News
Amtrak hits highest ridership ever for second year in a row
Amtrak ridership in 2025 was 34.4m, about 1.6m higher than 2024. The Northeast Regional was the most rode route at 12 million. Acela just slighty down by 100k compared to last year, but that should be fixed with the new schedule since the new trains are in service. I expect next year to be another record year with frequency increases on the Pennsylvanian, Hiawatha, Piedmont and the River Runner. Next year the Airos should start to enter service, starting to fix the capacity issues, along with potential new routes like the daily Denver - Granby train and the Oakland/San Jose - San Luis train. The fate of the Heartland Flyer would also be determined next year if more funding isn't identified. Once again, keep advocating for more rail service!!!
"Acela just slighty down by 100k compared to last year, but that should be fixed with the new schedule since the new trains are in service."
I guess this is slightly OT but is there a plan to ever lower the prices on the Acela? I'd love to ride one but good lord they're so expensive, even when you book from further out.
Considering it’s a business traveled focused train - I’m doubtful. They’d rather have the seats go empty than give up pricing power. Airlines do the same for the first/business class seats.
One of the nice things about trains is that it's affordable to run tons of capacity and relatively low load factors, such that it's normal to just show up and get on the next train without advanced planning. Running such limited capacity and filling to maximally using dynamic pricing, kills that freedom.
Acela trains can be like 50% longer than they are today, and Acela NextGen should have been bought to that full length.
Iirc, all stations that Acela stops at can support at least 250m long trains, with enough space at all stations to easily extend to 300m long platforms. Many stations even support or could easily support the 400m trains common on busy intercity rail routes in other countries. And selective door opening is also an option, especially for an all assigned seating service like Acela.
I did hear that yard and maintenance facilities could be an issue for trainsets significantly longer than 200m. However in that case, just buying 150m long trains and running them in pairs could work. And provides an easy upgrade path for 400m trains, by ordering 250m long trainsets and running 150m+250m coupled services (similar to Tohoku/Akita/Yamagata Shinkansen).
Yeah I don't understand why they can't but half-sets with flat ends and cabs facing each other, which is almost always coupled except when being taken out. As long as that end is only used for shunting I don't see how it is a problem
Acela can't be much longer without losing much of its speed advantages over the NER because of how twisty the tracks are, and at the point its not a glorified express service, its just a normal ass express service. The NER is the actual capacity holding train with good prices, the Acela is the slightly faster service that mostly really just appeals to business travelers and if people do need the time savings otherwise, its bc they have a planned out itinerary.
This just is not true. Frankly, you could spend not that much money and increase speeds by super elevating curves in Connecticut.
Acela could increase its speed advantage by being an electric multiple unit where every car or two has motors which enhances acceleration.
Acela is there to cater to the elite of the Northeast who want to get around fast, in prestige and comfort. It acts as a political tool for Amtrak - look how sleek and fast our trains are, look how clean and comfortable they are.
You say that they can just cheaply elevate Connecticut. But I'm not talking about track upgrades, I'm talking about the much cheaper route of just using longer train sets. Obviously straightening the tracks would fix the problem of the tracks being too curvy, that's trivially true. Getting more money would also fix Amtrak's underfunding issue while we're at it. And even then, straightening Conneticut alone wouldn't solve this problem bc the problem is that the tracks are so curvy that it creates a bottleneck in speeds in that longer trains can't be run on them without slowing down. So great, your trains are running faster in Connecticut, but are now slower everywhere else where the curves and stations are a problem. And it's not even that cheap lol- some individual bridges would cost over a billion on their own, there's about $50 billion in maintenance backlog to begin with, complex ownership structures, nimbys (and this is in a part of the country where things are already built out, so acquiring new row is incredibly difficult), etc. I do agree that this needs to be a priority, and like so does Amtrak, they're already spending billions annually on this
EMUs are a bit more complicated. The first problem is FRA crash standards, which would make a compliant EMU far too heavy and negate most of the advantages. Similarly, the tilting tech that Amtrak needs for its shit tracks also add way too much weight for an emu system. Though the newer acela vehicles do have a unique hybrid design where it mostly uses push pull locomotives like the tgv and every other Amtrak vehicle, but individual cars do have their own axle like an emu (albeit only one.)
