View Single Post
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2011, 10:51 PM
fishrose's Avatar
fishrose fishrose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midtown Detroit
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I am far from convinced that the long haul cross-country routes are actually a drain on Amtrak. For two reasons.

1. We all know they lose money operationally, but how much? The long haul routes are a very small percentage of Amtrak's runs, and since Amtrak doesn't own very many of the tracks used by those routes, they do not have to pay much to keep up the tracks. Killing the long haul routes would not affect Amtrak's budget enough to fundamentally change the organization's finances.

2. Amtrak is one of the most popular things the US government does. It's like NASA. Some of the politicians may not like it, but it is wildly popular among the general public. Even people who would never consider using it seem to like the idea that it exists. If you take it out of their state, they very well may throw in the towel and stop caring. Since these long haul routes provide service to a large number of otherwise isolated states, they very well may be worth more money in the political support they generate than they lose operationally.

In short, killing the cross country routes would definitely not save Amtrak's operational budget, but very well might cause it to lose massive political support that it currently enjoys. The long term cost of ending cross country service could far outweigh the short term money saved by not running a tiny handful of trains that aren't very expensive to run in the first place.
The cross-country routes are actually extremely successful, and generate well beyond their subsidy in fares. They're essentially land cruises, and people who go on them get sleeper cars and spend money. While there are relatively few cross-country riders, those tickets sell out every year and there is always a waiting list.
Reply With Quote