Amenities Being Eliminated from Long Distance Routes

[Nathanael]

I know. But the differences brought about by cost sharing are relatively small compared to the overwhelming cost of labor on the train. That is also what differentiates the non-Diner cafe only trains from those with Diners - one of the primary basis of the Coach only train argument in the link that I included above. Afterall, if one takes the position that all sleeper trains must have Diners, then one cannot run around and justify Sleeper profitability conveniently ignoring Diner costs.

I actually take the position that all trains running across three mealtimes should have diners, whether they have sleepers or not. (After doing a little research I corrected this from two mealtimes; a well-operated cafe seems to be able to handle two mealtimes. Amtrak's cafes, unfortunately, have poor breakfast selection.)

So I can ignore diner costs when looking at sleepers. However, my form of analysis does make some entire train routes quite questionable. If they shouldn't be operated without diners, and they perform terribly with diners, it's possible that they shouldn't be operated at all.

I would make an exception to my diner rule if you simply don't care about the traffic which runs across three mealtimes. Do people really take the Palmetto from Savannah to New York? I wouldn't think you could get many people to pay much for the tickets. Or is it used almost entirely for shorter trips? I would suspect that it is.

Meanwhile, all trains running more-than-overnight should have sleepers, whether or not they have diners. There's nothing wrong with having a sleeper (but no diner) on a train like 66/67.

And honestly, if the cafe had decent breakfast food (which it does not) and ran between Albany and NY (which it does not) the LSL, a relatively short run, could probably get by with a cafe. It would probably need a second table car and a larger pantry. The Capitol Limited could also probably get by with a cafe (again, if the cafe had decent breakfast food, which it does not).

I hadn't really thought seriously about the breakfast issue before, so thanks for inspiring me to dig into that a bit deeper. The cafes *don't* have decent breakfast food, and they should. Cereal & milk are relatively easy, as would "continental" pastry items, juice, and yogurt.

Eggs and sausage would be a bit tougher, though, let alone French toast. I think there's real value in having a cook and a grill. But I do wonder whether "takeout style"/"self serve"/"no waiters" service could be efficiently implemented; I suspect most people are used enough to this in "on land" restaurants that they wouldn't be particularly disturbed by it.

But a "fast food style" grill might be an inefficient use of space. Probably you'd have lines of people clogging up the hallway, like happens in the single-level cafe cars already, and nobody would be willing to sit with strangers unless pushed to, so then you have to add extra table cars...

The few private operations that manage to stay somewhat afloat are primarily differentiated in terms of cost of on board labor. There is no getting away from that fundamental issue. That is the reason I wait with baited breath to see how Mr. Boardman plans to wipe out the F&B losses in five years, or if he is merely hoping that he will be happily retired before then.

Well, my guess is that he's hoping for a large boost from "point of sale" eliminating a lot of the crew paperwork -- and he's planning to make the crew replace the time doing paperwork with time *actually serving customers food*. That would deploy the same number of labor hours to serve a lot more food, which should have very salutary effects on the diner performance.

Hopefully he would not have caused irrevocable damage before walking into the sunset unlike one of his predecessors who left Amtrak in pretty much in shambles, which took 2+ CEOs to recover from.

I certainly hope so too. Though I can't actually tell for sure which predecessor you're thinking of!
Many people blame Warrington, but he actually kept the company going under very adverse circumstances.

Roger Lewis is the one who told Congress that he wouldn't know what to do with a billion dollars (possibly the worst thing any Amtrak CEO has ever said to Congress)!

Thomas Downs implemented the "three a week everywhere" plan in 1997 which took many years to recover from -- after a previous career mismanaging the DC Union Station project. I'm going to guess that that's who you're thinking of.

 

[Nathanael]

TL;DR version:

You have to provide suitable levels of amenities for the length (in hours) of trip you are selling.

The problem lies not in the amenities, but in trying to sell long slow trips, slower than driving, with poor on-time performance, and few frequencies so that they are inconvenient to people's schedules, through low-population areas.

However, you can't just cut the "problem segments" of routes, because you break network connectivity, and network connectivity adds a large boost in ridership to everything.

So you have to focus on how to make the existing routes *operate* better, whether this means replacing the management at Chicago 14th St. yard, suing Union Pacific, filing complaints against CN, rerouting the SW Chief through Amarillo, lobbying Iowa to build the cross-Iowa corridor line so you can switch the CZ to it, getting Englewood Flyover built, building "South of the Lake", etc. etc. -- nothing to do with amenities.

The actual net avoidable costs of most of the LD routes are comparable to the net avoidable costs of state-subidized corridor routes.... when those routes run slowly and unreliably. The worst cases of the LD routes run particularly slowly and particularly unreliably through particularly empty areas, and so do the Hoosier State and (to a lesser extent) the Heartland Flyer.

The LD routes are not especially expensive compared to comparably poorly-routed, poorly-scheduled, delay-prone corridor routes. It is their routes and schedules and OTP which make them especially expensive.

 

[afigg]

The few private operations that manage to stay somewhat afloat are primarily differentiated in terms of cost of on board labor. There is no getting away from that fundamental issue. That is the reason I wait with baited breath to see how Mr. Boardman plans to wipe out the F&B losses in five years, or if he is merely hoping that he will be happily retired before then. Hopefully he would not have caused irrevocable damage before walking into the sunset unlike one of his predecessors who left Amtrak in pretty much in shambles, which took 2+ CEOs to recover from.

I figure the reason that Boardman went with 5 years as the goal in which to eliminate F&B losses is three-fold: 1) puts it off until well into the next Amtrak re-authorization cycle (if a new re-authorization is passed this year), 2) it sounds like a plausible length of time to implement and try out reforms and 3) Yes, he will be retired and maybe Mica (age 71) will have retired by then as well to cash in with the DC consulting firms. (I use Mica in this case because he is clearly the one leading the attacks on Amtrak for F&B losses).

The Amtrak OIG report make it clear that it will be difficult to totally eliminate F&B losses for the LD trains so long as diner cars are retained due to the personnel costs. However, if the efforts to implement ePOS system, tighter inventory management, monitor crews more closely, and so on manage to cut the total F&B losses by half, it makes those losses a smaller political target. If in 5 years, system-wide F&B losses are $35 million a year as part of >$2.5 billion revenue picture, becomes less worthwhile for Congress critters to take shots at.

As for leaving Amtrak in shambles, Boardman has been quite successful in improving Amtrak's financial health and increasing revenue & ridership. despite a hostile environment in some circles the past 3+ years.

 

[jis]

As for leaving Amtrak in shambles, Boardman has been quite successful in improving Amtrak's financial health and increasing revenue & ridership. despite a hostile environment in some circles the past 3+ years.

Yeah. I actually happen to think that Boardman has been one of the unquestionably better stewards of Amtrak. However he does have many detractors. One never knows what is the breaking point of a guy under tremendous pressure. So far he has held pretty steady on the course of slowly building a very viable corridors business while keeping the LD business in a relatively stable state. I know many do not like his basic position that it is upto Congress to decide whether they want a growing LD business or not. but that pretty much is his prerogative to define and follow a course given his position. At least he is consistent and not erratic, though many may not agree with his overall strategy.
Bottom line is personally, I am quite confident that he will not leave Amtrak in financial shambles like Warrington did (sorry nathaniel, we will just have to agree to disagree on Warrington ).

 

[afigg]

I would make an exception to my diner rule if you simply don't care about the traffic which runs across three mealtimes. Do people really take the Palmetto from Savannah to New York? I wouldn't think you could get many people to pay much for the tickets. Or is it used almost entirely for shorter trips? I would suspect that it is.

The top city pairs for the Palmetto are long trips. In the PIP report on the Palmetto, the top station pairs by ridership in FY10 were Charleston-NYP, Fayetteville-NYP, Florence-NYP, CHS-WAS in that order. The top 4 ridership pairs in 2013 according to the NARP ridership stats for the Palmetto are similar, but with FLO-NYP as #1 with CHS-NYP as #2. Presumably just year to year variations as CHS was the busiest Palmetto stop south of the NEC with 42.3K passengers in 2013. The NYP stats are quite good given the 6:15 AM departure time from NYP.

