Amtrak is all aboard with electronic ticketing in 2011

One of the most common complaints I get from Amtrak customers is about their tickets. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation uses old-school paper tickets that have cash value. I asked Matt Hardison, Amtrak’s chief for sales distribution and customer service, about the ticket troubles, and how to solve them.

What are the rules regarding lost tickets on Amtrak?

Most consumers have forgotten the days when tickets essentially had cash value. Today, there are almost no conventional tickets for the airlines anymore. Consequently, Amtrak is one of the last intercity modes of travel whose tickets still have value – what we call “value documents” – and for now our policies still need to reflect that.

What happens if you lose your ticket?

If you lose your Amtrak ticket, you need to purchase another ticket in order to travel, just as you used to do with airline tickets. You can apply for a refund of your lost ticket by filling out a form and sending it in. This form is available on Amtrak.com or from a station agent.

How long does a refund take?

If, after five months, there is no record in the system that your lost ticket was refunded, exchanged, spoiled, or used — ticket lifted on a train or bus — we will refund that ticket, less a $75 service charge that covers our costs of processing the applications, and less a 10 percent refund fee, though the 10 percent refund fee is not charged if you repurchased the ticket and traveled.

How many tickets are lost annually?

We get between 90 and 100 lost ticket applications monthly, for a rough volume of 1,000 annually. Of course, more than that number may be actually lost, but we can only track refund applications. By comparison, in our last full fiscal year, we had 27 million riders.

Why hasn’t Amtrak adopted e-ticketing, like airlines?

E-ticketing in a passenger rail environment is complicated by the fact that Amtrak operates an “open” system. Amtrak’s system is open in that, unlike the airlines, there is generally no single gate through which to control boarding and, even where there is, there are multiple doors on a single train through which a passenger can board or deboard. Further, many stations are not staffed at all. In other words, there is no point at which Amtrak has 100 percent gate control.

An open system without complete gate control, of course, complicates our ultimate goal of complete passenger manifests.

Of course, all airports are staffed, not just by airline personnel but also by TSA inspectors who ensure that only ticketed passengers are granted access to the boarding area. All airline systems which perform the final e-ticket inspection and ticket lift at the gate itself have wired connections to the airlines’ central ticketing system.

Because Amtrak’s final e-ticket inspection process will take place on board, Amtrak has the additional challenge of relying on wireless connectivity, such as through cellular connections, in order to synchronize data to its central ticketing system.

In spite of these challenges, Amtrak has designed a solution and is well underway in its development and implementation. We expect to be able to begin pilot testing of our solution by early summer of 2011.

So we should expect e-ticketing sometime next year?

The timeline is comprised of two major phases: First, modernizing Amtrak’s reservation system to support e-ticketing; and second, building the on-board technology solution.

The first phase, modernizing the reservation system, is largely complete. Today, all Amtrak-booked tickets — roughly 90 percent of all Amtrak sales — are built as electronic tickets in the reservation system before issuance. Partial evidence of this is the fact that Amtrak.com tickets can now be modified or changed electronically up to the time of issuance – a function that was actually designed for e-ticketing, but we can share with customers today.

But you can’t do e-ticketing yet?

No. In spite of now having e-ticket bookings, Amtrak still needs to print conventional tickets against these bookings until phase two is complete and fielded. phase two is well underway.

Amtrak has selected the technology platform and begun development. Once the platform is complete, Amtrak will begin testing and roll-out across the system incrementally, starting with the pilot program in the early summer of 2011. The schedule to complete deployment will depend on the adoption rate of the technology across the system, but should be complete within 18 months of pilot completion.

In the meantime, does Amtrak have any plans to relax its current ticketing policies, specifically the one that says your ticket is the same as cash?

Not at this time. A ticket does have cash value to the holder. If a lost ticket is invalidated on an airline, the person attempting to use it will be stopped at the gate when the ticket is scanned or entered into their system. Amtrak does not have gate control and does not yet have technology on-board to protect those persons whose ticket are lost.

Of course, once we deploy e-tickets, we will change our policy and the current fees and restrictions will no longer apply. Customers that lose their boarding documentation can simply reprint it or reissue it themselves.

(Photo: Amtrak)

  • http://www.sanibel-rentals.net Sylvia

    This is good news for those of us who love train travel. The next two issues are price and destination. If the train fares were more competitive and the destinations more numerous, I know I would use trains more often, and I think there would be many others with the same intentions.

  • panchosays

    What can we do to improve the train service in USA which is practically third-world, and shameful compared to the spectacular eficient high-speed, high-tech, quality-of-life bullet-train service in Europe (especially Spain), Japan, etc.?
    Perhaps there is no demand becuase people have not experienced these superlative services and are complacently accustomed to mediocrity.

  • carver

    @panchosays

    Their is no demand for train service because the US is huge by comparison to Europe

  • Scott S

    Pancho- you should join narp.org: the National Association of Railroad Passengers. It’s a Washington DC – based group that supports passenger rail efforts.

