8 ms·

I would rather see an investment in Hyperloop instead of the "US tax payer-subsidized but still overpriced and unprofitable" Amtrak service. I imagine if this

I would rather see an investment in Hyperloop instead of the "US tax payer-subsidized but still overpriced and unprofitable" Amtrak service. I imagine if this news is true it will get very political as Amtrak has recently secured billions from the Federal Government for new trains, along the same corridor: https://media.amtrak.com/2016/08/1610/?mc_cid=d3b3f1fecc&mc_eid=874274a502 https://media.amtrak.com/2016/08/1610/?mc_cid=d3b3f1fecc&mc_... Amtrak is largely a political problem with no will in Washington to fix. It would be interesting to see what would happen if Amtrak had actual competition. Even if the threat of Hyperloop were the kick in the pants Washington needs to fix Amtrak, Hyperloop would be a success. See: https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/07/amtrak https://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2014/07/amtrak

HarryHirsch 9y ago
Musk wants to gussy up interest in his Boring Company. Comparing the Northeast Megalopolis to West Germany is instructive, they are similar in size and population. Germany has had its Intercity-Express since the late 1980s. America on the other hand can't get its ass off the seat. No competition needed, just political will.
saosebastiao 9y ago
Amtrak is profitable in the Northeast corridor.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Only if you exclude capital costs, which are paid for by the federal government.
  - apendleton 9y ago
    Sure, but the interstate highway system's capital costs are paid mostly by the federal government too -- gas taxes don't come close to covering it so it's decidedly not user-pays -- and nobody expects that to be profitable. National transportation infrastructure is a public good, not a business investment on the part of the government.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
apendleton 9y ago
If they succeed, you'll likely get your wish in more ways than you bargained for. The NE corridor is the only part of the entire Amtrak system that's even close to solvent, and it subsidizes the rest of the system. This project would take the bottom out of the part of the network that pays for the rest of it. It would probably kill Amtrak, everywhere, even in places that will never see a hyperloop.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Amtrak outside of the NE corridor is a huge subsidy for the companies who own the rails, who do make a profit on using it for freight.
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  Yeah, but how much ridership does Amtrak even get in those places that "will never see a hyperloop"? Amtrak has coast-to-coast routes, but who actually takes them? At Amtrak speeds, it takes days to cross the country (I could drive it faster), and it costs a small fortune too. The only way it makes any sense is if you have plenty of time and money to spare and really want to see America from a train; if you actually need to get somewhere in time, or you don't have an extra $3k or whatever for a sleeper cabin (you don't want to sit in a seat for 3 days and nights), flying is the way to go. Amtrak isn't solvent in those other areas because it simply isn't competitive. It's too slow (because we won't invest in bullet trains, and it doesn't help that Amtrak trains use freight tracks and have to yield to the freight trains), and it costs way too much. Air travel in the US sucks, but it's still better than the Amtrak option for those routes. It only works in the NE Corridor because those cities are close enough together for it to work out; air travel is hampered by the crappy TSA security (aggravation but also a lot of time: having to be at the airport 3 hours before your flight makes it uncompetitive if you're just going from DC to Philly for instance) so train travel makes some sense there, though even there you can get there more cheaply by bus, though it isn't as comfortable or quite as fast.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"If they succeed, you'll likely get your wish in more ways than you bargained for. The NE corridor is the only part of the entire Amtrak system that's even close to solvent, and it subsidizes the rest of the system." Yes exactly, and that is the point being made in my Economist link. Amtrak should be broken up. Why should commuters along the NE corridor be subsiding the rest of it? In 1971 when Amtrak was founded this made sense but in 2017 with budget air travel it's to believe it still does. Let Amtrak continue to operate the NE corridor and be profitable. But why should they be protected from competition? Or stated a different way - why should commuters be denied an alternative?
iraphael 9y ago
What I don't like about the hyperloop is its focus on cars as a solution to the transportation problem. Mass transit can be way more efficient and desirable, as well as allow pedestrians to take back city life. A great book on topics related to this is "The Great Good Place" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Good_Place_(Oldenburg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Good_Place_(Oldenbur...
- olegkikin 9y ago
  The under-city car tunnel project is not hyperloop, it's a separate project, no vacuum involved, just multilevel tunnels with fast automatic pods for cars.
- bogomipz 9y ago
  Hyperloop is both passenger and freight, it is mass transit. Where do you see it as focusing on cars as a solution? >"Mass transit can be way more efficient and desirable, as well as allow pedestrians to take back city life." Indeed mass transit "Can be" more efficient and desirable. Unfortunately however there's often a host of real world constraints such as budgetary, political, and logistical that seem to ensure that its never optimally efficient or desirable. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/06/from_subways_to_penn_station_nyc_transit_is_a_mess.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogatio...
willyt 9y ago
I took the train from New York to New Haven once. I have no idea if that's Amtrak or whatever, but it was the only time I took a train in the US and it was slowest train journey I have ever been on, felt like we never went faster than about 40mph. That should be a 45min trip not >2hrs. Are all trains that slow? Maybe that's where they should start.
- DougWebb 9y ago
  Most of the East Coast passenger railways were laid down when trains were much slower, and even then they had to pass through many densely populated areas. So there are a lot of curves, mostly flat, and lots of surface crossings with roads. That slows the trains down. Some sections have been upgraded to allow higher speeds, but with station stops and unimproved sections the average speed is stilk slow.
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  Amtrak is a mess. But between Philly and NYC the NE Corridor train will actually hit 125mph at one point.
dionidium 9y ago
How do you feel about "US tax payer-subsidized but still overpriced and unprofitable" public roads?
- bogomipz 9y ago
  I feel about the same, why should private car ownership be subsidized? See: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving...

