Amtrak Could Turn a Profit for the First Time(wbur.org)
wbur.org
Amtrak Could Turn a Profit for the First Time
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/11/15/amtrak-profit-train-ceo-richard-anderson
438 comments
Nobody is expecting Amtrak to turn a real profit. Even when Amtrak breaks even in operating costs, Congress still pays all capital costs. Amtrak got a $1.8 billion subsidy in 2018.
The real issue is how much we’re paying in subsidies compared to how much we’re paying in subsidies for other forms of transportation, and perhaps what other people are paying in subsidies for the same kinds of transport.
Highways get about $75 billion in subsidies (what’s not covered by gas tax). A lot more than Amtrak for sure. But highways carried over 3 trillion passenger miles last year. Amtrak was just 6.3 billion. We spent 50x as much on highways as Amtrak, but got 500x as much mileage out of those highways.
(You can throw in pollution externalities, etc., but even if you use current carbon recapture methods to suck out CO2 from driving, and ignore the fact that Amtrak’s mainly east coast operations are not powered by renewables, driving still comes out ahead.)
The real issue is how much we’re paying in subsidies compared to how much we’re paying in subsidies for other forms of transportation, and perhaps what other people are paying in subsidies for the same kinds of transport.
Highways get about $75 billion in subsidies (what’s not covered by gas tax). A lot more than Amtrak for sure. But highways carried over 3 trillion passenger miles last year. Amtrak was just 6.3 billion. We spent 50x as much on highways as Amtrak, but got 500x as much mileage out of those highways.
(You can throw in pollution externalities, etc., but even if you use current carbon recapture methods to suck out CO2 from driving, and ignore the fact that Amtrak’s mainly east coast operations are not powered by renewables, driving still comes out ahead.)
This country has been reconfigured to force almost everyone to drive. Comparing the two on that basis is not fair. Finally, the full cost of car dependence beyond just pollution which is a big one is not bourne by the government but by drivers, just look at the car insurance industry.
Including pedestrians, cyclists and all other forms of transportation that become much more dangerous due to how many cars there are on the road.
Imagine how many people would be biking, riding electric scooters and walking if US cities were actually designed with these modes of transportation in mind.
Imagine how many people would be biking, riding electric scooters and walking if US cities were actually designed with these modes of transportation in mind.
The good news is that the tide can shift. If you add more bike lanes, people start riding their bikes. People don't like to bike because it's (rightly) perceived as dangerous.
I ride in LA and if you can get a bike lane at all, it's gonna be a faded strip painted 2 feet from the parked cars/along the sewer grates. There needs to be more separation from the batshit drivers here who wouldn't shrug at a hit and run too. Not very inviting, but I can bike all year at least.
I ride in LA and if you can get a bike lane at all, it's gonna be a faded strip painted 2 feet from the parked cars/along the sewer grates. There needs to be more separation from the batshit drivers here who wouldn't shrug at a hit and run too. Not very inviting, but I can bike all year at least.
I no longer think that bike lanes will get the job done.
Long ago, when I was working in western Tennessee, I noticed that, in that area, the painted bike lanes were almost always on arterial roads. I even found one that was on a stretch of controlled access highway. Asked a colleague who worked for TDOT about that, and it turns out that you could get extra federal money for roads with bike lanes. So of course, the counties would put the bike lanes on the roads that cost the most to maintain, not the ones that made sense for bicycles.
Outside of a few major cities, I suspect that's invariably how bike lanes are going to end up working in the US.
What you could get people on board behind, though, is traffic calming measures. Bill it as fighting back against the hordes of Waze drivers blasting through your neighborhood as a shortcut, and you might be able to get some political momentum behind it. That would then get you to roads that could support mixed traffic without half-assing it by painting cyclists into a thin ghetto full of potholes and broken glass.
And then pair it with movements to get some questions about how to share the road with bicyclists onto the written driving test, so that drivers at least know how to share the road with cyclists. Right now, nobody's telling them, so they genuinely don't know. Even here in Chicago, I've had surprisingly many water cooler conversations where I had to correct a complaining car commuter who thought that it was illegal for all these bikes to be in the road and that they're supposed to stay on the sidewalk.
Long ago, when I was working in western Tennessee, I noticed that, in that area, the painted bike lanes were almost always on arterial roads. I even found one that was on a stretch of controlled access highway. Asked a colleague who worked for TDOT about that, and it turns out that you could get extra federal money for roads with bike lanes. So of course, the counties would put the bike lanes on the roads that cost the most to maintain, not the ones that made sense for bicycles.
Outside of a few major cities, I suspect that's invariably how bike lanes are going to end up working in the US.
What you could get people on board behind, though, is traffic calming measures. Bill it as fighting back against the hordes of Waze drivers blasting through your neighborhood as a shortcut, and you might be able to get some political momentum behind it. That would then get you to roads that could support mixed traffic without half-assing it by painting cyclists into a thin ghetto full of potholes and broken glass.
And then pair it with movements to get some questions about how to share the road with bicyclists onto the written driving test, so that drivers at least know how to share the road with cyclists. Right now, nobody's telling them, so they genuinely don't know. Even here in Chicago, I've had surprisingly many water cooler conversations where I had to correct a complaining car commuter who thought that it was illegal for all these bikes to be in the road and that they're supposed to stay on the sidewalk.
> how to share the road with bicyclists onto the written driving test, so that drivers at least know how to share the road with cyclists.
That's one of the reasons why the "Share the road" sign is being phased out in favor of the "bikes may use full lane sign".
The proper way to share a lane is in serial fashion, not parallel. This is because lanes are rarely wide enough for a car or truck to pass a cyclist with sufficient distance between the two while both remain within the lane itself.
In fact, many state laws that specify that cyclists must ride as far right as practicable actually have the substandard width lane exception (described above) to that requirement.
That's one of the reasons why the "Share the road" sign is being phased out in favor of the "bikes may use full lane sign".
The proper way to share a lane is in serial fashion, not parallel. This is because lanes are rarely wide enough for a car or truck to pass a cyclist with sufficient distance between the two while both remain within the lane itself.
In fact, many state laws that specify that cyclists must ride as far right as practicable actually have the substandard width lane exception (described above) to that requirement.
The very concept of "traffic calming" is a lie. It's cause for road rage, distraction from watching for pedestrians, slamming brakes, and loud hard-revving engines.
One day when I had reduced ride height due to a tire issue, a "traffic calming" device cracked my oil pan. That was just great for the environment. I leaked carcinogenic used oil all along the way, and then had to get the oil pan replaced. The creation of that new oil pan involved industrial activity that surely was not good for the environment.
One day when I had reduced ride height due to a tire issue, a "traffic calming" device cracked my oil pan. That was just great for the environment. I leaked carcinogenic used oil all along the way, and then had to get the oil pan replaced. The creation of that new oil pan involved industrial activity that surely was not good for the environment.
Bike lanes are fine on arterial roads if they are separated from traffic well enough. In santa monica they actually give a little room in the bike lane. Arterials get you to places more directly than side streets, that inevitably have to cross 6 lanes of an arterial from a stop sign. Good luck putting a light there without protest.
>People don't like to bike because it's (rightly) perceived as dangerous.
I don't like to bike because it rains 9+ months out of the year here.
I don't like to bike because it rains 9+ months out of the year here.
Where do you live? And how often is it actually seriously raining?
Rain gear does a pretty fantastic job of keeping you dry in the rain. And, needless to say, it's significantly cheaper than a car.
While that is true, motorcycles are cheaper than cars, but you don't see the majority of people riding motorcycles. Protection from the elements and the ability to carry more cargo is the reason why most people drive cars as opposed to riding bicycles or motorcycles.
Motorcycles are more hassle than both bikes and cars (licensing, attire, helmets) and a WAAAAAAAY more dangerous (about 40 times as likely to die per mile was the figure in the California Motorcycle Safety Course, if memory serves). They're also a pretty big expense since for most people they won't replace a car, and you still need to insure/maintain a motorcycle.
I'm very pro-motorcycle but bicycles have a much lower barrier to entry.
I'm very pro-motorcycle but bicycles have a much lower barrier to entry.
> ...the ability to carry more cargo...
I'll grant you that a car is more convenient for carrying cargo. But with a bike trailer, a bicycle can pretty easily handle most people's cargo requirements—anything from groceries to large appliances like refrigerators. Check out some of these bicycle trailer plans: https://bikecart.pedalpeople.coop
I'll grant you that a car is more convenient for carrying cargo. But with a bike trailer, a bicycle can pretty easily handle most people's cargo requirements—anything from groceries to large appliances like refrigerators. Check out some of these bicycle trailer plans: https://bikecart.pedalpeople.coop
The cargo argument comes up all the time. No, you don't need to buy a truck for the trip to a hardware store. I know some people do, but they often visit the hardware store every day, the majority of people don't. Yet everyone drives a truck up in Montana, I mean so do I, but it was $800 and I can maintain it myself since I bike primarily.
> If you add more bike lanes, people start riding their bikes.
Which may be true, but they encourage cyclists to ride at the edge instead of the middle of the general traffic lane. A motorist not paying attention is going to notice an edge riding cyclist later than they would if they were in the center of the general traffic lane.
> People don't like to bike because it's (rightly) perceived as dangerous.
Not really. Assuming one is riding a bicycle in traffic that's not moving at more than 40 mph, it's not that dangerous at all.
> There needs to be more separation from the batshit drivers here who wouldn't shrug at a hit and run too.
That's a problem with law enforcement, not a problem with the road design. Also, separation doesn't work when there are frequent intersections. It makes more sense to build bike lanes along side arterial roads where traffic is moving in excess of 40 mph and intersections are no more frequent than once every mile or so. On city streets with traffic moving at 0 to 30 mph, it makes far more sense to ride in the center of the general traffic lane while following the rules of the road.
Which may be true, but they encourage cyclists to ride at the edge instead of the middle of the general traffic lane. A motorist not paying attention is going to notice an edge riding cyclist later than they would if they were in the center of the general traffic lane.
> People don't like to bike because it's (rightly) perceived as dangerous.
Not really. Assuming one is riding a bicycle in traffic that's not moving at more than 40 mph, it's not that dangerous at all.
> There needs to be more separation from the batshit drivers here who wouldn't shrug at a hit and run too.
That's a problem with law enforcement, not a problem with the road design. Also, separation doesn't work when there are frequent intersections. It makes more sense to build bike lanes along side arterial roads where traffic is moving in excess of 40 mph and intersections are no more frequent than once every mile or so. On city streets with traffic moving at 0 to 30 mph, it makes far more sense to ride in the center of the general traffic lane while following the rules of the road.
rayiner is comparing inter-city rail to highways. Pedestrians and cyclists aren't relevant to highways.
Those inter-city highways are heavily used by people commuting through metropolitan areas. For example the only way to drive from the second largest city (San Francisco) to the third largest city (Oakland) in the Bay Area is over an interstate highway.
Reconfigured from what? I live in the West and most of the communities out here were never served by rail. You either got there by foot or by animal. It seems like car is just an upgraded version of walking or animal-pulled wagons.
Kind of hard to refute this with such blurry phrasing, but many cities in Western U.S. had functioning rail systems in the early 1900s. L.A. had over 1,000 miles of rail, for example. San Francisco, Denver, Phoenix, and many others had pretty extensive streetcar systems as well.
Portland used to be very well-served by an extensive trolley system, as well. This was also removed as city commuting turned to cars and gas-powered buses:
http://www.pdxhistory.com/html/streetcars.html
https://vintageportland.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/trolley-...
http://www.pdxhistory.com/html/streetcars.html
https://vintageportland.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/trolley-...
> reconfigured
From what? Riding horses cross country?
From what? Riding horses cross country?
Why do you assume cross country is the only way to drive? Most driving occurs to and from cities for commute and within cities. You can have cars for "cross country" driving and also eliminate the vastly inefficient "driving" in cities by improving our virtually non existent public transportation(compared to other first world countries) options.
> reconfigured from streetcars and buses and trolleys and trains in cities
> reconfigured from streetcars and buses and trolleys and trains in cities
The subject is Amtrak which doesn't cover the intracity use case.
That isn't to say you are wrong, just that you are changing the subject.
That isn't to say you are wrong, just that you are changing the subject.
The real sweet spot for Amtrak are trips between 50 and 200 miles. Within a city, subways / light rail are a better option. Longer than that and air travel starts to look better. Many cities also have regional trains that serve the areas between 10 and 50 miles outside the city.
This is how every city in Europe works. There are only a handful of cities in the US with a well-developed rail network -- and most of those are crumbling due to half a century of under-investment.
This is how every city in Europe works. There are only a handful of cities in the US with a well-developed rail network -- and most of those are crumbling due to half a century of under-investment.
With high speed rail, the kind that other countries have plenty of, the sweet spot for rail would extend much farther than 200 miles. Tokyo <-> Kyoto, for example, is around 300 miles and is solidly still within the range of rail being a much better option than flying.
We can argue the exact distance, but it is details. His point is correct: rail makes sense for cities that are not very far apart. Rail trips across continents doesn't make sense (except as tourism).
> The subject is Amtrak which doesn't cover the intracity use case.
This is how I and many other commuters use Amtrak. They even provide "last mile" bus tickets with your fare.
This is how I and many other commuters use Amtrak. They even provide "last mile" bus tickets with your fare.
Its not been forced, driving is just more flexible and convenient and practical. This is especially true when get kids.
Especially when the full costs of it don't have to be paid right now. Most car dependent places in the US don't enough money to actually repair all of the roads and infrastructure that they have built out. Also, most places there is no option but to drive because of zoning practices effectively banning mixed use. Suburbs from the mid 20th century on are all designed for cars and cars alone. Giant consolidated schools are put far away instead of the traditional smaller schools closer to where people live so kids have to be driven by bus or by parents. It was not always this way but it has indeed been forced by a design choice in how suburbs are laid out.
I guess it depends on where you live (hence the downvoting), but even in a place like NYC, I imagine managing small children on the subway would be pretty challenging.
I live in Brooklyn in NYC and I purchased a car when we were expecting. It is impossible to take a baby on public transit to most places. Buses are not equipped for strollers. Train stations are crowded and inaccessible to strollers. It takes a lot of physical energy to move a child through public transit. Our family, friends, the doctor, babysitter, and schools are not all walking distance and not all at expensive real estate near the train. Having a vehicle is empowering for my family and most like it.
Although I'm all in favor of cars, taking just one baby on public transit isn't much different from going by yourself on public transit. The trick is a sling. Don't even buy a stroller. There are several types of slings for babies. You can use one with a padded pocket and strap, one with fancy parts, a big long strip of cloth, or even just a folded bed sheet with a knot behind your shoulder.
You can't do slings when the kids are older and you still need it if you are going to walk even if they can walk.
Yeah well I lived both in Denmark and now NY and all I can say is that a car greatly improved my life both places.
I think the discussion is more focussing on is that 'flexibilty and convenience' from the car based on the fact we have designed and allocated our cities, suburbs and town in the way we have already.. Not so much, well this tool is right for the job, more a question of, did we make this job that requires a tool.
Even in Denmark where I am from originally and where they've gone to great lengths to improve public transportation it's not preferred.
Denmark is a small country and the efforts are huge, yet even there people prefer the car.
The issue is that you can't just build a solid infrastructure for everyone, it's impossibly expensive the further out you get.
Denmark is a small country and the efforts are huge, yet even there people prefer the car.
The issue is that you can't just build a solid infrastructure for everyone, it's impossibly expensive the further out you get.
If you were the only person with a car, then all cities are more flexible and convenient with a car than without. It is only when somebody other than you has a car that you get gridlock and the other problems of cars.
All but the oldest of children lack the ability to drive themselves places. That's not flexible, convenient, or practical.
That's not really how things work for many people.
If you both have to go to work and pick up your kid at school or in kindergarden and go shopping or take them to practice etc.
That's where the car is convenient. I can't send my kids with public transportation before they are 12 in NY.
So yes it's ver flexible, convenient and practical with a car.
If you both have to go to work and pick up your kid at school or in kindergarden and go shopping or take them to practice etc.
That's where the car is convenient. I can't send my kids with public transportation before they are 12 in NY.
So yes it's ver flexible, convenient and practical with a car.
If the kindergarten is on a subway/bus stop, it's really not an issue. How do you think we can get more public transport near schools? Hint: fund public transit more than roads. Instead of driving your kid to school, you just take them with you on the subway/bus.
One year in the black? I guess Trump actually got some good people in there, eh?
Outside of the Eastern Seaboard, has anyone ever attempted to book a rail trip? It's insane. You have to really work at it and you are losing a ton of time, have overnight "connections" and other odd problems. Furthermore, nearly all the train stations of any size are in the ghetto. The whole system has not kept up with the times. And while there is still some romantic notion of "riding the rails" it quickly gets subsumed by the price, which is also ridiculous.
Outside of the Eastern Seaboard, has anyone ever attempted to book a rail trip? It's insane. You have to really work at it and you are losing a ton of time, have overnight "connections" and other odd problems. Furthermore, nearly all the train stations of any size are in the ghetto. The whole system has not kept up with the times. And while there is still some romantic notion of "riding the rails" it quickly gets subsumed by the price, which is also ridiculous.
Unfortunately there is no other way to 'configure' a mass affluence society (where most people live in separate homes usually having ample plots). We don't have that awful level of car dependence in Europe, true - but we also force most people to live in apartment blocks similar to those which you can see only in slums in the U.S.
The most expensive and desirable locations in the U.S. are mostly apartments/condos, not single family detached homes. Take New York or San Francisco for example -- hardly slums by most measures (yes there is homelessness, but that's partly a byproduct of just how high the cost of living is).
There's nothing about affluence that requires single family detached homes, that's just a fantasy that's been marketed to us for the past hundred years, and at a huge cost in terms of walkability, time/money/land wasted on traffic and parking, traffic fatalities, etc.
There's nothing about affluence that requires single family detached homes, that's just a fantasy that's been marketed to us for the past hundred years, and at a huge cost in terms of walkability, time/money/land wasted on traffic and parking, traffic fatalities, etc.
Single family detached homes go for $2,000,000 in San Francisco. The condos are less, generally, so I think that says that the most expensive and desirable locations in the U.S. are mostly single family detached homes.
Expensive and desirable locations - sure, but we are speaking of mass society, of everyone - everyone in the U.S. is dependent on cars, not just people in "expensive and desirable locations". These actually have less of that dependence.
This idea have been marketed and for a good reason, it was good way to save U.S. population from Soviet nuclear threat - in a way Coomies could neither counter, nor replicate on their side - when Commies launch their nukes, it's much better if most people find themselves in separate houses with large tracts of land and little combustible materials, and good basements to protect from fallout, and in a few days, can emerge from there and drive their cars in whichever direction civil defense points as safer.
This idea have been marketed and for a good reason, it was good way to save U.S. population from Soviet nuclear threat - in a way Coomies could neither counter, nor replicate on their side - when Commies launch their nukes, it's much better if most people find themselves in separate houses with large tracts of land and little combustible materials, and good basements to protect from fallout, and in a few days, can emerge from there and drive their cars in whichever direction civil defense points as safer.
This is not really a thing; pretty much every hurricane and wildfire evacuation has shown that car infrastructure is extremely bad for evacuation.
If you need to evacuate everyone at once, sure. But they would evacuate gradually over many days from ~4 days to ~2 weeks from the attack, basically as soon as they will become desperate running out of drinkable water (something a house with a heater tank in the attic is also a good thing for).
