8 ms·

Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority. Nobody could afford a ticket of they had to lay their own tracks. Private companies are the only o

by EvRev 5y ago

Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority. Nobody could afford a ticket of they had to lay their own tracks. Private companies are the only ones willing to make these investments in infrastructure so they can leverage the data it provides, i.e. BNSF and Buffet.

ajmadesc 5y ago
Most of the transcontinentals[rail lines] were heavily subsidized by all levels of government via sub-market-rate loans, land grants, and special local privileges on the frontier. - Conservative Enterprise Institute
- stuaxo 5y ago
  Much like roads are.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Especially the land grants. The US government gave ten percent of its territory to the railroads to get them built. The experience proves the opposite of "only private industry will invest".
  - karmelapple 5y ago
    I don’t understand why this piece of the thread isn’t more highly upvoted. The rails weren’t able to do what they did without massive government assistance.
jen20 5y ago
> Nobody could afford a ticket of they had to lay their own tracks. Only assuming ticket sales needed to cover all operations, which definitely need not be the case.
caturopath 5y ago
> Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority. Not in any useful way: freight delays passenger trains in the US with impunity. http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed-by-freight-trains/ http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed...
- tedunangst 5y ago
  My understanding is that's a somewhat deceptive description, but would appreciate clarification. Amtrak has priority in that when they lease the line, they select the time their train runs, and freight schedules around. But if Amtrak is delayed, the freight train doesn't have to jump off the tracks to clear space.
  - gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
    My experience (Norfolk Southern and CSX operate the tracks in my area) is that I am learning that amtrak is supposed to have priority right here. My personal experience has been almost the opposite. Knock on wood, in my recollection I've never experienced any other significant delay except freight traffic interference. But like, on separate occasions, I've had a 4+ hour delay from Chicago to Buffalo (~8 hour drive), couple hours through NY State, had a 20 minute stop in Syracuse turn into 1.5 hours, all due to freight traffic. I assume the train is going to arrive where I'm going like an hour late at least. The only significant thing that wasn't freight related, is they split the train in Albany when you are going to NYC or Boston. The second train had some issues, so it took a bit to get a different one, so we were sitting there without power in like, July for an hour or so.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    While that is true, there are a few freight companies that don't particularly care about the priority situation, so that they don't care about causing the initial delay that causes the loss of priority.
  - hedora 5y ago
    The bigger issue is that the freight companies control line maintenance. The upshot is that there’s no incentive to straighten the tracks to run them at higher than freight train speeds. For example, on the San Jose <-> Oakland commuter line (which has existed for decades!), Amtrak runs trains with top speeds of 120mph (or was it 85?) at something closer to a top speed of 45mph. Edit: Also, the freight line routes no longer make sense. For instance, they run through a pedestrian plaza in Jack London square to an ecological restoration area in south bay, where most factories have been shut down. (There are still salt ponds, but that salt evaporation plant is slowly being shut down in an ecologically responsible way, as I understand it). I think they should give the freight company imminent domain rights to run a line due east (to sparsely populated areas), allowing the freight lines to run unimpeded by Bay Area rush hour and pedestrians. In exchange, the freight lines would give their existing right of way to commuter rail systems. Also, while I’m dreaming, Bart would be converted to standard track width, and they’d restore the Palo Alto to Santa Cruz commuter rail lines. Then, all the systems would be put under a single authority, and all the transfers between the existing systems would be timed transfers.
GavinMcG 5y ago
> Private companies are the only ones willing to make these investments in infrastructure ...because there's an anti-government cult that occupies a disproportionate number of government offices in the country. "Bad" investments is exactly what government is for: things we'll all benefit from (including but not limited to broad economic contributions) but which market incentives don't align to produce.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  No. The fact the government can and frequently does make failed investments and wasted capital expenditures is precisely why people don't trust the government. California set out to make a single high speed rail line between San Francisco and LA 12 years ago and it's still not complete and it's run over what, $70B so far? And it's still going to be a slow rail not much faster than a trip by car after it's complete? This is what happens when you let inept bureaucracies spend money for which they never have to feel the effects of cost/benefit trade-offs and for which the opportunity costs are completely dismissed.
  - zapita 5y ago
    I don’t understand anti-government zealots any more than I understand anti-capitalism zealots. Both try to cherry-pick facts in support of an obviously flawed theory: that one is the pinnacle of civilization while the other is an evil to root out. This kind of purist thinking is dangerous because it prevents you from observing the facts as they are. For example whatever the root cause of California’s high speed rail problems, it’s probably more complex than “public government is bad”. But you will never find out because you have ideological blinders on.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Kind of like how U.S. telecom providers were given something like a hundred billion to deliver broadband around the country but didn’t hit the promised performance or coverage? The private sector includes Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, not just Apple or Amazon, and you have about as much choice not to pay for them as you do the local government. The key thing is not the sector but whether there’s an effective oversight mechanism. It’s a lot more productive to focus on those feedback loops than trying to assume any sector comes in exactly one universal quality level.
pridkett 5y ago
Amtrak owns most of the Northeast Corridor[0] - except the section from New Haven to New Rochelle, which is owned by the State of CT and Metro North. Incidentally, there are the sections where the Acela slows to a crawl. This is also the most viable corridor for Amtrak. They also own sections of other lines - including the New Haven-Springfield line[1]. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Line
kolinko 5y ago
In some if not most countries in Europe tracks are built by government owned companies. So it is possible
JCharante 5y ago
> Nobody could afford a ticket of they had to lay their own tracks. I'm under the impression that China subsidizes the cost of train tickets because it's viewed as an economic multiplier and sociatal benefit. As an American, it'd be pretty cool if America could do this. It'd also be helpful for tourists to visit smaller train connected cities rather than flying from 1 hub to the next.
- blackguardx 5y ago
  We consider roads an economic multiplier and societal benefit. They never pay for themselves with gas taxes. We should build out more rail with the same logic.
  - colin_mccabe 5y ago
    The US highway system did pay for itself out of gas taxes. The highway trust fund was set up for this purpose. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund . In recent years the highway trust fund has not been adequate, for two reasons: one, Congress diverted money from the highway trust fund to fund things that were not highways, and two, the value of the tax didn't keep pace with inflation and it hasn't been increased recently.
    - codekansas 5y ago
      That plus the clear difference that funding trains would basically mean subsidizing the operations of a few large companies, while anyone can drive on publicly funded roads
      - realityking 5y ago
        Since Amtrak is fully owned by the federal government, why not let them run the trains. That way there’s no subsidizing of a few large companies.
        5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
guerrilla 5y ago
> Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority. Since when? Source? They were always getting preempted when I used it.
- bpye 5y ago
  They are supposed to have priority [0] but the system lacks enforcement. [0] - http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed-by-freight-trains/ http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed...

by EvRev 5y ago

ajmadesc 5y ago

Most of the transcontinentals[rail lines] were heavily subsidized by all levels of government via sub-market-rate loans, land grants, and special local privileges on the frontier. - Conservative Enterprise Institute

stuaxo 5y ago
Much like roads are.
jeffbee 5y ago
Especially the land grants. The US government gave ten percent of its territory to the railroads to get them built. The experience proves the opposite of "only private industry will invest".
- karmelapple 5y ago
  I don’t understand why this piece of the thread isn’t more highly upvoted. The rails weren’t able to do what they did without massive government assistance.

jen20 5y ago

> Nobody could afford a ticket of they had to lay their own tracks. Only assuming ticket sales needed to cover all operations, which definitely need not be the case.

caturopath 5y ago

> Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority. Not in any useful way: freight delays passenger trains in the US with impunity. http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed-by-freight-trains/ http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed...

tedunangst 5y ago
My understanding is that's a somewhat deceptive description, but would appreciate clarification. Amtrak has priority in that when they lease the line, they select the time their train runs, and freight schedules around. But if Amtrak is delayed, the freight train doesn't have to jump off the tracks to clear space.
- gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
  My experience (Norfolk Southern and CSX operate the tracks in my area) is that I am learning that amtrak is supposed to have priority right here. My personal experience has been almost the opposite. Knock on wood, in my recollection I've never experienced any other significant delay except freight traffic interference. But like, on separate occasions, I've had a 4+ hour delay from Chicago to Buffalo (~8 hour drive), couple hours through NY State, had a 20 minute stop in Syracuse turn into 1.5 hours, all due to freight traffic. I assume the train is going to arrive where I'm going like an hour late at least. The only significant thing that wasn't freight related, is they split the train in Albany when you are going to NYC or Boston. The second train had some issues, so it took a bit to get a different one, so we were sitting there without power in like, July for an hour or so.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  While that is true, there are a few freight companies that don't particularly care about the priority situation, so that they don't care about causing the initial delay that causes the loss of priority.
- hedora 5y ago
  The bigger issue is that the freight companies control line maintenance. The upshot is that there’s no incentive to straighten the tracks to run them at higher than freight train speeds. For example, on the San Jose <-> Oakland commuter line (which has existed for decades!), Amtrak runs trains with top speeds of 120mph (or was it 85?) at something closer to a top speed of 45mph. Edit: Also, the freight line routes no longer make sense. For instance, they run through a pedestrian plaza in Jack London square to an ecological restoration area in south bay, where most factories have been shut down. (There are still salt ponds, but that salt evaporation plant is slowly being shut down in an ecologically responsible way, as I understand it). I think they should give the freight company imminent domain rights to run a line due east (to sparsely populated areas), allowing the freight lines to run unimpeded by Bay Area rush hour and pedestrians. In exchange, the freight lines would give their existing right of way to commuter rail systems. Also, while I’m dreaming, Bart would be converted to standard track width, and they’d restore the Palo Alto to Santa Cruz commuter rail lines. Then, all the systems would be put under a single authority, and all the transfers between the existing systems would be timed transfers.