    Carver – a huge number of flights in the US are 1 hour or less, which could easily be served by rail transportation, even with limited investment. China (a huge country!) is investing heavily in high-speed rail as they see the pitfalls in their equally massive highway expansions.

    Amtrak California has been very successful in attracting passengers, despite the huge dependence on cars. And many long-distance Amtrak services are consistently sold out! They could sell lots more tickets if they were able to buy more equipment.

  • Phoenix Justice

    @carver

    That’s not a good excuse. When AMTRAK was created after the government took over interstate passenger rail from the private rail companies, it was not meant to survive more than a few years. Since we didn’t plan for AMTRAK to last, we as a nation didn’t invest in the infrastructure to make interstate and coast to coast passenger rail travel fast and convenient.

    We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on interstate highways and airports, yet AMTRAK has to mortgage itself to the hilt in order to purchase new equipment. Hell, some members of Congress have actively restricted funding in attempts to dismantle AMTRAK.

    If we had been investing in interstate passenger rail infrastructure since the formation of AMTRAK, I don’t doubt that we would have a passenger rail system that would rival Europe’s.

    I look forward to the day when we as nation start to invest in our interstate passenger rail as we have other modes of transportation.

  • Jonathan

    @panchosays

    High speed rail sounds like a good idea in principle, but I am not sure it can be compared apples to apples to Europe. Most US cities are vast in area and require a car to get around. In Europe, public transportation is vast and easy. Imagine taking a high speed train from Houston to Dallas. The train would be faster than driving, but you would probably still have to rent a car when arriving in Dallas. There are certainly places in the US where high speed rail could work well (and I would love to see it happen), but I imagine it would be very limited

  • Richard Trilling

    @ Carver

    Washington, New York, Boston is not huge. There are other distances in the US that could use decent rail service, even the LIRR. The US has invested in airplanes (the Boeing 707 costs were paid by the KC-135) & airports, not trains; that is the real reason. Even the non bullet trains in Europe are better then those in the US.

    The US should stop making excuses.

    Richard (Paris, France; as opposed to Texas.)

  • Katie

    This is such a great coincidence, as I just arrived in my hometown last week via Amtrak, and my dad just went to the downtown Pittsburgh station to pick up my ticket so I can go back to NYC tomorrow on Amtrak as well. Of course, reading that sentence carefully shows the problem with train travel; I leave from a small town outside of Pittsburgh, which does not have a machine from which to print my ticket, nor any agents. So, if I want to leave on somewhat short notice (read: without enough time for the ticket to be sent through the mail), I need to drive to The City to get the ticket the day before.

    We were just remarking on how silly this is. The station I leave from is unmanned, but I don’t see how it could cost so much to have a simple machine in the lobby. Maintenance wouldn’t be that large of a problem, because a single person to maintain the machine is relatively close enough to maintain those in several stations along the route (the first five stations are probably within about two hours of each other).

    That being said, I would take the train from NYC to Pittsburgh ANY day over a plane! It’s not even that much more total time, despite the train ride being 8 hours and the plane ride being about 2 or so. When you factor in the time to get to the airport, plus being the recommended two hours early, plus the inevitable delays, plus the hour and a half it takes me to get from the airport to my home – it really adds up! With the train, I’m on it longer, but I don’t have to show up much earlier than about 45 minutes, there’s no security lines to go through, I can walk around the train whenever I want, eat any food that I want, there’s tons of leg room, and it drops me off 20 minutes from the house! It’s even easier to get work done, because you can really “settle in” and get things finished, unlike on a plane where you can’t even take anything out for 20 minutes, have to put it away before the flight lands, and it’s not even that long anyway to really focus and accomplish anything.

    Even with it currently taking so long, I’d gladly put up my tax money to invest in trains – especially if they fix the ticketing hassles and go on to have high speed trains. The “worst” hassles I’ve experienced with Amtrak are laughable compared to how stressful and ridiculous one short, relatively problem-free plane ride is.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Sylvia – “The next two issues are price and destination. If the train fares were more competitive and the destinations more numerous…”
    - – - – - – -
    AMTRAK is losing billions every year…the fares need to go up so that they can cover the expenses…I don’t think that the US taxpayers should continue to bail out AMTRAK every year.

    @ Carver – I agree with you. US is bigger than Western Europe, http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm.

