Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Amtrak Cliffhanger 5 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • My feelings about Amtrak are mixed. On the one hand, the immediate economic impact of *not* paying for Amtrak would be more significant than just giving them the money.

    I'd love to see Amtrak succeed on its own. But if that can't happen, I'm afraid that I would rather it be limited to its most popular routes, or have the States pick up most of the tab.
    • I too would like to see Amtrak succeed. I find it difficult to believe that trains are completely unprofitable these days. Could Amtrak management be to blame? Wouldn't it be wonderful to have competing train companies? As a consumer, I'd enjoy lower ticket prices.
      • Passenger trains have been unprofitable since passenger airlines became popular. That's why Amtrak is the only one that does it, and it has always been subsidized by the federal government.

        No one -- literally -- wants to get into the private passenger train business. There is no viable business plan in it.

        That said, yes, Amtrak management can be blamed for part of the situation they are in, but I don't think they could get buy without government help in any case, unless they significantly cut back opera

        • Passenger trains have been unprofitable since passenger airlines became popular. That's why Amtrak is the only one that does it, and it has always been subsidized by the federal government.

          Actually, passenger rail has *always* been unprofitable -- at least compared to freight rail. That's exactly why Nixon created Amtrak. All the freight carriers were going to stop passenger service. One reason why passenger rail service seems so much more expensive than air travel is that air travel is better subsidized than rails.

          Airlines do no pay for Air Traffic control or airports. That happens at the federal and state level respectively. AmTrak is responsible for various stations (witness the "AmShack" of St. Louis that is a double wide trailer).If the similiar money were spent on rails, there would be shorter, more reliable routes between cities and a smoother, more pleasant ride for passengers.

          We shouldn't have to pick either trains or airplanes -- we should have the choice of either. It's not as if AmTrak is wanting for passengers -- the cars on my trip were at capacity. AmTrak doesn't have the money to add cars to service existing demand! Weird, but true.

          There is some adminstrative fat that needs to be cut from AmTrak and that appears to be happening. There must be a way to make passenger train service a viable business -- let's see what Bill Gates can do for this monopoly.

          • Actually, passenger rail has *always* been unprofitable -- at least compared to freight rail.

            Not to be pedantic, but the only thing I can compare "unprofitable" to is "profitable".  :-) Passenger rail used to be profitable, back when it was the primary means of getting passengers across long distances of land. Freight was probably more profitable, and even back then, they combined freight and passenger cars, but still.

            And passenger airlines have never been profitable either, this is true. Southwe
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.