GavinMcG 5y ago

> Private companies are the only ones willing to make these investments in infrastructure ...because there's an anti-government cult that occupies a disproportionate number of government offices in the country. "Bad" investments is exactly what government is for: things we'll all benefit from (including but not limited to broad economic contributions) but which market incentives don't align to produce.

chrisco255 5y ago
No. The fact the government can and frequently does make failed investments and wasted capital expenditures is precisely why people don't trust the government. California set out to make a single high speed rail line between San Francisco and LA 12 years ago and it's still not complete and it's run over what, $70B so far? And it's still going to be a slow rail not much faster than a trip by car after it's complete? This is what happens when you let inept bureaucracies spend money for which they never have to feel the effects of cost/benefit trade-offs and for which the opportunity costs are completely dismissed.
- zapita 5y ago
  I don’t understand anti-government zealots any more than I understand anti-capitalism zealots. Both try to cherry-pick facts in support of an obviously flawed theory: that one is the pinnacle of civilization while the other is an evil to root out. This kind of purist thinking is dangerous because it prevents you from observing the facts as they are. For example whatever the root cause of California’s high speed rail problems, it’s probably more complex than “public government is bad”. But you will never find out because you have ideological blinders on.
- acdha 5y ago
  Kind of like how U.S. telecom providers were given something like a hundred billion to deliver broadband around the country but didn’t hit the promised performance or coverage? The private sector includes Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, not just Apple or Amazon, and you have about as much choice not to pay for them as you do the local government. The key thing is not the sector but whether there’s an effective oversight mechanism. It’s a lot more productive to focus on those feedback loops than trying to assume any sector comes in exactly one universal quality level.

pridkett 5y ago

Amtrak owns most of the Northeast Corridor[0] - except the section from New Haven to New Rochelle, which is owned by the State of CT and Metro North. Incidentally, there are the sections where the Acela slows to a crawl. This is also the most viable corridor for Amtrak. They also own sections of other lines - including the New Haven-Springfield line[1]. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_Line

kolinko 5y ago

In some if not most countries in Europe tracks are built by government owned companies. So it is possible

JCharante 5y ago

> Nobody could afford a ticket of they had to lay their own tracks. I'm under the impression that China subsidizes the cost of train tickets because it's viewed as an economic multiplier and sociatal benefit. As an American, it'd be pretty cool if America could do this. It'd also be helpful for tourists to visit smaller train connected cities rather than flying from 1 hub to the next.

blackguardx 5y ago
We consider roads an economic multiplier and societal benefit. They never pay for themselves with gas taxes. We should build out more rail with the same logic.
- colin_mccabe 5y ago
  The US highway system did pay for itself out of gas taxes. The highway trust fund was set up for this purpose. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund . In recent years the highway trust fund has not been adequate, for two reasons: one, Congress diverted money from the highway trust fund to fund things that were not highways, and two, the value of the tax didn't keep pace with inflation and it hasn't been increased recently.
  - codekansas 5y ago
    That plus the clear difference that funding trains would basically mean subsidizing the operations of a few large companies, while anyone can drive on publicly funded roads
    - realityking 5y ago
      Since Amtrak is fully owned by the federal government, why not let them run the trains. That way there’s no subsidizing of a few large companies.
      - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

guerrilla 5y ago

> Amtrak leases all tracks they use with the highest priority. Since when? Source? They were always getting preempted when I used it.

bpye 5y ago
They are supposed to have priority [0] but the system lacks enforcement. [0] - http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed-by-freight-trains/ http://blog.amtrak.com/2019/05/why-are-amtrak-trains-delayed...