    The continent of Europe is about 4 million square miles in size — covers an area a little bit bigger than the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii). While the United States of America consists of 50 states, Europe spans the following 7 geographic regions:

    •Scandinavia: Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark
    •The British Isles: the United Kingdom and Ireland
    •Western Europe: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Monaco
    •Southern Europe: Portugal, Spain, Andorra, Italy, Malta, San Marino, and Vatican City
    •Central Europe: Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary
    •Southeastern Europe: Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, and the European part of Turkey
    •Eastern Europe: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the European portion of Russia, and, by convention, the Transcaucasian countries of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

    @ Scott S – “a huge number of flights in the US are 1 hour or less, which could easily be served by rail transportation, even with limited investment.”
    - – - – - – - – — – -
    I can spend $ 150 for a ticket on US Airway for a hour flight from PHX to LAX. I can drive in my car from Phoenix to Los Angeles in 6 to 7 hours. It takes 15 hours and 15 minutes (if every thing is on time) and $ 102 to take the train from Phoenix to Los Angeles…to be fair, there is a 3-hr & 20-min bus ride from Phoenix to Flagstaff to catch the Amtrack train to Los Angeles (11-hr & 18-min)…the bus arrives 37 minutes before depature which is cutting it short if there is an accident on I-17.

    @ Scott S – “China (a huge country!) is investing heavily in high-speed rail as they see the pitfalls in their equally massive highway expansions.”
    - – - – - — – - – -
    I think that there is a big difference between the US and China.

    The Interstate Highway System was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. However, the initial federal planning for a nationwide highway system in the US began in 1921 when the Bureau of Public Roads asked the Army to provide a list of roads it considered necessary for national defense. Later in the 20′s, highways such as the New York parkway system were built as part of local or state highway systems.

    I don’t think that the Chinese government been building interstate highways for the past 50 years like the US.

    The US public been buying cars for 100 years. A few years ago, I read a tidbit in the USA Today that there is now one car for every individual (adults, children, illegals, etc.) living in the US. In some cities in China, it can cost $ 7,000 USD to $ 10,000 USD to register a car. A car is still a luxury for the majority of the people living in China. The Chinese have been buying cars in record numbers but they have a long way to go to having at least a billion cars on their roads.

    With over 1.3 billion individuals living in China and most of them do not have cars, China is investing heavily in high-speed rail. If you look at their railroad system, there are very few rails to to the western portion of the country while the majority of the rails are in the eastern portion of the country. In regards to their high-speed rails, there a five lines and all of them are on the eastern ‘seaboard’ of China…like Shanghai, Beijing, Tanjian, etc….basically between cities that have large population.

    Another reason why China is investing heavily in high-speed rail is to reduce their carbon footprint. China is the number one pollutor on Earth. China doesn’t have an EPA. I have been to China three times. I have seen factories dumping their waste into the rivers. I have seen the black smoke from the coal generated power plants and factories. There are no scrubbers on those smokestacks I have seen brand new building that two years later that look like they were 40 years old, the concrete was crumbling because of the air population. If the ‘Green folks’ really want to reduce the carbon emissions instead of transfering the wealth of the US to the third-world countries, they will should focus their attentions on China and India, the # 1 and # 2 polluters in the world.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    In the comments that I posted above, the fare of $ 102 between Phoenix and Los Angeles was one-way…the cost for a round-trip ticket is $ 204. If I wanted to buy a room (since the trains only goes between Flagstaff and Los Angeles during the night) with beds on the train, the cost ranges from $ 276 to $ 410 for each way. It will cost me $ 204 per person plus $ 552 to $ 810 for a room. More importantly, it will take at least a minimum of 15 hours to travel one way. I value my time.

    On the other hand, I can spend $ 150 for a round-trip ticket on US Airways and save 24 hours (an hour flight plus two hours at the airport x 2 = 6 hours; 30 hrs – 6 hrs = 24 hours).

  • Eric

    Arizona Road Warrior makes the key point. Likewise it costs more or less $200 to fly from LaGuardia to Chicago and takes approx. 2 hours. The Lakeshore Limited takes about 20 hours and costs about the same for a coach seat (add’l $400 at least for a berth). Also, apparently you run the risk of being roused out of your sleep between Buffalo and the Pennsylvania boarder by Customs & Immigration!!!

  • http://gottogovacationrentals.com Dave

    The ticketing system upgrade issues mostly stems from the fact that Amtrak isn’t even a self supporting business. Without the federal budget behind it, it would fail because the tickets would be even more outrageously priced than they already are. If the business can’t support itself how would they afford to do major technical upgrades?

  • Carver

    @Arizona

    As usual excellent points

    @others

    What some of the pro-train folks fail to understand is that rail is merely a means, not an end unto itself. Different circumstances require different forms of transportation. We should use the best mode for the task, not blindly follow other countries with different dynamics than our own.

  • Steve

    I think rail transportation works best in limited circumstances – either commuter rail in and around large cities, or for medium-distance trips such as the trips Katie described. (Of course, if the ticket price even for those trips reflected the full cost, that might be different).

    I just don’t see huge demand for the idea of crossing the country by train, even if it’s high-speed. Yes, as part of an extended vacation it might be appealing to take a bit more time to get to your destination and in return be more comfortable and see more of the sights. But a large percentage of flights are taken either for business or for short leisure trips (going to a wedding over a long weekend, for example). No high-speed train could compete with the airlines on long-distance routes, where the speed of the plane makes up for the security hassles. And the cost of those long trips seems to be at least as high as buying a plane ticket, so there’s no money savings there either.