The Palmetto is possibly a good example of the ridership patterns that might be more common if there were more day trains that had competitive trip times to driving over the longer distances. More 400, 500, 600 mile trips on the train.

BTW, if you are going to write essays that long, you really should just go ahead and become a member. Provide a fake birth date, no one will know.

 

[andersone]

Nathanel's tome is truly insightful.

As for Chairman Boardman choosing five years, Comrade Lenin would be proud !

 

[TVRM610]

Why would the Palmetto perform worse than the Metoer if it was extended to Florida? I think the Palmetto would continue to perform Better financially than the Metoer even as an all coach single food service car train.

 

[Eric S]

Nathanael, still digesting all that you wrote, but I greatly appreciate the thought and effort you put into that.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

*blinks* sometimes you people remind me why the rail operators don't like advocates.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

When it comes to funding Amtrak, I look at it this way.

Amtrak needs approximately $1.4 billion dollars in subsidies per year.

The population of the US is roughly 350 million people.

So, it costs the people of the US roughly $4 per person per year to have a functioning rail system.

$4 a year isn't much. A Venti coffee can cost more than that.

But of course, you may argue that not everyone pays taxes, and not everyone rides Amtrak. Those statements are both true. Approximately half (122 million) of all Americans pay federal taxes, and roughly 31 million people ride Amtrak each year.

So, let's say roughly half of those 31 million Amtrak passengers are taxpayers. That means 15 million people are supporting a $1.4 billion train system. That works out to $100 per Amtrak-riding taxpayer, per year.

The average taxpayer (middle class making $46,000 per year) pays about $6400 in taxes. I say we pose this question to those Amtrak-riding, tax-paying passengers: "Less than 1.6% of your current tax bill goes towards supporting Amtrak, with the remaining 98.4% going towards other federally funded programs such as defense spending, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Considering how much of your tax money is going towards programs that don't benefit you or your family, are you okay with that measly 1.6% that's going to Amtrak, a service that you personally use?"

I think most Amtrak passengers would probably say yes.

So, despite the ravings of certain members of Congress, I would bet that Amtrak could actually support itself from taxpaying citizens who are using its service. I doubt that many other federal programs could say the same thing.

 

[neroden]

BTW, if you are going to write essays that long, you really should just go ahead and become a member. Provide a fake birth date, no one will know.

Well, I did. (Different username because I'm used to using this username to log in.)

I would make an exception to my diner rule if you simply don't care about the traffic which runs across three mealtimes. Do people really take the Palmetto from Savannah to New York? I wouldn't think you could get many people to pay much for the tickets. Or is it used almost entirely for shorter trips? I would suspect that it is.

The top city pairs for the Palmetto are long trips. In the PIP report on the Palmetto, the top station pairs by ridership in FY10 were Charleston-NYP, Fayetteville-NYP, Florence-NYP, CHS-WAS in that order. The top 4 ridership pairs in 2013 according to the NARP ridership stats for the Palmetto are similar, but with FLO-NYP as #1 with CHS-NYP as #2. Presumably just year to year variations as CHS was the busiest Palmetto stop south of the NEC with 42.3K passengers in 2013. The NYP stats are quite good given the 6:15 AM departure time from NYP.

How interesting. Five of the top 9, however, are X - Washington DC with one being X - Richmond. Charleston-NYC is the longest in the top 9 list. This stays just barely under the two-meal range, which seems to support my theory that you need diners if you want to get people to ride across three meals. Savannah-NY is not in the top 9 on the ridership list though it makes the revenue list.

It does seem that NYC is the 800-pound gorilla for US intercity train travel; more people will ride further in coach from NYC than from other places. Not totally clear on why, but it shows up in bus statistics too.

Yeah. I actually happen to think that Boardman has been one of the unquestionably better stewards of Amtrak. However he does have many detractors. One never knows what is the breaking point of a guy under tremendous pressure. So far he has held pretty steady on the course of slowly building a very viable corridors business while keeping the LD business in a relatively stable state. I know many do not like his basic position that it is upto Congress to decide whether they want a growing LD business or not. but that pretty much is his prerogative to define and follow a course given his position.

