17, 2015)

Sara Fagen, former political director for George W. Bush, was on the NBC Sunday show 'Meet The Press'.

During a panel discussion of the recent Amtrak accident this past week she said that Amtrak is a failure.

She said:

"Except for the east coast, and _possibly_ the west coast, no body rides Amtrak."

Neither the moderator (Chuck Todd) nor anyone on the panel challenged that comment.


----------



## Headache (May 17, 2015)

This is typical. Most people chose not to see beyond their own nose.

Are there Amtrak/passenger lobbyist or activist groups or something of that nature in which a letter campaign to Mr. Todd might be created? I'm a nub to this.


----------



## crabby_appleton1950 (May 17, 2015)

Todd once told someone "We all sit there because we all know the first time we bark is the last time we do the show. ...

All of a sudden, no one will come on your show."


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 17, 2015)

Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace had that well known Railroad Expert Karl Rove bloviating that Amtrak should be shut down, the NEC should be turned over to Private Enterprise ( with Government Welfare, er subsidies) since Amtrak has wasted Billions of tax dollars on a system that nobody rides! ( except on the Boston to Washington corridor of course!)

Chuck Todd's panel of " experts" on NBC informed us that Politicians from the parts of the country where nobody rides has kept Amtrak from making a profit! The old "flyover country" syndrome!

George Stephenapolis ( sp?) Rail "experts" on ABC basically parroted the same moronic lame arguements that only used to be Amtrak haters talking points!

Suddenly its fashionable for the media to jump on the bash Amtrak bandwagon!

Is that because they're all part of the same club, the Corporate owned "Beltway Banndits" that own our Government?

Edward R. Morrow is rolling over in his grave!


----------



## crabby_appleton1950 (May 17, 2015)

If they have their way, both Amtrak and the US Post Office will be turned over to some private enterprise on Wall Street.

We may no longer be able to afford them.


----------



## StriderGDM (May 17, 2015)

I saw the same segment on Meet the Press and I'll be honest I didn't walk away with quite the negative take on it.

That said, generally speaking in terms of "outside of the East and West coasts, and possibly Chicago" (they had a graphic showing something like the top 20 busiest stations, "no one rides the train" isn't far from the truth.

If you look at it by busiest stations, the top 12 certainly fit that criteria.

If you look at NYP alone, 9 million of the approximately tickets to/from (i.e. people getting on and off) is at NYP. That's about 1/6 the total number (assuming if 30 million people ride the train, they get on AND off).

Take the top 4 stations, and you account for 1/3rd of all ridership.

That's pretty impressive when you look at it.

On the other hand, I don't have a real problem with it either. As MTP also pointed out, something like 1/5 of the economic power of the US is along the NEC.

Forgetting profits/losses (mostly because you can make them sing any song you want) I suspect those in the Northeast and California are paying more for the flyover states than vice versa.

And again, I have no problem with that. We're ONE nation, and what helps one area should help others. We're stronger united than as 50 separate states. (The original Articles of Confederation showed how poorly that worked out.)


----------



## TinCan782 (May 17, 2015)

Headache said:


> This is typical. Most people chose not to see beyond their own nose.
> 
> Are there Amtrak/passenger lobbyist or activist groups or something of that nature in which a letter campaign to Mr. Todd might be created? I'm a nub to this.


The National Association of Rail Passengers...

http://www.narprail.org/


----------



## StriderGDM (May 17, 2015)

crabby_appleton1950 said:


> If they have their way, both Amtrak and the US Post Office will be turned over to some private enterprise on Wall Street.
> 
> We may no longer be able to afford them.


You realize the USPS is already completely independent of the government and has been since the early 70s and receives no US government funds?


----------



## crabby_appleton1950 (May 17, 2015)

StriderGDM said:


> crabby_appleton1950 said:
> 
> 
> > If they have their way, both Amtrak and the US Post Office will be turned over to some private enterprise on Wall Street.
> ...


"The U.S. Postal Service is a branch of the federal government. It is headed by a Postmaster General and a Board of Governors, with further oversight provided by the Postal Regulatory Commission.However, ultimate authority over the USPS rests with Congress.

... the USPS should be privatized and postal markets open for competition from FedEx, UPS, and upstart entrepreneurs.”


----------



## neroden (May 18, 2015)

I don't know why anyone from the failed, disastrous George W. Bush administration is invited on any talk show whatsoever. Except as experts on the topics of Being Complete Idiots.

It's known as "wingnut welfare", letting these proven idiots have a platform. My question is who's paying off the networks to put these dangerous idiots on the air.


----------



## VentureForth (May 18, 2015)

When you start with the fact that only 1% of the U.S. population rides Amtrak annually, then realize that 2/3 of that number is on the NEC, and that most of them ride 10x week as commuters, yes, hardly anyone rides the train.

If Amtrak shut down all long distance service tomorrow, barely 1 out 1000 people would know or care.

Long distance rail service is a fantastic way to see the country, meet new people or choose instead to enjoy quiet solitude. But it is slower than driving and when you start adding people to your car, driving becomes a whole lot cheaper. Driving also takes you door to door without transfers and layovers.