No public infrastructure will work for that - bus drivers will quickly die of radiation sickness or just refuse to do their work, but for one, one-way trip to save your own ass it's okay.
Essentially, this is why suburbanisation come to being: war planners realized exactly the thing you are pointing out: that evacuating people in a crisis - while the Soviet bombers will be flying (it was before ICBMs) was an impractical idea, it will kill more people than it will save; but what works instead, is to evacuate people in advance: just make them live far from city centers which can be attacked. And redline the city centers: let only people you don't care about surviving, live there.
In 1950s Soviet Union, "workers and peasants" lived in villages and suburbs, these were replaceable anyway and killing them had little benefit. Difficult to replace cadres - engineers, most qualified workers, high ranking military, Party officials and such - lived in posh Stalinist apartments in city centers, and would perish inevitably. In 1950s U.S., it was already other way around. Soviet Union could do nothing about that: they simply couldn't afford an individual house, and thus inevitably, individual car, for everyone - they still can't. It was a clear win and moved a balance in the Cold War a great lot in U.S. favor.
One thing to realize here, it will best of all work if U.S. attacked first - then they choose the timing and attack in late evening in the U.S. when everyone is at home already, are warned, and don't leave their houses in the morning to avoid being caught in road panic, and have some hours to prepare for the Commie attack such as letting go of any combustibles, covering car so it doesn't suck fallout particles in, and stocking water and if possible, food.
No public infrastructure will work for that - bus drivers will quickly die of radiation sickness or just refuse to do their work, but for one, one-way trip to save your own ass it's okay.
Essentially, this is why suburbanisation come to being: war planners realized exactly the thing you are pointing out: that evacuating people in a crisis - while the Soviet bombers will be flying (it was before ICBMs) was an impractical idea, it will kill more people than it will save; but what works instead, is to evacuate people in advance: just make them live far from city centers which can be attacked. And redline the city centers: let only people you don't care about surviving, live there.
In 1950s Soviet Union, "workers and peasants" lived in villages and suburbs, these were replaceable anyway and killing them had little benefit. Difficult to replace cadres - engineers, most qualified workers, high ranking military, Party officials and such - lived in posh Stalinist apartments in city centers, and would perish inevitably. In 1950s U.S., it was already other way around. Soviet Union could do nothing about that: they simply couldn't afford an individual house, and thus inevitably, individual car, for everyone - they still can't. It was a clear win and moved a balance in the Cold War a great lot in U.S. favor.
One thing to realize here, it will best of all work if U.S. attacked first - then they choose the timing and attack in late evening in the U.S. when everyone is at home already, are warned, and don't leave their houses in the morning to avoid being caught in road panic, and have some hours to prepare for the Commie attack such as letting go of any combustibles, covering car so it doesn't suck fallout particles in, and stocking water and if possible, food.
Pripyat had 53,000 people evacuated by bus in one hour.
Hurricane evacuations even a week in advance are horrible by car. Highway infrastructure simply cannot cope with large movements of people in one direction.
Hurricane evacuations even a week in advance are horrible by car. Highway infrastructure simply cannot cope with large movements of people in one direction.
That’s an interesting claim that I haven’t heard before — do you have any sources discussing this that I can read?
A mobile and well-resourced population is a cornerstone of US disaster planning. When a hurricane is comming and an evacuation order given, the assumption is that most americans can drive themselves.
Mass transit is cool, but evacuating an entire modern city on busses isnt viable. (Inter-city rail connections cannot be scaled up in such times.)
Mass transit is cool, but evacuating an entire modern city on busses isnt viable. (Inter-city rail connections cannot be scaled up in such times.)
Makes no sense. You can’t evacuate a full city on cars. It would get clogged all the way. You would want to use the entire bus system. Don’t know why you say it’s not viable, you can scale up passenger/meters much more with buses.
No you can't. The problem is we don't have enough buses to do that. Every mass bus system large enough to have significant people on the bus works on the model of the bus running all day with a large number of people who use it. That is it goes in full, heads back out, and picks up more people before heading back in.
In the evacuation model those buses drive out a day full, and then need to drive a day to get back before they can pick up more people. It just doesn't work. No transit system has enough buses.
That is before we point out that if you have anywhere near that many people served you probably have some rail systems that cannot operate outside their lines (third rail power or overhead electric)
Cars have the advantage of there are enough of them. Note that in most evacuation situations the cars are full. (the roads don't have the capacity, but the cars do)
In the evacuation model those buses drive out a day full, and then need to drive a day to get back before they can pick up more people. It just doesn't work. No transit system has enough buses.
That is before we point out that if you have anywhere near that many people served you probably have some rail systems that cannot operate outside their lines (third rail power or overhead electric)
Cars have the advantage of there are enough of them. Note that in most evacuation situations the cars are full. (the roads don't have the capacity, but the cars do)
It is much easier to stage extra buses near areas that will need rapid evacuation then it is to scale up road infrastructure. There is a fixed limit on howany people can be moved by car out of major metropolitan areas, conversely, most major metropolitan areas are with 12 hours drive of other major metropolitan bus areas which means that well staged buses could easily arrive to rapidly scale evacuation speed. Finally, as car based evacuation reaches it's limit, the rate dramatically decreases, there is no such issue with buses.
It is more complicated than just moving people. Anyone traveling by bus isnt bringing stuff with them. They need shelter. The US evacuation model assumes most people will bring enough with them in thier cars to be self-sustaining for a period of days. The assumption is tgat 90+% of people wont need government help... due to thier independant mobility of people and stuff.
See the recent evac of fort mcmurray canada. That was all cars for hundreds of miles. No hope for busses there.
See the recent evac of fort mcmurray canada. That was all cars for hundreds of miles. No hope for busses there.
What are you suggesting exactly? I don't quite grasp your point
We shouldn't use bus when they are available for evacuation? Why? If we can get all the bus to be used + add bus from other cities nearby, why should we prevent people from using them? This is scaling much better and people with cars are free to leave with their own cars.
"Cars have the advantage of there are enough of them." --Surely not the case in many urban cities.
We shouldn't use bus when they are available for evacuation? Why? If we can get all the bus to be used + add bus from other cities nearby, why should we prevent people from using them? This is scaling much better and people with cars are free to leave with their own cars.
"Cars have the advantage of there are enough of them." --Surely not the case in many urban cities.
I'm suggesting that all the buses in the city, are not enough to make a significant dent in the evacuation needs. This would be the case even if all transit in the city was by bus (no train/subway, and no private cars - obviously this is unrealistic).
Buses also don't work. Disasters are disastrous.
New Orleans had huge numbers of school buses. They went unused and were destroyed by flooding.
You might demand that the government not be incompetent, but the reality is that government will screw up badly. Individuals with cars can screw up, but the effects are limited to the people screwing up.
New Orleans had huge numbers of school buses. They went unused and were destroyed by flooding.
You might demand that the government not be incompetent, but the reality is that government will screw up badly. Individuals with cars can screw up, but the effects are limited to the people screwing up.
Who said anything about "full city"? Most /= all.
The disaster planning argument is a huge red herring. I've yet to see my home city evacuated like you're saying for any reason. Whereas I've spent the last 17 years driving around everywhere for lack of any other options. So it seems to me like disaster planning is something we would have time to think about even if my city replaced all of our cars with trains and buses. So it just doesn't seem very important.
> but we also force most people to live in apartment blocks similar to those which you can see only in slums in the U.S.
I vastly prefer living in my apartment in Europe than living in a house, especially a US house.
Also, putting every family in a separate free-standing house is ridiculous: there is physically no way to achieve that.
I vastly prefer living in my apartment in Europe than living in a house, especially a US house.
Also, putting every family in a separate free-standing house is ridiculous: there is physically no way to achieve that.
Yet, in the U.S. they mostly achieved that. 60% of the population live in separate houses. And yes, living space per capita is 2x-3x the EU level. Would be a no problem at all to put 100% in them, if some didn't live in large cities where it's impossible.
Just the economic and yeah, transportation infrastructure we have in Europe won't support that. It's not even the population density really.
Just the economic and yeah, transportation infrastructure we have in Europe won't support that. It's not even the population density really.
I know this might be a tangent, but separate houses has caused HUGE housing problems. Wealthy homeowners refuse to give up their single family homes near large cities where that space should house 30 families.
Having lived in the US I know what it means to have "mostly achieved that". Gridlocked highways, unwalkable neighborhoods, the requirement of owning and driving a car (at least one car per family, usually 2 or more), and catastrophic CO2 emissions, both from cars, and from the fact that heating free-standing houses is way more expensive than heating apartments that share walls/floors/ceilings.
Until we invent teleportation, putting everyone in their own separate house is unsustainable.
Until we invent teleportation, putting everyone in their own separate house is unsustainable.
Also, those who can't drive become shut-ins. The elderly, sick, infirm, children.
It's hard to see that perspective when you have never seen it. It's funny because I would think that for someone with some knowledge of IT could understand the argument that it just doesn't scale.
For most people, the ideal life is having your yard and be able to drive everywhere with enough lanes on the street to be sure you never hit traffic. Except that ideal situation rarely exists, all the roads are clogged (induced demand!) and having a large house for every person means a big desirable city to work can't scale. Even LA has understood they couldn't keep building highways and needed to densify, it just doesn't scale.
For most people, the ideal life is having your yard and be able to drive everywhere with enough lanes on the street to be sure you never hit traffic. Except that ideal situation rarely exists, all the roads are clogged (induced demand!) and having a large house for every person means a big desirable city to work can't scale. Even LA has understood they couldn't keep building highways and needed to densify, it just doesn't scale.
I got an anecdata as well:
Having lived in a European city I was appalled of how bad the air quality was, how noisy the streets were, how annoying trash collection at 5am was, I had to use a wet mop on the hardwood floor almost on a daily basis to and it was black every day. I had to walk a half a mile to a tiny parklet, always packed with kids as it was the only location in the play. Every morning on the packed subway and street buses. It was awful, I couldn't wait to get back home.
Back home I live in a green environment, trees everywhere, I got my lawn, there are no fences, I forget to close my garage door at night no problem, nothing is ever missing ... I use a wet mop every other week and it is never dirty.
Do you know what generates the CO2 emissions? All that useless junk we buy shipped from all corners of the world. The fix is buying less junk not blaming on someone that happens to want to live in a green environment.
Having lived in a European city I was appalled of how bad the air quality was, how noisy the streets were, how annoying trash collection at 5am was, I had to use a wet mop on the hardwood floor almost on a daily basis to and it was black every day. I had to walk a half a mile to a tiny parklet, always packed with kids as it was the only location in the play. Every morning on the packed subway and street buses. It was awful, I couldn't wait to get back home.
Back home I live in a green environment, trees everywhere, I got my lawn, there are no fences, I forget to close my garage door at night no problem, nothing is ever missing ... I use a wet mop every other week and it is never dirty.
Do you know what generates the CO2 emissions? All that useless junk we buy shipped from all corners of the world. The fix is buying less junk not blaming on someone that happens to want to live in a green environment.
The funny thing is that this has all been measured. Shipping emissions are nowhere near what they are for personal vehicle transportation. On top of that, all suburbs still require shipping in an even more unsustainable way (you need a truck to go around the neighbourhood for hours instead of having a single truck that can fulfill a single condo tower).
I know it's hard to be criticized for your lifestyle, but please do your research, suburbans lifestyle is nowhere near sustainable. That's not anecdata, that's data.
I know it's hard to be criticized for your lifestyle, but please do your research, suburbans lifestyle is nowhere near sustainable. That's not anecdata, that's data.
Honestly, it is not so obviously better to have hundreds of tiny stores in each neighborhood, stocked every day rather than going out doing grocery shopping once(!) a week! I am sure there is a tradeoff there - the many delivery trucks suffocating the same space they are supposed to serve.
I don't actually live in the suburbs, just a small town that looks like a suburb, and I also lived in European style cities hence I understand the attractiveness of a suburb. It is a different lifestyle and you can't "fix" the suburbs with the wrong kind of arguments - "you my friend suck for wanting to live there" Find a suburb looking place in Europe and check the prices ... now think about it, do Europeans assign value to that?
The vast majority of cities do not even remotely look like some of the elite and lucky European cities that are built on the many advantages they got from (not looking for a flamewar here) but exploiting other nations (the behavior is in the past, but the advantages remain and accumulate), all I am saying is that it cannot be a model for <insert eastern european city here>.
If anything the clean, quiet, well kept European city is non-sustainable and non-replicate-able as a global model. We need to fix the problems of the suburbs but not by imposing a model that cannot work.
The global city model is a far less livable.
I don't actually live in the suburbs, just a small town that looks like a suburb, and I also lived in European style cities hence I understand the attractiveness of a suburb. It is a different lifestyle and you can't "fix" the suburbs with the wrong kind of arguments - "you my friend suck for wanting to live there" Find a suburb looking place in Europe and check the prices ... now think about it, do Europeans assign value to that?
The vast majority of cities do not even remotely look like some of the elite and lucky European cities that are built on the many advantages they got from (not looking for a flamewar here) but exploiting other nations (the behavior is in the past, but the advantages remain and accumulate), all I am saying is that it cannot be a model for <insert eastern european city here>.
If anything the clean, quiet, well kept European city is non-sustainable and non-replicate-able as a global model. We need to fix the problems of the suburbs but not by imposing a model that cannot work.
The global city model is a far less livable.
I will throw in here that apartments in Germany I have seen or lived in are mostly nicer and have better construction quality than apartment complexes in even nice and high priced US regions (E.g., Texas, California). Hardly slums.
It's pretty offensive to compare average European housing with a slum.
A counterargument is that both highways and trains benefit from economies of scale. If you gave highways 1.8 billion in subsidies and Amtrak 75 billion, I would expect the miles per dollar of subsidy to look substantially better for Amtrak than they do now, and worse for roads.
That said, I suspect we overinvest in both subsidies because of romantic ideas and status quo bias.
That said, I suspect we overinvest in both subsidies because of romantic ideas and status quo bias.
I’m sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that we over invest in rail/Amtrak? Public transit is far more capable of commuting more people in a shorter period of time than roads.
What we really need is far more subsidies in urban and dense suburban areas. The problem is that with our bifurcated political system in the US the people who make up less than 50% of the population outside the cities will block investment in the cities because they will feel like they’re not getting equal investment.
What we really need is far more subsidies in urban and dense suburban areas. The problem is that with our bifurcated political system in the US the people who make up less than 50% of the population outside the cities will block investment in the cities because they will feel like they’re not getting equal investment.
Have you ever actually taken Amtrak? Outside of the North East Corridor (which, at 125mph max is still glacial by EUropean standards) Amtrak is way slower than driving - and that's assuming it directly connects to where you want to go, which, against, outside of the North East, it doesn't.
This did not used to be the case. The mid-century expansion of the highway system coincided with massive disinvestment in the rail system, which had carried the country out of international backwater-dom. Many of this country's small and medium-sized towns would not exist without the now-defunct, often-demolished train stations that they used to be built around or nearby (including my hometown).
[deleted]
AmTrak is primarily slower because all commercial freight has priority on the pitiful amount of track we have in the US (the NW/West coast routes are what I know best) so passenger trains have to regularly sit around waiting for freight traffic to pass. Other than that, travel times are about equal to cars, which is pretty amazing given how awful our rail infrastructure is.
Edit: grammar
Edit: grammar
I think everyone has heard this claim from Amtrak. Anyone who has actually caught Amtrak has seen the gigantic inefficiency’s (the ridiculous boarding process, ancient trains). I’ve been stuck behind freight traffic on Amtrak, but only after we were already running late and had stopped for random “signaling” issues.
If Amtrak want to prove it’s the freight traffic causing the slowness they should quantify how many otherwise ontime routes are delayed by freight.
If Amtrak want to prove it’s the freight traffic causing the slowness they should quantify how many otherwise ontime routes are delayed by freight.
I have ridden a fairly large amount of Amtrak. I have never seen the boarding process cause a delay. I find the boarding process to be much preferable to airplanes.
"Signaling issues" usually means traffic and sometimes means under-invested infrastructure. There is no question that the slowness of Amtrak is directly related to underinvestment.
"Signaling issues" usually means traffic and sometimes means under-invested infrastructure. There is no question that the slowness of Amtrak is directly related to underinvestment.
>I have ridden a fairly large amount of Amtrak. I have never seen the boarding process cause a delay. I find the boarding process to be much preferable to airplanes.
Same here. I frequently ride between Boston and New York. In New York, I've seen over 200+ people leave the train and another 200+ board the train, especially on Sunday evenings. The whole process takes < 15 minutes.
Same here. I frequently ride between Boston and New York. In New York, I've seen over 200+ people leave the train and another 200+ board the train, especially on Sunday evenings. The whole process takes < 15 minutes.
Boarding is heaven compared to flying. No security theater, no ridiculous parking issues. I used to ride from Rhode Island to DC, and I could literally arrive 10 minutes before my departure time, grab my bags, lock my car, walk 100 feet to the platform, and still make the train. The trip took most of the day, but now that cell service is no longer an issue, it's possible to spend the entire ride relaxing or getting work done.
And I can't believe no one has talked about how much better the seating is than any other form of long distance travel in the US.
And I can't believe no one has talked about how much better the seating is than any other form of long distance travel in the US.
I recently traveled from BOS<->NYC for business. I left my office an hour before scheduled departure and walked 30 minutes to Penn Station. A slightly different experience than getting to Newark/La Guardia/JFK. As a bonus, I was returning on short notice, so I was able to easily change to an earlier train 10 minutes before it departed, with no extra fee.
At the end of the return trip, I overheard a group of four other travelers saying that they got so much work done, they should just ride the train back and forth every day.
Seat and ride comfort are totally different as well. To me, it's well worth trading in some time for a much better travel experience. I've had a year where I logged close to 50k air miles in coach and over 10k train miles in coach, so I've seen the good and bad of both modes of travel (on and off the NEC for the trains).
For the long distance trains, I consider the time it takes to travel one of the benefits. In today's highly connected, highly active world, I find having 24 hours to simply look out the window and be alone with my thoughts to be incredibly rejuvenating.
At the end of the return trip, I overheard a group of four other travelers saying that they got so much work done, they should just ride the train back and forth every day.
Seat and ride comfort are totally different as well. To me, it's well worth trading in some time for a much better travel experience. I've had a year where I logged close to 50k air miles in coach and over 10k train miles in coach, so I've seen the good and bad of both modes of travel (on and off the NEC for the trains).
For the long distance trains, I consider the time it takes to travel one of the benefits. In today's highly connected, highly active world, I find having 24 hours to simply look out the window and be alone with my thoughts to be incredibly rejuvenating.
Signals on the lines are also owned and maintained by freight railroads, because outside the NEC literally the only thing Amtrak owns is the trains themselves.
I think the various state departments of transportation that Amtrak serves own quite a bit of the equipment as well.
> the ridiculous boarding process
What's the boarding process over there? In Europe you just .. enter the train.
What's the boarding process over there? In Europe you just .. enter the train.
Same as the US.
Wait in a central waiting hall until the train arrives, at which time a big screen shows what platform the train is on. Then you and everyone else rush to be first to get to the single escalator going down to the platform.
A conductor checks your ticket at the top of the escalator. That's how it works in NY. It's also approximately how it works in China, unfortunately (though their stations put Penn Station to shame in almost every other way).
