4 ms·

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

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?

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?