Slashdot Mirror


Senator Makes Amtrak Hire Ticket Agents Because 30 Percent of His State Lacks Internet (senate.gov)

McGruber writes: Joe Manchin, the senior Senator from West Virginia, has inserted language in the FY19 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies appropriations bill that will force Amtrak to employ at least one ticketing agent in every state that it serves.

His reasoning? "Amtrak has told me that most of their sales are now online, but West Virginians buy far more tickets at the Charleston station than most places around the country. That's not surprising, as nearly 30% of West Virginia is without internet access, and mobile broadband access is also difficult in my state's rugged, mountainous terrain, making online ticket sales difficult."
Manchin continued: "Our population includes many working class families and elderly residents who are less likely to have a credit card or another means to purchase tickets remotely, but rely heavily on the train as an alternative to driving or flying. Although Matt Crouch's job was terminated today, once the bill is passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, Amtrak will have to reinstate a position in the state and I will do everything over the next few months to make sure that happens."

28 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Why blame Amtrak? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, having no Internet access is a bad deal for Virginians, but maybe the state representative should be doing something about that instead of bitching to Amtrak.

    1. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by Daltorak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, having no Internet access is a bad deal for Virginians, but maybe the state representative should be doing something about that instead of bitching to Amtrak.

      Have you even been to West Virginia? High-speed internet service is a major technical challenge there because of the geography. It's really mountainous and sparsely-populated. You can barely even get 3G service outside the cities unless you're near an Interstate or state highway. Good places to put towers that effectively cover a large area few and far between.

      On top of that, there is a complete lack of cell service, Wi-fi or even microwaves on the central-eastern side of the state because of the Green Bank Observatory. (If you don't know about this, read up on it because it's actually really interesting.)

    2. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by Daneel+Olivaw+R.+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      can't this be solved by putting booking kiosk (machines) instead of forcing a person to do boring ticketing work?

    3. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by sims+2 · · Score: 3

      The free market has decided that some locations don't have a fast ROI so they will never build service there.

      Unless the gov't steps in that will never change.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    4. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by hey! · · Score: 2

      Can you get that Internet access to his constituents instantaneously? Because if you can't, folks in places like Cumberland still have to find a way to book travel.

      I don't know if you've traveled through Appalachia, but a lot of it's incredibly remote. I don't see this as punitive at all.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by sunking2 · · Score: 2

      I actually disagree. Amtrak is funded at least partially by the government. It's supposed to be there as the alternative to expensive flying, a cheaper way for everyone to get around, not just those with internet access.

      Internet elitists should not be the lowest common denominator to take a train unless they want to stop taking tax money.

    6. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by McGruber · · Score: 2

      Have you even been to West Virginia? High-speed internet service is a major technical challenge there because of the geography. It's really mountainous and sparsely-populated.

      Colorado has much worse terrain -- higher mountains, more snow, etc. -- and yet Colorado finished wiring all of its county seats wth high-speed, fiber-optic broadband Internet back in 2014: Wired Internet arrives in Silverton, finally

    7. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by apoc.famine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except that the government already did that. The telecoms pocketed billions and never built out the service in a lot of places.

      Rather than attacking the profitability of Amtrak, which tends to struggle in the best of times, perhaps the good senator could work on forcing the telcom industry to finish their work. They don't seem to hurt for profit, and our investment in them should both be repaid and include the interest on that investment.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    8. Re: Why blame Amtrak? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Informative

      In 2016 Amtrac got One Billion Three Hundred Eighty Five Million dollars in grant money, from the U.S. Department of Transportation ->Federal Railroad Administration. That's in addition to the money they get for, you know, selling tickets...
      https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0249

      They also got over a Billion dollars in 2009 as part of ARRA.

      So, if a Senator has clout and says Hop, they should check back for parameters after they are in the air...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    9. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by kriston · · Score: 2

      We have cooperatives that already do this and already serve vast areas in West Virginia.

      It's not access that's the problem. It's the cost. There are two satellite internet companies and one of them can be resold through cooperatives. DSL can be universally available now that we have g.Fast and ADSL loop extenders at very low cost, again through cooperatives.

