G
Guest
Guest
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...egion-apnewyork
Amtrak hampered by losses, low western ridership
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
February 14, 2005, 12:12 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- Amtrak loses tens of millions of dollars every year in New York, and ridership along one route has dropped 25 percent in the past four years, according to new figures from the embattled passenger service.
President Bush has proposed cutting all federal subsidies for Amtrak in next year's budget, launching a renewed fight in Congress over the fate of national rail service in the United States.
New York, with its millions of daily commuters and established rail lines, offers perhaps the best chance for rail passenger service to break even within a state. Instead, Amtrak's figures show they lost nearly $35 million last year in New York alone.
Back in 2000, Amtrak carried 469,000 passengers on its rails running west of Albany-Rensselaer toward Buffalo. By 2004, that figure had dropped to 358,000, a loss of one out of every four riders.
Amtrak officials and outside experts attribute the fall in ridership largely to the rise of low-fare airlines, which have found a market for discount flights out of upstate cities.
"The airplane is certainly more competitive in those shorter-haul markets with reduced fares, and low-fare airlines will be an ever-increasing threat to rail travel of 200 or more miles," said Brian Campbell, who leads the Virginia-based consultant firm Campbell-Hill Aviation Group.
"There aren't too many markets today where the rail system has clear and distinct competitive advantages over the airplane," said Campbell, who believes national rail service is unlikely to survive amid increasing competition.
The one area in New York where rail does still hold an edge is the corridor between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City. Ridership there has stayed fairly constant, even increasing slightly last year, when it had 903,000 riders.
Amtrak operates 13 round-trip trains a day between the two points. Four of those continue west out to Buffalo, and one runs north to Montreal.
But as crowded as the New York to Albany service may be for commuters and business travelers, it doesn't generate nearly enough revenue to pay costs of continuing the service westward and northward.
The Empire Line, which runs from New York City to Buffalo, cost $75.5 million to operate in 2004 but took in just $45.1 million in ticket sales, food sales and other revenue, according to Amtrak.
That $30.1 million annual loss is the worst of any short-distance train in the Amtrak system. Even the combined losses of the four other short-distance trains in the system don't equal the red ink of the Empire Line.
Of the $45.1 million the Empire Line does generate, the bulk of that money, some $27.4 million, came from ticket sales between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City.
An additional $12.9 million was spent on travel through Albany, with only about $2.6 million coming from ticket sales for travel west of Albany, according to Amtrak.
Despite those figures, and the drop in ridership between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo, Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black said the company has no plans to reduce the four trains running those routes daily.
"Status quo is our plan," said Black.
North of Albany, the Adirondack line runs once a day, along an old track that traces around rock faces above Lake Champlain. The winding course requires the train to slow to 20 miles per hour in some places, making it not just slower than airplanes, but slower than a car stuck in third gear.
That line also posts an operating loss of some $4.3 million last year that the state reimburses.
While the Montreal-Albany leg generates the lowest ridership, the state considers it important to provide a transportation link to the North Country in the winter, when snow storms can halt road traffic on I-87.
The financial losses of the Adirondack and Empire Line together cost Amtrak and New York $34.7 million.
Supporters of Amtrak say that is a small price to pay to reduce traffic and pollution, particularly when tens of billions of dollars are spent every year on highway construction. Congress is currently weighing a six-year, $284 billion plan for roads and public transit systems.
The company's financial condition would be much stronger if it hasn't been hamstrung for years by a paltry federal allowance that puts off needed repairs and track work, raising the day-to-day costs of running the system, supporters said.
Bruce Becker, president of the Empire State Passengers Association, said Amtrak would be better served by lowering its fares on rail service west of Albany, to bring in more riders and dollars.
"You don't make any money from an empty seat, and they're running the train anyway," said Becker.
. We need money to pay for the corporate welfare (different from Amtrak subsidies as Amtrak is Quasi-Governmental) AND the tax cuts, AND the wars, AND the Social Security Reform, AND the precription drug coverage AND the tax cuts but we don't have it so we get it from our "enemies." I was not a fan of the former president but the 90's in retrospect are sure looking to be a whole lot better than what I'm seeing today. Remember the tough decisions Clinton had to make about being fiscally responsible? Remember how he shut down the government including mail service? Remember when we had a $230 billion budget surplus? Gone immediately with the tax cuts. Even prior to 9-11.
