3 ms·

> So who do you think managed to stuff $22 billion Well congress ultimately, but as far as actual influence? Maybe start with: Labor unions, manufacturers thro

• philwelch 2y ago
  > you have to assume I’m an uninformed moron to believe it uncritically > I believe you are being willfully disingenuous so will not continue this conversation further. Wow, such hostility. I'm not being willfully disingenuous; you just have a short temper and have a hard time staying civil, but I'll give you a second chance and try to respond in good faith here. > Maybe start with: Labor unions, manufacturers throughout the supply chain, maintenance vendors - you know entities with actual money and financial interests. Sure. Pork barrel politics all around. > Also, local constituents and representatives where the train service happens to go, like it or not the train service is hugely important to the chamber of commerce in general of a place like Syracuse for instance where an air carrier just pulled out and one of those destinations is Chicago - it matters not much from optics that the journey takes longer than 100 years ago. I just looked up flights between Syracuse and Chicago, and I can find multiple affordable nonstop flights: https://www.kayak.com/flights/SYR-CHI/2024-05-25/2024-06-01/economy/1adults?sort=bestflight_a&pid=deeplinks https://www.kayak.com/flights/SYR-CHI/2024-05-25/2024-06-01/... Amtrak (which doesn't provide working deep links, and doesn't let me look up routes unless I turn off my ad blocker) offers a 13 hour overnight train at roughly the same fare as that two hour flight. What practical customer value is Amtrak providing on this route? Maybe train service between Syracuse and Chicago was faster 100 years ago, but it wasn't as fast as as a two hour flight, and it's not going to be. So who actually cares, aside from train geeks and, as you pointed out, people with a vested interest in federal pork? > Moreover, the companies and organizations that are involved and do exist don’t magically disappear in any imagined privatization future. I think a lot of them do "magically disappear" if they're dependent on government subsidies in order to remain economically viable! > I also have a hard time believing that a motley bunch of train geeks somehow has any pull over the ReDUcE GoVERNmENT SpENDInG crowd. Please, look at any graph of government spending over the past century and then try to tell me with a straight face that the "reduce government spending crowd" has any pull at all. Government spending does not get reduced. On the other hand, the federal government still subsidizes useless train routes that nobody needs, like the Syracuse to Chicago service you pointed out, or the Seattle to Chicago service I pointed out. > The NEC is profitable if you hand wave away most of the costs like maintenance, and the infrastructure so the those brand new trains they just bought (the $10 billion spend just after Mr Andersons tenure, so as not to derail your narrative) can go more than 80mph (there are still major chunks north of NYC that can’t manage that). My claim here is that you can make up the shortfall by eliminating all the useless routes that fail to compete with other modes of transportation. Maybe I'm mistaken about this, but you haven't really shown me hard numbers that account for the elimination of useless routes.
  • epcoa 2y ago
    > I just looked up flights between Syracuse and Chicago This has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made (which was why the mention that the train is slower now was even mentioned): a gross miscalculation of general politically relevant public opinion for long distance rail service. Even so, if you actually want to understand the indisputable utilization of some of these routes, search say only a week out rather than a month and the differential might be more like $120 for a train ticket and $600 for plane ticket. And compare peak to off peak times where plane tickets will sky rocket but rail differentials are far more modest. Those "affordable" fares also have an $80 differential between basic economy and economy, the privilege to even bring a carry-on bag let alone checked baggage. Getting to and from the station is often cheaper than the airport. > So who actually cares And here's the thing, many of these routes do sell out or come close to doing so on a daily basis. With a few notable exceptions, they're not running light trains around. In the case of the aforementioned train averaging about 500 pax in each direction. It's not my job to convince you that the majority of these 500 passengers are not train geeks. Yes it is hard for me to comprehend that is the first thing someone would think critically, as if the majority of those using Greyhound and the Chinatown line are "bus geeks". It's not like I'm saying axing some of these routes is a not a reasonable enough opinion, but my initial reply was pointing out the ridiculous premises. > Please, look at any graph of government spending over the past century and then try to tell me with a straight face that the "reduce government spending crowd" has any pull at all. To keep this on topic, compare a system map and timetable of Amtrak today vs 30 years ago. > My claim here is that you can make up the shortfall by eliminating all the useless routes And ignoring the $10 billion of outlay for new trainsets and the $16 billion dollar Gateway for starters (these are just for the NEC).
    • philwelch 2y ago
      > This has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made (which was why the mention that the train is slower now was even mentioned): a gross miscalculation of general politically relevant public opinion for long distance rail service. Your point didn't come across very clearly. I'm sorry about that; I also get frustrated when my points don't come across clearly. But I'm operating in good faith here. I don't understand the relevance of the point that the Syracuse to Chicago train is slower than it was 100 years ago. You can fly from Syracuse to Chicago in 2 hours. No train is going to compete with that--maybe a maglev or hyperloop, but not a train. So if the train service between Syracuse and Chicago is going to compete with air service, it's going to have to compete some other way. > And here's the thing, many of these routes do sell out or come close to doing so on a daily basis. With a few notable exceptions, they're not running light trains around. In the case of the aforementioned train averaging about 500 pax in each direction. That's great. If those passengers are willing to pay ticket prices that cover the full long term costs of maintaining their share of the infrastructure they're using, then you could have an economically viable privately operated passenger train service. If not, then the ticket prices are artificially low and should be raised. If raising the ticket prices makes the ridership disappear, then it doesn't have economic sense to run a passenger train route. > It's not my job to convince you that the majority of these 500 passengers are not train geeks. Yes it is hard for me to comprehend that is the first thing someone would think critically, as if the majority of those using Greyhound and the Chinatown line are "bus geeks". No, you're right. You've convinced me that the widespread public support for Amtrak doesn't come from people naively romanticizing passenger rail, but rather a coalition of people effectively freeloading off the American taxpayer. As a result I am now even more opposed to Amtrak.