HarryHirsch 9y ago

Musk wants to gussy up interest in his Boring Company. Comparing the Northeast Megalopolis to West Germany is instructive, they are similar in size and population. Germany has had its Intercity-Express since the late 1980s. America on the other hand can't get its ass off the seat. No competition needed, just political will.

saosebastiao 9y ago

Amtrak is profitable in the Northeast corridor.

rayiner 9y ago
Only if you exclude capital costs, which are paid for by the federal government.
- apendleton 9y ago
  Sure, but the interstate highway system's capital costs are paid mostly by the federal government too -- gas taxes don't come close to covering it so it's decidedly not user-pays -- and nobody expects that to be profitable. National transportation infrastructure is a public good, not a business investment on the part of the government.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

apendleton 9y ago

If they succeed, you'll likely get your wish in more ways than you bargained for. The NE corridor is the only part of the entire Amtrak system that's even close to solvent, and it subsidizes the rest of the system. This project would take the bottom out of the part of the network that pays for the rest of it. It would probably kill Amtrak, everywhere, even in places that will never see a hyperloop.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Amtrak outside of the NE corridor is a huge subsidy for the companies who own the rails, who do make a profit on using it for freight.
gorkonsine 9y ago
Yeah, but how much ridership does Amtrak even get in those places that "will never see a hyperloop"? Amtrak has coast-to-coast routes, but who actually takes them? At Amtrak speeds, it takes days to cross the country (I could drive it faster), and it costs a small fortune too. The only way it makes any sense is if you have plenty of time and money to spare and really want to see America from a train; if you actually need to get somewhere in time, or you don't have an extra $3k or whatever for a sleeper cabin (you don't want to sit in a seat for 3 days and nights), flying is the way to go. Amtrak isn't solvent in those other areas because it simply isn't competitive. It's too slow (because we won't invest in bullet trains, and it doesn't help that Amtrak trains use freight tracks and have to yield to the freight trains), and it costs way too much. Air travel in the US sucks, but it's still better than the Amtrak option for those routes. It only works in the NE Corridor because those cities are close enough together for it to work out; air travel is hampered by the crappy TSA security (aggravation but also a lot of time: having to be at the airport 3 hours before your flight makes it uncompetitive if you're just going from DC to Philly for instance) so train travel makes some sense there, though even there you can get there more cheaply by bus, though it isn't as comfortable or quite as fast.
bogomipz 9y ago
>"If they succeed, you'll likely get your wish in more ways than you bargained for. The NE corridor is the only part of the entire Amtrak system that's even close to solvent, and it subsidizes the rest of the system." Yes exactly, and that is the point being made in my Economist link. Amtrak should be broken up. Why should commuters along the NE corridor be subsiding the rest of it? In 1971 when Amtrak was founded this made sense but in 2017 with budget air travel it's to believe it still does. Let Amtrak continue to operate the NE corridor and be profitable. But why should they be protected from competition? Or stated a different way - why should commuters be denied an alternative?

iraphael 9y ago

What I don't like about the hyperloop is its focus on cars as a solution to the transportation problem. Mass transit can be way more efficient and desirable, as well as allow pedestrians to take back city life. A great book on topics related to this is "The Great Good Place" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Good_Place_(Oldenburg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Good_Place_(Oldenbur...

olegkikin 9y ago
The under-city car tunnel project is not hyperloop, it's a separate project, no vacuum involved, just multilevel tunnels with fast automatic pods for cars.
bogomipz 9y ago
Hyperloop is both passenger and freight, it is mass transit. Where do you see it as focusing on cars as a solution? >"Mass transit can be way more efficient and desirable, as well as allow pedestrians to take back city life." Indeed mass transit "Can be" more efficient and desirable. Unfortunately however there's often a host of real world constraints such as budgetary, political, and logistical that seem to ensure that its never optimally efficient or desirable. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/06/from_subways_to_penn_station_nyc_transit_is_a_mess.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogatio...

willyt 9y ago

I took the train from New York to New Haven once. I have no idea if that's Amtrak or whatever, but it was the only time I took a train in the US and it was slowest train journey I have ever been on, felt like we never went faster than about 40mph. That should be a 45min trip not >2hrs. Are all trains that slow? Maybe that's where they should start.

DougWebb 9y ago
Most of the East Coast passenger railways were laid down when trains were much slower, and even then they had to pass through many densely populated areas. So there are a lot of curves, mostly flat, and lots of surface crossings with roads. That slows the trains down. Some sections have been upgraded to allow higher speeds, but with station stops and unimproved sections the average speed is stilk slow.
gorkonsine 9y ago
Amtrak is a mess. But between Philly and NYC the NE Corridor train will actually hit 125mph at one point.

dionidium 9y ago

How do you feel about "US tax payer-subsidized but still overpriced and unprofitable" public roads?

bogomipz 9y ago
I feel about the same, why should private car ownership be subsidized? See: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving-true-costs/412237/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving...