6 ms·

Most of the delays and lack of consistency come from the rail lines being controlled by other interests. Amtrak is always lowest on the priority totem pole, and

Most of the delays and lack of consistency come from the rail lines being controlled by other interests. Amtrak is always lowest on the priority totem pole, and is routinely forced to yield to freight lines for hours at a time arbitrarily and without notice. Lack of high speed rail is an orthogonal issue, and is constantly conflated with fixing the current state of affairs. we don't even have standard passenger rail yet! We need to build more cheap track to connect areas first. Rail travel is far more efficient than flying, both environmentally and economically. Flying is heavily subsidized in ways that rail is not, and that tends to hide the externalities. Rail has also been set up to fail with metrics like direct profitability, which is entirely not the point of public transportation. It's like claiming the entire value of a road is the toll money it generates.

throwawayboise 6y ago
Also level crossings and equipment breakdowns. Collisions between cars and trains are not uncommon. In my first and last Amtrak trip, I rode from Chicago to Las Vegas and was nearly 24 hours late on arrival, due to delays from freight traffic, hitting a car at a crossing, and having a locomotive break down. And my luggage was delayed for another day after that.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Collisions between cars and trains are not uncommon https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-accidents-type-accidenta https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-ac... 91 rail collisions (not just with cars, but of all types) for trains (not just passenger trains) in 2020 nationally. That’s...pretty rare.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    Agreed, I'm surprised. I guess because I experienced it, I assumed it was rather more common.
closeparen 6y ago
I don’t think the “economically” part of this statement is at all obvious. Train sets are cheaper than passenger planes but they have to be tied up a lot longer to provide the same passenger-miles. Acquiring land and laying track costs what it actually costs in the US and not what it would it would theoretically cost under foreign labor, regulatory, and property-rights conditions.
- syshum 6y ago
  Taxpayer money goes to fund the Airline industry in a wide number of ways, just a few would be that fact that most airports are government run, many operating at net loss when proper accounting is used. We also subsidize security (tsa), traffic control (faa), and do not get me started on the billions and billions in bailouts the airlines get with every economic down turn. So to say the economic part is not obvious one has to be willfully ignorant of government spending, just listing the obvious source of government subsidy there are many other less obvious one including special tax exemptions, and many other programs that have indirect benefits to the industry
  - enriquec 6y ago
    And rail would literally not exist without way more government intervention (eminent domain), subsidies, and bailouts. On the eve of self driving it is actually obvious that rail is economically inferior by several orders of magnitude.
  - closeparen 6y ago
    This report [0] suggests significantly higher passenger-mile costs in both fares and subsidies for Amtrak vs. air travel. It looks pretty off the cuff, I’m sure you could dispute the methodology, but... let’s see yours. [0] https://urbanreforminstitute.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/ https://urbanreforminstitute.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and...
    - syshum 6y ago
      OK, and? I find it amusing that in this thread if I make a statement opposing government funding of trains people point out that Airplanes get government funding, and if make a comment opposing government funding of airplanes people point out that trains get government funding It seems that the 2 groups are completely unable to fathom that a person could simply oppose government funding of both Planes and Trains.... Neither Amtrak nor Air Travel should get ANY tax payer money, for any purpose or reason..
JJMcJ 6y ago
> yield to freight lines Which is exactly the reverse of the old days when freight waited. Also many host railroads only maintain some sections of roadbeds to freight standards, so passenger trains must slow to freight speeds.
brudgers 6y ago
Buses make more sense than passenger rail. More flexible routing. More flexible time tables. Utilize existing infrastructure. Dedicated right of way easier to create by reconfiguration of existing roads. When the Colorado Plateau snows in - as it does about every winter - a bus to LA can simply detour south toward Phoenix.
m463 6y ago
> Amtrak is always lowest on the priority totem pole It's unfortunate, but this is probably the way it should be. Economically the repeat customer should probably get the benefits of predictability / stability. Also, passenger commuter lines do stick closer to schedule than long-distance trains. When I've traveled amtrak, the first time I was surprised to have such unpredictable times, but after that I just factored it in. Most long-distance amtrak travel is for the scenery and the pace, not for private-jet-efficiency.
dnautics 6y ago
> Rail has also been set up to fail with metrics like direct profitability, which is entirely not the point of public transportation. It's like claiming the entire value of a road is the toll money it generates. It's this mentality that is exactly the problem. If a public transportation system can pull a profit that means it's actually creating value for people in excess of the resources that it took to create. If you look at the best public transit systems in the world most of them are either for profit corporations or explicitly chartered to generate revenue (MTR/Comfort Delgro in sg, MRT in hong kong, tokyo subway). I'm aware that MTR recently got nationalized, so we shall see if the quality remains.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Do you have a study as a source that backs that up? I'm personally skeptical, as public transportation is weighted significantly towards ineffective demand. This also neglects the question of positive externalities attached to public transportation systems that aren't accounted for in a profit / revenue metric, such as lower property prices, more flexible labor markets, and the quality of life improvements of mixed use zoning that high use public transportation facilitate.

throwawayboise 6y ago

Also level crossings and equipment breakdowns. Collisions between cars and trains are not uncommon. In my first and last Amtrak trip, I rode from Chicago to Las Vegas and was nearly 24 hours late on arrival, due to delays from freight traffic, hitting a car at a crossing, and having a locomotive break down. And my luggage was delayed for another day after that.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Collisions between cars and trains are not uncommon https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-accidents-type-accidenta https://www.bts.gov/content/train-fatalities-injuries-and-ac... 91 rail collisions (not just with cars, but of all types) for trains (not just passenger trains) in 2020 nationally. That’s...pretty rare.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Agreed, I'm surprised. I guess because I experienced it, I assumed it was rather more common.

closeparen 6y ago

I don’t think the “economically” part of this statement is at all obvious. Train sets are cheaper than passenger planes but they have to be tied up a lot longer to provide the same passenger-miles. Acquiring land and laying track costs what it actually costs in the US and not what it would it would theoretically cost under foreign labor, regulatory, and property-rights conditions.

syshum 6y ago
Taxpayer money goes to fund the Airline industry in a wide number of ways, just a few would be that fact that most airports are government run, many operating at net loss when proper accounting is used. We also subsidize security (tsa), traffic control (faa), and do not get me started on the billions and billions in bailouts the airlines get with every economic down turn. So to say the economic part is not obvious one has to be willfully ignorant of government spending, just listing the obvious source of government subsidy there are many other less obvious one including special tax exemptions, and many other programs that have indirect benefits to the industry
- enriquec 6y ago
  And rail would literally not exist without way more government intervention (eminent domain), subsidies, and bailouts. On the eve of self driving it is actually obvious that rail is economically inferior by several orders of magnitude.
- closeparen 6y ago
  This report [0] suggests significantly higher passenger-mile costs in both fares and subsidies for Amtrak vs. air travel. It looks pretty off the cuff, I’m sure you could dispute the methodology, but... let’s see yours. [0] https://urbanreforminstitute.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and-subsidies-by-mode/ https://urbanreforminstitute.org/2019/09/transport-costs-and...
  - syshum 6y ago
    OK, and? I find it amusing that in this thread if I make a statement opposing government funding of trains people point out that Airplanes get government funding, and if make a comment opposing government funding of airplanes people point out that trains get government funding It seems that the 2 groups are completely unable to fathom that a person could simply oppose government funding of both Planes and Trains.... Neither Amtrak nor Air Travel should get ANY tax payer money, for any purpose or reason..

JJMcJ 6y ago

> yield to freight lines Which is exactly the reverse of the old days when freight waited. Also many host railroads only maintain some sections of roadbeds to freight standards, so passenger trains must slow to freight speeds.

brudgers 6y ago

Buses make more sense than passenger rail. More flexible routing. More flexible time tables. Utilize existing infrastructure. Dedicated right of way easier to create by reconfiguration of existing roads. When the Colorado Plateau snows in - as it does about every winter - a bus to LA can simply detour south toward Phoenix.

m463 6y ago

> Amtrak is always lowest on the priority totem pole It's unfortunate, but this is probably the way it should be. Economically the repeat customer should probably get the benefits of predictability / stability. Also, passenger commuter lines do stick closer to schedule than long-distance trains. When I've traveled amtrak, the first time I was surprised to have such unpredictable times, but after that I just factored it in. Most long-distance amtrak travel is for the scenery and the pace, not for private-jet-efficiency.

dnautics 6y ago

> Rail has also been set up to fail with metrics like direct profitability, which is entirely not the point of public transportation. It's like claiming the entire value of a road is the toll money it generates. It's this mentality that is exactly the problem. If a public transportation system can pull a profit that means it's actually creating value for people in excess of the resources that it took to create. If you look at the best public transit systems in the world most of them are either for profit corporations or explicitly chartered to generate revenue (MTR/Comfort Delgro in sg, MRT in hong kong, tokyo subway). I'm aware that MTR recently got nationalized, so we shall see if the quality remains.

Hammershaft 6y ago
Do you have a study as a source that backs that up? I'm personally skeptical, as public transportation is weighted significantly towards ineffective demand. This also neglects the question of positive externalities attached to public transportation systems that aren't accounted for in a profit / revenue metric, such as lower property prices, more flexible labor markets, and the quality of life improvements of mixed use zoning that high use public transportation facilitate.