Mr. Canellos, I just read your article "Few climbing aboard to help rescue Amtrak" on the Globe website. I'm afraid you have accepted a number of misconceptions about Amtrak's long-distance trains.
It was disappointing that you accepted without question Norman Mineta's claims that long-distance trains don't attract many riders. Mineta is confusing demand with capacity. In fact, these trains are frequently sold out. There are only 16 of these routes most of which run just once a day. Yet they managed to carry 3,768,940 people last year, which is more than the population of Oregon. There is currently a shortage of rolling stock, and demand for the service currently exceeds Amtrak's capacity. As Amtrak's President David Gunn has gotten damaged cars back into service, long distance ridership has increased to fill them, reaching record highs in 2004.
This handful of long-distance trains produce more than half of Amtrak's passenger miles, yet consume less than 20% of Amtrak's subsidies. The Northeast Corridor generates only about a third of Amtrak's passenger miles, while consuming 75% of the subsidies.
The large deficits commonly attributed to long-distance trains are actually fixed costs, such as maintenence facilities, reservations systems, stations, etc, that are shared with regional trains. These costs won't go away if the long-distance trains shut down. The costs will simply be charged to remaining trains, but without the long-distance network, there will be less sales revenue to help cover those costs.
Dig a little deeper, and you'll find that the national network is more than a political animal designed to keep the Northeast trains funded. It is also a useful transportation system in its own right, and quite underappreciated. Those of us who live far from the Northeast Corridor know this well, and we use these trains to cover "flyover territory" that is poorly served by the airlines.
Sincerely, James Toy Seaside, CA
dilly Member # 1427
posted
Great reply, Mr. Toy. Your letter definitely deserves to be read by a wider public than Mr. Canellos and the faithful crew who visit this forum.
Have you sent a copy to the Globe's editors as well? Letters addressed to the author of a piece don't necessarily get forwarded to the editor who manages the "letters" page.
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
Done. I had to whittle out about 100 words, to keep it within a reasonable size, but the essence of it is still there.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Remember, when you write to any media in the Boston - New York area, and maybe somewhat south thereof, their definition of "Midwest" is Ohio. Chicago is the approximate end of the world. If they recognize that anything west thereof actuall exists, it is regarded as being still the wild west or Indian territory in their minds.
CHANGEATJAMAICA Member # 3737
posted
Just a few of comments from an interested third party. First: Thanks Mr. Toy for a cogent, equally well thought out and presented comment on the Globe article. It's reassuring to read inteligent responses rather than a simple RAH RAH for Amtrak. Second: The congressional delegation from Massachusetts is totally Democratic AND the senators as well as the vast majority of the reprentatives consistantly vote pro Amtrak. Finally: We are not nearly so provincial as is commonly assumed. We KNOW where New York, Chicago, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City and San Francisco are AND most of us are aware of the places in between. Rodger
Mr. Toy Member # 311
posted
quote:Originally posted by CHANGEATJAMAICA: We are not nearly so provincial as is commonly assumed. We KNOW where New York, Chicago, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City and San Francisco are AND most of us are aware of the places in between.
That is good to know. However, it has been my observation that folks, including railfans, in the Northeast genuinely believe that the NEC is the only American rail system that has any real public value. There is another board which shall remain nameless to protect me from the guilty, which I also participate in. That board is dominated by northeasterners, many of whom seem more than willing to sacrifice the "unnecessary" national network if it will protect their beloved NEC.
sojourner Member # 3134
posted
Speaking as someone in the NE, I can only say that what I'm most interested in preserving ARE the long-distance routes, and every time I call to complain about the cuts, I tell whatever Congressman's or Senator's office I'm talking to, "And I'm talking about the long-distance trains. I'm not just talking about saving a few routes here in the Northeast Corridor. I'm talking about having an actual train system, like every other civilized country in the world, a system where someone can get on a train in Boston or New York City and change in Chicago and go all the way to Topeka, Kansas, or Flagstaff, or Seattle . . . because that's what America is all about, being CONNECTED, state of the UNION, it's historic, it's patriotic, it's the only way to really see the country, and anyone who loves America loves trains.
Plus, they save energy and pollute less."
That's my speech and I'm sticking with it.
Chucky Member # 2263
posted
Actually the article is pretty good but the headline has to be one of the worst ever written.
When I first saw the article this morning, I immediately thought it was going to say that the public is not riding the train, which we all know is not true.
The last paragraph of the article pretty much sums up the situation, "Mineta proudly declared that Bush's budget proposal was the start of a national discussion about Amtrak's future. But so far, he seems to be the only one participating."
posted