  • http://mytimetotravel.wordpress.com KathyW

    My problem with Amtrak’s ticketing is that they don’t do seat reservations – at least not on the Silver Star and Carolinian routes that I take to get to Washington. This means that boarding takes longer than it need – they open one door (so much for not having control over boarding!) and the attendant looks at your destination and then tells you whether to go left or right, and how far.

    The other problem is that they are so slow and unreliable (so I can’t rely on arriving in time to catch my flight out of Dulles), which is the result of not owning the tracks, which is the result of policies that favor roads and planes. It is silly to complain about subsidies to Amtrak, when other forms of transport are themselves (much more heavily) subsidized. Trains are greener and safer than driving.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Dave – “The ticketing system upgrade issues mostly stems from the fact that Amtrak isn’t even a self supporting business. Without the federal budget behind it, it would fail because the tickets would be even more outrageously priced than they already are. If the business can’t support itself how would they afford to do major technical upgrades?”
    - – - – - – — – - – - – - – -
    If the business can’t support itself then it should fail.

    I think that Amtrak should be sold off (either whole or by lines) to private concerns. The free market will determine its fate. It is my guess that there will be no takers for the entire Amtrak. It is my guess that the biggest interest will be the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington DC corridor.

    One problem that caused the demise of the public railroads providing passenger service was the labor unions. The average train speeds doubled from 1919 to 1959, but unions resisted efforts to modify their existing 100 to 150 mile work days. As a result, railroaders’ work days were roughly cut in half, from 5–7½ hours in 1919 down to 2½-3¾ hours in 1959. Labor rules also perpetuated positions that had been obviated by technology.

    One of the financial problems of Amtrak is the burden of providing pensions to workers that never worked for them. The burden of railroad worker pensions, including those of freight railroad workers, are financed by Amtrak, regardless of whether such workers were ever employed by Amtrak or worked in passenger railroad service.

    Until 1966, most U.S. Postal Service mail was transported on passenger trains. It was not uncommon for passenger trains to feature a dozen mail cars with only a few passenger cars. The mail contracts kept most passenger trains economically viable. In 1966, the U.S. Postal Service switched to trucks and airplanes, depriving many passenger trains of a major source of revenue.

    There were six railroads that were offering long-distance passenger service in 1971 that declined to join Amtrak in 1971. The six railroads were: 1) Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad; 2) Georgia Railroad (it had mix freight/passenger trains…most freight cars since the state charger of Georgia required state based railroads to maintain a minimal passenger service and it was sold to Seaboard System, freight only operations and Seaboard System later became CSX) Railroad; Reading; Rio Grande ( stopped operations in 1983); Rock Island (stopped operations in 1978); Southern (relinquished operations to Amtrak in 1979).

    Only one railroad survived. The Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad trains were taken over by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District and it is still running trains between Chicago and South Bend, Indiana.

    The reality is that the market has spoken. However, there are some individuals who can’t accept changes and\or the decisions of the market. Did the government subsidize the manufacturers of horse buggies when the car came along?

    Personally, I can see passenger train service on the eastern seaboard. However, it should be private not run by the government. If it is public then it needs to be self-supporting.

  • cjr

    “but you would probably still have to rent a car when arriving in Dallas”

    Is public transportation in Dallas nonexistent? I’ve been to several of the biggest cities in the US – Chicago, LA, SF – and never rented a car. I’ve used Amtrak between LA and San Diego, as well as to Chicago when I lived in the Midwest.

    The problem we have is that, outside of the northeast and in California, passenger rail between major cities is practically nonexistent, or what does exist is downright awful.

    The last time I rode the California Zephyr to Chicago, it was a total of 8 hours late: had to stop to wait for commercial trains to pass, had to stop due to track work on said commercially owned tracks, was stranded for a couple of hours because the train’s engine died or something. It was a nightmare.

    I do think it was a major mistake to not invest in high speed rail, and it’s probably going to be too expensive to do so now. We’ve also been trained as a nation to think that by car and plane are the only ways to go, and to disregard other options. I know I’d be willing to use rail more often if it was high speed and reliable.

  • Lisa S

    I, for one, would love to see high-speed rail in this country. When I lived in Europe, I traveled everywhere by train. Long trips were conveniently overnight so it didn’t seem like such a long trip when you traveled couchette. Given the vast amounts of money the US government has spent and continues to spend on the interstate highway system, I don’t believe that train travel deserves less money. Indeed, I think you could argue that it needs more federal money.

    I find Amtrak’s comments strange because when I travel by train in Switzerland, I buy my tickets on line and haven’t had a problem. I don’t really understand why Amtrak can’t do something similar now. Perhaps Americans don’t like reserving train seats?

  • Tanya

    cjr – “is public transportation in Dallas nonexistent?”