That’s because there isn’t room on the platforms under Penn Station. And it’s very common in Europe not to announce the platform until 10 minutes or so before. What Amtrak could do though is have actual reserved seats on their all reserved trains.
It depends on where you are in Europe. In Germany and Switzerland, the platform is announced up to a year in advance, and you can go and wait there for your train. Sometimes you can even buy a coffee directly on the platform while you're waiting.
Furthermore, most tickets have assigned seating so there's no race. Also tickets are inspected when the train is moving, not on the platforms.
the trips I take between Seattle and Vancouver are regularly 1h+ late due to sitting for 30min a few times waiting for freight
I also arrive and get onto the train in ~5min. getting off in Canada is slow though
I also arrive and get onto the train in ~5min. getting off in Canada is slow though
49 U.S. Code § 24308 says "Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing unless the Board orders otherwise under this subsection" [0]
In practicality, I agree with you that freight lines abuse this without consequence.
[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308
In practicality, I agree with you that freight lines abuse this without consequence.
[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308
Ha, I never knew! Thank you for the citation. I have taken hundreds if train rides from Portland to Seattle, and sat waiting for freight trains to pass, or for a passenger train that was late due to freight traffic, nearly as many times.
Agreed - I used to take NY to Baltimore a few times a month. Typically I had a few co workers with me. So let’s do the math: if we shared a car and left at 8:30, we’d spend .. what $30 in tolls round trip? Another $50 in gas..one of us would drive and the other two could take calls or work on their computer. If we took Amtrak, we’d have to add an extra half hour to get the station and park, each one of us would spend $150 in round trip tickets, another $20 each in parking, etc and we’d be shushed the whole way down so calls were out and half the time the internet didn’t work. If it’s just one person going alone, I can see the case because you can actually focus on work... but ironically the more people in your party the worse the benefit of rail gets.
I've done the NYC to DC train numerous times. Penn Station (no parking, take the subway), hop onto the Acela, grab a 4 top. Now me and my coworkers can chat on the way to DC and work on our laptops with shoddy WiFi. There's no shushing unless you are in the quiet car, which you shouldn't do if you are expecting to have a working commute. This is much better than a car - can't work on your laptop unless you enjoy motion sickness. Or taking a flight - now you have real costs of time because of security and commute. Big fan of Amtrak in the NE corridor. Better than driving or flying for business trips.
There is more productivity by having four coworkers sit together on a train and travel together than to have people in a car. Psychologically it’s easier for most to work on a train then a car, even if it’s a perfectly fine medium for you. Those time and financial costs are minimal when compared to the productivity you create by working together uninterrupted on the train.
If I were a manager I would ban driving and insist on trains (if the work would benefit from the added collaboration)
If I were a manager I would ban driving and insist on trains (if the work would benefit from the added collaboration)
This has been my frustration in Ontario trying to use VIA for family trips. Once you have two adults and a couple kids, the train is significantly more expensive than just driving, and only faster than the absolute worst case traffic conditions.
It's even worse for long-haul. I have family along the Canadian route (Toronto -> Vancouver), and taking the overnight sleeper train out there is about 4x the cost of flying.
It's even worse for long-haul. I have family along the Canadian route (Toronto -> Vancouver), and taking the overnight sleeper train out there is about 4x the cost of flying.
Yeah long haul on Amtrak also has this annoying feature where connecting trains are often 1 day apart because the connecting train left an hour before the arriving train gets there. And forget about the cost. I’m about to fly to the west coast on frontier for $75/RT... go price that on Amtrak.. I’m guessing $400-$600 ... and easily 4-5 days of travel. We’ve also looked into NY to Orlando because you can bring your car... you might as well buy a car down there! I get the romance of rail travel - I’ve done Chicago to Minneapolis and LA to Santa Barbara.. it’s beautiful. But wildly impractical.
Well and in some ways the branding for it even leans into that, with promotions more akin to what you'd expect from a cruise line than from a transportation company.
I mean, maybe that's just the obvious path given what they're working with in terms of cost structure, but it's still annoying.
I mean, maybe that's just the obvious path given what they're working with in terms of cost structure, but it's still annoying.
You're discounting the San Diego - Los Angeles Pacific Surfliner route. It connects many cities in Southern California and is often faster than driving with traffic congestion as it is, and a useful commuter rail in its own right.
Unless your final destination is Union Station, downtown San Diego or some other place that happens to be very proximate to the various stations in between, using the Surfliner still requires you to use another form of transport like ridesharing to get where you’re going.
Southern California is very spread out and still organized around private automobiles.
Southern California is very spread out and still organized around private automobiles.
Union Station in LA directly connects to several subway, light rail, and commuter rail lines. There are lots of places it's still not convenient to get to, but it's way better than it was 20 years ago, and at least a few million people live within the area that's easy to connect. For example you can easily get to/from Pasadena or Hollywood.
And on the San Diego end, Santa Fe depot connects to all 3 light rail lines as well as most of the major bus routes in the city. Once the Blue Line extension opens in 2021, you'll be able to get off Amtrak at Old Town and be in the center of the UCSD campus in 15 minutes.
San Diegans tend to have a bit of a defeatist attitude toward transit, and there are plenty of suburban areas where transit is bad, but there are also many places where transit is a reasonable option.
San Diegans tend to have a bit of a defeatist attitude toward transit, and there are plenty of suburban areas where transit is bad, but there are also many places where transit is a reasonable option.
Also, not to mention SANDAG is proposing to drastically expand the existing public transit system with commuter rail and other modes of transit along major commuting corridors, even going so far as to divert funds historically used for (with, we can say now, disappointing results) highway expansion.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/transportation/sto...
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/transportation/sto...
I used to take the number 2 bus to work in downtown SD every day. It was fantastic: frequent, comfortable, quick, and a nice mix of passengers!
As someone who’s lived in LA for 4 years now without a car, I think it’s a trap that we’ve all fallen into to assume SoCal was fundamentally designed exclusively for the car. While, yes, automobiles have dominated the regional planning conversation from the 1960s up until very recently (LA and neighboring cities are finally taking public transit planning seriously), up until the 50s Los Angeles had one of the world’s largest streetcar and interurban train systems in the world. The city was, quite literally, built by and for transit — even its far-flung suburbs, like the town of Huntington Beach or Claremont, were built and developed as terminuses to train lines (and the train line to Claremont, on the very eastern edge of LA County, still exists in the form of the MetroLink).
There’s been some serious sprawl since then, yes, but at its heart Los Angeles is a city that is conducive — not contradictory — to public transit. And I think our planning decisions will only get more effective once we, as a region, realize that.
https://usp100la.weebly.com/history-of-transportation.html (scroll down for a map — and note that this doesn’t include the downtown/central LA streetcar system, which essentially covered every other block in downtown LA)
There’s been some serious sprawl since then, yes, but at its heart Los Angeles is a city that is conducive — not contradictory — to public transit. And I think our planning decisions will only get more effective once we, as a region, realize that.
https://usp100la.weebly.com/history-of-transportation.html (scroll down for a map — and note that this doesn’t include the downtown/central LA streetcar system, which essentially covered every other block in downtown LA)
Very true, though "another form of transport" includes bikes, which you can bring on the train.
Then again, it's basically legal to use your car to kill cyclists in the states, especially in socal, which is why I gave it up.
Then again, it's basically legal to use your car to kill cyclists in the states, especially in socal, which is why I gave it up.
I took the train from Dearborn, MI to Chicago in 2010, figuring I could work on the train and use the additional two hours of travel time versus the 4 hours and change driving.
It took 10 hours. Could've gone to Chicago, turned around and headed home, and still had time to grab dinner. That was enough to turn me off to long-distance train travel. All these years later I'm curious again, but still very dubious.
It took 10 hours. Could've gone to Chicago, turned around and headed home, and still had time to grab dinner. That was enough to turn me off to long-distance train travel. All these years later I'm curious again, but still very dubious.
Has not gotten faster. Train travel is still limited to those who have time and patience for it
There are some short-line commuter rails that are absolutely worth it. Some of them are even run by Amtrak. That does not outweigh the general statement, but I do want to point out that rail is not a universal failure in the US.
That's why the push for true high speed rail in the US is so important. Amtrak would need a massive budget increase to make it happen.
We have high speed airplanes. Why not make airports and the TSA theater better instead? Airplanes don’t require maintaining thousands of miles of track — or buying up land to put it on. Capitol-centric countries like France do well with trains because Paris is the center of the country in terms of commerce and population, but the US has much lower population density. Who really wants to take a train from Chicago to Los Angeles other than tourists? If we cite China as a counter example, one ought not forget that most trains in China are slow and the population doesn’t have much money. Long distance trains are a 19th century affliction. We should be looking up and not down.
Who really wants to take a train from Chicago to Los Angeles other than tourists?
Pretty much no one. But Chicago to St. Louis? Or Chicago to Minneapolis? Or Charlotte to Atlanta? Or Dallas to Houston? Or LA to San Francisco? Etc/etc? Lots of people. That's here high-speed rail investment helps. High-speed planes are fine, until it snows in Chicago, or thunderstorms in Atlanta, or high winds in Denver and then the whole national air system gets screwed up. Alternatives are good.
Pretty much no one. But Chicago to St. Louis? Or Chicago to Minneapolis? Or Charlotte to Atlanta? Or Dallas to Houston? Or LA to San Francisco? Etc/etc? Lots of people. That's here high-speed rail investment helps. High-speed planes are fine, until it snows in Chicago, or thunderstorms in Atlanta, or high winds in Denver and then the whole national air system gets screwed up. Alternatives are good.
There are certainly city pairs where it would make sense, if the rail lines were to be built for free by some genie.
But if you add up all the people who want to travel between Chicago and St Louis in a year, and then multiply by the hour-ish that they might be able to save by catching a high speed train instead of driving, and then divide by the tens of billions that such a railway line would cost to build and maintain, then... is it really a sensible use of funds per man-hour saved?
But if you add up all the people who want to travel between Chicago and St Louis in a year, and then multiply by the hour-ish that they might be able to save by catching a high speed train instead of driving, and then divide by the tens of billions that such a railway line would cost to build and maintain, then... is it really a sensible use of funds per man-hour saved?
Not so obvious that it isn't.
How many hours are spent stuck in traffic? How much loss is that to society.
Perhaps people would start moving closer along the rail lines, now that frees up land from sprawl. Etc. The same rail line could carry goods (fewer trucks on the road). The rail line could be electrified, now pollution will be down and so on.
Billions of dollars is not all that expensive. The US is a rich country. First time realized this when I saw a small town with 30K population easily built a new high school for 150 million USD - compared to that, the "billions" does not sound all that big if it reconfigures the economy at that extent.
How many hours are spent stuck in traffic? How much loss is that to society.
Perhaps people would start moving closer along the rail lines, now that frees up land from sprawl. Etc. The same rail line could carry goods (fewer trucks on the road). The rail line could be electrified, now pollution will be down and so on.
Billions of dollars is not all that expensive. The US is a rich country. First time realized this when I saw a small town with 30K population easily built a new high school for 150 million USD - compared to that, the "billions" does not sound all that big if it reconfigures the economy at that extent.
Yes. Because each one going in one car, specially in a american's very popular gas wasting cars is not only super ineffective in terms of energy and costs per trip but also extremely bad for the environment.
Also, you make a good high speed railway, and the demand will appear. In my coutry also nobody used the train, untill they were modernized, suddenly the word started to spread that it was nice, and now too many people ride the trains and we need more.
Also, you make a good high speed railway, and the demand will appear. In my coutry also nobody used the train, untill they were modernized, suddenly the word started to spread that it was nice, and now too many people ride the trains and we need more.
Air travel contributes greatly to climate change. When we are talking about High-speed rail in the US, no one is really talking about cross country trips like Chicago to LA. They are talking about regional trips like LA to SF or DC to NYC. Ideas like maglev or even the hyperloop are what I consider to be "looking up"
Airplanes generate an extreme amount of pollution, its not going to be a sustainable source of travel soon i think.
Used to take the train from Orlando to South Florida (Ft Lauderdale) it cost as much as me driving but me not driving is a convenience I appreciated. It takes 3 hours to drive. It takes Amtrak on a good day 6 hours to get me there. On one holiday date I took 12 hours.
How does Greyhound compare to that?
Never really took Greyhound. I just drive now that I dont go alone. It was only reasonable as a one person trip for me.
Generally cheaper than the train. Might or might not be faster depending on how many stops they have to make where you don't want to be. (they have to leave the freeway and travel to their stop which can eat a lot of time going places you don't care to be) Also depends on specific conditions of traffic, though in most cases the bus can detour around problems easier than the train.
Just noting that every time I'm stuck crawling down 80 from SFO to Sacramento I regret not being on the lovely, quick, and pleasant Capital Corridor which zips from San Jose to Sacramento and joins BART at Richmond and Oakland.
For what it's worth, on the Acela, there are a few areas where it exceeds 150mph.
Even in the Northeast corridor, Amtrak is often no faster than driving. Acela between NY and Boston is about 3.5 hours, which is barely faster than driving.
As was briefly touched on in the article, the real benefit would be integrating and enabling sister cities (e.g. ~100 km mark around major cities).
Regular, daily train service would revitalize and open up a lot of smaller communities.
Precisely as major cities are grappling with housing and affordability issues.
Regular, daily train service would revitalize and open up a lot of smaller communities.
Precisely as major cities are grappling with housing and affordability issues.
Short run regional doesn’t have to be Amtrak’s mandate when there are plenty of feeder lines like NJT and Septa able to step in. The problem is not rail vs road. The problem is that rail becomes a sinkhole for public fantasyland spending. Take for example the article cites how Amtrak got stuck with the bill for hurricane sandy infrastructure repairs never mind its legacy of bailing out Passenger rail service in the 70s. God only knows it would have gotten the ultimate bill for California’s insane rail project when it failed. The issue is there aren’t enough controls to keep out of control allocations, spending and let’s just call it what it is: corruption, greed and graft, from entering the system. This idea that we can’t build roads cost effectively while we can build rail is simply preposterous - Acela was predicated on the idea that twenty years ago Amtrak could figure out how to develop high speed rail and yet Acela beats the regular line by ten minutes between dc and ny and that’s largely due to fewer stops. I’m sorry to be a downer but I have zero confidence in a national rail initiative. If metros and regions want to improve commuter times great but there’s just nearly zero rationale to build more Amtrak infrastructure.
Those cities are "grappling" with problems of their own creation by decades of NIMBY zoning and investment policy. We should have more and better rail infrastructure but part of that in terms of commute is insuring that the stations service enough patrons to justify building them. Low density sprawl quarter acre stick houses dotting miles of windy lane and a half road without sidewalk connected by 4 lane boulevards are ill fit to benefit from a rail station even just a few miles away. The opponents of urban development would just decry such projects as wastes of money when ridership doesn't compare well to European and Asian contemporaries because everything beyond the station is so poorly planned.
The solution to the urban housing crisis was, continues to be, and will be until its done the building of more housing. A lot more. Density, at every price. Without mandated parking, without vertical clearance limits, without per-unit size limits, without the ability for NIMBYs to stall out or shut down expansion efforts for their own personal gain. Nothing else will cure the ailment - all else is just treating the wound.
The solution to the urban housing crisis was, continues to be, and will be until its done the building of more housing. A lot more. Density, at every price. Without mandated parking, without vertical clearance limits, without per-unit size limits, without the ability for NIMBYs to stall out or shut down expansion efforts for their own personal gain. Nothing else will cure the ailment - all else is just treating the wound.
Your part of the country may be different, but the major cities (typically rail hubs) in mine have fairly dense towns at regular intervals along the tracks leading out of the city.
Unfortunately, for the past century the larger cities have been steadily sucking their population and talent away. Hub and spoke rail systems are an excellent way to revitalize these towns and encourage population balancing.
Because not everyone wants to live in a Singaporean econobox.
Traditionally, the limitation on this has been weakness / corruption of local government vs the major freight railroads.
Amtrak, with proper Congressional support, could play an interesting part in reopening existing rail to passenger traffic.
Unfortunately, for the past century the larger cities have been steadily sucking their population and talent away. Hub and spoke rail systems are an excellent way to revitalize these towns and encourage population balancing.
Because not everyone wants to live in a Singaporean econobox.
Traditionally, the limitation on this has been weakness / corruption of local government vs the major freight railroads.
Amtrak, with proper Congressional support, could play an interesting part in reopening existing rail to passenger traffic.
Not sure why you think rail cannot service suburbs. I grew up 20 miles outside of Chicago in the suburbs and and we had a train station in the middle of town. Furthest you could be from the train station and still be in the town was about a mile.
We desperately need more investment in regional mass transit. That's not the market Amtrak serves. I'm not convinced we need to invest more on inter-city passenger trains. Of the most popular city pairs for flights, probably only Los Angels <-> Las Vegas makes sense for a rail trip, but LA is so sprawling and lacking in regional mass transit that getting to any train station would probably take away any advantage.
Dallas to Houston is, I believe, the most popular short-haul flight route in the US (maybe SF-LA beats it, but it's up there), and the geography/distance makes so much sense for a high speed rail that a private company, Texas Central, has secured private capital and is working with the government to bring a Japanese-style Shinkansen to Texas. The station locations have already been secured in downtown Dallas and Houston, and groundbreaking is tentatively set for next year.
A 90 minute train ride connecting Texas' largest two cities? Compared to the 4hr trip a car takes or ~2hr for a plane (factoring in security)? At a (tentative) price point of ~two tanks of gas?
I'm optimistic that it won't only be a commercial success, but also that it will convince people (and politicians) that a HSR-network is in the public's best interest, even for routes that don't necessarily make sense from a commercial (private) perspective.
https://www.texascentral.com/
A 90 minute train ride connecting Texas' largest two cities? Compared to the 4hr trip a car takes or ~2hr for a plane (factoring in security)? At a (tentative) price point of ~two tanks of gas?
I'm optimistic that it won't only be a commercial success, but also that it will convince people (and politicians) that a HSR-network is in the public's best interest, even for routes that don't necessarily make sense from a commercial (private) perspective.
https://www.texascentral.com/
At almost 400 miles, I wouldn't consider SF to LA really short haul. That's almost double Houston-Dallas.
Didn’t see it on the list I checked of ten busiest routes, but this is good info, thanks.
To the contrary, regional mass transit is the only thing Amtrak does that is profitable. Depending on how you define region, of course.
As population grows, train speeds increase, and road traffic worsens, we may need to rethink what we consider a "region."
As population grows, train speeds increase, and road traffic worsens, we may need to rethink what we consider a "region."
I don’t see commuter rail speeds increasing much in the US. If the LIRR, Metro North, and Jersey Transit could have effective speeds (i.e. station to station) of even 60 miles an hour it would be a game changer for the US’ largest and most economically important metro area.
Alas, that’s a pipe dream, much less bringing New Haven or Philadelphia into the reasonable commuting radius which is what I suspect you are alluding to.
Alas, that’s a pipe dream, much less bringing New Haven or Philadelphia into the reasonable commuting radius which is what I suspect you are alluding to.
I'm a West-Coaster so am not sure why that would be so impossible a task. What stops us in the Bay Area is heavy diesel trains and lots of stops with no passing tracks, and I understand we're working on fixing all of those issues, slowly though we may progress.
