Record Amtrak ridership in Twin Cities

  • Article by: Tim Harlow , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 1, 2013 - 8:37 PM

The passenger line is seeing a resurgence nationwide, too, with 31 million passengers in ’12. Routes of 400 miles or less performed best.

  • 20
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
exrepublicanMar. 1, 1311:53 PM

Before all the completely uninformed comments start about how Amtrak should "make a profit" and is a "boondoggle," let me remind you that ALL forms of transportation are subsidized, including roads, which require taxpayer subsidies because the gas tax only covers 60% of the cost. All the mis-information comes from so-called "think tanks" like the Cato Institute and the Club for Growth, which are financed by the Koch brothers and other large oil interests, and they spend incredible amounts of money keeping Americans mis-informed so we will not continue our move to less oil-dependent options like various rail modes and electric cars. Rail of the future will be faster and mostly electric, and that's not good for oil profits, hence the endless attacks.

33
5
webfootMar. 2, 1312:27 AM

Glad to hear that news! LOVE traveling by train - it beats flying anyday. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride and the beautiful scenery along the way.

28
0
mblaineMar. 2, 1312:30 AM

Americans are too poor now to fly on planes.

11
2
RyanpdMar. 2, 13 2:04 AM

Most of the increase in riders is due to the Oil Boom in North Dakota. A lot of workers from the cities, western Wisconsin, and even Chicago commute back and forth on their weeks off.

11
6
humanfodderMar. 2, 13 2:23 AM

I have always been disappointed by the service options of Amtrak in the Twin Cities. I would take the train more often if the service was more frequent. Hopefully, this is a sign that more train times can be added.

24
0
dingessclan3Mar. 2, 13 6:02 AM

Amtrak is more expensive than flying. For example,it costs 138.00 to fly round trip to Chicago versus 222.00 round trip on Amtrak. The flight takes 1.5 hours.The train takes 8 hours. Not a hard decision in my book.Amtrak needs to find a way to cut that price in half all things consider.

8
9
rms316Mar. 2, 13 7:00 AM

I with Exrepublican on this one. Any energy source or travel alternative has almost always been thwarted by oil interests. Just a fact. Amtrak may have increased ridership to North Dakota, but it's also increased nationally. Some people may love their cars, but you can't tell me they wouldn't ride high speed rail or other rail options if they were available.

20
1
cavellMar. 2, 13 7:27 AM

riders still only pay a small fraction of total cost to run a train. they used to pay 3% of operating costs. now its 4%. at least the govt only pays 96% now.

2
15
purlieuMar. 2, 13 8:01 AM

Train travel is my favorite. Truly a luxury. Sit back, bring a couple of good books and relax.

10
0
jsmart05Mar. 2, 13 8:07 AM

cavell: "Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman will appear before a Congressional committee tomorrow and testify that with record ridership of 30.2 million passengers, Amtrak now covers 85 percent of its operating budget with ticket sales and other revenues, reducing the federal operating need to just 15 percent."

12
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Offers & Events

Furnace Need Service Now?

Furnace Need Service Now?

20% OFF 1st Service Call. "We Respond When Your Heating & Cooling Can't"

Midland Heating & AC


ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT