7 ms·

Part of the allure! “We’ll get ya there…sometime.” It’s not their fault. Passenger trains in the US run almost exclusively on freight lines. They are high ri

by hm-nah 4y ago

Part of the allure! “We’ll get ya there…sometime.” It’s not their fault. Passenger trains in the US run almost exclusively on freight lines. They are high risk, low revenue…burdens(?) from that perspective.

dreamcompiler 4y ago
Amtrak has also been starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it, so they don't have the funds to properly maintain their rolling stock. Engine breakdowns are frequent.
- ericmay 4y ago
  Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues. I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    Airlines are (barely) profitable. Amtrak is not, outside of the Acela corridor.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Sure but please note I said airline infrastructure which would include airports, ATC, Etc. We could built train stations instead of airports, for example.
      - philwelch 4y ago
        Airports are also profitable though. And for that matter, rail infrastructure in the US is also profitable for cargo, which is its primary use. Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.
        ericmay 4y ago
        But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation, and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airports are also usually public-private ventures and their operation is defacto subsidized by the federal government. I don’t have a problem with airlines or anything but I don’t think we have the full competitive picture especially when we take into account the forced suburbanization of America which has all sorts of correlated problems. For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. But also who cares if it’s profitable?
        philwelch 4y ago
        > But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation This is also true for trains. > and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. > For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. > But also who cares if it’s profitable? American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism. We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument. > This is also true for trains. Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density). > Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. > Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges. The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built. > In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more. You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred. I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.
- prepend 4y ago
  > starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs. I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year. How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland? I’m not sure what the right amount is, but I don’t think it’s really possible to spend the money that is needed given the costs and the utility. The only real hope is that one day population density will increase between Chicago and California so it becomes less costly to operate. [0] page 4 https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/nationalfactsheets/Amtrak-Company-Profile-FY2020-041921.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I don't think ridership on the Zephyr has much at all to do with population density --- it's hitting Reno, SLC, Denver, and Omaha on that route, too. The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco; you're basically getting people to sign up for a vacation of spending an extended period of time on a train. I get why that appeals to some people, but it's obviously a pretty unappealing proposition for most people.
    - prepend 4y ago
      What I meant is having 20 more cities of that size on the route. It’s like if the cruise ship industry was subsidized with a few billion in funding each year.
    - fatnoah 4y ago
      > The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies. One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.
Melting_Harps 4y ago
> “We’ll get ya there…sometime.” That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint. Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason. I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be. I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.

by hm-nah 4y ago

dreamcompiler 4y ago

Amtrak has also been starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it, so they don't have the funds to properly maintain their rolling stock. Engine breakdowns are frequent.

ericmay 4y ago
Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues. I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.
- philwelch 4y ago
  Airlines are (barely) profitable. Amtrak is not, outside of the Acela corridor.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Sure but please note I said airline infrastructure which would include airports, ATC, Etc. We could built train stations instead of airports, for example.
    - philwelch 4y ago
      Airports are also profitable though. And for that matter, rail infrastructure in the US is also profitable for cargo, which is its primary use. Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation, and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airports are also usually public-private ventures and their operation is defacto subsidized by the federal government. I don’t have a problem with airlines or anything but I don’t think we have the full competitive picture especially when we take into account the forced suburbanization of America which has all sorts of correlated problems. For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. But also who cares if it’s profitable?
        philwelch 4y ago
        > But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation This is also true for trains. > and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. > For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. > But also who cares if it’s profitable? American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.
        ericmay 4y ago
        > American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism. We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument. > This is also true for trains. Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density). > Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. > Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them. The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges. The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built. > In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete. The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more. You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred. I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.
prepend 4y ago
> starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs. I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year. How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland? I’m not sure what the right amount is, but I don’t think it’s really possible to spend the money that is needed given the costs and the utility. The only real hope is that one day population density will increase between Chicago and California so it becomes less costly to operate. [0] page 4 https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/nationalfactsheets/Amtrak-Company-Profile-FY2020-041921.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
- tptacek 4y ago
  I don't think ridership on the Zephyr has much at all to do with population density --- it's hitting Reno, SLC, Denver, and Omaha on that route, too. The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco; you're basically getting people to sign up for a vacation of spending an extended period of time on a train. I get why that appeals to some people, but it's obviously a pretty unappealing proposition for most people.
  - prepend 4y ago
    What I meant is having 20 more cities of that size on the route. It’s like if the cruise ship industry was subsidized with a few billion in funding each year.
  - fatnoah 4y ago
    > The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies. One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.

Melting_Harps 4y ago

> “We’ll get ya there…sometime.” That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint. Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason. I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be. I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.