I keep hoping we'll get SLC <-> LA via Las Vegas. We have commuter rail from SLC down about 100 miles, and there are some fairly popular destinations along that route that could benefit from train access (lots of National and State parks, St. George is a popular retirement and vacation destination, etc).
But to be viable, it has to be competitive with airline travel, and that means fast trains. It currently costs more to go from SLC <-> SF than by airplane, and it takes a full day (18 hours or so, I forget exactly) to get there vs 2 hours or so by airplane and 10 hours by car. If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph), it would be competitive with airlines if you take into account security and baggage on both ends. I know I would take Amtrak if that were the case, but for now, I'm only going to take it as a vacation in itself.
There are a lot of companies in CA that have offices in Utah now, so improving the train system between them may make sense if they can get speeds to be reasonable.
But to be viable, it has to be competitive with airline travel, and that means fast trains. It currently costs more to go from SLC <-> SF than by airplane, and it takes a full day (18 hours or so, I forget exactly) to get there vs 2 hours or so by airplane and 10 hours by car. If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph), it would be competitive with airlines if you take into account security and baggage on both ends. I know I would take Amtrak if that were the case, but for now, I'm only going to take it as a vacation in itself.
There are a lot of companies in CA that have offices in Utah now, so improving the train system between them may make sense if they can get speeds to be reasonable.
> If it was 4-6 hours (120-200mph)
So, you're either blasting a giant gap in the Sierras, blasting a giant tunnel under the Sierras, or have some novel HSR technology that'll run over the Sierras.
For a much less useful route, it'll probably be more expensive than the actual full proposed CA HSR system.
So, you're either blasting a giant gap in the Sierras, blasting a giant tunnel under the Sierras, or have some novel HSR technology that'll run over the Sierras.
For a much less useful route, it'll probably be more expensive than the actual full proposed CA HSR system.
Not saying it is worth it, but I did want to point out a massive tunnel below mountains has been done before[1]. The Gotthard tunnel train below the Alps cost about $12 billion to tunnel about 35 miles. Pretty awesome engineering.
For reference, the LA<->SFO train was last estimated about $75-100 billion to complete before it was canceled. Of course, there's almost no way anyone could build such a train tunnel in the USA for the same price as they did in Switzerland.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
For reference, the LA<->SFO train was last estimated about $75-100 billion to complete before it was canceled. Of course, there's almost no way anyone could build such a train tunnel in the USA for the same price as they did in Switzerland.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
Public transit is not the same as Amtrak. A fair accounting for Amtrak has to compare to the bus alternative. I suspect Amtrak is pretty efficient in the NE corridor (at 4x the ticket price of buses) due to density, and loses a lot on the long hauls cross country and the rest of the coasts.
Also, on the side, remember that non-city dwellers get massive subsidies from city dwellers for their cost ineffective lifestyles. One can argue that this is justified to support the people working in critical agriculture and industry that can't be moved to the cities and we want low sticker prices on, but it's a much hard case to make for suburb dwellers.
Also, on the side, remember that non-city dwellers get massive subsidies from city dwellers for their cost ineffective lifestyles. One can argue that this is justified to support the people working in critical agriculture and industry that can't be moved to the cities and we want low sticker prices on, but it's a much hard case to make for suburb dwellers.
Amtrak is a complete joke where I live. Plane tickets are much cheaper, which is absurd. I’d love to ride a train to visit other cities but I can’t unless I’m some sort of masochist. I live within walking distance of an Amtrak stop too.
Planes are cheaper in a lot of Europe too.
I live near SLC Utah, and to get to SF, I'd pay around the same as an airline ticket for coach, but the trip would take 18 hours. If I wanted a sleeper cabin, it costs 2x an coach flight ticket. And this is for 2 tickets, 6 months in advance, which I think has a hefty discount vs individual tickets, especially closer to the trip time. The only way it's cheaper is if I get the "saver" fare, which is a little cheaper, but has no refund if my plans change.
I would be happy to pay that if the travel time was better, but it's almost 2x longer than driving and not much cheaper than driving (it's actually more expensive if I'm bringing kids along).
Trains were supposed to be more efficient than airlines, so why is taking Amtrak essentially the same price as flying?
I would be happy to pay that if the travel time was better, but it's almost 2x longer than driving and not much cheaper than driving (it's actually more expensive if I'm bringing kids along).
Trains were supposed to be more efficient than airlines, so why is taking Amtrak essentially the same price as flying?
There is a somewhat competitive market for air travel. Amtrak protects rail freight from any interference from passenger rail. Which isn't a terrible idea, because rail freight is great, but I feel that completely killing any sort of market is going too far. Some sort of competition in passenger rail could really improve life in USA.
Where is the evidence that suburb dwellers are subsidized by city dwellers? The South Bay is a giant sprawling suburb and brings in significantly more tax money than it receives.
That article doesn’t say anything about city dwellers supporting unsustainable suburban lifestyles. Mortgage insurance deductions are available to city dwellers as well. FHA loans do very little to support the insanely high house prices in places like Palo Alto and Sunnyvale.
> Public transit is far more capable of commuting more people in a shorter period of time than roads.
Assuming you live close to a station and don’t have to carry anything with you. It’s a fools errand to expect a country the size of the US to have stations that connect everything. We also have extensive and ubiquitous air infrastructure as well for long distance travel and airplanes can be rerouted based on demand a lot more easily than fixed rail infrastructure. If there is a big event in some city or town, it’s fairly trivial to add flights, but it’s impossible to add more tracks. Airplanes can better handle seasonal traffic. For commuter traffic, rail can be more efficient, assuming point A to point B. As soon as you need a point C and point D (such as taking kids to karate practice or visiting your aunt Sally, trains become far more painful.
Assuming you live close to a station and don’t have to carry anything with you. It’s a fools errand to expect a country the size of the US to have stations that connect everything. We also have extensive and ubiquitous air infrastructure as well for long distance travel and airplanes can be rerouted based on demand a lot more easily than fixed rail infrastructure. If there is a big event in some city or town, it’s fairly trivial to add flights, but it’s impossible to add more tracks. Airplanes can better handle seasonal traffic. For commuter traffic, rail can be more efficient, assuming point A to point B. As soon as you need a point C and point D (such as taking kids to karate practice or visiting your aunt Sally, trains become far more painful.
UserIsUnused(1)
> What we really need is far more subsidies in urban and dense suburban areas. The problem is that with our bifurcated political system in the US the people who make up less than 50% of the population outside the cities will block investment in the cities because they will feel like they’re not getting equal investment.
Cities and metro areas have plenty of taxing authority at their disposal. If they want to institute additional taxes to fund these types of things then they could.
Why should people living in rural areas have to pay for it?
Cities and metro areas have plenty of taxing authority at their disposal. If they want to institute additional taxes to fund these types of things then they could.
Why should people living in rural areas have to pay for it?
As if the net flow of funds from the federal government is rural areas paying for city services and not entirely the other way around
Because rural voters hate the idea of taxes at all and so when given the option they will literally vote to ban metro areas from taxing themselves as they just did in WA.
Why should rural voters pay for a city's transport system? At least city people do drive the rural roads between cities. (though I will agree they are overbuilt - but rural residents would be happy with cheap gravel roads they can afford)
> rural residents would be happy with cheap gravel roads they can afford
doubt it. regardless, federal government revenue goes disproportionately towards funding rural services and welfare, including many services that city residents don't use at all. federal funding of a city's transport system would still not shift that balance.
regardless, you missed the point of the parent comment.
doubt it. regardless, federal government revenue goes disproportionately towards funding rural services and welfare, including many services that city residents don't use at all. federal funding of a city's transport system would still not shift that balance.
regardless, you missed the point of the parent comment.
I think you missed the point. These rural voters have passed an initiative that bans a metro area from taxing the metro area to build transit.
also a common phenomena with gun laws and abortion
If you cut funding to highways for a year it's not like traffic would go down. If you resurfaced every interstate at once, it's not like people are going to be buying brand new cars with magic new disposable income. At a certain point, the global demand on the roads is a fixed number. Induced demand might kick in locally, but that involves people who already have cars waiting out traffic.
That's only because highways cover the country like a fishermans net. Capacity and connectivity are massive for roads. Locally it might back up, but average the capacity of every road in the U.S., and it can probably handle the population of earth. Imagine if that were the case for high speed trains, it would be borderline idiotic to drive.
It seems like recently transit agencies are finally working to improve options for commuters beyond the road network. Simple fixes, needing only a can of paint and a traffic cop enforcing law and order, like bike lanes and buss lanes can be done practically overnight in many urban areas.
LA metro has studies done for hundreds of transit corridors involving bus lanes, BRT, LRT, and HRT. The only barrier seems to be political will, not the engineering. I'm sure this is the case for most large cities, so if we ever get an administration that would prioritize funding transit projects on a federal level, as was done a century ago, we could see a transit explosion.
That's only because highways cover the country like a fishermans net. Capacity and connectivity are massive for roads. Locally it might back up, but average the capacity of every road in the U.S., and it can probably handle the population of earth. Imagine if that were the case for high speed trains, it would be borderline idiotic to drive.
It seems like recently transit agencies are finally working to improve options for commuters beyond the road network. Simple fixes, needing only a can of paint and a traffic cop enforcing law and order, like bike lanes and buss lanes can be done practically overnight in many urban areas.
LA metro has studies done for hundreds of transit corridors involving bus lanes, BRT, LRT, and HRT. The only barrier seems to be political will, not the engineering. I'm sure this is the case for most large cities, so if we ever get an administration that would prioritize funding transit projects on a federal level, as was done a century ago, we could see a transit explosion.
If you cut funding for highways for a decade or two and instead build lots of rail the story is very different. Demand for roads is not constant at all.
That money is better spent on roads. How much bang could Amtrak get for even $75 billion?
California's high speed rail was cancelled after its projected cost topped $77 billion. And that was for just one line between two cities.
I suggest we fold in the cost of traffic accidents and fatalities, which have been estimated at almost a trillion dollars. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/motor-vehicle-crashes-u-...
When you do that, suddenly the tables flip and driving is way behind.
When you do that, suddenly the tables flip and driving is way behind.
Your numbers are orders of magnitude too low. $75B is just national highways. There are millions of miles of road, and even the cheapest local road is like $4k/mi. Interstates are about $28k, and everything else is in the middle.
Amtrak is a speck on the federal budget. It’s a worthwhile investment if only to keep the rights of way open for the future
Amtrak is a speck on the federal budget. It’s a worthwhile investment if only to keep the rights of way open for the future
The rights are $0 of that budget
Amtrak doesn't compete with local roads, it competes with interstates.
Amtrak doesn't compete with local roads, it competes with interstates.
That's one way to look at it. Roads are part of an overall system. You need to look at transit holistically -- how do trains, busses, etc impact the overall mix of trips.
With respect to the rights of way, an asset unused goes away. That is a big reason why car companies bought out streetcar lines to kill them. I live in an area (Albany, NY) which was a big transit driven place until the postwar era. The New York Central, Delaware & Hudson and various streetcar/trolley lines had all sorts of rights of way connecting various communities in a relatively small area.
That stuff is all gone, converted to roads, parks and subdivisions.
For an entity like Amtrak, the rights they have in major cities are worth billions, but in reality are priceless. Without operating service, that value would diminish to near zero very quickly.
With respect to the rights of way, an asset unused goes away. That is a big reason why car companies bought out streetcar lines to kill them. I live in an area (Albany, NY) which was a big transit driven place until the postwar era. The New York Central, Delaware & Hudson and various streetcar/trolley lines had all sorts of rights of way connecting various communities in a relatively small area.
That stuff is all gone, converted to roads, parks and subdivisions.
For an entity like Amtrak, the rights they have in major cities are worth billions, but in reality are priceless. Without operating service, that value would diminish to near zero very quickly.
But interstates only make sense because of local roads. If local roads didn't connect to the interstates, then we can discount them from the equation.
Personally, I think people should be paying more for using the roads. From what I can tell, most states' use related taxes (gas taxes, registration taxes, etc) account for less than half of total road funding. This makes driving artificially cheap compared to mass transit options, to the point where it's often cheaper to drive than to take a bus or train, which is absolutely ridiculous. For example, my commute is ~10 miles, and the IRS claims this costs me $5 (~$0.50/mile). I did some math and estimate that my costs are closer to $0.30/mile, probably less (insurance, registration, gas, maintenance). A bus ticket is $2.50 each way. The bus takes >40 minutes assuming I ride my bike there, >60 minutes if I walk, and driving takes ~20 minutes.
Assuming my state funds roads ~50% with income taxes, switching this over to purely use-based taxes (gas and registration taxes) would likely double my driving costs, making mass transit make sense financially, as it should. It certainly uses less resources to take the bus than drive, so it should also be cheaper. Yet it doesn't look that way according to my calculations.
Also, taking Amtrak is often more expensive than taking an airplane, even if direct routes exist, and it takes way longer. Amtrak should be way cheaper than flying, yet at best it's a wash, but usually way more expensive. We need faster, cheaper trains, and trips within 800 miles should be competitive with airlines (<6 hours, about the same price or cheaper than flights).
Personally, I think people should be paying more for using the roads. From what I can tell, most states' use related taxes (gas taxes, registration taxes, etc) account for less than half of total road funding. This makes driving artificially cheap compared to mass transit options, to the point where it's often cheaper to drive than to take a bus or train, which is absolutely ridiculous. For example, my commute is ~10 miles, and the IRS claims this costs me $5 (~$0.50/mile). I did some math and estimate that my costs are closer to $0.30/mile, probably less (insurance, registration, gas, maintenance). A bus ticket is $2.50 each way. The bus takes >40 minutes assuming I ride my bike there, >60 minutes if I walk, and driving takes ~20 minutes.
Assuming my state funds roads ~50% with income taxes, switching this over to purely use-based taxes (gas and registration taxes) would likely double my driving costs, making mass transit make sense financially, as it should. It certainly uses less resources to take the bus than drive, so it should also be cheaper. Yet it doesn't look that way according to my calculations.
Also, taking Amtrak is often more expensive than taking an airplane, even if direct routes exist, and it takes way longer. Amtrak should be way cheaper than flying, yet at best it's a wash, but usually way more expensive. We need faster, cheaper trains, and trips within 800 miles should be competitive with airlines (<6 hours, about the same price or cheaper than flights).
> It certainly uses less resources to take the bus than drive
In terms of road maintenance, that might actually not be the case. Road destruction by traffic scales with the fourth power of axle load, for weak pavement surfaces and heavy loads with the sixth (!) power of axle load.
(Of course you are right with respect to traffic congestion, CO2 emissions, particulate pollution and noise pollution.)
In terms of road maintenance, that might actually not be the case. Road destruction by traffic scales with the fourth power of axle load, for weak pavement surfaces and heavy loads with the sixth (!) power of axle load.
(Of course you are right with respect to traffic congestion, CO2 emissions, particulate pollution and noise pollution.)
Most states have too many roads and not enough money to even pay for the ones they have. Another second over negative effect of roads is that people will build wherever there are decent roads to get there. In order to preserve natural areas, the best way to do so is to just make sure there are no good ways to get there.
Are you including the combined local, state, and federal subsidies for roadways? Are you considering the implicit subsidies to automobile infrastructure such as "free" curbside parking, and the ones that are offloaded onto the private sector, such as mandatory minimum parking requirements. Or zoning and urban planning that explicitly seek to structure society around cars.
Glad you mentioned the externalities of pollution that people are allowed to create without penalty, but are you also considering that CO2 is hardly the only thing to worry about. Air pollution is a major cause of neurological illnesses, since auto exhaust is neurotoxic, as is non-exhaust pollution from brake pads and tires.
Glad you mentioned the externalities of pollution that people are allowed to create without penalty, but are you also considering that CO2 is hardly the only thing to worry about. Air pollution is a major cause of neurological illnesses, since auto exhaust is neurotoxic, as is non-exhaust pollution from brake pads and tires.
What do the numbers look like if you include the cost of cars? Trains are paid for by the transit authority, but cars are not. Regardless, someone still pays.
That's a good question, but you also have to take into account that passengers also pay transit fares, which can sometimes cost as much as a car. I expect that mass transit would still be significantly cheaper for most people though, if there was a proper mass transit network in place.
Well, then there's car insurance and gas.
Despite being a huge fan of public transit, I actually think the efficiency numbers would probably still come out in favor of cars, in America, in the near term. Our country has been car focused for a hundred years and the assumption of car travel is baked into the way our cities (and especially suburbs) are designed. There would need to be years of shifting urban planning before mass transit really won everywhere.
Despite being a huge fan of public transit, I actually think the efficiency numbers would probably still come out in favor of cars, in America, in the near term. Our country has been car focused for a hundred years and the assumption of car travel is baked into the way our cities (and especially suburbs) are designed. There would need to be years of shifting urban planning before mass transit really won everywhere.
>but you also have to take into account that passengers also pay transit fares
But that's part of why he excluded expenditures covered by the gas tax on the road comparison, you'd want to add that back in if you are adding in fares.
But that's part of why he excluded expenditures covered by the gas tax on the road comparison, you'd want to add that back in if you are adding in fares.
Amtrak is long haul, not "mass transit network", outside of the NE corridor which is a very special case in Amtrak.
Having a cheap enough car and expensive enough transit bill to exceed it is an extreme statistical outlier. I saw this as an owner of a cheap car and an expensive commuter rail pass.
Having a cheap enough car and expensive enough transit bill to exceed it is an extreme statistical outlier. I saw this as an owner of a cheap car and an expensive commuter rail pass.
While that isn't a good question, it isn't always valid. Once someone has a car, most of the costs are already sunk. You pay for the car and insurance even when it is sitting at home. The variable costs of a car are very low, so when comparing a car you already have to transit the incremental costs of taking the car are tiny. Transit looks even worse when you have a family and notice that the variable costs of taking the car don't change why the costs of transit go up per family member.
The only time your question matters is if/when the transit system is useful enough that someone can actually consider selling a car. I sold my car to ride the bus to work. However the one week my wife's car was in the shop convinced us that we won't be doing without a car anytime soon. (We often take trips that are 5 minutes by car that were 55 minutes by bus! Then there is the annoyance of the one time we missed the bus)
The only time your question matters is if/when the transit system is useful enough that someone can actually consider selling a car. I sold my car to ride the bus to work. However the one week my wife's car was in the shop convinced us that we won't be doing without a car anytime soon. (We often take trips that are 5 minutes by car that were 55 minutes by bus! Then there is the annoyance of the one time we missed the bus)
> Trains are paid for by the transit authority
Trains are paid for by riders in the form of fares and taxpayers in the form of subsidies.
Trains are paid for by riders in the form of fares and taxpayers in the form of subsidies.
Source on those 3 trillion passenger miles being on exclusively federally-funded highways? That sounds horribly off, pretty sure you're referring to total passenger miles for cars across all road types, which would then have to take into account subsidies at the local and state levels.
This has total vehicle miles at 1.4 trillion in 2017, having around 2 occupants per vehicle on average sounds about right: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193007/vehicle-miles-tra...
This has total vehicle miles at 1.4 trillion in 2017, having around 2 occupants per vehicle on average sounds about right: https://www.statista.com/statistics/193007/vehicle-miles-tra...
But is each vehicle-mile equally important as an Amtrak-mile to the economy? It could be that each mile on Amtrak is 10× more important to the economy than each mile driven. (I have no idea whether this is true; I just don't think it's obvious that there's parity.)
I think the burden of proof is on you here. It seems like such an unlikely claim as to be outlandish. I'd max out such a claim at 5x (assuming that each car has 4 useless passengers), which is obviously extreme already. 10x seems ludicrous.
I'd go even further and say that vehicle miles are more valuable than train miles because vehicle miles generally head exactly where you want to go without detours, without time-consuming stops and without a fixed schedule. A fairly direct line of travel, no unnecessary stops and ability to depart at any time make vehicle miles much more valuable.
For some very very specific routes, train miles may be more valuable, but generally speaking they are less valuable.
For some very very specific routes, train miles may be more valuable, but generally speaking they are less valuable.
> vehicle miles generally head exactly where you want to go without detours, without time-consuming stops...
Bwahahaha. _Someone_ on this thread is clearly not driving in enough rush-hour traffic. ;-)
Bwahahaha. _Someone_ on this thread is clearly not driving in enough rush-hour traffic. ;-)
You're missing many other ways how we (America) subside driving I.E. how much of our armed forces (especially the Navy) have been built out and utilized post WWII to ensure a steady stream of oil.
On a side note, that would be an interesting PhD dissertation - figuring out the actual cost of America's car-centric lifestyle broken down locally, state and nationally.
On a side note, that would be an interesting PhD dissertation - figuring out the actual cost of America's car-centric lifestyle broken down locally, state and nationally.
Some good news for you then: the US no longer needs a navy to ensure a steady stream of oil for itself.
The combination of the US and Canada has been producing all the oil the combination needs for a year or 2 now. Everyone in the industry says it is only a matter of time before the US will be able to produce all the oil the US needs. Whether that happens next year or 5 years from now depends on pricing and production decisions made by the OPEC producers.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 8 or 10 years the US will be in a position to guarantee a steady supply of oil to one of its strategic partners: the UK or Japan, say.
But this has thread has gotten off track because like grandparent already pointed out, Amtrak run on oil, too. I suppose your reply to that is that it is easier to convert Amtrak to renewables than to convert the highway system to renewables
The combination of the US and Canada has been producing all the oil the combination needs for a year or 2 now. Everyone in the industry says it is only a matter of time before the US will be able to produce all the oil the US needs. Whether that happens next year or 5 years from now depends on pricing and production decisions made by the OPEC producers.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 8 or 10 years the US will be in a position to guarantee a steady supply of oil to one of its strategic partners: the UK or Japan, say.
But this has thread has gotten off track because like grandparent already pointed out, Amtrak run on oil, too. I suppose your reply to that is that it is easier to convert Amtrak to renewables than to convert the highway system to renewables
> Some good news for you then: the US no longer needs a navy to ensure a steady stream of oil. The combination of the US and Canada has been producing all the oil the combination needs for a year or 2 now.
There's more to it than that.
first, oil is a commodity product traded around the world, so, say, if Indonesian (offshore) oilfields go offline, china will simply buy from the saudis, which will drive up the price of Saudi oil and encourage US producers to export instead. Now rising price encourages local production, but most of it can't be switched on and off in a instant.
And in fact they already both import and export; for example tar sands "oil" from Canada is removed with a shovel, not a pipe. Refining it is very expensive (and energy demanding) so only gets mined when the price of oil is high enough to justify it. Currently the US exports about as much oil as it imports.
Lots of great stats on this topic from the Energy Information Administration (though some of the important statistics stopped being collected last year, alas). Here is the petroleum import & export page: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
There's more to it than that.
first, oil is a commodity product traded around the world, so, say, if Indonesian (offshore) oilfields go offline, china will simply buy from the saudis, which will drive up the price of Saudi oil and encourage US producers to export instead. Now rising price encourages local production, but most of it can't be switched on and off in a instant.
And in fact they already both import and export; for example tar sands "oil" from Canada is removed with a shovel, not a pipe. Refining it is very expensive (and energy demanding) so only gets mined when the price of oil is high enough to justify it. Currently the US exports about as much oil as it imports.
Lots of great stats on this topic from the Energy Information Administration (though some of the important statistics stopped being collected last year, alas). Here is the petroleum import & export page: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
What you write is relevant to the price of oil, which is a tangent from what we were talking about, namely, ensuring a supply of oil in chaotic circumstances, e.g., closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is itself a tangent from the original topic of Amtrak versus highways (since as GGGP already pointed out, Amtrak runs on oil, too).
But OK, let's talk about price. There's probably a 100 years worth of 'tight' oil just in Texas that can be produced for the price oil currently sells for. In other words, the cost of fracking that oil has decreased a lot. (And that oil is easier to refine than the stuff that comes from Saudi Arabia.)
But OK, let's talk about price. There's probably a 100 years worth of 'tight' oil just in Texas that can be produced for the price oil currently sells for. In other words, the cost of fracking that oil has decreased a lot. (And that oil is easier to refine than the stuff that comes from Saudi Arabia.)
> "I suppose your reply to that is that it is easier to convert Amtrak to renewables than to convert the highway system to renewables"
It's probably the other way around. The highways (ie: cars and trucks) will gradually convert to electric in the coming decades as the vehicle fleet is replaced and old equipment is retired.
On the other hand, electrifying long-distance rail requires a lot of very expensive infrastructure investment. Battery electric technology may mean that cost comes down, however (perhaps you only need wires on intermittent sections of track).
It's probably the other way around. The highways (ie: cars and trucks) will gradually convert to electric in the coming decades as the vehicle fleet is replaced and old equipment is retired.
On the other hand, electrifying long-distance rail requires a lot of very expensive infrastructure investment. Battery electric technology may mean that cost comes down, however (perhaps you only need wires on intermittent sections of track).
Trains are one of the few applications where hydrogen fuel cells make more sense that batteries, or so I've heard.
Not to mention that drivers are the leading cause of death for kids in the US, and we've completely blinded ourselves to this public health emergency.
" 3 trillion passenger miles "
But many of those miles were necessitated by the astoundingly large footprint cities and towns have when they're built to accommodate highways.
But many of those miles were necessitated by the astoundingly large footprint cities and towns have when they're built to accommodate highways.
Does it matter?
When the answer necessitates completely redesigning every major city in the country, I'm not sure the question is valid in the first place.
When the answer necessitates completely redesigning every major city in the country, I'm not sure the question is valid in the first place.
Yes, because if we're comparing the merits of one system to the other it's important to remember the goal is to move people and things where they want to be, not maximize people-miles.
And we already redesigned every city in the country, so clearly it's an option.
And we already redesigned every city in the country, so clearly it's an option.
Amtrak subsidies are highway subsidies. Without Amtrak, a good chunk of those passengers would be in single-occupancy autos traveling on highways. It only takes a small increase (1% to 5% depending on the specific highway) to go from level-of-service C to LOS F (basically congested, but flowing traffic to stop-and-go traffic), but keeping those passengers off roads, interstate traffic is reduced.
that's not what subsidies mean.
I wonder what happens if you throw in the amount of money people spend on cars, insurance, and gas. You're counting maintenance and fuel for Amtrak, but not for roads.
What is the total spent per person-mile of travel?
What is the total spent per person-mile of travel?
Based on the content of this comment, it looks like you're comparing rail and highway passenger miles only. The major use of rail in the US is not passenger service, but freight. Freight is also obviously common on the highways. My only point is that the comparison of these things is more complex than just looking at passenger miles.
And yet, I still think we need to subsidize Amtrak more. Perhaps a lot more so it could at least begin to electrify those railways and put some electric locomotives in service. What's up with this mid-century diesel bullshit they're running now?
Amtrak runs on electricity in the NE corridor. Please explain your plan to electrify thousands of miles of long haul low usage rail.
For the price of one small war in the Middle East, we could have nuclear locomotives and trains 10 miles long, hauling goods for basically nothing.
One derail away from mass nuclear accident.
train passengers don't need to buy a car to ride on a train. the 50x vs 500x argument should consider that.
This is a tendentious, statist philosophy of infrastructure. America's freight railroads are private infrastructure. They are a paragon of excellence and efficiency, the envy of the world, and they do a damn fine job of turning a profit and being a multiplier at the same time.
If infrastructure is really such a multiplier, people should be able pay for it from the multiples they earn, and the infrastructure owners will turn a profit. This means that more infrastructure gets built, and higher multipliers achieved, until the multiplier is not so big, and they stop. (This is a state where owners earn an accounting profit, but not what the economists call an "economic" profit, that is, it's not any more money than you could make investing anywhere else.)
This is how the price mechanism works, and how the pursuit of profit in a market works, and why capitalism is actually good at making things happen. The alternatives to using the pricing mechanism generally leave you underprovisioning infrastructure (leaving these potential profits on the table), or overprovisioning infrastructure (wasting money), or in a state where people overuse infrastructure in wasteful ways (see the nation's road system, which is very good at connecting things -- but socializing its construction and access has led to ridiculous traffic jams in many cities, and many segments that are heavily accessed by trucks charge extra for the wear and tear through the use of tolls.)
Are there obstacles to realizing this capitalist utopia of efficiency in practice? Yes. Definitely, lots of them, and especially for network-y infrastructure like railroads. Is state intervention warranted sometimes? Yes. Is abandoning the pricing mechanism entirely, because multipliers exist, the only thing to do? No. And even when it is, it is a fraught endeavor. Among other things, the people who benefit are not the same as the people who pay, and the transfers involved can be unfair.
If infrastructure is really such a multiplier, people should be able pay for it from the multiples they earn, and the infrastructure owners will turn a profit. This means that more infrastructure gets built, and higher multipliers achieved, until the multiplier is not so big, and they stop. (This is a state where owners earn an accounting profit, but not what the economists call an "economic" profit, that is, it's not any more money than you could make investing anywhere else.)
This is how the price mechanism works, and how the pursuit of profit in a market works, and why capitalism is actually good at making things happen. The alternatives to using the pricing mechanism generally leave you underprovisioning infrastructure (leaving these potential profits on the table), or overprovisioning infrastructure (wasting money), or in a state where people overuse infrastructure in wasteful ways (see the nation's road system, which is very good at connecting things -- but socializing its construction and access has led to ridiculous traffic jams in many cities, and many segments that are heavily accessed by trucks charge extra for the wear and tear through the use of tolls.)
Are there obstacles to realizing this capitalist utopia of efficiency in practice? Yes. Definitely, lots of them, and especially for network-y infrastructure like railroads. Is state intervention warranted sometimes? Yes. Is abandoning the pricing mechanism entirely, because multipliers exist, the only thing to do? No. And even when it is, it is a fraught endeavor. Among other things, the people who benefit are not the same as the people who pay, and the transfers involved can be unfair.
> If infrastructure is really such a multiplier, people should be able pay for it from the multiples they earn, and the infrastructure owners will turn a profit.
Let's say a good quality rail link from Town X to some big center of employment has the following effects:
* Raises attorney Alice's salary from $150,000 to $175,000
* Raises barista Bob's salary from $23,000 to $28,000
* Raises retiree Clive's home price from $300,000 to $400,000 although he'll never set foot on a train himself.
* Allows business-owner Doris to fill a specialist job that previously she hadn't been able to fill, indirectly leading to a better product and improved sales in ways that are hard to quantify, but are probably several times that employee's salary.
Which of those should the rail link owners capture, and how would you propose they do so?
The challenge of for-profit infrastructure is, even if you choose ticket prices to capture 50% of Bob's benefit, you only capture 10% of Alice's benefit, and ~0% of Clive and Doris's benefits.
Let's say a good quality rail link from Town X to some big center of employment has the following effects:
* Raises attorney Alice's salary from $150,000 to $175,000
* Raises barista Bob's salary from $23,000 to $28,000
* Raises retiree Clive's home price from $300,000 to $400,000 although he'll never set foot on a train himself.
* Allows business-owner Doris to fill a specialist job that previously she hadn't been able to fill, indirectly leading to a better product and improved sales in ways that are hard to quantify, but are probably several times that employee's salary.
Which of those should the rail link owners capture, and how would you propose they do so?
The challenge of for-profit infrastructure is, even if you choose ticket prices to capture 50% of Bob's benefit, you only capture 10% of Alice's benefit, and ~0% of Clive and Doris's benefits.
Exactly this, the interstate wasn't built for profit - and the importance of interstates for US economy can't be understated.
More recently, China have managed to build more high speed rail network than the rest of the world, and served it at loss. As I understand and having personally rode it, the effect of such transportation option to both the economy and personal convenience can be said to rival that of the interstate.
More recently, China have managed to build more high speed rail network than the rest of the world, and served it at loss. As I understand and having personally rode it, the effect of such transportation option to both the economy and personal convenience can be said to rival that of the interstate.
The government doesn't own the rail, it does own the roads.
[deleted]
You could argue that roads ought to be fully funded according to use and therefore turn a profit. Something like a value-added tax. Just about every other essential business turns economic value into profit-- if Amtrak services were so valuable the business could raise its prices and people would pony up. But its services just aren't that much value-added and passengers have plenty of alternatives. Namely, buses.
Catch 22. If you underinvest in rail, you end up with trains slower than bus, which makes them a bad option. If you actually invest in rail, you end up in a situation where the rail is faster than bus and has less externality on the environment
Worse: if you underinvest, you end up with an unreliable and cost-inefficient train service that becomes ever more difficult to support politically. Which is exactly what we're seeing in this thread, good news from Amtrak notwithstanding.
This is a common libertarian argument. And I think it'd be very interesting to see in practice. I live in a state with many toll highways and people complain about the cost. But those highways are well maintained. And they complain about the potholes on the free roads. So I think it's more of an issue of people wanting everything for nothing.
One problem with a private road system is that roads take up space and prevent people from using that space for something else. I think that property tax on road surface area would be prohibitively expensive if a private entity were to own it.
Another problem is that building or expanding a road through an already populated area basically requires eminent domain.
One problem with a private road system is that roads take up space and prevent people from using that space for something else. I think that property tax on road surface area would be prohibitively expensive if a private entity were to own it.
Another problem is that building or expanding a road through an already populated area basically requires eminent domain.
As strange as it is, the average person has many an opinion on roads and road maintenance, but very little understanding of the costs involved and where the money comes from. Also, I agree that everyone does want everything for nothing and complain vociferously if those free things are taken away.
Roads would still be built and planned by governments. But privately owned. See Highway 407 in Toronto, which was "sold" (100 year lease) to generate revenue.
Highway 407 is a great example of what for profit highway systems look like: high prices, dynamic pricing, tons of hidden fees. Prices per mile are something like $0.80-1.00USD (for passenger cars), not including a few bucks in fees. When I traveled to Toronto for work, my bill per trip on the 407 was at around $50USD. This was in around 2014 and I imagine that prices have gone up a lot since then.
According to wikipedia, for each dollar collected by the 407, $0.21 goes to maintenance, and $0.79 to profits ($0.66 are paid out in dividends). The 407 collects $1.3 billion dollars annually with double-digit annual growth.
Private roads are economically unsustainable and serve only to leech wealth from society.
According to wikipedia, for each dollar collected by the 407, $0.21 goes to maintenance, and $0.79 to profits ($0.66 are paid out in dividends). The 407 collects $1.3 billion dollars annually with double-digit annual growth.
Private roads are economically unsustainable and serve only to leech wealth from society.
Private ownership should be the product of private development in my opinion. Especially when what you'd be doing is granting a monopoly over a public asset.
We should never privatize profits deriving from public investment.
We should never privatize profits deriving from public investment.
The free market works best with lots of competition. Roads by their nature don't have that.
What happens when a company buys both routes between town A and town B? What free market forces are going to drive down prices?
What happens when a company buys both routes between town A and town B? What free market forces are going to drive down prices?
I do not agree in the least. Roads should be publicly owned and maintained. Private corporations will always seek to squeeze every last drop of money out of commuters because they are effectively a monopoly, especially on very long chunks of highways.
I didn't say I agree with that position. I think it's a terrible one, and the government that sold the 407 was incredibly misguided. But that's how it would work.
And also, tolls are a regressive tax.
Any subsidization of transportation requiring costs such as an automobile, insurance, licensing, and gas are also regressive; making a great argument that tolls should fund public transit (but with opportunity that that goes towards busses, rideshares etc in the private sphere too)
Outside of speherical cows on infinite planes, Amtrak can't collect payments for the positive externalities it creates for the communities it serves.
Which are? Having ridden on buses and Amtrak, buses go to the same places and more, cheaper, faster, with more available times, and keeping on schedule (the NE corridor may be faster and on schedule, I'm not in that part of the country-- but that would be the exception). There may be a small pollution difference but its probably negligible.
Amtrak absolutely can. Simply by raising their prices.
The iPhone revolutionized mobile phones and greatly expanded the interconnectivity of the world. And yet nobody is demanding that the general public should subsidize Apple.
The iPhone revolutionized mobile phones and greatly expanded the interconnectivity of the world. And yet nobody is demanding that the general public should subsidize Apple.
They should be dropping prices, not raising them, at least for longer trips. It costs about the same to take Amtrak vs an airplane for a direct connection 750 miles away, which is ridiculous because it should be far cheaper to run a train at 60mph than an airplane at 400+mph per passenger, and trains can carry far more people than airplanes. They also need to be way faster (120mph at least, ideally faster than that) to be a reasonable alternative to airlines.
The only way Amtrak gets to raise rates is if it drastically improves service.
The only way Amtrak gets to raise rates is if it drastically improves service.
Trains need infrastructure all 750 miles of that trip. Airplanes need infrastructure only at each end of the trip. Thus airplanes are cheaper to run very long distances.
Mass transit can both be profitable and a multiplier (just like any other set of goods and services). See Japan: excellent train systems that are private and profitable.
> yet we still rightly consider roads as being worth it.
You correctly point out a double standard, but perhaps it’s worth a bit of thought before choosing which way we want to resolve the double standard.
You correctly point out a double standard, but perhaps it’s worth a bit of thought before choosing which way we want to resolve the double standard.
It is remarkable that so few across many countries in the world see the strength of that argument for healthcare.
Healthcare fundamentally, aside from its intrinsic value, additionally, is perhaps the most ‘potent multiplier for economic gains’ in the wider economy.
Shame it’s often treated as a burden.
Healthcare fundamentally, aside from its intrinsic value, additionally, is perhaps the most ‘potent multiplier for economic gains’ in the wider economy.
Shame it’s often treated as a burden.
Anything is a multiplier by this line of logic.
Good jobs lead to surplus income, which leads to higher quality food, which leads to better health, which is a.. multiplier!
More product distribution centres leads to shorter commute times, which leads to less traffic and lower consumer prices, which are both multipliers!
Good jobs lead to surplus income, which leads to higher quality food, which leads to better health, which is a.. multiplier!
More product distribution centres leads to shorter commute times, which leads to less traffic and lower consumer prices, which are both multipliers!
> It's worth pointing out that the intent of transportation infrastructure isn't to turn a profit
It's also worth pointing out that transportation systems that do turn a profit are generally healthy and run well. It is difficult to turn a profit on a poorly run system.
> Expecting a profit is completely missing the point
On the contrary, expecting a profit is expecting excellence, which we should absolutely do. There is no reason not to have high standards and high expectations.
It's also worth pointing out that transportation systems that do turn a profit are generally healthy and run well. It is difficult to turn a profit on a poorly run system.
> Expecting a profit is completely missing the point
On the contrary, expecting a profit is expecting excellence, which we should absolutely do. There is no reason not to have high standards and high expectations.
Computing is a multiplier, as is communication, etc.. That doesn't mean that providers thereof are exempt from the realities of business, the need to watch expenses and creatively respond to change and competition.
I suppose if Intel had been nationalized then they would be loss-making and we would be hearing about how taxpayers should feel good about subsidizing their losses.
I suppose if Intel had been nationalized then they would be loss-making and we would be hearing about how taxpayers should feel good about subsidizing their losses.
It’s a false equivalence though, rails and roads (and the internet) are like arteries, you can have redundant arteries but it’s wasteful. So free market economics no longer apply.
It also leads to natural monopolies.
It also leads to natural monopolies.
Because it's a natural monopoly, they cannot be expected to break even, and therefore deserve taxpayer subsidies?
A utility monopoly is different than a profit-seeking one. If Amtrak became exclusively profit-seeking, it might raise prices dramatically cut unprofitable routes (say, to poorer towns), etc. Those things might increase profits but undermine the economic benefit that was being provided.
I expect that if they did raise prices dramatically, they would lose buisness to roads. This suggests that they are not, in fact, a monopoly.
There's a whole slew of what are effectively network-effect activities (including VC), often with a risk-based element and/or winner-take-all dynamics, in which we have come to expect "tent-pole" successes to bolster numerous indirectly-profitable ventures.
Film, television, publishing, and music are classic examples of this. A huge and often unrecognised role that the gatekeepers play (studios, distribution companies, broadcast and cable networks, presses, recording labels) is to assume risk on the part of individual ventures. VC operates on a similar logic, where of ten efforts, 1 hit and 2-3 merely profitable ones account for another 6-7 failures. (I suspect the actual success rate is much lower, with increasingly decadal megahits seeming prevalent.)
Those are time-based bets.
In geographic networks -- canals, railroads, highways, air travel, telegraph (often co-tenant with railroad rights of way -- 19th century maps of each are fascinating), telephone, electricity, even water, oil, gas, and other pipeline networks -- a few major success/concentration points support numerous others. Transit systems in particular seem to go through an evolution of private venture to public-subsidy, to wholly-publicly-owned.
Though it's more complex than even that.
Postal subsidies played a massive role in supporting rail and early air transport. Through the mid-1960s, the US Post Office ran mail-sorting cars on trains where mail was sorted en route. The introduction of Zone Instant Postal Codes, better known as ZIP Codes, as well as pre-sorted mail, allowed for routing at origin (or regional) postal hubs, rather than in transit. The loss of this subsidy proved fatal to trains.
Many city transit systems -- bus and streetcar -- were cooperative ventures serving factory and office employers, retailers, and real estate developers, more than the actual daily riders of the systems. It was the creation of a viable transport link between locations that induced the resultant value of those locations.
In the Chicago region, a network of electric-powered commuter rail systems emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not only the above dynamic came into play, but these transit links created new linear bands of viable "bedroom community" suburbs surrounding the urban core. Transit times from 30 miles out were less than an hour, shorter than today's commutes.
Construction of highways (notably the Eisenhower Expressway) lead to a sudden collapse in 1956.
https://www.american-rails.com/aurora.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Aurora_and_Elgin_Railr...
Rural electric and telephone service have long been at best marginally profitable, and development of infrastructure (as well as considerable generating and mainline distribution) were enabled through rural electric and telephone cooperatives, supported by surcharges on urban/suburban service.
Private enterprise enjoys cherry-picking profitable areas/regions for operation. Reality is that a functional country and economy require some level of subsidy.
The gyrations of PG&E over the past two decades may be preamble to a transfer to public (state) control of electricity services in California, possibly elsewhere. This may be a more general trend in such services: originating as private operators, shifting to government services over time.
Film, television, publishing, and music are classic examples of this. A huge and often unrecognised role that the gatekeepers play (studios, distribution companies, broadcast and cable networks, presses, recording labels) is to assume risk on the part of individual ventures. VC operates on a similar logic, where of ten efforts, 1 hit and 2-3 merely profitable ones account for another 6-7 failures. (I suspect the actual success rate is much lower, with increasingly decadal megahits seeming prevalent.)
Those are time-based bets.
In geographic networks -- canals, railroads, highways, air travel, telegraph (often co-tenant with railroad rights of way -- 19th century maps of each are fascinating), telephone, electricity, even water, oil, gas, and other pipeline networks -- a few major success/concentration points support numerous others. Transit systems in particular seem to go through an evolution of private venture to public-subsidy, to wholly-publicly-owned.
Though it's more complex than even that.
Postal subsidies played a massive role in supporting rail and early air transport. Through the mid-1960s, the US Post Office ran mail-sorting cars on trains where mail was sorted en route. The introduction of Zone Instant Postal Codes, better known as ZIP Codes, as well as pre-sorted mail, allowed for routing at origin (or regional) postal hubs, rather than in transit. The loss of this subsidy proved fatal to trains.
Many city transit systems -- bus and streetcar -- were cooperative ventures serving factory and office employers, retailers, and real estate developers, more than the actual daily riders of the systems. It was the creation of a viable transport link between locations that induced the resultant value of those locations.
In the Chicago region, a network of electric-powered commuter rail systems emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not only the above dynamic came into play, but these transit links created new linear bands of viable "bedroom community" suburbs surrounding the urban core. Transit times from 30 miles out were less than an hour, shorter than today's commutes.
Construction of highways (notably the Eisenhower Expressway) lead to a sudden collapse in 1956.
https://www.american-rails.com/aurora.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Aurora_and_Elgin_Railr...
Rural electric and telephone service have long been at best marginally profitable, and development of infrastructure (as well as considerable generating and mainline distribution) were enabled through rural electric and telephone cooperatives, supported by surcharges on urban/suburban service.
Private enterprise enjoys cherry-picking profitable areas/regions for operation. Reality is that a functional country and economy require some level of subsidy.
The gyrations of PG&E over the past two decades may be preamble to a transfer to public (state) control of electricity services in California, possibly elsewhere. This may be a more general trend in such services: originating as private operators, shifting to government services over time.
Profits are nice though in that they will finally allow Amtrak to invest in more services and maintaining/upgrading the network, because that money is not coming from Congress any time soon.
Amtrak isn’t infrastructure though. It is a “business” that operates on rail infrastructure. Rail is treated like highways by the real businesses that actually make money using it.
> the intent of transportation infrastructure isn't to turn a profit
If you listen to some activists and look at the budget, you'd think that the intent of AmTrak is to lose as much money as possible without arousing suspicion.
There's a big difference between not turning a consistent profit and losing more money than it could possibly save us. If the point was really to serve as transportation that can compete with the automobile at the point of sale (so that it would actually take cars off the road), or in terms of speed (increasing the economic output of passengers), most AmTrak lines and railcar-miles fail that test.
If you listen to some activists and look at the budget, you'd think that the intent of AmTrak is to lose as much money as possible without arousing suspicion.
There's a big difference between not turning a consistent profit and losing more money than it could possibly save us. If the point was really to serve as transportation that can compete with the automobile at the point of sale (so that it would actually take cars off the road), or in terms of speed (increasing the economic output of passengers), most AmTrak lines and railcar-miles fail that test.
The intent of Amtrak was to take the burden of passenger rail off the private railroads, lose money for a few years, and then quietly shut down. It's long been in a political gray area, just popular enough that the government wouldn't dare close it, but not popular enough to be funded and managed like "real" modes of transportation. So it's stuck in the '70s and probably always will be.
> but to be a potent multiplier for economic gains in other segments of the economy.
Why can't the same logic be applied to power and telecommunication?
Why can't the same logic be applied to power and telecommunication?
Do you have a source for the statement that 'there's barely a road in the entire country that's turned a profit' ?
It'd be great if profit was the goal, but limit the source, by legislation, to only increasing rider hapiness.
Transportion is no more a multplier than any other economic resource. Every single economic resource generates positive externalities, and benefits to the direct consumer that can incentivize payments for consumption of the economic resource.
The only reason we provide transportation through public funding is that it enables us to overcome the problems that arise from private capture of natural monopolies.
The only reason we provide transportation through public funding is that it enables us to overcome the problems that arise from private capture of natural monopolies.
I'd argue that all businesses should be reinvesting profits (into growth, research, etc).
This only works for certain types of businesses (which are, for some reason, particularly well-positioned to take advantage of the additional investment). Most long-established businesses should pay me my dividend, I can decide where to invest it without their management’s help.
Transportation is an enabler or economic activity. Your point is correct. That being said, there is an obligation to ensure there is fiscal responsibility in its construction. The 2nd Ave subway line comes to mind.
Amtrak looks even less successful if viewed as an economic multiplier.
It is a lie.
Counting subsidies from eighteen states as revenue does not make you profitable and Amtrak does exactly that. Plus they have such a huge backlog of repairs and maintenance so any "profit" claims are meaningless when you keep putting off maintaining your system and cars. However they make sure where the most noise is where the most investment goes.
Plus fleet age is a real problem[0] and requires billions of investment to bring that up to date
I love trains as much as the next person but Amtrak isn't profitable and they don't strive for actual profits because they know they are protected.
[0]https://www.bts.gov/content/age-and-availability-amtrak-loco...
Counting subsidies from eighteen states as revenue does not make you profitable and Amtrak does exactly that. Plus they have such a huge backlog of repairs and maintenance so any "profit" claims are meaningless when you keep putting off maintaining your system and cars. However they make sure where the most noise is where the most investment goes.
Plus fleet age is a real problem[0] and requires billions of investment to bring that up to date
I love trains as much as the next person but Amtrak isn't profitable and they don't strive for actual profits because they know they are protected.
[0]https://www.bts.gov/content/age-and-availability-amtrak-loco...
What happens if we consider the massive subsidies given to fossil fuel companies -- Are they still profitable, when you factor in the massive damage their products are inflicting?
Well now there is no excuse for not upgrading the northeast corridor.
Good for them. No wonder they're not focusing on cross-country, the US is huge compared to Europe.
Depends on what do you mean by "Europe". The continent is slightly larger than the US.
Copenhagen is closer to Zurich than Chicago is to NYC. Even Paris/Berlin is closer than Chicago/NYC.
The US's major cities are not close to each other, with the exception of the North-East Corridor, and the distances involved are far larger than most corresponding distances in Europe--you have to be talking about trips between Spain and very deep into Russia to start to compare against the NYC/LA pairing.
The US's major cities are not close to each other, with the exception of the North-East Corridor, and the distances involved are far larger than most corresponding distances in Europe--you have to be talking about trips between Spain and very deep into Russia to start to compare against the NYC/LA pairing.
Some data: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8713324
This is exactly what I meant by my initial comment.
An extraordinary bit of data. Thanks for sharing the link.
[deleted]
The East Coast and the West Coast are far away. Because the US are almost as huge as Europe :-)
[deleted]
Big if true, but I don't know whether to trust these figures. The Rail Passengers Association has accused Amtrak of cooking its books - https://www.railpassengers.org/happening-now/news/releases/a... - but of course the RPA isn't an unbiased source either.
Amtrak is only somewhat successful when it is essentially a regional carrier, like LIRR in New York or Metra in Chicago. When it is a long distance train, it is a miserable failure from the financial side and customer experience. The Northeast corridor acts like a regional route, focusing on commuters, and that's what saves it. People in America refuse to use Amtrak for travel.
Living in DC as a consultant, reliable Amtrak service meant I could make a 9:30AM meeting just about anywhere between DC and NY. 2-4 trips per month.
Those early morning / early evening trips are packed with other business people doing the same thing you're doing. Full train of people quietly working/reading, maybe talking to a colleague. Very civilized.
The few times I had to travel mid-day on the same routes? Shit shows of confused tourists, kids who don't want to sit still for 3 hours (don't blame 'em), and all manner of "what can go wrong will" (delays, issues with the heat/ac, issues with passengers, etc).
Its like there's two parallel dimensions of Amtrak out there.
I'd choose Amtrak 100% of the time for business travel if its an option, 0% of the time for pleasure.
Those early morning / early evening trips are packed with other business people doing the same thing you're doing. Full train of people quietly working/reading, maybe talking to a colleague. Very civilized.
The few times I had to travel mid-day on the same routes? Shit shows of confused tourists, kids who don't want to sit still for 3 hours (don't blame 'em), and all manner of "what can go wrong will" (delays, issues with the heat/ac, issues with passengers, etc).
Its like there's two parallel dimensions of Amtrak out there.
I'd choose Amtrak 100% of the time for business travel if its an option, 0% of the time for pleasure.
I take Amtrak all the time between New York and DC for business. Why should people in Iowa subsidize each of those trips to the tune of $73 each way?
Why should New Yorkers subsidize ethanol production in Iowa?
Why should anyone in the society give a fuck about anyone else in society? Maybe the answer is because people think it's better for the society, as a whole, when various things are supported by all.
Why should anyone in the society give a fuck about anyone else in society? Maybe the answer is because people think it's better for the society, as a whole, when various things are supported by all.
They shouldn’t!
I’m not advocating “everyone for themselves.” But I don’t see why the national government needs to subsidize a service that overwhelmingly benefits just a single region. It’s not like Medicare or social security that can be used by anyone. Trains only go to a well defined set of places. We could have an interstate compact approach instead, like we do for things like WMATA.
I’m not advocating “everyone for themselves.” But I don’t see why the national government needs to subsidize a service that overwhelmingly benefits just a single region. It’s not like Medicare or social security that can be used by anyone. Trains only go to a well defined set of places. We could have an interstate compact approach instead, like we do for things like WMATA.
Because the eastern corridor drives a huge chunk of the wealth and innovation of the entire country...
It’s not like we are federally funding a rail between Nowhere and Whocares. It’s the business and academic districts of Boston, NYC, Philly, DC.
And those gains are ultimately, you know ... taxed.
Considering net tax spending heavily goes from the eastern corridor to places like Iowa, though, they’re welcome to cut off their contributions as soon as they cut off their acceptances as well.
It’s not like we are federally funding a rail between Nowhere and Whocares. It’s the business and academic districts of Boston, NYC, Philly, DC.
And those gains are ultimately, you know ... taxed.
Considering net tax spending heavily goes from the eastern corridor to places like Iowa, though, they’re welcome to cut off their contributions as soon as they cut off their acceptances as well.
OK why should I subsidize the Federal court system? I don't use it.
I also don't have kids so let's get rid of all the schools.
I also don't have kids so let's get rid of all the schools.
I side with you, but your last two comments are basically the same "but what about this?!"
Rayiner clarified and meant there should be geographical considerations to some subsidies:
> "It’s not like Medicare or social security that can be used by anyone"
Schools and federal court would fall under that categories of medicare and social security.
Rayiner clarified and meant there should be geographical considerations to some subsidies:
> "It’s not like Medicare or social security that can be used by anyone"
Schools and federal court would fall under that categories of medicare and social security.
He edited his original two word comment after I posted mine.
I think my basic point stands up pretty well though.
The entire class of arguments along the lines of “why should we do X when only some of the people need/want X” just has no value at all.
There’s no coast guard in Iowa either. Or avalanche prevention.
Why is geography the privileged metric here? It only matters if things are segregated by location, but not if they are segregated by age? Medicare is a subset of Americans too. So are people of school age.
You can argue the programs on the merits of course, and say that it’s too niche, or panders to special interests in a way that’s harmful.
But to just make the facile point that a government program contains an element of some people subsidizing something that benefits other people adds literally zero to any discussion. That’s a characteristic of literally all government actions.
I think my basic point stands up pretty well though.
The entire class of arguments along the lines of “why should we do X when only some of the people need/want X” just has no value at all.
There’s no coast guard in Iowa either. Or avalanche prevention.
Why is geography the privileged metric here? It only matters if things are segregated by location, but not if they are segregated by age? Medicare is a subset of Americans too. So are people of school age.
You can argue the programs on the merits of course, and say that it’s too niche, or panders to special interests in a way that’s harmful.
But to just make the facile point that a government program contains an element of some people subsidizing something that benefits other people adds literally zero to any discussion. That’s a characteristic of literally all government actions.
> Why is geography the privileged metric here?
Because there are 50 different sovereign states cooperating within a federation. Also, because we shouldn’t let the NYC-DC corridor become Trantor.
Because there are 50 different sovereign states cooperating within a federation. Also, because we shouldn’t let the NYC-DC corridor become Trantor.
Yeah and those states created a federal government.
We’re talking about interstate transportation here. If you envision even the absolutely shortest list of things for a federal government to be involved in that’s going to be on it.
We’re talking about interstate transportation here. If you envision even the absolutely shortest list of things for a federal government to be involved in that’s going to be on it.
This is a reductio ad absurdum. The meaningful issue is the essentiality of the service and government's involvement in it. Do we really need the service? Do we need it enough to force everyone to pay for it at gunpoint? (That is what taxes are, if you don't pay, you eventually get arrested by armed civil servants and go to jail, and if that's the only way you can get people to pay for your idea, we should at least be questioning the validity of the idea.)
Almost everybody agrees in funding the court system because it's an essential function of government that's required for society to function, even if you're not using it now, you want it to be there for you if you're assaulted, defrauded, your kid gets kidnapped, your spouse gets murdered, etc.
The same cannot be said about having a good train system. That's surely nice to have but society can get along fine without it (as it does today). Thus it's not obvious that the government and its monopoly on violence need to get involved at all. Opinions other than yours are perfectly legitimate on this issue.
Almost everybody agrees in funding the court system because it's an essential function of government that's required for society to function, even if you're not using it now, you want it to be there for you if you're assaulted, defrauded, your kid gets kidnapped, your spouse gets murdered, etc.
The same cannot be said about having a good train system. That's surely nice to have but society can get along fine without it (as it does today). Thus it's not obvious that the government and its monopoly on violence need to get involved at all. Opinions other than yours are perfectly legitimate on this issue.
My point is that subsidizing a train system should be argued on the merits.
The question we ask should be something like “should we subsidize these trains” or similar. You’re making merits based arguments in your reply. I strongly disagree with you, as interstate transportation is a core government function in my opinion, but those are differing opinions.
The commenter I’m replying to says the question we should ask is “why should people in Iowa pay for this”
I think that question is meaningless, because literally all government functions involve all people paying for something that only benefits some of the people.
As such, pointing out that fact adds nothing to the conversation, because it fails to distinguish between valid and invalid ideas for government programs.
The question we ask should be something like “should we subsidize these trains” or similar. You’re making merits based arguments in your reply. I strongly disagree with you, as interstate transportation is a core government function in my opinion, but those are differing opinions.
The commenter I’m replying to says the question we should ask is “why should people in Iowa pay for this”
I think that question is meaningless, because literally all government functions involve all people paying for something that only benefits some of the people.
As such, pointing out that fact adds nothing to the conversation, because it fails to distinguish between valid and invalid ideas for government programs.
"reducto absurd" isn't true if you are a millennial without kids in a good career. We subsidize schools and aren't planning on kids.
It's reductio ad absurdum, not reducto absurd.
Less than half of college students say they want kids, and yet something like 80% of Americans end up reproducing at some point in their lives.
Personally I try to assume that I'm not magic and different because of my generation. It's lazy thinking. Yes, Millennials might be unicorns. But it's also possible that humans just find kids more attractive as they get older.
Since the latter seems to have been the case in American society up until now, I think the policy of making people fund schools even when they claim they're not interested in kids is reasonable.
Thanks for the downvote and the one liner though, I didn't feel like I was getting enough Twitter in my diet today.
Less than half of college students say they want kids, and yet something like 80% of Americans end up reproducing at some point in their lives.
Personally I try to assume that I'm not magic and different because of my generation. It's lazy thinking. Yes, Millennials might be unicorns. But it's also possible that humans just find kids more attractive as they get older.
Since the latter seems to have been the case in American society up until now, I think the policy of making people fund schools even when they claim they're not interested in kids is reasonable.
Thanks for the downvote and the one liner though, I didn't feel like I was getting enough Twitter in my diet today.
The same reason why you subsidize the people driving on the highways in Iowa. And the airports in Iowa as well, too.
That's not really true, is it? I rarely have any reason to personally drive the highways of Iowa (despite living in Illinois next door), but presumably benefit directly and in a variety of ways from their availability to trucks. Amtrak can make no such claim.
Movement of people has economic benefits just as movement of goods does. If anything, in a service-based economy like that of developed countries, movement of people is more important.
I don't know if it's 100% true that Amtrak benefits only the areas it's in. People who take the train instead of flying (less carbon emissions) or driving (less interstate maintenance, paid for out of the federal budget, less gasoline consumed) are providing benefits to everyone.
I know you've already gone around on this post for a while, but it is worth saying that the people of Iowa don't really subsidize those trips. Iowa draws more in federal funds than it contributes in federal tax.
Both the California Zephyr and the Southwest Chief go through Iowa. Why should people in New York subsidize each of those trips?
Surely you can recognize that the taxpayers in Iowa derive indirect benefits from commerce between NYC and DC.
> Why should people in Iowa subsidize each of those trips to the tune of $73 each way?
Same reason people in rural or suburban communities subsidize city buses?
Same reason people in rural or suburban communities subsidize city buses?
For the most part, needy people ride city buses, not businesspeople, lawyers, and politicians as in OP’s anecdote about the northeast regional.
I think city buses would be worthwhile even if dislikable people like lawyers used them. Wouldn't you agree?
No. The government shouldn’t subsidize services used primarily by well-off people.
Then we should tear up the road in your neighborhood.
To the extent a particular neighborhood can be identified as especially wealthy, it would seem fine to require them to pay for private maintenance of roads constructed by the subdivision developer in the first instance.
What if they now become poor? Would you subsidize them?
What about police services and ambulance services for a poor versus rich person visiting that neighborhood?
This already happens in some places, but I don’t think it’s practical or fair.
What about police services and ambulance services for a poor versus rich person visiting that neighborhood?
This already happens in some places, but I don’t think it’s practical or fair.
Or, instead of privatizing roads, the maintenance of roads could be paid for by taxes and the wealthy could be made to pay higher taxes. Crazy, I know.
The wealthy already pay the majority of taxes.
What does that mean? It’s like saying the human body is mostly water; the devil is on the details. Should we all just pay a fixed amount?
[deleted]
Why would you deny needy people, people trying to make ends meet and move up the ladder, people with revoked licenses, etc. the opportunity to partake and contribute in society? Wouldn't you agree that if we take this away, it would cost the economy more by causing more crime and reducing gains these folks might have had to offer?
I'm saying we should spend the money on needy people, and let services used primarily by wealthier people pay for themselves.
Amtrak's long distance service is more akin to the Essential Air Service, in that it connects lots of small, otherwise unconnected rural areas and is not expected to make a profit.
Amtrak has always been a company with two halves, and Congress really should just split it to stop this Jekyll and Hyde tug of war about what exactly the company is supposed to do.
Amtrak has always been a company with two halves, and Congress really should just split it to stop this Jekyll and Hyde tug of war about what exactly the company is supposed to do.
To use Amtrak I have to take a bus to Chicago.
edit: My mistake, Milwaukee.
edit: My mistake, Milwaukee.
It doesn‘t connect every rural area, the same way that EAS doesn‘t.
It connects cities and passes through rural areas.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
A nice statistic would be some kind of report about travel times, densities and total populations. Looking at the map, there's some people that live at lower density that have a nearby station and then most people that live in metros have a nearby station.
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
A nice statistic would be some kind of report about travel times, densities and total populations. Looking at the map, there's some people that live at lower density that have a nearby station and then most people that live in metros have a nearby station.
> Amtrak's long distance service is more akin to the Essential Air Service, in that it connects lots of small, otherwise unconnected rural areas and is not expected to make a profit.
If that's true, it seems like those communities would be better served by subsidized long distance bus travel instead.
I understand that doesn't make a whit of difference to congress, though.
If that's true, it seems like those communities would be better served by subsidized long distance bus travel instead.
I understand that doesn't make a whit of difference to congress, though.
Amtrak does contract with regional bus carriers:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-95-138/h...
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-RCED-95-138/h...
It doesn't sound like you've taken either a train or a bus long distance. Even four hours on a bus can be downright nauseating. Amtrak coach class beats flying for comfort. Never mind the people who have some money, but are adverse to flying, so they book sleeper cabins.
Many of these old railroad routes are not neatly followed with highways, so such a replacement service may take much, much longer.
> People in America refuse to use Amtrak for travel.
People in America are diverse, with diverse preferences and needs.
I love taking Amtrak, and happen to live on one of the cross-country routes. I prefer it to airline travel in all ways. Clearly, the routes are sparse, so it does not always work out for me. But as a remote software engineer, I can work from the train, I can relax and read a book, and watch the scenery go by. The extra time it takes is not a problem. It is a great change of pace to sitting in my home office.
There certainly are people who disagree, but generalizing that the whole country refuses to use the service is simply incorrect.
People in America are diverse, with diverse preferences and needs.
I love taking Amtrak, and happen to live on one of the cross-country routes. I prefer it to airline travel in all ways. Clearly, the routes are sparse, so it does not always work out for me. But as a remote software engineer, I can work from the train, I can relax and read a book, and watch the scenery go by. The extra time it takes is not a problem. It is a great change of pace to sitting in my home office.
There certainly are people who disagree, but generalizing that the whole country refuses to use the service is simply incorrect.
When the number is 99%,I just round it up.
People refuse to use Amtrak because they’ve been conditioned to learn that a ticket is often more expensive than a plane ticket to the same destination, even at the last minute.
Personally for Boston to NYC, I prefer the bus. It’s $15, faster than the train, more reliable and plenty comfortable for a few hours. Boston to DC I’d probably fly.
Personally for Boston to NYC, I prefer the bus. It’s $15, faster than the train, more reliable and plenty comfortable for a few hours. Boston to DC I’d probably fly.
The comfort discrepancy between buses and trains isn't even close for me. Buses make me nauseous; reading a book on grayhound/bolt/etc is impossible for me and sleeping is only possible with drugs (e.g. dramamine.) Long bus trips make me feel ill, bored and tired all at the same time. I find the experience thoroughly unpleasant.
Trains by contrast are actually a pleasure to be on; I'd rather be on a train than my own couch at home. Compared to buses, Amtrak trains have less shaking, less unexpected accelerations, more space to walk around, better scenery, and fresher air. In my opinion the only form of transit better than train is a ferry.
Trains by contrast are actually a pleasure to be on; I'd rather be on a train than my own couch at home. Compared to buses, Amtrak trains have less shaking, less unexpected accelerations, more space to walk around, better scenery, and fresher air. In my opinion the only form of transit better than train is a ferry.
As a long distance commuter, that was my experience as well.
For my commute, there is a bus, an regional rail and Amtrak. (And driving.)
The bus is potentially the fastest, about 2 hours door to door, but for about half the trip I'm unable to do anything but stare straight ahead and focus on keeping my stomach settled, and about 1 in 10 trips there is a traffic delay that makes it take 3+ hours.
The regional train varies between 2.5 and 3 hours, depending on how many stops that particular train makes, but it leaves me on the wrong side of town and the last fast train is at 7am.
Amtrak is best for me, more coincidentally, because it happens to stop near my workplace, and because it makes few stops it's as fast as the fastest regional trains, for an average door to door of 2.2 hours.
Both the regional and Amtrak trains tend to have delays about 1 in 50 rides or so, usually about 30-60 minutes.
(Driving is about 2.5 hours door to door, parking under my workplace, and costs as much as a bus or train just in tolls and parking.)
For my commute, there is a bus, an regional rail and Amtrak. (And driving.)
The bus is potentially the fastest, about 2 hours door to door, but for about half the trip I'm unable to do anything but stare straight ahead and focus on keeping my stomach settled, and about 1 in 10 trips there is a traffic delay that makes it take 3+ hours.
The regional train varies between 2.5 and 3 hours, depending on how many stops that particular train makes, but it leaves me on the wrong side of town and the last fast train is at 7am.
Amtrak is best for me, more coincidentally, because it happens to stop near my workplace, and because it makes few stops it's as fast as the fastest regional trains, for an average door to door of 2.2 hours.
Both the regional and Amtrak trains tend to have delays about 1 in 50 rides or so, usually about 30-60 minutes.
(Driving is about 2.5 hours door to door, parking under my workplace, and costs as much as a bus or train just in tolls and parking.)
>for Boston to NYC, I prefer the bus. It’s $15.
Can you not get a ticket for $5 anymore? In the post-FungWa vacuum it seemed like everybody and their brother was running a bus line that charged $5 for a 1-way to NYC.
Can you not get a ticket for $5 anymore? In the post-FungWa vacuum it seemed like everybody and their brother was running a bus line that charged $5 for a 1-way to NYC.
I think you still can, but it’s kind of gimmicky. Like you need to be one of the first people to buy a ticket or something. I haven’t paid $5 since the FungWa era.
This is so true.
I went to visit my friend in Virginia. I took the AmTrak from Minneapolis out to the East Coast. It was basically hell until we got into Philly. Then it was just commuter rides and few switch overs until I was in DC. Then my friend picked me up and promptly got lost and dropped us into one of the worst neighborhoods in DC, but that's a story for another day.
Basically the long haul was horrendous. Bumpy and loud and people constantly bothering me for one thing or another. I didn't get a wink of sleep until we hit Philly. The commuter trains I took were like a library. Quiet, smooth and nobody bothered me at all. I figured if I lived on the East Coast, I would probably use the train to commute, but those long rides across the country were painful - I'll never do that again.
I went to visit my friend in Virginia. I took the AmTrak from Minneapolis out to the East Coast. It was basically hell until we got into Philly. Then it was just commuter rides and few switch overs until I was in DC. Then my friend picked me up and promptly got lost and dropped us into one of the worst neighborhoods in DC, but that's a story for another day.
Basically the long haul was horrendous. Bumpy and loud and people constantly bothering me for one thing or another. I didn't get a wink of sleep until we hit Philly. The commuter trains I took were like a library. Quiet, smooth and nobody bothered me at all. I figured if I lived on the East Coast, I would probably use the train to commute, but those long rides across the country were painful - I'll never do that again.
Having taken Amtrack from NY to DC and Boston several times, I made the mistake of doing a NY to Raleigh, NC and back. South of around Richmond the service really deteriorates on single track competing with freight trains. The roadbed is old and bumpy from heavy freight usage. Turned out that there was a bad storm as well and the train slowed because they were uncertain about bridges, etc. It was 30 mph for hours and hours. Who would have thought that heavy rain would be a problem for a train?
Having taken a few cross country trips and talked to fellow passengers, I don't think "refuse" is the right word - more like "reluctant". Many people take Amtrak long-distance out of necessity, especially in areas not served by airports.
I use Amtrak to go to nyc all the time. It's a pleasure. If they (or some scrappy start-up) could halve the price and halve the time, it would be revolutionary.
The only reason Acela charges so much is that there isn't enough track capacity for all the demand, and the current price is what most profitably fills seats.
The estimated cost of an additional two tracks in the Northeast is over $100B.
The estimated cost of an additional two tracks in the Northeast is over $100B.
I take the Acela for work all the time and love it. It’s too expensive for me to take it with my family though.
What route do you take?
Where do you leave from?
It shouldn't be pseudo-privatized and should be further subsidized, the fact that it's become extractionary shouldn't be celebrated.
I agree. Almost all nations have their rail subsidized. Really all transport has to be subsidized by the State, going back to the Roman era.
Toll highways cover a fraction of operating costs. In most cities, your bus fair pays for 50% or less of the cost to run the bus. States use transport to build commerce, and it's difficult to measure what revenue that generates.
Funding needs to be pumped into AmTrak to help expand some of the very limited high speed rail we're just starting to see in the USA, including Florida's Brightline (now Virgin Trains) and the half-canceled California project.
Toll highways cover a fraction of operating costs. In most cities, your bus fair pays for 50% or less of the cost to run the bus. States use transport to build commerce, and it's difficult to measure what revenue that generates.
Funding needs to be pumped into AmTrak to help expand some of the very limited high speed rail we're just starting to see in the USA, including Florida's Brightline (now Virgin Trains) and the half-canceled California project.
I just used Amtrak to travel across the US as I didn't want to bring my electric skateboard on a plane.
It is a very high quality service.
It is a very high quality service.
Not sure if something has changed, but I spent the better part of 3 years taking my electric skateboard on planes regularly.
Biggest issue I had was occasionally, they would look at it funny going through security and give it extra screening.
Fits pretty well in the overhead too, especially laying upside down, so bags can be stowed above it.
Biggest issue I had was occasionally, they would look at it funny going through security and give it extra screening.
Fits pretty well in the overhead too, especially laying upside down, so bags can be stowed above it.
Battery size is the issue. There is, essentially, a 100-watt hour limit. Anything over that and you need explicit airline approval, and you probably won’t get it. And if you do, TSA might not care.
Did you get there on time?
I don't think you pick Amtrak to arrive somewhere on time. You bring some books, read them, relax, stare out the window, chat with people in the dining car, and eventually reach your destination. Chilling out on the train is part of your vacation. (I rode the California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland when I was like 10, and still remember most of the trip. It was amazing, even for an easily-bored 10 year old.)
The reality is, intercity trains are not an efficient way to travel in the United States. Most of the important cities are far apart, because it's a very large country with a lot of empty space. If you need to be somewhere, book a flight. It's less expensive and if you give yourself a day of leeway you will probably never be late to your thing, barring some sort of natural disaster.
I am a huge railfan but I have accepted that the geography of the US doesn't make train travel as viable as say, Japan. Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka are the three largest cities and are comparable in distance between each other like Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis. If New York was where Chicago is, Chicago was where Springfield is, and LA was where St. Louis is, high speed rail would be enormously popular in the US. But New York and LA are 2500 miles apart, 10% around the world from each other.
I even question California High Speed Rail. San Francisco / Silicon Valley and LA are both big metro areas with a lot of money, but SF/LA are 41% farther apart than Tokyo and Osaka. Japan got very lucky that its two largest cities are actually very close to each other. Building the Shinkansen was an enormous engineering challenge, but one that was very clearly profitable. It's so profitable they're building another Shinkansen between the two cities, taking a shorter route and using faster trains. In the US... such a city pair does not exist.
OK this is going very off-topic from your exact comment... but it's something I wanted to talk about. Sorry.
The reality is, intercity trains are not an efficient way to travel in the United States. Most of the important cities are far apart, because it's a very large country with a lot of empty space. If you need to be somewhere, book a flight. It's less expensive and if you give yourself a day of leeway you will probably never be late to your thing, barring some sort of natural disaster.
I am a huge railfan but I have accepted that the geography of the US doesn't make train travel as viable as say, Japan. Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka are the three largest cities and are comparable in distance between each other like Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis. If New York was where Chicago is, Chicago was where Springfield is, and LA was where St. Louis is, high speed rail would be enormously popular in the US. But New York and LA are 2500 miles apart, 10% around the world from each other.
I even question California High Speed Rail. San Francisco / Silicon Valley and LA are both big metro areas with a lot of money, but SF/LA are 41% farther apart than Tokyo and Osaka. Japan got very lucky that its two largest cities are actually very close to each other. Building the Shinkansen was an enormous engineering challenge, but one that was very clearly profitable. It's so profitable they're building another Shinkansen between the two cities, taking a shorter route and using faster trains. In the US... such a city pair does not exist.
OK this is going very off-topic from your exact comment... but it's something I wanted to talk about. Sorry.
Your entire geography argument goes out the window if you look at China's high-speed rail system instead of Japan's.
E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1]. At that speed LA-SF would take around 3 hours. For context the flight time is an hour and a half, so when you account for airport overhead, taxiing etc. the train would take around around the same time, and be a more pleasant mode of transport.
The density argument also goes both ways. A country like Japan is going to find it much harder to find empty space to place rail than somewhere like the US.
There's a lot of reasons for why the US isn't doing what China's doing with high-speed rail, but those reasons are mainly political, not geographical.
1. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunmi...
E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1]. At that speed LA-SF would take around 3 hours. For context the flight time is an hour and a half, so when you account for airport overhead, taxiing etc. the train would take around around the same time, and be a more pleasant mode of transport.
The density argument also goes both ways. A country like Japan is going to find it much harder to find empty space to place rail than somewhere like the US.
There's a lot of reasons for why the US isn't doing what China's doing with high-speed rail, but those reasons are mainly political, not geographical.
1. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunmi...
China isn’t a good example to point to because we have no idea whether China is making intelligent trade offs about how to use its resources. It’s an authoritarian economy. It could end up that in 50 years the whole thing collapses from its own weight.
Europe is a better example because it least the government must be somewhat accountable for its guns versus butter trade offs. And if you look at things like Macron trying to privatize SNCF (with its massive unsustainable debt levels), that should give us pause about the long term viability of rail even in dense places like France.
Europe is a better example because it least the government must be somewhat accountable for its guns versus butter trade offs. And if you look at things like Macron trying to privatize SNCF (with its massive unsustainable debt levels), that should give us pause about the long term viability of rail even in dense places like France.
From a cursory glance it seems to me that SNCF's debts are due to them financing all of their infrastructure instead of the French state paying for it (directly, it of course is indirectly), and then the argument goes back to the current top comment here: The real value of a good transport network is the add-on economic effects.
Also from a security perspective, you can't hijack a train and crash it into some building (it has to stay on the tracks), so that's a plus for trains.
Finally a domestic train causes about 41 g/km of CO2 emissions, while a domestic flight causes about 254 g/km (accounting for altitude) [0]
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
Also from a security perspective, you can't hijack a train and crash it into some building (it has to stay on the tracks), so that's a plus for trains.
Finally a domestic train causes about 41 g/km of CO2 emissions, while a domestic flight causes about 254 g/km (accounting for altitude) [0]
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
> E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1].
Note that it could be even faster without the ~50 stops in the middle.
Note that it could be even faster without the ~50 stops in the middle.
Except the US is still much larger than China is, at least in terms of practical geography.
You can fit most of China's population in a box about 1300×1100 mi, with the most distant route being about 1700 mi. In the US, the equivalent box is about 800×2500 mi, with the most distant route being about 2700 mi. (All numbers as the crow flies).
The US's geographical issue is that its major population centers--California and the Northeast--are separated by ~1200 mi of empty land, and ~700 mi of rural land. The only other countries to have that sort of major gap between population distributions are Canada, Australia, and Russia, although in each of those cases, the population distribution is more "there's one major city far away from everybody else" (that said, the Trans-Siberian Railroad cities of Omsk, Novosibirsk, and Krasnoyarsk are pretty big cities that are relatively distant, although only 2200mi at the long axis rather than the 2700mi of the US).
You can fit most of China's population in a box about 1300×1100 mi, with the most distant route being about 1700 mi. In the US, the equivalent box is about 800×2500 mi, with the most distant route being about 2700 mi. (All numbers as the crow flies).