      Even more seriously, though, Amtrak station agents need to remain.

      --

      Kriston

    10. Re: Why blame Amtrak? by kriston · · Score: 3

      In the US, no transportation mode earns enough in fares to pay for its costs. Interstate highways are free or tolled . Airlines use airports owned by the federal government and unprofitable routes are subsidized by the government, too.

      One helpful treatment on this subject is The Economics of Public Issues (16th Edition) by Miller, Benjamin, North.

      --

      Kriston

    11. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by q_e_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the senator is concerned for his constituents? It does happen sometimes.

    12. Re:Why blame Amtrak? by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      People would probably call me a liberal. My wife didn't have a credit or bank card she could have used when she lived in the USA, as to have one required a minimum amount in a checking account she couldn't maintain. So it is an issue for some, and more likely the demographic wishing to take the train.

  2. Why not install POS terminals instead? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If people can order burgers at a McDonalds POS terminal they can certainly buy train tickets from them as well.

    1. Re: Why not install POS terminals instead? by pak9rabid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, but this is West Virginia we're talking about.

    2. Re:Why not install POS terminals instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or they could just buy the tickets on the train. Train rides aren't like air travel. You can show up, get on, and pay when the guy comes by to see your ticket. A much saner law would have been Amtrak isn't allowed to charge an on-board surcharge when the station has no in-person ticketing available.

    3. Re:Why not install POS terminals instead? by q_e_t · · Score: 2

      Or they could just buy the tickets on the train. Train rides aren't like air travel. You can show up, get on, and pay when the guy comes by to see your ticket. A much saner law would have been Amtrak isn't allowed to charge an on-board surcharge when the station has no in-person ticketing available.

      As I noted earlier, many people like to know how much travel will cost before making it. Without a ticket agent they can't. Or know if they are getting the correct, cheapest fare in some instances.

  3. Make up your mind by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Amtrak is expected to make a profit, or at least survive on its own, then it must have the ability to allocate resources as needed, including not devoting resources to markets that aren't profitable.

    However if Amtrak is expected to serve markets that aren't going to be sustainable, make it a public utility supported by public (ie, tax) money.

    1. Re:Make up your mind by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem is Amtrak competes against a service which is heavily subsidized by the government - cars and trucks run on freeways constructed with tax dollars (fuel taxes only pay for maintenance). If the roads weren't so heavily subsidized, the U.S. would be more like Europe and would make greater use of rail transport for both cargo and people.*

      So expecting Amtrak to be profitable on its own is unrealistic. You need to subsidize it to the same degree you're subsidizing freeways just to level the playing field. And when you subsidize a small service to that degree, politicians start to play around with how the money should be spent.

      * The idea back when freeways were first made was that trucks could transport goods from endpoint to endpoint, eliminating the need for expensive labor-intensive loading and unloading stages, where people at the railyard have to move cargo from the train onto a truck to make it to its final destination, or vice versa. The labor of the loading/unloading stages was the predominant cost to cargo transport at the time, so eliminating it was an economically sound idea. But since then, fuel costs have increased substantially, and the advent of container transport has reduced loading/unloading costs. But we're still stuck with a cargo transport system built based on the old cost structure, which is artificially keeping trucks competitive with trains for long-distance transport.

  4. National Radio Quiet Zone. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    The National Radio Quiet Zone covers a large part of West Virginia. The "lack of Internet" is by design, though I guess wired Internet is still possible. No WiFi, satellite Internet, or cell service allowed to protect radio telescopes from interference.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:National Radio Quiet Zone. by DewDude · · Score: 2

      It's a bit more complicated than that. Satellite internet would probably be allowed since those are technically licensed radiators..or at the very least, are type-accepted by the FCC and have passed a stricter set of tests for spurious emissions/leakage. Most of your radiation is going to be focused in a beam upwards. I mean..it can cause problems, but most of those could be mitigated. Most of the tightest restrictions are in a pretty small radius around the facilities. It mostly means a broadcaster can't find the tallest peak and blast a super powerful signal and that cell phone carriers have to do a whole lot more coordination before putting up sites.