I love riding the train, and I probably care more than most Mexicans that their rail service was lost in 1991. But we don't need LD service. We want it. We like it. And as a drop in the bucket of the U.S. budget, we should keep it.


----------



## me_little_me (May 18, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> When you start with the fact that only 1% of the U.S. population rides Amtrak annually, then realize that 2/3 of that number is on the NEC, and that most of them ride 10x week as commuters, yes, hardly anyone rides the train.
> 
> If Amtrak shut down all long distance service tomorrow, barely 1 out 1000 people would know or care.
> 
> ...


Agree. Sara Fagen was right. When I talk about Amtrak to people (which is all the time), I VERY RARELY find anyone who has taken a trip on it. Older folks sometimes took a trip "years ago" and others back when the railroads ran passenger service. Moreover, those that haven't taken the train just say "maybe someday I'll take a trip".

Many people wouldn't care if Amtrak was shut down because they have never used it or didn't know anything about it.

Only a few people find it necessary - those that won't or can't fly, those who have Amtrak service from their small town but no or very expensive airline service, handicapped who find airline transportation exceedingly difficult and buses impossible. The rest of us do it out of enjoyment.

The only exception are those on well traveled routes like the NEC.


----------



## greatcats (May 18, 2015)

Not as fast as driving? That does apply in some cases. But, for example, take the Southwest Chief, which takes about 43 hours if near continuous running Chicago to LA. Nobody but a masochist or maybe a team of drivers would do that driving continuously. Three days of driving at over 700 miles per day? Doable, yes- an enjoyable drive? Probably not.


----------



## jebr (May 18, 2015)

greatcats said:


> Three days of driving at over 700 miles per day? Doable, yes- an enjoyable drive? Probably not.


I don't even want to know who would try 700 miles in a day, unless they're crazy. I did 400 miles last Sunday driving home, and it took me from 1 PM to nearly midnight. Granted, I did make a few longer stops, so if I would've driven straight through it would've been closer to 8-9 PM. But I was worn out after that much driving, and I'm even breaking up my 350 mile (one-way) drive in a few days one direction with an overnight stay (the other way I'm doing in an afternoon/evening...should be fun?)

Yeah, Amtrak is going to be way faster over long distances than driving, simply because the train can move while you're sleeping.


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2015)

greatcats said:


> Not as fast as driving? That does apply in some cases. But, for example, take the Southwest Chief, which takes about 43 hours if near continuous running Chicago to LA. Nobody but a masochist or maybe a team of drivers would do that driving continuously. Three days of driving at over 700 miles per day? Doable, yes- an enjoyable drive? Probably not.


 There are obvious exceptions, especially where you are talking end points on a single train. Throw in a connection and any efficiencies are lost. The SWC is a special case anyway as it does have a 90 MPH speed limit for a good chunck between ABQ and LAX.

However, you underestimate what folks who have been driving for years can do. My Mother in Law is 76 years old and routinely drives from Charlotte to Dallas. 1000 miles. Non stop (except gas). Often alone.


----------



## Ryan (May 19, 2015)

jebr said:


> I don't even want to know who would try 700 miles in a day, unless they're crazy.


 /me raises his hand

ATL-WAS is a very doable day drive, if you plan properly (good night's sleep the night before, time it to avoid traffic, etc). I don't think that I could do it for 3 days in a row, though.



VentureForth said:


> Throw in a connection and any efficiencies are lost. The SWC is a special case anyway as it does have a 90 MPH speed limit for a good chunck between ABQ and LAX.


 Not necessarily - lets look at WAS-EMY, no 90 MPH running, and a connection in the mix as well. Exactly 2800 miles, so 4 700 mile days. Take the train, and you can do it in almost exactly 3 days (4:05 PM departure from WAS, arrive in EMY at 4:10 PM on the third day.



VentureForth said:


> When you start with the fact that only 1% of the U.S. population rides Amtrak annually, then realize that 2/3 of that number is on the NEC, and that most of them ride 10x week as commuters, yes, hardly anyone rides the train.


I wouldn't call millions of people "hardly anyone". As a percentage of total population? Sure, it's small. But it's still a damn lot of people that would be impacted if it suddenly disappeared.


----------



## VentureForth (May 19, 2015)

Ryan said:


> I wouldn't call millions of people "hardly anyone". As a percentage of total population? Sure, it's small. But it's still a damn lot of people that would be impacted if it suddenly disappeared.


I would still call a few million out of 300 million "hardly". And I didn't say that no one would be impacted. I said probably only 1 out 1000 would notice or care. Most that do ride LD today would find another way. Yes, we'd be upset, but most of us would get over it.


----------



## Ryan (May 19, 2015)

I know what you said, I quoted it. I didn't claim that you said no one would be impacted.

My only point is that enough people to fill the Big House (seating capacity 100,000) 100 times over is not "hardly anyone" it's quite a lot of people.

In absolute terms, "Out of how many people" is completely irrelevant.