My only dispute with is that I consider the distinction between LD and corridor to be somewhat artificial and arbitrary. I think good corridors will be neglected if they're pigeonholed as "long distance". Grow the "corridor business" from Chicago to upstate NY or from Chicago to Denver, I'm happy with that, I don't care what you CALL it. Real distinctions in appropriate service are based on runtimes, and the needed improvement for every single route is to run the route faster with more frequencies.

I am quite confident that he will not leave Amtrak in financial shambles like Warrington did (sorry nathaniel, we will just have to agree to disagree on Warrington ).

Amtrak was in total financial shambles well before the end of the Downs administration, which was incredibly disastrous -- Amtrak actually nearly ran out of cash and required an actual bailout during the Downs administration, as Wikipedia notes.
In terms of ridership, Downs had the worst results, several years in a row, since the disastrous period of the Boyd administration, which had to deal with the Carter cuts, the Reagan cuts, and a massive drop in gas prices.

The change of several trains from daily to three-a-week was manifestly stupid.

Downs's was also the first of several successive administrations to flagrantly ignore the ADA mandates: a gift which has kept on hurting.

On paper at least, the Downs administration looks to have been truly awful for Amtrak.

I would call Warrington the first of several CEOs trying to recover from the disastrous Downs administration. I'm not sure why Warrington, who had to deal with the immediate fallout from the Downs administration, gets all the hate in the fan groups... maybe because the Viewliners arrived under Downs?

Both Warrington and Gunn and also Kummant made mistakes while flailing around trying to recover. Gunn's mistakes included axing routes and disposing of rolling stock, both very bad mistakes. Warrington's mistakes were... less permanent.

 

[CHamilton]

Welcome, Nathanael, er, neroden, as a member. I have found your comments to be very enlightening, and look forward to seeing more of them.

 

[Trogdor]

Both Warrington and Gunn and also Kummant made mistakes while flailing around trying to recover. Gunn's mistakes included axing routes and disposing of rolling stock, both very bad mistakes. Warrington's mistakes were... less permanent.

Interesting idea. I can't think of what rolling stock Gunn disposed of, other than a bunch of useless boxcars. I'll agree that losing two Chicago-NEC frequencies did hurt.

Warrington, on the other hand, left Amtrak within weeks of insolvency while having mortgaged virtually everything Amtrak owned, and pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars on a freight initiative that did more harm than good.

 

[neroden]

Both Warrington and Gunn and also Kummant made mistakes while flailing around trying to recover. Gunn's mistakes included axing routes and disposing of rolling stock, both very bad mistakes. Warrington's mistakes were... less permanent.

Interesting idea. I can't think of what rolling stock Gunn disposed of, other than a bunch of useless boxcars.

Heritage cars mostly. I realize that they were, and are, obsolete but they still haven't been replaced.

I'll agree that losing two Chicago-NEC frequencies did hurt.

We still need 'em back. Gunn not only dropped the frequencies, IIRC he promptly sold the equipment (or was that Kummant?), making it rather harder to reinstate the frequencies without a humungous lead time.

Warrington, on the other hand, left Amtrak within weeks of insolvency while having mortgaged virtually everything Amtrak owned, and pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars on a freight initiative that did more harm than good.

The freight initiative was certainly a big mistake. It was an engineer's mistake, if you know what I mean -- it created political problems which then sabotaged it. There was nothing *technically* wrong with the idea... but it alienated the host railroads, who still have ludicrous amounts of power.

Within weeks of insolvency.... well, the thing is, Amtrak was illiquid at the end of the Downs administration, so in some sense Warrington left it where he found it!

Yeah, terrible business strategy, I know, but this sort of "mortgage everything until we can get some sort of rescue" is sometimes the only strategy left if you don't want to start auctioning the fixed assets. The political situation at the end of the Downs administration didn't seem to be offering much hope for actual funding, as opposed to loans -- Republican Congress already, remember, and in fact the *Gingrich* Congress, which was particularly fanatical and hostile to Amtrak, and Clinton was according to records already being unhelpful in 1994.