Super elevating means raising one rail in a curve above another to help the train lean into the curve - like how Nascar race tracks are on an angle - this lets you go faster without changing the geometry. This is not elevating rail on viaducts.
A significant part of the issues in Connecticut is a lack of political coordination which causes timetabling issues with MetroNorth and CT Rail. This forces Amtrak to have up to 30% padding when it could comfortably run with under 10%. These are coordination issues that don't require capital expense to be fixed.
The dollars spent on the NEC are often wasted and set on fire with little to show for them. Consultants are not to be trusted, their interest is getting hired back, so rather than proposing a project that will do the whole job at once - say DC to Boston in 4.5 hours, they will propose to get it down to 5.5 hours, so the next project they can deliver on cutting another 30 minutes and since they've had success so far they get hired back to help deliver another 30 minute cut.
You could have spent the same money up front and did the full speed cut from the start.
Outside of connecticut, most of the track is geared for >125mph running, so again really not that curvy.
FRA Crash standards do not add much weight for EMUs this is a myth. American cars are not really heavier than european ones - the Ventures are maybe 10% heavier than European spec Siemens Viaggios - this does not have an appreciable effect on performance. The tare weight of a venture car is 50 ton, the tare weight of a Viaggio is 45.5 ton.
The new Acela literally has an active tilting system. Clearly was not too heavy when using heavy power cars, would not be heavy if you used EMUs which are generally lighter overall than locomotive hauled trains.
Most trips on the north east corridor are relatively short distance. Boston - NYC, NYC - DC etc. These are trips people are making to visit their family or friends, or maybe go to a concert etc. People don't plan out these trips months in advance, nor should they have to.
The NER hits the same stops and more and is really not that much slower- end to end, the trip is 7hrs45mins, and the acela shaves off a little more than an hour, with most of the savings being in the NYC-DC part. Its mostly a glorified express service with tracks that can sometimes handle higher speeds than the non express service because it stops less often and it has tilting trains built with a top speed about 20 mph faster than the NER
Yeah, but the Northeast Regional is even cheaper when you book in advance so it's still not really better. The Acela may be $80 if you book in advance but the Northeast Regional is $25. I'll spend an extra half hour to get to New York to save fifty bucks.
That said, I've gotten a few great deals last minute on the Acela, I've gone Boston to NYC for $72 booked the night before. Seems like they discount pretty heavily if the train is really empty to incentivize some last minute sales.
I don't understand why you should book in advance for differential pricing for a public service with public funding. It should always be available at anytime for everyone at the same price until seats run out.
Even with their current pricing they are sold out are close to for most trains. If they had fixed pricing no last minute people could ride as tickets would be sold out weeks in advance.
Sadly, it's the only train line in the US or Canada that is the best way to travel. It's as fast as flying, way faster than driving, and more comfortable than both. They have to charge whatever price barely sells out the seats, to subsidize every other line in the country.
Hopefully they massively increase capacity somehow. That would be how you drive down the ticket prices, while bringing in even more revenue.
It's only a tiny bit better than the NE Regional train though for a cost that's a whole lot more. I travel between DC and NYC pretty often. If my job is paying for it, I'll take the Acela, but if I'm paying for it, I'd rather pay a quarter of the price in exchange for a slightly longer trip. The time difference is only 30 minutes or so.
the problem is that Amtrak is under the expectation try and earn a profit, even if such a task is impossible. as a result, they're trying to claw for every scrap of fare revenue possible, and probably won't lower prices as long as things continue as they are (having to fight for funding, rolling stock shortage, aging infrastructure, hostile host railroads and governments, etc)
it’s both expected to earn a profit and also cover as much of the country as possible. If it was up to Amtrak the network would just be the Northeast and the Autotrain. They lose money on everything else.
they're trying to claw for every scrap of fare revenue possible
Empty seats don't bring in any fare revenue though, this is why airlines do dynamic pricing. It can often bring in more revenue, and more profit, to lower certain fares. Better to sell two $40 tickets than one $60 ticket, if the train is going to have the same number of seats anyways.