    Yes and no. No, if you need to go to some very limited areas. However, the problem becomes when you talk about “Dallas” most people really mean Dallas and ALL surrounding areas. From the far west side of Fort Worth, it would take an hour or longer to actually get into Dallas proper. And many business meetings may take place in Downtown Dallas, or in Downtown Fort Worth. By the time you take a taxi or other mode of public transportation, you would be much better off renting a car on your own.
    They do have a train that runs from Fort Worth into Dallas, but most people still have to get to the train station.
    Having been to all the cities you have mentioned and navigating through the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, you are trying to compare apples with oranges. To get from the airport to a train station, you take a bus, then you board the train. You can also take a bus to downtown Dallas or Ft. Worth, but then you would be stuck in downtown, not a bad place to be, but certainly not all of Dallas to see either.
    The city is not set up the way of NY, Chicago, LA, or SF.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ cjr – “I know I’d be willing to use rail more often if it was high speed and reliable.”
    - – - – - – - –
    If there was a high speed train between Phoenix and Los Angeles and Phoenix and Las Vegas, I will be a customer as long as the price was less than an airline ticket, it is reliable and fast (i.e. 2 hours between Phoenix and Los Angeles – it is 387 miles from downtown Phoenix to LAX…at 200 mph, it is a 2 hour ride).

    When I was in college, I took a train trip to Washington DC. After that trip, I decided not to use Amtrak again.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Lisa S – “I find Amtrak’s comments strange because when I travel by train in Switzerland, I buy my tickets on line and haven’t had a problem. I don’t really understand why Amtrak can’t do something similar now. Perhaps Americans don’t like reserving train seats?”
    - – - – - -
    Based upon my 15 years of dealing with government entities, they are usually laggards when it comes to technology. It is very common for me to run across dated and obsolete technology running at government entities.

    The problem is the elimination of jobs. Technology can eliminate head counts and most government entities do not want to decrease their payrolls for funding reasons, political reasons, etc.

    For example, I can’t pay for city provided services like water, trash, sewer, etc. online. Why?…because they want to me to write a check so that they can employ individuals to open up envelopes, remove the check, enter the payment in their accounting software, take the checks to the bank, etc.

  • Carver

    @cjr

    How did you ever manuever through Los Angeles without a car. Having lived in LA for 13 years I can only assume that you were in very limited portions of America’s largest city (by geography)

    @KathyW

    Notwithstanding the recent bailout and bankruptcies, car transportation is the least subsidized of all US transport. What I mean by that is that the taxes collected such as the gasoline taxes are sufficient to fully maintain the highway infrastructure. In other words, motorist and those who transport goods and services by highway are the ones who pay for the use of highways. Whereas trains are subsized and buses even moreso.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ KathyW – My problem with Amtrak’s ticketing is that they don’t do seat reservations – at least not on the Silver Star and Carolinian routes that I take to get to Washington. This means that boarding takes longer than it need – they open one door (so much for not having control over boarding!) and the attendant looks at your destination and then tells you whether to go left or right, and how far.
    - – - – — – - – -
    I have ridden trains in China. They do have assign seats but no enforcement of seat assignments and actual passengers. On a train from Shanghai to Ningbo, there were passengers sitting in the restrooms.

    @ KathyW – “It is silly to complain about subsidies to Amtrak, when other forms of transport are themselves (much more heavily) subsidized.”
    - – - – - –
    There are differences. For example, the Interstate Highway benefits everyone…more local jobs since products can be shipped by trucks to market\consumers; lower prices for goods; personal travel; more commerce; mail can move faster; the freight companies pay taxes to the government.

  • Carver

    Personally, I would love to see a public transportation system that is need driven rather than ideologically driven. For example, here is CA we are debating a high speed train between San Francisco and LA. I’m very skeptical. THe LA to San Francisco route makes sense as SF tiny, compact, and has a very strong public transportation system.

    By contrast, LA is large, sprawling, and has a public transportation that is at best marginal. When you arrive in LA you still need a car.

    @Richard

    I’m not disputing that some areas might benefit from rail. But given the size of the US, as compared to WESTERN Europe(a la Arizona) it is impractical to have a robust nation rail line to compete with air travel. The solution is fix air travel, not create a transportation system which fails to meet the needs of the country.

    Rail for passenger transportation appears to be best suited for commuter trips.

  • Arizona Road Warrior

    @ Carver – “Personally, I would love to see a public transportation system that is need driven rather than ideologically driven.”
    - – - – - – - – - -
    I agree.

    @ Carver – “By contrast, LA is large, sprawling, and has a public transportation that is at best marginal. When you arrive in LA you still need a car.”
    - – - – - – - –
    I agree…it has to do with density. If you look at countries in Europe, the number of people to a square mile is generally greater than the US. If you look at large cities like Boston, Chicago, New York with a higher density, you will find much more public transportation. I used to work for a company with their headquarters in NYC; I used to speak with people that didn’t own a car.

    One of my neighbors used to live in LA and they use to commute 2-hour (one-way) to work every day. They are ecstatic that they are now driving only an hour (one-way) to work every day. I think that LA is too large for effective public transportation.

    @ Carver – “Rail for passenger transportation appears to be best suited for commuter trips.”
    - — – - – -
    I agree.

  • Tom

    Only 2 percent of Americans ride Amtrak. They are unwilling to pay fares high enough to cover even half the cost or the current service. But there’s an intense lobbying effort to get the other 98 percent of Americans who never ride Amtrak to pay thousands of dollars each for services that will only be enjoyed by that 2 percent. (And by the politicans, lobbists, facilitators and union members who will be rich by building a Scandanavian style service.

  • AlanB

    Carver wrote: “Notwithstanding the recent bailout and bankruptcies, car transportation is the least subsidized of all US transport. What I mean by that is that the taxes collected such as the gasoline taxes are sufficient to fully maintain the highway infrastructure.”

    I’m sorry, but that’s not correct. In fact, last year the subsidies to the highways just at the Federal level were $34.5 Billion. That would have paid to run every public, bus, commuter train, monorail, subway, light rail, ferry, and demand response service in the US.

    The Fed actually spent $69.616 Billion, which means that the “users” actually paid $34.116 Billion or about 50% via the fuel taxes and other fees.

    Back in March, the Fed dumped another $19.5 Billion into the Highway Trust Fund to help cover this year’s loses. And the year isn’t over yet, so that could go higher.

    And again, all I’ve been discussing is Federal dollars. Most cities, counties, and states further subsidize the roads & highways.

  • AlanB

    Tom wrote: “Only 2 percent of Americans ride Amtrak. They are unwilling to pay fares high enough to cover even half the cost or the current service. ”

    Aside from the fact that it’s about 9% of Americans that rode, they pay about 2/3rds of the costs. The rest comes from the Fed.

    And had there not been years where Congress cut funding severly forcing Amtrak to borrow money, the riders would be paying close to 3/4ths of their expenses. Over 1/3 of the annual subsidy to Amtrak goes to debt service.

  • AlanB

    Arizona Road Warrior wrote: “There are differences. For example, the Interstate Highway benefits everyone…more local jobs since products can be shipped by trucks to market\consumers; lower prices for goods; personal travel; more commerce; mail can move faster; the freight companies pay taxes to the government.”

    First, 40% of all freight in this country moves by rail. The next highest percentage? Trucks, at 28%.

    Second, trucks don’t need 6, 8, 10, and 12 lane freeways. Car drivers need that. Trucks would be just fine with a 4 lane interstate if there were no cars.

    Third, anyone buying anything that did travel by truck already paid for that travel on the highway via a shipping fee. Even if you don’t see it on your bill like you might with say a furniture delivery, you can rest assured that it’s included in the price of what you brought, like for example at the supermarket.

    So taxing every man, women, and child $112 last year for the highways without regard to whether or not they actually own a car, much less can drive one; benefited the drivers of cars like myself, who failed to fully pay for the roads they used.

  • AlanB

    Arizona Road Warrior wrote: “If the business can’t support itself then it should fail.

    I think that Amtrak should be sold off (either whole or by lines) to private concerns. The free market will determine its fate. ”

    The free market can’t determine Amtrak’s fate, since the free market isn’t free. It’s heavily influenced by the Fed and always has been. Until the Fed drops subsidies to flying and to the roads, there is no “free market.”

    And while you did touch on some of the reasons for the great decline in passenger rail service, you missed a few others. Like the fact that with the Fed subsidizing the highways and allowing the truckers to now underbid the RR’s, it cut into the freight profits that the RR’s had been using to subsidize passenger service.

    Adding a fuel tax on every gallon of diesel fuel purchased by the RR’s and then dumping that money into the Highway Trust Fund didn’t help things either.

    So many RR’s started neglecting their trains, which further hurt ridership.

    Interestingly though, ridership on passenger rail has been steadily climbing now for the last 30 years, nearly doubling in fact from 2.488 billion rides taken in ’79 to 4.473 billion in 2008. Yes, most of that increase has occurred in the commuter, heavy rail, and light rail categories, but even Amtrak continues to add more riders every year.

  • carver

    @ALANB

    Welcome to the discussion group. In checking your post, I think there is a fundamental flaw in your logic, i.e. a misunderstanding of subsidy. Of course the feds and states pay for highways and roads. However, its only a subsidy if more money is spent on highways and roads than revenue collected, i.e. gas tax, motor vehicle fees, etc. In 2006, according to the US Department of transportation, the US used 174 billion gallons of fuel (cars, buses, trucks).

    Similarly, the federal tax rate is 18.4 cents and the average state tax is 21.72 cents for a total of 40 cents per gallon. That means, the government collected 69.6 billion dollars from highway and road users which curiously is the exact number that you say the government spent on highways and roads.

    And that’s just the gas taxes. We haven’t include motor vehicle registration fees, toll roads, and other assessments.

