Riding high: Amtrak chugs for record ridership

Despite funding and scheduling issues, rail service is on the right track

ABOARD AMTRAK’S LINCOLN SERVICE - The Illinois cornfields whizzing past Mark Hardacre’s view from the Amtrak cafe car had nothing on the memorable splendor the Australian had already taken in on his trans-America adventure — the Pacific Ocean so vast and blue off California’s coast. The emerald green of the Northwest forests. The majesty of the snowcapped Rockies.

But the cheery man from New South Wales was breathless about seeing a couple of things he’d not seen in his three previous Amtrak treks across this nation’s rails over the past two decades — Americans seeming to outnumber tourists, and far fewer empty seats.

“It’s good to see the Americans starting to use their trains, because if they don’t use them they’ll lose them,” Hardacre, 53, said recently as Amtrak click-clacked its way from St. Louis to Chicago, just one leg of his monthlong sightseeing trip with his wife, Janice. To Amtrak, it’s proof that despite vexing challenges, it’s on the right track.

The money-losing service, which relies heavily on government funding, says it is riding higher, illustrated by the hundreds of thousands of additional riders flocking to expanded routes in Illinois and California. Amtrak is chugging toward its fifth-straight record year for ridership nationwide, helped by high gasoline prices and congested highways and airports that seem to have encouraged people to keep their vehicles parked.

But Amtrak’s headaches remain, and the biggest is funding. The service has never been out of the red since its launch in 1971, meaning it must rely on government handouts year after year.

In trying to hash out the federal budget for next year, Congress is weighing how much U.S. taxpayers should underwrite the passenger service. Amtrak has requested $1.53 billion, nearly twice the amount the Bush Administration wants to give it. In the past, Bush has proposed giving the service nothing.


Story continues below ↓

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20630319/

we had instead spent on infrastructure. We could have laid tens of thousands of miles of new track instead, shored up some highways and bridges, and put lots of people back to work.

Between crappy on-time records, declining customer service and "security" policies designed more to annoy than protect, it is no surprise at all that travellers are turning towards trains.

It's a complete and total disaster. The Crescent line, which runs from New Orleans to Atlanta and then north to New York, is, simply put, NEVER on time. Ever. Under any circumstances. Unfortunately, my mother-in-law won't fly, so that's her only way to come visit us here in Atlanta. Twice in the last year we've had to sit in a sweltering train station waiting for a train that was running more than 5 hours late. My MIL's last three trips to NY on Amtrak arrived there 3 hours, 8 hours, and 9 hours late.

Also, as a very frequent air traveler, I can also tell you that the average airline customer-service employee is a freaking superhero compared to the rude morons that Amtrak hires. Don't get me wrong - I'm a huge fan of rail travel, and take trains everywhere when my travels take me to a country that has a usable national rail system. But, my opinion here is that Amtrak might just be unsalvageable. It's more expensive than flying, it's less likely to be on time, and the people who work for Amtrak clearly don't want to work there. We really should just let it fucking die.

Our government needs to send some high-level representatives to Germany, to France, and to Japan. Those countries have a passenger rail infrastructure that is DECADES ahead of ours - we could learn a lot. Of course, doing that would require leadership that is willing to admit that we have something to learn.

I've had a couple of bad expriences in recent years, but do agree the pricing needs to be more competitive with airlines -- I actually *wanted* to take Amtrak from L.A. to Chicago earlier this summer, but it was cheaper to take the plane...

why not improve it to the standard of other countries?

I'm sure that wouldn't be hard. Just takes money.

That's the hitch. It just takes money - money that could be spent on our schools, on national health care, on trying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure somewhere to the point where it was before we destroyed their nation for no good fucking reason, for alternative energy research and infrastructure, for rebuilding our military, for a million other things that are, quite frankly, more important than passenger rail. Fix all those things and have money left over, and then we can talk.

is linked to everything you mentioned. It's integral. If you've been to other countries, don't you see the connection? It's not just a frill. Of course if we hadn't thrown billions down the back hole in Iraq, we could have a really good rail system already. :shrug: never have seen your perspective before...can't really relate to it. Oh well.

1 in 6 American jobs is related to cars or oil or roads in America. That's the reason why we don't have good trains. The planes are full. The highways are choked. Especially within cities we need commuter trains, but we also need trains linking cities.

I don't see "a million other things" that are more important. Trains are high on my list along with those other things you mentioned.

The Texas Eagle line is nice and also the New England lines and that line that goes from Chicago eastward.

Sorry to hear that the Crescent line is not as good.

It was cheaper for them to buy the tickets on Amtrak than drive our truck to their destination (bike trip).

Someday, dh and I would love to rent a car and ride across the country. I guess you can still do that, from what dh's railroad clients say. You can actually rent an entire car - like your own mini suite - and have it hooked up to the end of the train.

on edit: by car, I mean train car. Not automobile. :rofl:

for how poorly the governemt has treated it.
and another thing...Amtrak "lost" money last year??? How much did I-95, I-81, I-80, etc. lose???

those were the best trips and experiences traveling I have ever had! :D

We just went from New York to Philly...the Acela got us from Penn Station to the 30th Street station in a little more than an hour. It sure beat flying (just not having to go through the airport and all the hassles and waiting) or driving and was a very relaxing and comfortable ride. The car had wireless internet and plenty of leg room. I wouldn't mind taking the entire Boston to Washington trip someday.

Rail travel has gotten better in recent years...newer cars, better ammenities and they're catering to a new generation of traveler who is tired of the messes at airports. We are planning a trip on the Empire Builder...a beautiful ride from Chicago to Seattle in the near future.

I used to ride Amtrack back in the 70's to college...where cleanliness was merely an afterthought and breakdowns were common. I was pleasantly surprised at how clean, efficient and friendly my recent rail travels have been.

Executive Order.

Can't have anyone competing with Detroit and Big Oil even now, right?

it certainly not the luxurious Orient Express, I didn't expect such. The food was quite good, the bed was comfy, and the staff pleasant and helpful.

It's not a 4-star hotel in Paris, you know. Sheesh. (not directed to OP, but to the naysayer who screeched about how bad it was down south)