I planned a trip from Seattle to New Mexico on Amtrak and it was pretty cool... until they canceled the leg of the trip from LA to New Mexico and I had to take a Greyhound for like 19 hours.
I was only in business class but that got me access to the dining car. Since I was alone they sat me with different people for each meal and the food was actually really good!
Of the 5 or 6 times I've taken Amtrak only once has the trip not been delayed or screwed up in a way that horribly affected the trip.
I would love to do more train travel but my experiences have been so bad I can't imagine doing it much more than I have to, especially when it's way more expensive and takes way longer than driving a car.
I rode the Coast Starlight north through the Sierra Nevadas(?) 15-20 years ago. It was a 24hour trip, and I was delayed 24hours. We hit a pedestrian then an avalanche had us back up 2-3 hours until a Greyhound picked us up and took us the rest of the way.
My understanding is this is sadly not as rare as you would hope around level crossings. Likewise with trains hitting cars on the tracks.
Some crossings have gates which make this much less likely, others do not and rely on flashing lights and the train horn to warn people of an approaching train.
It happens all the time in Vietnam and they constantly have it in the news. The people there don't have the culture to wait for anything... to the point where people try to get onto an elevator before everyone has gotten off already. It is mindless. Railroad crossings are no different and will just go around or ignore the crossing gates...
A friend of mine works at a law firm that exclusively handles train injury cases. It happens a LOT more than you'd expect, primarily at crossings. Hearing-handicapped or people blasting their speakers who don't hear the horn; faulty crossing gates; distracted drivers; and so on.
A relative was considerably delayed a couple of times on NE Corridor trips by the trains hitting pedestrians. Both apparently were suicides.
And persons not out to end their lives occasionally do, crossing a train track where the view is obstructed in one direction or another. Cars try to make it across the track a few seconds too late.
Amtrak has also been starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it, so they don't have the funds to properly maintain their rolling stock. Engine breakdowns are frequent.
> starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it
I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs.
I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year.
How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland?
I’m not sure what the right amount is, but I don’t think it’s really possible to spend the money that is needed given the costs and the utility. The only real hope is that one day population density will increase between Chicago and California so it becomes less costly to operate.
I don't think ridership on the Zephyr has much at all to do with population density --- it's hitting Reno, SLC, Denver, and Omaha on that route, too. The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco; you're basically getting people to sign up for a vacation of spending an extended period of time on a train. I get why that appeals to some people, but it's obviously a pretty unappealing proposition for most people.
> The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco
You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies.
One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.
Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues.
I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.
Airports are also profitable though. And for that matter, rail infrastructure in the US is also profitable for cargo, which is its primary use.
Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.
But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation, and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airports are also usually public-private ventures and their operation is defacto subsidized by the federal government.
I don’t have a problem with airlines or anything but I don’t think we have the full competitive picture especially when we take into account the forced suburbanization of America which has all sorts of correlated problems.
For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. But also who cares if it’s profitable?
> But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation
This is also true for trains.
> and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies.
Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century.
Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.
> For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too.
In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.
> But also who cares if it’s profitable?
American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
> American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument.
> This is also true for trains.
Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density).
> Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century.
> Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.
The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges.
The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.
The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.
> In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.
The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.
You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.
I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.
> The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.
You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.
> The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.
Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.
> The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.
Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.
> You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.
Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
> You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.
But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support.
> Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.
But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.
> Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.
Less so than the airline industries though. But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. Otherwise how do we have competition?
> Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t, but it’s a chicken-egg problem. You’re describing current state and I’m interested in a better state.
> But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.
You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States.
> But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too.
We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now.
> > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.
> I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t
If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.
That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint.
Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason.
I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be.
I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.
I was only in business class but that got me access to the dining car. Since I was alone they sat me with different people for each meal and the food was actually really good!
Of the 5 or 6 times I've taken Amtrak only once has the trip not been delayed or screwed up in a way that horribly affected the trip.
I would love to do more train travel but my experiences have been so bad I can't imagine doing it much more than I have to, especially when it's way more expensive and takes way longer than driving a car.