What I really don't understand is how Downs got into such a mess in such a very short period. I'm beginning to suspect that Claytor saw the mess coming and retired before it hit the fan.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1LUgAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=amtrak+budget+1993&source=bl&ots=HgrMQj8S2Y&sig=n-Hg7ILl2V89K7k5a8fzaYE1gfk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=39ENU_qVL6b02wXi-YDADQ&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=amtrak%20budget%201993&f=false

The Amtrak debt load started accelerating in 1993 -- right around when Thomas Downs got there. And when he started proposing poorly-thought-out cuts. The debt load had doubled by 1997. Which was when the three-a-week mistake took place. Shortly after that was reversed, two routes were cut, and then... apparently Amtrak ran out of cash, and was bailed out by a friendly DOT secretary.

It seems like nothing Downs tried to do was realistic or well-thought-out -- apparently overly-optimistic budget requests were the order of the day. The accelerating debt was at least as much a Downs-era phenomenon as a Warrington-era one, and ridership was falling. Warrington was at least creative. I'm really not sure why Downs gets so little blame.

 

[PRR 60]

When it comes to funding Amtrak, I look at it this way.

Amtrak needs approximately $1.4 billion dollars in subsidies per year.

The population of the US is roughly 350 million people.

So, it costs the people of the US roughly $4 per person per year to have a functioning rail system.

$4 a year isn't much. A Venti coffee can cost more than that.

But of course, you may argue that not everyone pays taxes, and not everyone rides Amtrak. Those statements are both true. Approximately half (122 million) of all Americans pay federal taxes, and roughly 31 million people ride Amtrak each year.

So, let's say roughly half of those 31 million Amtrak passengers are taxpayers. That means 15 million people are supporting a $1.4 billion train system. That works out to $100 per Amtrak-riding taxpayer, per year.

The average taxpayer (middle class making $46,000 per year) pays about $6400 in taxes. I say we pose this question to those Amtrak-riding, tax-paying passengers: "Less than 1.6% of your current tax bill goes towards supporting Amtrak, with the remaining 98.4% going towards other federally funded programs such as defense spending, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Considering how much of your tax money is going towards programs that don't benefit you or your family, are you okay with that measly 1.6% that's going to Amtrak, a service that you personally use?"

I think most Amtrak passengers would probably say yes.

So, despite the ravings of certain members of Congress, I would bet that Amtrak could actually support itself from taxpaying citizens who are using its service. I doubt that many other federal programs could say the same thing.

There are not 31 million people riding Amtrak reach year. There are 31 million passenger boardings. Some people ride once a year, some ride 10 times, some commuters ride 400 times a year. My best guestimate: about 4 million people take one or more Amtrak rides each year.

 

[user 1215]

Why would the Palmetto perform worse than the Metoer if it was extended to Florida? I think the Palmetto would continue to perform Better financially than the Metoer even as an all coach single food service car train.

In my humble opinion, the Palmetto needs to stop in Savannah. There would not really be enough time to turn the train around and keep the route to two trainsets if they took it all the way to JAX. A cascade of delays would be far worse than what the Autotrain faces today. As it is, it's just about a perfect ride (when things go well). It leaves NYP around 6:30 AM and arrives around 9 PM The other way, it's about 2 hours later. That, in and of itself is a bit weird. They only have 7 hours to do maintenance on the train in NYP where the facilities are vs nearly 12 in SAV where they don't have any heavy maintenance. I digress...

Even so, they are constantly running out of food in the Cafe on busy days as the attendant ONLY stocks in NYC for the trip down and back.

SAV should be an auxiliary service stop. Even though JAX is the big one, they should go ahead and pump the toilets, fill the water, and stock the commissary. An efficient operation could do this in the 5 minutes they dwell there for the Silvers and it would be a way to keep revenue up for the return trips on the Palmetto.

 

[TVRM610]

Venture...

I think the Palmetto should be extended all the way to Miami (aka Silver Palm restored). Passengers who want a dining car and sleepers can take the Metoer or Star... Passengers who want alternate times and just need a coach seat can take the Palm.

 

[afigg]

In my humble opinion, the Palmetto needs to stop in Savannah. There would not really be enough time to turn the train around and keep the route to two trainsets if they took it all the way to JAX. A cascade of delays would be far worse than what the Autotrain faces today. As it is, it's just about a perfect ride (when things go well). It leaves NYP around 6:30 AM and arrives around 9 PM The other way, it's about 2 hours later. That, in and of itself is a bit weird. They only have 7 hours to do maintenance on the train in NYP where the facilities are vs nearly 12 in SAV where they don't have any heavy maintenance. I digress...