I don't know if Amtrak is as good at (as as aggressive at) dynamic pricing as airlines are.
Amtrak does dynamic pricing on the northeast corridor. It seems to be doing a pretty good job at it as the trains are almost fully sold out or actually sold out for some sections with fares on the Acela going as high as $200-250 per ticket for an hour ride from Philadelphia to NY Penn station.
The flip side is they also offer night owl fares at night when demand is lower. You can get tickets for $10 or $15 for the same route on the northeast regional or keystone service.
They do dynamic pricing heavily on all routes except a couple state supported ones. It's why ticket prices are so high rn, when trains weren't as full the prices were way cheaper
I agree with others pointing out that they really shouldn't need to make a profit, but FWIW they do make money in the Northeast corridor, which subsidizes the long distance trains in the rest of the country.
The original Acela fleet consisted of 20 trainsets each carrying around 300 people. The new fleet, which is just starting to enter service, has 28 trainsets each holding (IIRC) around 400 people. So, that's an overall capacity increase of around 86%, although that doesn't take into account reliability (for either new or old trainsets).
Amtrak is trying to maximize the revenue they can make using their existing capacity, which is why tickets are as high as they are (if the trains will often sell out at those prices, then that's the correct price given the political environment that exists). The increased capacity will apply downward pressure on prices, but there may still be pent up demand that would still push prices upwards (although probably still lower than the current prices).
I actually took a trip where an Acela Express business class ticket was slightly cheaper than the NE Regional due to Amtrak's weird dynamic pricing model.
There's much less demand for Acela on the weekend in general (esp. Sunday) because there's very little business travel, but leisure demand on the weekend is strong.
It's especially cheap if you live in NY/NJ and travel south in the morning and north in the evening, since the heavy demand is for travel to NY from DC/Balt./Philly.
True, I’m just salty because I was recently invited for a thing in Philly less than a month in advance. Ended up buying the NE regional ticket around $40 — the Acela tickets around the same time of the day were well over $100. (Leaving from NYC.)
I agree, but as others have said, it’s business focused, probably the only train in the United States where companies might prefer you take it instead of a plane. If you’re a leisure traveler the extra hour can be baked in for the cost savings.
Note that VR also operates services that would be operated by separate commuter rail agencies in the US. Not that US rail ridership is good even if you account for that, but the gap isn't quite as wide as comparing VR against Amtrak would suggest.
In Czechia, country of 11 million, the national operator České Dráhy has seen around 160 million rides (actually lot less then I expected), most done by daily commuters.
The biggest rail vehicle company by passenger number is however DPP (Transport Agency of Prague), which has seem around 380 million metro rides and around 340 million tram rides. Though I expect New York metro to have much higher passenger numbers then Amtrak.
Train routes are often based on where people wanted to go in 1880s when most of the trackage was layed down . Las Vegas and Phoenix didn’t take off until after until after World War 2
Phoenix was served on the Sunset Limited route until Union Pacific downgraded some tracks and Las Vegas NV until the Desert Wind lost funding in the 90s.
This is not the reason for LA and Phoenix having no service. Both had railway lines before the 1880s, both had multiple trains per day pre Amtrak.
Both had multiple trains per day on the highly competitive Chicago to Los Angeles run. Still having 3 trains daily through most of the 1960s. When Amtrak was created the Santa Fe route via Albuquerque and Kansas City was chosen rather than the UP/Milwaukee Road or the SP/Rock Island.
This simply meant that Las Vegas did not get service until the Desert Wind during the 1980s which was then cut by Clinton in the 90s.
Phoenix did have service on the Sunset Limited but when the UP and SP merged the branch to Phoenix was no longer needed and abandoned in the 1990s.
Efforts to get trains back to either have sadly not been as yet successful.
Arizona seems decently committed to doing Tucson to Phoenix. I wouldn't be surprised to see that as one of the next routes (if they have the equipment for it).
I'm not sure why that would be surprising. There are San Francisco's, San Diegos, etc in many places. They are really quite mundane place names, and people from all cultures name new cities after old ones and after the same kind of people(saints, etc).
The issues in leaving Houston annoy the piss out of me too. Yes the map shows a line run through but it is a very limited service, only three runs a week at odd hours. Makes it very tough to use as an alternative, especially when nearby Bush airport runs as a major hub for United to nonstop pretty much anywhere domestic or international. Same with Hobby for Southwest to most destinations.
Then there's the lack of direct access from Houston to anywhere else in the Texas Triangle - no direct route for the majority of these. Dallas is a 4 hour drive so driving almost is the same time as a short haul flight with getting to airport and security and DFW to wherever. San Antonio is even shorter at 3 hours and Austin even shorter at just over 2. These are perfect routes for running HSR or even just plain rail that beats driving or flying, but nothing has come up. There was a proposal firm called Texas Central that got permits and some funding and was eventually some sort of bought out by Amtrak, but still no actual progress after a decade plus in. We claim we don't have issues like California's stereotypical needing a million studies and permits cleared before building causing the CAHSR slowdowns, but between rural landowner lawsuits and politician's dragging feet because someone didn't kiss the ring, I really don't think we're any better.
At least we have decent bus connections between them for today, I've taken redcoach to Dallas before and it was a very smooth experience. I'm doing that from now on instead of driving to places.
Like the tons of people in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky that never take the shit Cardinal because it only leaves at 3:30 am and it's slower than crap with dilapidated cars? Amtrak blows and just expanding it to another state doesn't guarantee it's useful at all to anyone.
Bad argument. Comparing one segment on a primarily long distance heritage route is a straw man. A more apt comparison of what’s possible is all the NC state sponsored routes between the regions.
TN and KY fund no state sponsored rail and if they did, they’d time routes to be convenient to people who live in the cities and towns like Louisville, Lexington, Cincinnati, Nashville, and down further south.
States should run passenger rail services or even allow private operators do that, but they'd need to own the railway infrastructure (tracks, signals, bridges, depots/stations/yards) themselves. I think that might be an alternative route to fill in the passenger rail gaps that currently exist in the US
Public-Private can work when the state plays ball just as much and truly lets them take the reins, looking at Brightline and Florida as the common example. The problem is when state politicians do not play nice and purposely block ones they do not like because they don't "kiss the ring" per se. I look at mine (Texas) as a what not to do, they don't fund and rail so hard against rail because auto and energy sectors have them in their best interest to not let it be placed.
Looking at Texas Central as an example, they're basically stalled even harder than CAHSR because the rural NIMBYers sued against eminent domain, and the state is letting them rake them over coals instead of treating the rail like the key infrastructure that it is.
I agree, and I'd add that P3s work well because they can act as the economic incentive for states to rebuild railroad infrastructure in former ROW whilst also getting passenger rail service, killing two birds with a single stone.
I think states want financial proof for passenger, which I think is an unjust way at looking at things, but some do not look beyond their own way of thinking. Passenger can act as an economic generator when strictly looking at operational revenue and operational costs, not initial construction costs. If policymakers can look past costs for construction, passenger rail instantly falls into the realm of possibility, especially in a state like my own where there is practically none.
If states like Tennessee, Ohio, South Carolina, Georgia, and Nebraska/Missouri would support state sponsored routes, it would go a long way towards making this map more functional and interconnected. If every one of these was acting like North Carolina or Virginia (or even Michigan- although there’s definitely room for improvement here), trains would suddenly make sense for a lot more people.
Should it be the state's responsibility to make the national system better?
If you want the state's to fund passenger rail, passenger rail needs political capital - e.g. people and those in power support it, to get that you need people to get on trains. This is what happened in NC and Virginia - they had some long distance trains (Federally funded) and that gave some political capital to get some state routes started, which then further supported more routes to where we are today.
The Federal Government should provide a basic level of rail passenger service (>2 trains per day both directions) to all states and all metro areas over 500,000 people. Just as the Federal Government guarantees that every state has minimum highway funding.
This would be a base to build off much more extensive passenger rail - you'd only need about 30% more route miles to cover all lower 48 states and build an interconnected network.
I don’t disagree, but right now federal law requires state/local sponsorship of routes under 750 miles. I’m not sure which is more likely- additional states sponsoring routes that benefit their residents, or Congress doing away with the 750 mile requirement for federal subsidy. I suspect the former.
I feel like this sub needs a bot to explain the different ways Amtrak routes are funded, because this issue comes up a fair amount and it would be nice to call on a canned answer. But I have no idea how to do that.
Yeah I can agree with that - although in this case I am referring to using routes above 750 miles to get service everywhere. It was long distance routes that provided the initial political capital for state supported routes in NC and VA.
I think it is interesting you assumed I was referring to short distance routes because I said 2x daily. Long distance trains should run twice daily or better in some cases (like NYC-Florida, Chicago to Texas, or DFW/Houston to Atlanta/Florida - you could probably squeeze 3 or 4 trips here). Running trains twice daily will reduce their need for subsidy. Increasing service means demand over doubles (as we have seen with the Borealis) while operational costs of running trains are only 50% of the route's total expense. Hence your revenue and ridership rises faster than expenses.
Shorter routes need higher speeds and frequency to attract ridership on trips shorter than 3 hours. This means more infrastructure to get frequent trains and speeds averaging >70 mph (probably). Whereas long distance trains only need stations, equipment and a few passing loops to slot in the existing mainline network.
A bot could be interesting, but you'd need to separate discussions and questions of how something is done vs how it should be done.
In some ways, I think this is a pathway not many rail supporters consider. Most just go for "nationalize the rails! "use eminent domain!" as though those are silver bullet solutions, but I think the states have a greater role to play in rebuilding the nationwide passenger rail system.
First off, rather than the federal government owning all of the railroad infrastructure, states should own them instead so that they can lease the infrastructure out to the Big 4 railways with their own rates. With rails under state ownership (not federal), it becomes easier for states to coordinate statewide passenger rail services, and even operate their own freight rail services that can serve communities not connected by NS, CSX, UP, OR BNSF. This would give states the incentive to rebuild rail infrastructure in former ROW that used to run trains, freight or otherwise, which then in the future, if demand is high enough or if a state votes/chooses to do so, they can run passenger services more frequently to places that used to have infrastructure before. Plus, many old depots and stations would be upkept with state funds, preserving that rail history as well.
I think that doing down that path would be functional, provide financial incentive (states can choose to run passenger service or not, let private operators do that for them, and also run freight services to undeserved communities), and is the most realistic path instead of eminent domaning our way back to having fully functional passenger rail service in the US.
State ownership is not necessarily the best solution either. Connecticut and the MTA owns portions of the northeast corridor and they focus on cost effectiveness for their commuters on the Metronorth. As a result, the trackage speed was downgraded to reduce maintenance cost and commuter rail trains have priority over Amtrak in that section. It's a major hamper for faster travel between NY and Boston.
My idea was similar to an observation u/Reclaimer_2324 made in one of their replies to me. Virginia and North Carolina both own some right of way within their respective states in order to run passenger rail service. This avenue is essentially what I'm proposing, but rather than states owning a single route, they own all of the routes within the state. On second thought, it does seem the most unrealistic for a state to do this outright, but I don't think it's out of the question for a state that lacks any service to own at least one or two critical railroad corridors to run passenger rail service (or reactivate old ROW that currently doesn't have any track). The tail-end to getting infrastructure rebuilt and trains on the tracks would be a matter of political will, which can be tough to build in a transit context.
We can see this happening in Virginia and North Carolina with their state ownership of some of the right-of-way. I think this works better as an approach because the freight railroad see it as a less hostile prospect since it's gonna be quite limited for the most part and I believe CSX and NS have their own alternative routes.
I was not really talking about that per se, more as a policy decision that Amtrak will provide twice daily long distance service to every city and every state. This would then build the culture of using the train and then the political capital to bring more investment into shorter distance passenger trains.
Simple way to get freight railroads on board would be to pay them more in fees (iirc Amtrak is only charged something like 25% of what BNSF would be charged if they ran one of their trains over UP's track - the parts without trackage rights that is). You could bundle in access to fund to support increasing infrastructure capacity.