  5. Re:Why not increase Internet access? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

    Because the National Radio Quiet Zone prohibits WiFi, satellite internet, and cell service in a large part of W. Va. to protect radio astronomy telescopes from interference. The "lack of Internet" is due to this, I suspect, not because of poverty or lack of will.

  6. Have Amtrak tickes sold at post offices by Streetlight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It might be easier for people to get tickets if they were available at at United States Post offices and postal stations. Folks would need to plan their travel plans in advance because post offices aren't open 24/7, but even most small tows have postal service outlets.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  7. Ol'Musky will fix this! by treymichaelcook · · Score: 2

    Once SpaceX gets its Starlink internet service up and running, everywhere in the US should have access to good internet. The FCC approved them launching a constellation of over 4,000 LEO satellites by 2024, which then will be followed by about 7,000 satellites in even lower orbits. SpaceX has already put the first test satellites into orbit. Though as others have mentioned, dealing with the Radio Quiet Zone regulations might be a problem. The nice thing about LEO satellites is that it fixes the latency issues you see with current geosynchronous satellite internet service; they expect ping times in the 20-40 ms range. And the shear number of satellites will mean adequate bandwidth.

  8. Re:Why not increase Internet access? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

    Hiring one salesperson is cheaper than building all that stuff.

    And you can do both in parallel too; if the infrastructure ever does get built, then you can lay off the salesperson when they're no longer needed. But until then...

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  9. Re:Why not increase Internet access? by careysub · · Score: 2

    Because the National Radio Quiet Zone prohibits WiFi, satellite internet, and cell service in a large part of W. Va. to protect radio astronomy telescopes from interference. The "lack of Internet" is due to this, I suspect, not because of poverty or lack of will.

    Fiber, as specified by the poster to which you are replying, does not interfere with radiotelescopes. In 2000 than they had landlines running to 95.3% of all housing units in West Virginia. It can be done with fiber as well.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  10. Re:Why not increase Internet access? by sunking2 · · Score: 2

    Because some people are perfectly happy not having internet? And their taxes in theory at least partially pay for Amtrak.

  11. Overlooking So Many Obvious Other Solutions by DewDude · · Score: 2

    Yes, let's make our government-subsizied and owned monopoly add on additional costs when they don't want to subsidize it in the first place.

    Let's not even talk about the fact Amtrak is one of the more expensive options for long distance travel. Using my upcoming vacation as an example; Amtrak doesn't offer actual train service to Las Vegas...so you have to take the train to L.A. and then spend almost 7 hours on a bus. This is $280 each way and a travel time of 72 hours each way! Meanwhile, $180 gets me on a flight to Las Vegas that has a total travel time (including short layover/plane switch) of just the Amtrak bus segment! Mind you, this is also for just a coach seat on Amtrak; so have fun spending 18 hours riding to Chicago and then 42 hours to LA...in a coach seat.

    Amtrak isn't attracting new customers because no one wants to pay that much more for a "lower" level of service; it has nothing to do with the availability of ticket agents. I really have to question doing something for "disadvantaged populations" that's typically a more expensive option too. If someone is that bad off, they're likely to want to really save the pennies and won't consider Amtrak at $300 if they can ride a bus for less money. Greyhound directly to Vegas is about $208 and takes about 60 hours. If I'm "disadvantaged", I'm probably saving the $78 and taking Greyhound and actually get there faster.

    The lack of a credit card or other banking isn't what it used to be either. You can get reloadable cards now...they've been a thing for years. There's also the thing of you can still pay cash at the ticket counters of most airlines. You can even usually call ahead to reserve and they'll give you 24 hours to show up and pay. It might cost a little bit more...and you might have some extra screening. But if you don't want that, you can just go back and pay more for the slower, less comfortable option.

    There are a few legitimate reasons...but these can be overcome other ways. Why not let a third-party sell the tickets? Go to your local Western Union outlet and purchase them; sell them at the post office; visit a local travel agent and pay them cash to get your tickets.

    This just seems like a very shallow act by a politician trying to make it seem like he's "helped" people. He's done something for a few people that we'll all have to pay for. It also seems like a very lazy solution for people who can't be bothered to actually think.