5 ms·

Regardless of the feasibility of rail in the US, I cannot think of anything less forward-looking then continuing to sink public money into the particular compan

Regardless of the feasibility of rail in the US, I cannot think of anything less forward-looking then continuing to sink public money into the particular company Amtrak.

betterunix2 6y ago
Why single out Amtrak? It was set up to fail by the Nixon administration, it has never received the funding it needed to address the poor state of the equipment, stations, and ROW (i.e. NEC) it received at its inception, and most of its operations are on other railroads' ROW where there is little hope of upgrading lines for high-speed service (or even electrification). Either we should nationalize our railroads or we need to accept that Amtrak (or whatever company) is providing a public service that requires adequate public funding.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
  ROW = right of way NEC = northeast corridor
- jessriedel 6y ago
  I did not single out Amtrak. The topic of the article is Amtrak. It is a dysfunctional organization, and that does become less true if it's Nixon's fault.
Someone1234 6y ago
I feel like this deserves an explanation. Amtrak are underfunded, a political football, and have to run like a second class citizen on a large chunk of the US rail network, hardly issues of their own creation.
newsclues 6y ago
Have you experienced European rail?
- eplanit 6y ago
  Yes, and the best of the best: Japan. But, the point is that we're taking about Amtrak -- have you experienced them? The odds of Amtrak pulling this off are near 0. They earned their poor reputation.
  - dangus 6y ago
    Amtrak is perfectly fine. I’ve used it on overnight trips on the crummiest long distance services. Yeah, I mean, it’s no European or Japanese or Chinese rail. But the idea that Amtrak can’t do something just because they’re Amtrak is ridiculous. They’re a part of the federal government, the only thing that the federal government needs to do things is political will. This rail plan is 100% realistic because it appropriately de-emphasizes long distance rail that Amtrak is so infamous for. It targets expansion in very obviously lacking intercity regions. These new routes will be profitable for the government either directly or in lasting economic benefits.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Yeah, the Northeast Corridor is fine. Would it be nice if Boston to DC wasn't an all-day trip? Sure. But the two halves of the route are very competitive with air travel and I'll take them over flying unless I'm connecting to another flight. I've also rarely taken other city pairs. What isn't practical except mostly as a one-off tourist thing for someone with lots of time is going Chicago to Seattle and similar routes or fantasies of drilling a tunnel through the Appalachians for a fast NY to Chicago run.
    - betterunix2 6y ago
      Amtrak is not technically part of the federal government. It was set up as a private, for-profit corporation that is jointly owned by the government and the railroads whose passenger operations were turned over to Amtrak. The federal government's control over Amtrak is meant to end once Amtrak is able to operate independently, but Amtrak has never really been on a path to independent/profitable operations and will probably never get there. Amtrak's biggest challenge is that its service is inconvenient in most of the cities/towns it serves. For example, in Syracuse, NY, where Amtrak has 8 trains per day (four in each direction) that arrive at reasonably convenient times, the station is located on the outskirts of the city, far from the city center. Cleveland has the opposite problem: the station is near the downtown area, but all of the scheduled trains (4 per day, two in each direction) arrive between 1 am and 6 am. Where Amtrak is convenient to use (e.g. the NEC) it works reasonably well and is actually competitive with driving or flying.
itspublic 6y ago
Amtrak is publicly owned. I'd personally love to see it privatized, but you phrased that like you think Amtrak is a private company that receives subsidies. It isn't, it's closer to the USPS model than that.
dangus 6y ago
This very article points out routes that rival all the airlines combined in terms of passenger volume. The article also points out that Amtrak purposefully invests as little as possible into the unprofitable long distance network, which seems to be exactly what you’re asking for: to stop investing in Amtrak’s archaic routes. The article also details a plan that focuses on profitable and popular intercity service. Routes like Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati that are a part of this plan are no-brainer expansions that will easily yield regional economic benefits. As you’re aware, Amtrak is the government. Any economic benefit they bring to a region goes right back to the government in the form of tax revenue. It should be obvious then that Amtrak itself doesn’t need to be profitable for it to be a net positive investment. We don’t expect our roads to be profitable and yet nobody questions whether highways are a “feasible” mode of transport.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  Governor of Ohio torpedoed that route IIRC
apostacy 6y ago
For some perspective, the federal government regularly funds highways to nowhere that nobody asked for or wants[1] Most regional airfields are bigger money sinks than Amtrak. The federal government subsidizeds up to $800 per passenger in some of the more rural air routes in Alaska.[2] Rail travel subsidies are a fraction of what the United States taxpayers spend on transportation. We have a concept of "essential" air and road travel subsidies, why not essential rail subsidies? Think of how great this arm of our transportation infrastructure could be if we shifted 10% of what we spend on regional airlines to rail transport. Other countries have clearly demonstrated that high speed rail works. And they don't spend nearly as much on infrastructure. And what is wrong with just having subsidized slow passenger service across the continent either? I assure you it is not too expensive compared to what we already spend, and I think it is very beneficial. I think that we should continue to maintain a fleet of long distance passenger trains and stations. Passenger trains can be an essential safety where other forms of travel are unavailable. We just take it for granted that the government should spend as much as it wants building roads everywhere, but we count every penny when it comes to passenger rail. [1]: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/12/23/meet-2020s-worst-highway-boondoggles-birmingham-northern-beltline-alabama/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/12/23/meet-2020s-worst-high... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120202212318/http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/EAS%20Study%20Final%20Report%20FINALv2%20%2012sep11.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120202212318/http://www.buses....
- jessriedel 6y ago
  You seem to want to have a general car vs. train debate. You picked the wrong comment to reply to.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Regardless of the feasibility of rail in the US, I cannot think of anything less forward-looking then continuing to sink public money into the particular company Amtrak.

betterunix2 6y ago

Why single out Amtrak? It was set up to fail by the Nixon administration, it has never received the funding it needed to address the poor state of the equipment, stations, and ROW (i.e. NEC) it received at its inception, and most of its operations are on other railroads' ROW where there is little hope of upgrading lines for high-speed service (or even electrification). Either we should nationalize our railroads or we need to accept that Amtrak (or whatever company) is providing a public service that requires adequate public funding.

OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
ROW = right of way NEC = northeast corridor
jessriedel 6y ago
I did not single out Amtrak. The topic of the article is Amtrak. It is a dysfunctional organization, and that does become less true if it's Nixon's fault.

Someone1234 6y ago

I feel like this deserves an explanation. Amtrak are underfunded, a political football, and have to run like a second class citizen on a large chunk of the US rail network, hardly issues of their own creation.

newsclues 6y ago

Have you experienced European rail?

eplanit 6y ago
Yes, and the best of the best: Japan. But, the point is that we're taking about Amtrak -- have you experienced them? The odds of Amtrak pulling this off are near 0. They earned their poor reputation.
- dangus 6y ago
  Amtrak is perfectly fine. I’ve used it on overnight trips on the crummiest long distance services. Yeah, I mean, it’s no European or Japanese or Chinese rail. But the idea that Amtrak can’t do something just because they’re Amtrak is ridiculous. They’re a part of the federal government, the only thing that the federal government needs to do things is political will. This rail plan is 100% realistic because it appropriately de-emphasizes long distance rail that Amtrak is so infamous for. It targets expansion in very obviously lacking intercity regions. These new routes will be profitable for the government either directly or in lasting economic benefits.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Yeah, the Northeast Corridor is fine. Would it be nice if Boston to DC wasn't an all-day trip? Sure. But the two halves of the route are very competitive with air travel and I'll take them over flying unless I'm connecting to another flight. I've also rarely taken other city pairs. What isn't practical except mostly as a one-off tourist thing for someone with lots of time is going Chicago to Seattle and similar routes or fantasies of drilling a tunnel through the Appalachians for a fast NY to Chicago run.
  - betterunix2 6y ago
    Amtrak is not technically part of the federal government. It was set up as a private, for-profit corporation that is jointly owned by the government and the railroads whose passenger operations were turned over to Amtrak. The federal government's control over Amtrak is meant to end once Amtrak is able to operate independently, but Amtrak has never really been on a path to independent/profitable operations and will probably never get there. Amtrak's biggest challenge is that its service is inconvenient in most of the cities/towns it serves. For example, in Syracuse, NY, where Amtrak has 8 trains per day (four in each direction) that arrive at reasonably convenient times, the station is located on the outskirts of the city, far from the city center. Cleveland has the opposite problem: the station is near the downtown area, but all of the scheduled trains (4 per day, two in each direction) arrive between 1 am and 6 am. Where Amtrak is convenient to use (e.g. the NEC) it works reasonably well and is actually competitive with driving or flying.

itspublic 6y ago

Amtrak is publicly owned. I'd personally love to see it privatized, but you phrased that like you think Amtrak is a private company that receives subsidies. It isn't, it's closer to the USPS model than that.

dangus 6y ago

This very article points out routes that rival all the airlines combined in terms of passenger volume. The article also points out that Amtrak purposefully invests as little as possible into the unprofitable long distance network, which seems to be exactly what you’re asking for: to stop investing in Amtrak’s archaic routes. The article also details a plan that focuses on profitable and popular intercity service. Routes like Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati that are a part of this plan are no-brainer expansions that will easily yield regional economic benefits. As you’re aware, Amtrak is the government. Any economic benefit they bring to a region goes right back to the government in the form of tax revenue. It should be obvious then that Amtrak itself doesn’t need to be profitable for it to be a net positive investment. We don’t expect our roads to be profitable and yet nobody questions whether highways are a “feasible” mode of transport.

selimthegrim 6y ago
Governor of Ohio torpedoed that route IIRC

apostacy 6y ago

For some perspective, the federal government regularly funds highways to nowhere that nobody asked for or wants[1] Most regional airfields are bigger money sinks than Amtrak. The federal government subsidizeds up to $800 per passenger in some of the more rural air routes in Alaska.[2] Rail travel subsidies are a fraction of what the United States taxpayers spend on transportation. We have a concept of "essential" air and road travel subsidies, why not essential rail subsidies? Think of how great this arm of our transportation infrastructure could be if we shifted 10% of what we spend on regional airlines to rail transport. Other countries have clearly demonstrated that high speed rail works. And they don't spend nearly as much on infrastructure. And what is wrong with just having subsidized slow passenger service across the continent either? I assure you it is not too expensive compared to what we already spend, and I think it is very beneficial. I think that we should continue to maintain a fleet of long distance passenger trains and stations. Passenger trains can be an essential safety where other forms of travel are unavailable. We just take it for granted that the government should spend as much as it wants building roads everywhere, but we count every penny when it comes to passenger rail. [1]: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/12/23/meet-2020s-worst-highway-boondoggles-birmingham-northern-beltline-alabama/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/12/23/meet-2020s-worst-high... [2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120202212318/http://www.buses.org/files/Foundation/EAS%20Study%20Final%20Report%20FINALv2%20%2012sep11.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120202212318/http://www.buses....

jessriedel 6y ago
You seem to want to have a general car vs. train debate. You picked the wrong comment to reply to.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]