    A rigorous analysis shown here:

    http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to…transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

    demonstrates that highway users pay more than the cost of highway while rail is heavily subsidized. I would encourage you to view the document for yourself.

  • http://www.woodruffinns.com virginia bed and breakfast

    The Amtrak is a fast paced and advanced intercity train in United Stated and have a network of 500 Destinations with a peaceful and enjoyable journey. It is introducing a latest system of e-ticketing in 2011 to improve its ticketing system.

  • Tom

    Only 2 percent of Americans ride Amtrak, not 9 percent. Amtrak gets 25 million passengers annually, but some people ride more than once. In fact, some people ride Amtrak twice a day as part of their communte. About 6 million of the 310 million people in America ride Amtrak, but those 6 million take 25 million trips. That means only 2 percent of Americans ride Amtrak.

  • AlanB

    @Carver,

    Nothing wrong with my logic, the flaw I’m sorry to say is in yours. You cannot add the fuel taxes collected by the states into your calculations. State fuel taxes go into the state’s budgets for spending; not into the Fed’s Highway Trust Fund.

    Take that 18.4 cents per gallon for gas and the 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel and multiply by the total gallons and you’ll find that you come up way short of $69.116B.

    However, you don’t have to take my word for it. The FHWA will provide the needed info themselves. Please start with the first graph at the following link.

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/index.htm

    Directly under that graph, you’ll notice in the footnotes that the Fed had to transfer $8.017 Billion in 2008 from the General fund into the HTF and $7B in 2009. That constitutes a subsidy since general revenue was needed to supplement the fuel taxes collected.

    Next, we move to the DOT’s website.

    http://www.dot.gov/budget/2010/bib2010.htm#fhwa

    In the chart on the right at the above link, you’ll note that under the enacted column that the Fed spent the afforementioned $69B. Then take note of the $27.5B Highway Infrastructure Investment that was paid out. Again, that money is a subsidy to the highways as that came out of the General fund as part of the Stimulus package.

    Conclusion, drivers paid only 50% of their costs last year.

    The Fed dumped another $19.5B into the Highway Trust Fund this past March, which is hoped to keep the fund solvent through the end of the year.

    Ps. Your link doesn’t work.

  • Carver

    @ Alan

    I looked at the first chart. Assuming that we are not cherry picking data, but looking over time, your chart shows that the from 11/2009 onward, the expenditures and income are roughly equal. The problem is that you are looking over a narrow window of time. The link I give you will be a 13 year period of time.

    But even using your charts, each month the tax revenue is approximately 2.8B as is the outlay. In any given month, say 10/2009 the numbers will be a little off, but in generally, the numbers are highly consistent.

    Here is another link that is done by the Bureau of Transportation statistics done by professional statisticians (with all the data) that should put this one to bed.

    http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/figure_01.html

    If that link doesn’t work you can also try this one then click
    http://www.bts.gov/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation

    Then click on Figure 1 for federal subsidies to passenger transportation.

  • Carver

    I should be clearer. The government subsidized the highways to the extend you break out mass transit such as buses from the equation. I assume that we are primarily discussing cars. Basically cars are revenue posiive with respect to highways, whereas buses and other forms of public transportation are revenue negative which requires government subsidies to exists.

  • AlanB

    Carver,

    Charts & graphs that end their data collection in 2001 & 2004 do nothing to disprove that the highways of this country received massive subsidies for the past 3 years. Nor does it put to bed the fact that without an increase in the fuel taxes, those massive subsidies will continue for the foreseeable future and will only get larger with each passing year. Larger because we’re not keeping up with maintenance properly and larger because we’re making vehicles more fuel efficient, which means less revenue per mile.

    And in fact, I suspect that one reason that the BTS numbers look so good is because we haven’t been keeping up on maintenance issues. This issue can be seen in a study released shortly after the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed into the river, which showed that more than $200 Billion in work was needed just on our bridges to return them to a state of good repair.

    I won’t even go into the fact that the BTS charts make no accommodation for trucks, which are part of the equation and must be included.

    As a taxpayer who is worried about his ever increasing taxes, what happened 10 years ago is of no interest to me. I want to know what’s affecting my taxes right here and now. Making up the continuing deficits of the HTF is hurting us far more than Amtrak.

  • Sasho

    The Amtrak argument about being unable to have gate control could be addressed by having a machine that reads a bar code and “punches” the ticket at each station. This seems to work in France. There are stiff fines for unpunched tickets there; conductors check to make sure all tickets are “punched” and that passengers are on the correct trains. With a similar system, Amtrak could still retain some human contact/control but not every station would need to be attended.

  • Carver

    @Alan

    I think you are missing the fundamental point of the articles, to wit: which is more cost efficient in determining transportation policy. We all agree that rail is cost negative and is subsidized.

    However, the BTS numbers (which you tacitly concede as “looking good”) show that our investment in highway has not come at the expense of the traveler, but rather has been cost positive, which is why out highway system has been so widely successful.

