Doesn't it seem like Amtrak ought to buy Amtrack.com -- I was really confused there for a minute. And now that I think about it, given that trains travel on tracks, shouldn't Amtrak be called "Amtrack." The name we've got seems more appropriate for Denmark or something.
« Beneath the Headlines | Main | In The Navy »
Amtrack
29 Sep 2007 09:29 am
Comments (11)
You've got a problem with that¿
Amtrak is a fine name.
You purchase a tïkt.
Head to the trånê.
You board the çãr.
Settle down in your sæt.
And enjoy the rýd.
I think we just hit on the way to solve Amtrak's woes! Set up ticket kiosks inside Ikeas!
Yes, Amtrak's reliability is that bad and worse -- the train to Los Angeles from the Northwest has been known to be a day late for a week at a time. And that's not due to understandable causes like blizzards and landslides.
Since the fundamental issue, at least on the West coast, is the ownership of the track (that and making the sleazeballs that run UP, one of the most despicable of American corporations, live up to their agreements), maybe we can reserve the Amtrack designation for the day when it owns, or controls, the tracks it runs on.
Since you brought up railroads, you may want to look into the abrupt, probably illegal, of the line from Eugene to Coos Bay by the congomerate that owns it.
I was disappointed when they changed the name from Railpax.
What kind of post is this? Have you become an 80-year old curmudgeon or are tapping this out with one finger before you get out of Megan's bed?
I feel "Amtrak," marketing-wise is at least a million times better than "Amtrack--" that "ck" at the end just drags the word from stainless-steel "I.G.Y." futurism into icky muck/dreck schtick.
But then, had it been up to me, I'd have chosen "AmRail" over "Amtrak."
"Amtrack" was already in use as a common nickname for amphibious tracked vehicles.
I like the post. I don't think the name is terrible, but I've always wondered why they chose it. Other countries tend to use "name of the country/ Rail" for their guvmint run passenger rail systems, the equivalent here would be "U.S. Rail".
As the other commentators pointed out, Amtrak's bad repuation is caused by their limited schedule and unreliability, and the latter is caused mainly by the fact that they don't own the track. Which in turn would make "Amtrack" a really inappropriate name for the organization.
Agreed entirely on the horribleness of Amtrak. It should not cost more to take a train from Boston to NYC than to fly. Our lack of a real passenger rail system is, as Jim Kunstler points out, a symbol of our collective lack of seriousness re: climate change.
On a side and pseudo-facetious note, Yglesias should learn to spell; this skill helps locate websites more quickly and accurately.
Re: Our lack of a real passenger rail system is, as Jim Kunstler points out, a symbol of our collective lack of seriousness re: climate change.
I'm not sure I agree. This would be true if you were talking about the lack of local commuter rail systems, but in regards to long distance transit the train's major competitor is the airplane not the car, and both are forms of mass transit, albeit both also produce CO2 emissions, though less than the equivalent amount of auto traffic would.
Comments closed October 13, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Denmark?? Is Amtrak's reliability that bad?
Posted by Jacob Christensen | September 29, 2007 10:29 AM