The northbound Palmetto arrives at WAS at 7:57 PM. If it departed SAV an hour earlier, it would reach WAS and the NEC during the latter stages of the peak traffic period where there are few, if any slots, available. The capacity limits and "rush" hours on the NEC constrain when the LD trains leave and arrive at NYP.

Yes, the current Palmetto schedule makes for efficient use of equipment with 2 trainsets while also leaving a margin for recovery if it runs several hours late. If the NEC trip times can get tightened up with the new 125 mph Viewliners and NEC capacity expansion projects, VA upgrades the WAS to Petersburg segment, and the HSIPR funded crossing upgrade project in VA and NC south of PTB gets done, then maybe the Palmetto could get extended to Jacksonville as a day train, although it would be pushing the limits of 2 trainsets.

But this is a thread about amenities on the LD trains. The Palmetto doesn't have any to eliminate except for the Amfleet II diner car which is hardly the lap of luxury.

 

[jis]

Palmetto is basically scheduled for 3:20 on the NEC, which is about the same as what a Regional takes with a few more stops. but then Palmetto has to do some baggage work at several of its stop. So I would be quite surprised if they are able to tighten the schedule mush with a Viewliner baggage car. Most of the schedule issue has to do with Palmetto (and other LD trains) getting lower priority than Acelas and Regionals, and that is unlikely to change on the NEC. This is reflected as more padding than what the Regionals get in the schedule, and they will continue to have that even after getting cleared for 125mph.

BTW, there has been a period in the past when the Palmetto did run to JAX and that went bye bye after schedule reliability on CSX hit rock bottom.

Extending the Palmetto to Miami will take considerable additional funds (and additional equipment), which is currently hard to come by. The big shortage is Coaches, even after we get additional Sleepers from the Viewliner order.

 

[rrdude]

Dear Mr. Pilcher:

Thank you for your letter of February 5, 2014, to Mr. Joseph H. Boardman. I am responding on behalf of the Corporation.

Amtrak welcomes feedback from customers such as you as it helps us to focus our efforts to improve service in the right direction. I was sorry to read that you are unhappy about the proposed changes to amenities offered by Amtrak on our long distance routes. We have passed your comments on to the appropriate management for their review and consideration.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to us. At Amtrak, we have a mission to consistently deliver high-quality, safe, on-time service that exceeds our customers’ expectations. We hope that we will continue to have your patronage and support of rail passenger services.

Sincerely,

Vanessa Scurry
Customer Relations Specialist
Office of Customer Relations
Washington, DC

p.s. In the meantime, try to understand that getting rid of that cheap wine and moldy cheese is gonna help save the Raton Pass routing of the SW Chief. Cheers!

ADMISSION: The p.s. is mine, it was NOT included in the original email.................

 

[Bob Dylan]

The Real PS: Getting rid of the Wine and Cheese Tastings, Am-Chocolates,USA Today, Cranberry Juice in the Sleeping Cars and Flowers on the Diner Tables will Save Amtrak Hundreds of Millions of Dollars and allow us to Increase/Expand Frequency of Service on LD Routes as well as Order Badly Needed New Equipment!

 

[D.P. Roberts]

When it comes to funding Amtrak, I look at it this way.

Amtrak needs approximately $1.4 billion dollars in subsidies per year.

The population of the US is roughly 350 million people.

So, it costs the people of the US roughly $4 per person per year to have a functioning rail system.

$4 a year isn't much. A Venti coffee can cost more than that.

But of course, you may argue that not everyone pays taxes, and not everyone rides Amtrak. Those statements are both true. Approximately half (122 million) of all Americans pay federal taxes, and roughly 31 million people ride Amtrak each year.

So, let's say roughly half of those 31 million Amtrak passengers are taxpayers. That means 15 million people are supporting a $1.4 billion train system. That works out to $100 per Amtrak-riding taxpayer, per year.