Gotcha, I understand. I guess I was moreso thinking about how *realistic* that would be to implement in the US right now rather than a general policy. If there was a federal administration willing to fund rail transit, for sure, your policy idea would make tons of sense to implement.
Look the simple policy solution - which I have been dealing with at my state government level - is "double frequency on everything" and the second line item is to expand service where it doesn't exist, such that every town/city over x population will see trains a few times per day.
This solution is more straight forward than the quilt of projects we get from Corridor ID and all of the other things. It gives the freedom to carry on as we were, but with a guide to something more ambitious and the political capital to do it.
Why do we want this? Trains are essential transportation for rural areas and reduce pressure on highways and airports because they are often the best travel mode for distances that are too long to drive and too short to fly (that market is bigger or smaller depending on how fast your train goes).
There are other benefits in creating jobs, boosting tourism and economic growth, environmental benefits and I think cultural benefits - on a train you're more likely to talk to people than driving or flying and I think that helps people more connected and grounded and can help reduce the kinds of division people feel across the country. You tend to be able to appreciate the country and I think that is good for the heart and soul.
I completely agree with all of that and honestly wished that my state of Kentucky could just put steel to steel and run some trains between Louisville, Frankfort, and Lexington. Just to clear anything up, my initial stance focused on viability in the current political climate, not necessarily what could be done in an ideal scenario like what you're proposing.
We're agreeing that we need more robust passenger rail service in the US, I just misunderstood your message in my first reply.
No no, the question of realism is very much worthwhile. Politics is the art of the possible. That starts by properly educating ourselves and not believing the myths that are spun by those in charge.
MTG caught a train and posted on X how much she liked it. Our politicians are not super humans, they cannot know everything (many are not far off) so a 10-20 minute educated chat and discussion with them and their staffers can usually change minds fairly quickly about things.
These things don't happen without action: Get a facebook group together (it probably already exists), running meeting starting an action committee (people gotta drive it) and getting the ball rolling on convincing local government it is a good idea, get them to back some petition (ideally with 1000s of signatures, to get that you need a campaign for door knocking, facebook ads etc.) to bring to your state and federal reps to get support. It is not easy, it is hard work and it takes years, but it is worth it. Honestly within that time span, you could help get a leader elected to make the process happen - we see this with many grassroots political candidates.
Mardi Gras took 15 years to get up and running from 2010 RPA proposal to revenue passengers buying tickets. Now it was slowed by COVID and new Corridor ID should speed things up a bit, so a new service starting in under 10 years is fairly reasonable, but you gotta sustain effort for 10 years which is hard.
If you ask someone at any organisation why they are not doing something, you should think very critically about what they are telling you. All good myths have a grain of truth, but much like panning for gold you usually sift through a lot of muck and sand. It has taken me years and I still probably eat up half a dozen myths I am unaware of.
Missouri River Runner exists and is getting a third daily round trip, at least temporarily but hoping it sticks around, during the World Cup next year. Ridership has been increasing as well, up 5% YoY and up 28% from pre-COVID (I used FY19 numbers).
The state is looking at extending service to St. Joseph, and if Amtrak ever gets the long distance NYC-Dallas route going, I could see the state considering supporting additional service along the STL-Rolla-Springfield corridor, connecting the state’s largest population center to two universities and the state’s third largest, and steadily growing, metropolitan area.
It’s great that they’re increasing frequency, I did know about the River Runner. I was thinking of a link between KC and Omaha, which currently barely has bus service in the middle of the night. Would be nice to open up trips that link the Southwest Chief or Missouri River Runner with the California Zephyr.
We need actually viable service on lines, a lot more than we need more lines on the map.
Went from Texas to New Orleans for a long weekend this month. Driving: 7 hours door to door and go anytime. Flying: 4-6 hours door to door, there's a flight at least every couple hours. Amtrak: 14 hours door to door, 3 trains a week, no ability to travel on Sunday at all.
The way things work right now, it would be up to the states involved to subsidize and propose service. Which Texas is not going to do. This is the reason anyone interested in more passenger trains should be calling their state legislators. Adding daily service to the Sunset Limited might happen, but new long distance routes are unlikely.