    Like any investment, we have to look at the big picture. Would it be more cost effective to build up a rail system for the US or continue the investment in highways. investments in such capital projects are not a 1,2 or even 3 year undertaking. The projected rail in Caifornia isn’t expected to be completed until 2020. So cherry picking a specific shortened time frame has as much validity as those brokerage commercials touting how they beat the market last year. Meaningless.

    Any analysis must be over a large time frame. And as such, the numbers clearly show that over time, highways are the most cost effective means of passenger transportation.

    I would note that that analysis says nothing about cargo.

  • AlanB

    Carver,

    The BTS analysis shows that only because that is the only form of transportation that the Fed has funded without question for the last 50 years, it’s simply the shear number of people coupled with the elimination of freight from the equation. If we had just as many people riding trains as we do driving on the highways, the trains would look far better. In fact had this country not dismantled its train system to a large extent, trains would look even better. It’s putting back what we ripped out that is really costing us.

    One need look no further than the fact that most experts will tell you that the bus is a far more efficient form of transportation than the personal car is. And yet the bus loses to rail head over heels in terms of cost.

    On average in this country it costs 80 cents to move one person one mile on a bus. And that amount doesn’t include fixing the damage that all those buses cause to our roads. That expense has always fallen on taxpayer shoulders.

    Contrast that with 40 cents per passenger mile for commuter rail or heavy rail (Subways & El’s). It costs 60 cents to move one person one mile on light rail.

    So if as experts have concluded, the bus is more efficient than the car, then the only conclusion that can be drawn from that is that rail is even more efficient than the car.

    If drivers were actually paying for the full value of their passage on the roads, rail ridership would probably double tomorrow. It already went way up when gas prices went up 2 years ago, and while there was a dip thanks to the recession, that dip was not as severe as the number of miles driven by car drivers.

  • Carver

    Alan

    You make a fair number of claims. Please provide supporting data to support your claim as to what would have happened had we not “dismantled” the rails.

    My skepticism is based on the fact that such numbers are almost certainly dependent upon the population density and other demographics of the city.

    One must ask, why do dense cities like San Francisco and DC, which are obviously on opposite coasts with different histories have great rail systems and other public transportation systems, yet sprawling cities such as LA do not.

    The obvious answer is that it is cheaper to transport people by public transportation in population dense cities and more expensive in sprawling cities.

    Do you know LA residents don’t take the bus? It takes too long, even without traffic. I worked in downtown LA once. There was an express bus from Santa Monica to downtown LA, a 20 minute trip which worked extremely well. However, one day I had to make a stop before the Santa Monica, so I took the City bus. The trip, without traffic, took 2 hours. It would have taken less than 30 minutes by car. Why? All those stops.

    These vast number of stops are needed else upon disembarking from the bus or train, one would hope the final destination is within walking distance.

    That’s one of the many reasons why trains and buses have fallen to highways and cars.

  • AlanB

    Carver,

    One need look no futher than LA, it once had a major rail system and like many cities it was ripped out. Only now finally realizing that mistake is LA starting to replace what they tore out. Cities like San Fran & DC which you mentioned realized this sooner and got started sooner on rebuilding their systems. And while San Fran’s pop density is considerbly higher than LA’s, DC’s isn’t that much higher. We could also go look at Portland, Oregon with a very good system, which has a lower pop density than LA.

    As for those numbers that I reported, they represent the national averages. There are some cities that obviously do better than others, and some that do worse. Since we’re on the topic of LA, their buses average 63 cents per passenger mile. LA’s light rail comes in at 50 cents and the subway hits 44 cents per pax mile.

    Looking at San Fran, their buses hit $1.29 per pax mile and $1.07 for light rail. So clearly pop density has little to do with the numbers, if the less dense LA can put up numbers better than average. Again the national averages are 80 cents for buses, 60 for light rail, and 40 cents for commuter & heavy rail.

    By the way, in 2008 LA residents took 380,000 rides on buses, and that’s just the MTA buses. There are probably at least 6 or 7 other agencies that provide bus service in LA.

    Finally, while bus ridership has remained largely flat for the past 30 years, rail ridership has not. It’s been climbing steadily for the past 30 years from 2.488 billion rides taken in 1979 to 4.473 billion in 2008.

  • y_p_w

    I’ve just learned the joys of riding Amtrak. It’s actually not bad if you get discount tickets.

    As for destinations or routes, that may not be that much of an issue. There are plenty of places served by Amtrak. The issue is the frequency of service and reliability. Quite a few long distance rail travelers have been upset when they were delayed hours because freight trains had priority on the rails owned by the large railroads.

    I’ve wondered why there wasn’t direct rail service between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles save the Coast Starlight (aka Coast Star-Late) once a day in each direction. Amtrak would love to run the San Joaquin route all the way to Los Angeles except that Union Pacific won’t let them use their heavily used Tehachapi Loop line. Right now it terminates in Bakersfield where one can transfer to a bus to get to Los Angeles.