Hour-later Edit: Reflecting further, the difference really boils down to relative vs absolute. relative to the population, you're spot on. My point (which I hadn't gotten around to articulating well) is that even in that case, in absolute terms, you're still talking about quite a lot of people.


----------



## twa904 (May 20, 2015)

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/570/756/2011%20PRIIA%20210%20Report%2009-26-11_final.pdf

So you think nobody rides Amtrak. Look at pages 20, 40 and 54 of these reports. I used the Crescent numbers because I'm more familiar with that train. Look at the other trains in the report and you'll find like numbers.

Crescent riders -

58% have a college education

38% earn between 50-100K

27% earn over 100K

76K average earnings

11% traveled on business

49% were employed.


----------



## neroden (May 23, 2015)

VentureForth said:


> However, you underestimate what folks who have been driving for years can do. My Mother in Law is 76 years old and routinely drives from Charlotte to Dallas. 1000 miles. Non stop (except gas). Often alone.


Um, frankly I don't believe that that's safe. In fact there are studies proving that it isn't safe; you need to stop for 15 minutes every 2 hours in order to be a safe driver.
I am scared by having people that reckless on the road.


----------



## Alex M. (May 25, 2015)

To those who say that there would be quite a bit saved in doing away with LD trains, think again. While there may be some savings, paying off workers who are let go, plus money spent to get out of contracted services, as well as station costs at places like Chicago must be included. The NEC may carry more riders in total, but it is very expensive to maintain. If all costs are included, it loses as much, if not more than, all the LD routes.


----------



## Peter KG6LSE (May 27, 2015)

and what do the pundits propose we do with citys that only have bus and rail as a means to move about..... Lets take Ottumwa . .It has a airport but no real flights.

I shudder to think what it would take in cash to make OTM A/P southwest flights.

I welcome the shutdown of the LD system IF the congress critters pay for a nice A/P at every station that is mothballed. and they subsidise the flghts . One a day is enough. .

. if you compare the losses of airports to most LD routes. the amtrak way is a bargain solution. its the lesser of the 2 evils .


----------



## Manny T (Jun 15, 2015)

Amtrak is a vital national transportation service without regard to the number of passengers.

How so? Because anyone should realize that we need a diversified transportation system to serve the country, not only day to day, but also in emergencies.

And I mean unforeseen emergencies--can you imagine a situation where all U.S. airports are closed for 3-4 days? Perhaps you lived through it, on 9/11.

In NYC at the time, it was nice to know you could take Amtrak (still running) even though the airports were closed.

Is it farfetched to think we might need passenger rail at some point in the future to shuttle troops hither and yon just like they did in WW II?

Anyway, I'd rather argue that Amtrak is a vital piece of the national transportation network that we shouldn't let die because it can't be replaced, rather than try to justify it based on x% of the population served.


----------



## VentureForth (Jun 15, 2015)

Yeah. That worked so well during Katrina. Yes - they got ONE Amtrak trainset loaded with people and out of the city. I think the TRE moved more people than Amtrak. It's not necessary. It's wanted. It's desired. It's preferred.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 15, 2015)

Katrina != 9/11.

In September of 2001, Amtrak was the only game in town for a few days.

Amtrak is just as necessary as airports and roads.


----------



## Manny T (Jun 15, 2015)

Thank you Ryan. I'm not saying Amtrak is the solution to every emergency and/or natural disaster.

I'm just saying Amtrak continued running during 9/11 when the airports were shut.

I know because I was in NYP on 9/12, saw the 3:40 PM LSL to CHI announced for boarding on the departure board, and considered taking it.

If anyone has any experience riding Amtrak during 9/11, it would be great to hear about it.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Jul 14, 2015)

Ryan said:


> Katrina != 9/11.
> 
> In September of 2001, Amtrak was the only game in town for a few days.
> 
> Amtrak is just as necessary as airports and roads.


The Louis Armstrong Airport was shut for some days afterwards as well due to storm damage.

But I fear that the "insurance policy" is mostly against another big terrorist attack. (Weather disaster would be localized.) An oil price crisis is also quite possible. One or two atom bombs on ports in the Persian Gulf could double gasoline prices within hours and linger for weeks and months or years.

We had an economic crisis just 7 years ago that some of thought needed more of a response than we got.

And not to mention melting ice caps and stuff.

In a disaster, I could imagine Congress saying, "How much money do you need to do it?" -- while ordering Amtrak to double or triple capacity in a very short time frame.

As usual equipment would be the choke point at first, but we now have three factories that can build cars for Amtrak. Then we'd need lots more tracks. Every plan for new or more corridor service or even new or restored LD trains would be dusted off. I hope we have more stuff close to shovel ready than last time. LOL. In that disaster scenario, the national system is the foundation, and building a new system from scratch would be very, very costly in money and time.

I'm not sure that "disaster insurance" is worth $600 million a year, but that figure is declining, and the insurance would be worth something, say $100 million. Then we're down to quibbling about spending a mere half a Billion, an amount the Pentagon probably blew thru while I was writing this comment!


----------



## Amstruck (Jul 20, 2015)

That's true...to certain extent.


----------