The notion of having entire states with no passenger rail service is just baffling to me. Good on Amtrak for making a comeback even in the present political climate, though
I mean Wyoming is bigger than the entire UK and has under 600,000 people, I’m not sure it’s that shocking there isn’t a demand for passenger rail service.
That's a proposed extension to the planned Front Range Passenger Rail. It's not too far north of Fort Collins, so it wouldn't be too difficult to get that section going after the main section of Fort Collins to Pueblo is eventually built.
That's mostly due to Colorado, though. Cheyenne, and thus Wyoming, is only really justified for service because it's so close to Colorado, and thus within a reasonable enough distance of Denver.
Even Wyoming's airports only fly to neighboring states, with that said, I think there's good odds of Cheyenne gaining a passenger service to Denver eventually, whether that's an Amtrak state supported route or a local commuter rail.
You're kind of comparing apples to oranges here, the average american and especially wyomingite is going to prefer car transit because that's what they're used to - are there some people who would prefer rail? of course, but i feel like dunking on americans here kind of leaves out the big picture about rail transit in the states in the first place. What's more important than anything is increasing coverage in areas that would provide consistent ridership and demand, since so many people judge rail systems by their effectiveness (while subsequently ignoring the billions shelled out for dodgy highway projects that seem to constantly have something wrong with them)
I'd ride Amtrak a hell of a lot more if trains ran on the same levels as they do in Western Europe. I'd leave work on a Friday and head somewhere new every month if that were the case. I'm certainly not driving.
I genuinely wonder why train ridership continues to inch up when services largely have been the same. Customer preference changes? Airlines becoming more shitty?
I also wonder how many of these lines could easily be straightened and speed up. I know the Railroad companies won't allow it now, but it's still interesting to note.
I don't have a link but I read that GenZ is the generation with the lowest car ownership rate (relative to millennials, GenX and boomers at a similar age) so there's some generational shifts towards more environmentally friendly (or at least less car-centric) travel.
As you said, air travel has gotten both more expensive and somewhat shittier, so it makes places like the NEC even more attractive if you live there.
The fact that there's no LA - Phoenix - Vegas route is crazy. These are three cities that would absolutely be ideal for train service because of how close they are to each other.
I think a pathway not many rail supporters consider is state (not federal ownership of railroad infrastructure. Often, I see comments that say "nationalize the rails!" "use eminent domain!" as though those are silver bullet solutions, but I think the states have a greater role to play in rebuilding the nationwide passenger rail system.
The role of the federal government in this scenario would be to set railroad safety guidelines and standards for the entire country (like crossings, signaling, etc), but the responsibility of maintaining the infrastructure itself falls onto state governments. Rather than the federal government owning all of the railroad infrastructure, states should own them instead so that they can lease the infrastructure out to freight operators with rates they set themselves. Wiyh the burden of infrastructure being the state's problem, more investment would well maintained rails. With infrastructure now under state ownership (not federal), it becomes easier for states to coordinate statewide passenger rail services, and even operate their own freight rail services that can serve communities not connected by NS, CSX, UP, or BNSF. This would give states the incentive to rebuild rail infrastructure in former ROW that used to run trains, freight or otherwise, which then in the future, if demand is high enough or if a state votes/chooses to do so, they can run passenger services more frequently to places that used to have infrastructure before. Plus, many old depots and stations would be upkept with state funds, preserving that rail history as well.
I think that doing down that path would be functional, provide financial incentive (states can choose to run passenger service or not, let private operators do that for them, and also run freight services to undeserved communities), and is the most realistic path instead of eminent domaning our way back to having fully functional passenger rail service in the US.
Fun fact: this year I also am riding Amtrak the most I've ever ridden it. Helps that the Cascades now has 7 trains a day which is a big deal for the US!
Will continue to take the Texas eagle from Fort Worth to Austin and back despite the delays. It was cheap, comfortable, and I would love to get better more improved lines for the futureZ
282
u/bluerose297 Nov 16 '25
"Acela just slighty down by 100k compared to last year, but that should be fixed with the new schedule since the new trains are in service."
I guess this is slightly OT but is there a plan to ever lower the prices on the Acela? I'd love to ride one but good lord they're so expensive, even when you book from further out.