The average taxpayer (middle class making $46,000 per year) pays about $6400 in taxes. I say we pose this question to those Amtrak-riding, tax-paying passengers: "Less than 1.6% of your current tax bill goes towards supporting Amtrak, with the remaining 98.4% going towards other federally funded programs such as defense spending, Medicare, Social Security, etc. Considering how much of your tax money is going towards programs that don't benefit you or your family, are you okay with that measly 1.6% that's going to Amtrak, a service that you personally use?"

I think most Amtrak passengers would probably say yes.

So, despite the ravings of certain members of Congress, I would bet that Amtrak could actually support itself from taxpaying citizens who are using its service. I doubt that many other federal programs could say the same thing.

There are not 31 million people riding Amtrak reach year. There are 31 million passenger boardings. Some people ride once a year, some ride 10 times, some commuters ride 400 times a year. My best guestimate: about 4 million people take one or more Amtrak rides each year.

Yeah, I couldn't find an actual number of individual riders. I did wonder how many Amtrak passengers were commuters in the NEC - those 31 million pax reflect 11 million in the NEC, so there are still 20 million riders in the rest of the US. I still think that the logic remains the same. Those who have no intention to ever ride Amtrak probably don't want it to support it, while those who ride it the most often - especially multiple trips - have even more reason to support Amtrak, and would probably be willing to spend even more than 1.5% of their taxes on Amtrak.

If you really want to pick nits, you could point out that we don't have a balanced budget, most of your taxes are eaten up in debt servicing, etc. I'm trying not to veer into politics when comparing Amtrak to other federal agencies, but to look at the largest federal expenditures, American taxpayers (as outlined above) are paying about $6100 per year for the military, $11600 for Social Security, $5000 for Medicare - again, vs about $10 per taxpayer for Amtrak.

The point is that Amtrak costs the average American relatively NOTHING. It's chump change, less than a rounding error when compared to what we're spending on other federal programs. Amtrak spending is a simply a political football for politicians, and nothing more.

 

[neroden]

Yeah, I couldn't find an actual number of individual riders.

No real way to count. Some companies I've dealt with have 4 or 5 separate records for me, just through sloppiness, typos, etc.

 

[Tom]

I'm brand new to the forum. Please be understanding if I make a mistake or two. This thread seems to have started a few weeks ago & I read the first few pages, then skipped to more recent postings. The initial posting mentioned an Amtrak document that outlined a plan to reduce amenities on all LD trains except Auto Train. As of mid-March, Auto Train will be experiencing major reductions in amenities as well. These will take place before the reductions discussed for other trains.

The Auto Train currently serves meals to all passengers, both in coaches and sleepers, on a "complimentary" basis. This is not really a free service, as the "complimentary' meal has always been considered a part of the transportation provided, and the fare has always been said to include the cost of the meals. The train runs through between the D.C. area and Central Florida without boarding or detraining any passengers. Because of this schedule, dinner and breakfast are essential parts of the travel experience. Passenger counts often exceed 500, so it requires 3 Superliner diners to serve all passengers. Up to now, the diner serving the sleeping cars has had a somewhat higher level of service, including upgraded décor and quality of food and service. Effective Mid-March, all Auto Train diners will serve the same meals. The choices will be reduced; staffing levels will be reduced; wine will no longer be provided in diners; one of the train's two lounges will be eliminated. This is just a small sample of the changes that will be coming.

This, and all the changes described earlier in this thread, can be attributed entirely to the Inspector General's report last fall.

I am not an accountant and do not have access to the relevant figures, but I sincerely believe there are errors and faulty assumptions in the I.G.'s report, and that the report's conclusions are politically motivated. I have been very disappointed in Amtrak's official response to the report. The Company has essentially bowed to Amtrak's opponents and thrown in the towel without a fight, admitting in effect that it has been willfully wasteful. I've been with the Company too long, and have been a part of service delivery too long, to believe that.

 

[neroden]

Ugh. The stupid -- it burns. This is definitely politically motivated BS.

Only way to do something about this is for passengers to complain. I mean, yes, Amtrak will find lower ridership and revenue due to the stupid cuts, but if passengers complain, it'll make it much more obvious that the cuts are idiotic.

Thank you for the report of more idiotic and destructive cuts, Tom.

Reducing the lounge space on a train that crowded is *completely* insane and will just make people angry.