The US's geographical issue is that its major population centers--California and the Northeast--are separated by ~1200 mi of empty land, and ~700 mi of rural land. The only other countries to have that sort of major gap between population distributions are Canada, Australia, and Russia, although in each of those cases, the population distribution is more "there's one major city far away from everybody else" (that said, the Trans-Siberian Railroad cities of Omsk, Novosibirsk, and Krasnoyarsk are pretty big cities that are relatively distant, although only 2200mi at the long axis rather than the 2700mi of the US).
So why not build two rail systems — in the NE and in California? A lot of people in the thread are arguing the impossibility of even that.
Nobody takes passenger trains across the continent — any continent.
Nobody takes passenger trains across the continent — any continent.
We absolutely deserve much better HSR in the North-East Corridor, and medium-speed rail is probably viable throughout the rest of the Northeast and maybe a few routes around Chicago.
California is trickier for two reasons. First, the layout of cities is somewhat unfortunate. In terms of a linear service, Sacramento, the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego are all more or less in a line, but scheduling a linear service requires detouring over the mountains twice to reach the Bay Area and boring an underwater tunnel to head north from SF. And SF being one of the two first-tier cities in CA means that you don't want to service it on a spur.
The second issue is the geography. Going from LA to the Bay Area requires crossing at least two sets of mountain ranges. River valleys don't really help you here, and the minimum viable HSR pretty much requires connecting LA to the Bay Area. This means there's strong political pressure to kill the project as too expensive before it can show any benefits whatsoever.
California is trickier for two reasons. First, the layout of cities is somewhat unfortunate. In terms of a linear service, Sacramento, the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego are all more or less in a line, but scheduling a linear service requires detouring over the mountains twice to reach the Bay Area and boring an underwater tunnel to head north from SF. And SF being one of the two first-tier cities in CA means that you don't want to service it on a spur.
The second issue is the geography. Going from LA to the Bay Area requires crossing at least two sets of mountain ranges. River valleys don't really help you here, and the minimum viable HSR pretty much requires connecting LA to the Bay Area. This means there's strong political pressure to kill the project as too expensive before it can show any benefits whatsoever.
> I don't think you pick Amtrak to arrive somewhere on time.
You’re really making the case for defunding at least everything outside the NEC. We shouldn’t be spending public money on something that’s only good for leisure travel.
You’re really making the case for defunding at least everything outside the NEC. We shouldn’t be spending public money on something that’s only good for leisure travel.
Why? We have national parks.
We also heavily subsidize air travel (Essential Air Service, ATC, etc.) and highways. Moving people around, even if for leisure, is a valuable activity for the government to participate in. People need something to do on their downtime.
We also heavily subsidize air travel (Essential Air Service, ATC, etc.) and highways. Moving people around, even if for leisure, is a valuable activity for the government to participate in. People need something to do on their downtime.
Agreed.
The train from SLC <-> SF is 18 hours and about the price of flying, while driving takes ~10 hours. That's stupid, it should take less time by train than car, and flying should cost more since it uses more resources (or at least it seems like it should...).
Any leisurely lines should be separate from regular travel. A train doesn't have to run 120mph+, it just needs to be able to for commuters. I think making "cruise" trains makes a ton of sense, but that's not the only thing that makes sense for trains.
The train from SLC <-> SF is 18 hours and about the price of flying, while driving takes ~10 hours. That's stupid, it should take less time by train than car, and flying should cost more since it uses more resources (or at least it seems like it should...).
Any leisurely lines should be separate from regular travel. A train doesn't have to run 120mph+, it just needs to be able to for commuters. I think making "cruise" trains makes a ton of sense, but that's not the only thing that makes sense for trains.
I just did Miami -> Philadelphia and Chicago -> Seattle over the past month on Amtrak.
First leg was 15 minutes early to Philadelphia
Second leg was maybe 5 min late. Not bad for a 3 day, 2 night trip.
First leg was 15 minutes early to Philadelphia
Second leg was maybe 5 min late. Not bad for a 3 day, 2 night trip.
[deleted]
so you basically spent around one full week of your time just to not pay 50$ of extra checked-in luggage?
You cant have big batteries in checked in luggage.
https://e-skateboarder.com/can-you-take-electric-skateboards...
https://e-skateboarder.com/can-you-take-electric-skateboards...
still you could have it mailed lol
You're getting downvoted but you're not wrong. That's what I would have done.
I honestly really like Amtrak, at least on the Northeast Regional. No baggage fees, large comfortable chairs (I thought coach class was business the first time I rode it, then I discovered business class had tables), no real security restrictions (yet), the notion of quiet cars, and nice scenery. Maybe it's because I don't ride Amtrak regularly and so every time I ride it it's a novelty, but I underrated it and it exceeded my expectations every time so far.
If you're not going between D.C. and Boston then maybe it'll be different, but if you're riding on the one line Amtrak has to keep operational or it'll die completely, I think it should be fine.
If you're not going between D.C. and Boston then maybe it'll be different, but if you're riding on the one line Amtrak has to keep operational or it'll die completely, I think it should be fine.
This is a really weird comment from the perspective of Europe. Why would you have to pay for baggage on a train? Standard class doesn't have tables? Why would you have security restrictions on a train?
(Ok on the last point, I believe some high speed trains have light security checks.)
(Ok on the last point, I believe some high speed trains have light security checks.)
At least in France, the low cost trains ("OUIGO") do charge for baggage larger than a carry-on.
But I think the OP was comparing a train to flying, you don't pay for baggage on a train but you would if taking a flight.
But I think the OP was comparing a train to flying, you don't pay for baggage on a train but you would if taking a flight.
... because Ouigo is super cheap. They're following the same model as low-cost airlines: the tickets are cheap, but you pay for everything else (baggage, access to charging sockets, etc.).
In France, on some trains (ouigo) you pay extra for baggage
Are the 1 hour+ delays common? I see them on the board at the station fairly often. But I don't know if I just happen to look each time theres a delay.
Not really. I won’t say I’ve never encountered delays but Boston to NYP service is pretty reliable in my experience. Probably as reliable as any other form of transportation in that congested corridor.
Agreed. In my experience so far, the frequency and severity of delays on Amtrak between NY and DC are on par with the frequency and severity of delays on I-95.
In my experience traveling from western ny to nyc or visa versa, there is always at least a 1 hour delay going through Albany. My record being 2 hours. The reason being they switch out trains with a train coming from a different location. It's super frustrating not knowing how long you're going to be stuck there.
Yes. I've seen an Amtrak train running on time once. They're usually 45min+ late.
I like that the stated travel time is the actual amount of time out of your day
You show up in the middle of one city and wind up in the middle of another city
Big contrast from airports.
But Amtrak is too expensive and slow compared to other developed nations high speed trains, especially in Northeast corridor. Everything I said earlier applies to Japan, and western Europe.
You show up in the middle of one city and wind up in the middle of another city
Big contrast from airports.
But Amtrak is too expensive and slow compared to other developed nations high speed trains, especially in Northeast corridor. Everything I said earlier applies to Japan, and western Europe.
I go from DC to Boston weekly and couldn't disagree more. The NE Regional or Acela add, all things considered, anywhere from a 4x - 8x time multiplier over air travel, and is about double the cost on average.
Even when I was going DC > NYC years back it was barely worth the trouble, and still more than flying, only benefit being you land right in the middle of NYC and don't have the nightmare transit from NYC area airports.
Even when I was going DC > NYC years back it was barely worth the trouble, and still more than flying, only benefit being you land right in the middle of NYC and don't have the nightmare transit from NYC area airports.
By the time you add airport parking and transport from the airport to the city (unless you take the subway) it's break-even on price for DC->NYC. It's easily break-even on timing given that front door to train in Union Station is 15 minutes, and, as you point out, you're dropped in the center of Manhattan.
DC->Boston full trip would obviously be insane - it's 6 1/2 hours even on Acela. But, probably preferable to driving.
DC->Boston full trip would obviously be insane - it's 6 1/2 hours even on Acela. But, probably preferable to driving.
I'm not saying there aren't things to like about air travel, especially if you have an axe to grind. Definitely faster, prices are competitive, and they probably innovate faster too given much higher sales volume. But I would say overall I prefer the Amtrak experience, especially if time is not a bounding factor. And it's not always an either-or. I mostly take Amtrak from BWI to Union Station, because flying out of Baltimore-BWI is much cheaper than Dulles-IAD or Reagan-DCA.
NYC to DC round trip is 6 hours scheduled time by train or 3 hours scheduled time by air. Granted Penn and Union stations are more convenient than Newark and Reagan airports, but not that much more convenient.
It is a nicer trip though, I'll give you that. But not nice enough to mean an extra day away from home.
It is a nicer trip though, I'll give you that. But not nice enough to mean an extra day away from home.
Every week I commute from NJ to Boston. A jet does the trip in 50 minutes. The Amtrak Express from Newark to Boston is 4 hours. Yet when you take into account the delayed flights, the security, the fact that I cannot sit down and work for most of the time during my air trip, etc... the train wins out every time. It seems to be on time most of the time. And the ride is smooth with free wifi. And sometime I just stare at the beautiful New England scenery.
The actual train trip from NYC to DC is 3-3.5 hours each way, and both ends are smack in the middle of the city.
If you’re flying, Dulles and BWI are 45 minutes from downtown DC (or more); ditto for the NYC end, and you need to factor in another hour+ for security. I think air travel might end up slower—-and it’s certainly less pleasant.
If you’re flying, Dulles and BWI are 45 minutes from downtown DC (or more); ditto for the NYC end, and you need to factor in another hour+ for security. I think air travel might end up slower—-and it’s certainly less pleasant.
> and you need to factor in another hour+ for security
Just an anecdote, but with TSA Pre, I haven’t needed more than 15 minutes for security, flying domestically and internationally several times per year for the past few years.
Just an anecdote, but with TSA Pre, I haven’t needed more than 15 minutes for security, flying domestically and internationally several times per year for the past few years.
I was in that boat for a while, but it's been rocky recently at a few airports that I fly in and out of as the number of Pre users have gone up and airports have toyed with the idea of Pre only lines (which sometimes are far from where you actually want to be). I think it's coming back to normal, but there have been several times over the last year where I've considered using the regular line for the same of time.
> with TSA Pre, I haven’t needed more than 15 minutes for security
Same. With Clear, that goes down to 5 minutes tops. Add in airport lounges, and showing up a bit early goes from being a nuisance to a pleasure (or opportunity to be productive).
I’m a huge fan of trains, but they’re only marginally competitive for passengers in the Northeast.
Same. With Clear, that goes down to 5 minutes tops. Add in airport lounges, and showing up a bit early goes from being a nuisance to a pleasure (or opportunity to be productive).
I’m a huge fan of trains, but they’re only marginally competitive for passengers in the Northeast.
At least for the north or south subset of the Northeast Corridor the type of transportation honestly boils down to preference. Train is in the comfortable but relatively pricey and slow end of the equation. I could drive from Central Mass to New York cheaper and faster than train but I hate doing that drive.
This probably depends a lot on exactly when/where you’re flying.
Even if it seemed true for me, I’m not sure I’d bet the price of a ticket (and my schedule) on it always working out.
Even if it seemed true for me, I’m not sure I’d bet the price of a ticket (and my schedule) on it always working out.
At which airports? I've seen short precheck lines but I've also seen 1h+ lines.
This is similar to when my wife and I visit the UK, we usually do a week in the south and a week in Scotland. And we traditionally take the LNER between just because Getting to an airport will be a 45-60 minute cab or train, then dealing with security, baggage, etc, so all in all a 3.5-4 hour journey. London Kings Cross <-> Edinburgh Waverley is a 4-5 hour, usually OK train ride (if the A/C is working), and you get on and have wifi (sometimes), and can pull out your laptop and put it on a REAL table.
Okay but you're flying into DCA, not BWI or IAD, and from there it's a ~15 minute metro into the heart of the city.
Agree with you on the other points, though.
Agree with you on the other points, though.
Also, for an airport you are looking at spending $30-50 just to get there in a taxi or Uber.
You usually arrive at the airport 60-90 minutes before a flight, vs 30 minutes before a train. And train station locations will give you a 30 minute advantage over airport locations. So really we're comparing 3.5-4.5 hrs for a flight vs 6.5 hours for a train. Trains are also a lot more comfortable, have charging points even in economy class, and don't charge baggage fees.
From a European perspective, arriving at the train station 30 minutes in advance sounds completely absurd. I'd say 10 minutes is much closer to the average here (Germany). I took Amtrak from DC to NYC once and the whole boarding process seemed needlessly time-wasting.
>vs 30 minutes before a train
wait, what? Why? Here as long as I'm there before it departs it's fine.
wait, what? Why? Here as long as I'm there before it departs it's fine.
Got it off the Amtrak website.
Not if you are a regular traveler. In that case you have global entry and/or clear, and aren't checking a bag. Depending on the exact terminal you can get to the airport about 15 minutes before boarding, 45 minutes before listed departure. The bulk of the advantage is the location of the terminal stations, which is real but not as significant as it is being made out here. I mean maybe if you live right at Penn Station and your meeting is right by Union Station, but if you coming from, say, LIC and going to Georgetown, you may be happier with LGA and DCA than NYP and Union Station.
You're absolutely correct about the comfort points, but price should be just as strongly in the train's favor and it isn't.
You're absolutely correct about the comfort points, but price should be just as strongly in the train's favor and it isn't.
> Not if you are a regular traveler
The regular travelers have voted in numbers for Amtrak between DC and NYC over air travel, preferring it for the last decade[0]. They have been growing the number of trips and have even been able to go further up market with the new Acela nonstop this year. The truth is, passengers are voting with their dollars for the train between NYC and DC.
[0] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/11/why-more-nort...
The regular travelers have voted in numbers for Amtrak between DC and NYC over air travel, preferring it for the last decade[0]. They have been growing the number of trips and have even been able to go further up market with the new Acela nonstop this year. The truth is, passengers are voting with their dollars for the train between NYC and DC.
[0] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/11/why-more-nort...
NYC and DC don't really project to other metros. Travel to and from Penn Station vs the airports is a non-trivial consideration to passengers. It is expensive or time consuming or a PITA to travel to JFK/LGA/EWR on public transit with a bag. I lived in Brooklyn and made the NYC/DC commute 15 or so times a year for many years and that was a significant issue for me, it just wasn't cost or time effective to fly in _NYC_.
I now live in Maine and wouldn't consider for a second taking the train to NYC. I'll fly out of PWM or, if I want flexibility, drive there. There is a non-stop bus that I'd prefer, too.
I now live in Maine and wouldn't consider for a second taking the train to NYC. I'll fly out of PWM or, if I want flexibility, drive there. There is a non-stop bus that I'd prefer, too.
It helps that due to a mix of incompetence and lack of support from the governor‘s office that there is no direct train link through Boston that a train from Maine might use to get to NYC.
Georgetown to Union station is about four miles and the circulator bus will take you there for a buck. DCA is about six miles and accessible by Metro. Seems about the same.
The OP was also looking at round-trip times (NYC to DC is about 3hr each way), so double all of those ancillary numbers.
Taking into account the security checks and transport to and from the airport, the flight might take significantly longer than the the train, especially if you’re flying at a busy time. Plus planes are more likely to have delays.
I've been regularly 6-18 hours late on Amtrak, which is longer than the length of the flight alone. At least when planes are delayed you usually know ahead of time and can just not go to the airport.
> “Our biggest challenge is I go testify in Congress and all we talk about is French toast on dining cars or food,” he says. “We aren't talking about the really big infrastructure issues and transportation congestion issues that all the people in this country want a solution for.”
This is infuriating.
This is infuriating.
I disagree, the Amtrak dining car is a sacred piece of Americana and its loss is a big deal. There was a good HN thread about this a few months ago [0].
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21039093
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21039093
Almost literally bikeshedding. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bikeshedding#Etymology
I miss the previous team where the issues are literally titled "X bikeshedding". Much better than having meetings where bikeshed issues get recycled for months.
I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to lose more money by next Saturday.
If Richard Anderson is walking with a bit of a swagger today, now you know why. Congrats to him. We should put this guy in the White House. He has done the seemingly impossible.
> “Our biggest challenge is I go testify in Congress and all we talk about is French toast on dining cars or food,” he says. “We aren't talking about the really big infrastructure issues and transportation congestion issues that all the people in this country want a solution for.”
Of course! It's a waste of time talking to these people. Please keep the subject on french toast, because if they're going to screw something up, let it be a breakfast dish. And lets extrapolate this out to all other subjects and consider how they would do with all the policies the progressive left are dreaming up.
> “Our biggest challenge is I go testify in Congress and all we talk about is French toast on dining cars or food,” he says. “We aren't talking about the really big infrastructure issues and transportation congestion issues that all the people in this country want a solution for.”
Of course! It's a waste of time talking to these people. Please keep the subject on french toast, because if they're going to screw something up, let it be a breakfast dish. And lets extrapolate this out to all other subjects and consider how they would do with all the policies the progressive left are dreaming up.
Still, when you travel with trains in US, it's like traveling back in time compared to Europe and Asia.
That's largely because automobiles, buses, and airplanes are better suited to the geography of the United States.
There are corridors and regions where trains make sense in the U.S, but many rail lines went from necessary to obsolete with the natural progression of technology.
AmTrak was created when the private passenger rail operators were failing, and they were failing for a good reason: demand for long-haul passenger rail service declined sharply when better alternatives entered the market.
The one thing that rail can do better than these other forms is comfort and service, but for the vast majority of people, they would rather be able to afford to make it to their destination.
AmTrak was created when the private passenger rail operators were failing, and they were failing for a good reason: demand for long-haul passenger rail service declined sharply when better alternatives entered the market.
The one thing that rail can do better than these other forms is comfort and service, but for the vast majority of people, they would rather be able to afford to make it to their destination.
> better suited to the geography of the United States.
China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths of their high speed space. The US has decided to build roads and highways instead of investing in other transit options. It's not that it makes "more sense", it's that the US has intentionally built things this way, for a variety of corporate and historical reasons.
> many rail lines went from necessary to obsolete with the natural progression of technology.
What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well developed rail lines that transport billions of people with levels of unmatched efficiency?
> when better alternatives entered the market.
Only because the market was intentionally weighted against that form of transit.
China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths of their high speed space. The US has decided to build roads and highways instead of investing in other transit options. It's not that it makes "more sense", it's that the US has intentionally built things this way, for a variety of corporate and historical reasons.
> many rail lines went from necessary to obsolete with the natural progression of technology.
What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well developed rail lines that transport billions of people with levels of unmatched efficiency?
> when better alternatives entered the market.
Only because the market was intentionally weighted against that form of transit.
> China has a similar geography to the US, and similar sizes and run lengths of their high speed space.
China has extreme restrictions on domestic flights, and a great deal more population; and on top of that, so much is different about the way things are done in China, the state will just bulldoze things for looking too "towny".
> What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well developed rail lines that transport billions of people
Britain is a developed country with well developed rail lines, but probably few there would tell you that it's great right now. Some of the failure there can be attributed to their poorly-designed pseudo-privatization of the trains and crews themselves (but not the rails or facilities, which remain national), but a big part of the reason that was politically viable was that the rail services weren't all that great when they were national either. France's TGV is really cool, when the operators aren't on strike.
Up here in Ontario, we have one relatively useful rail corridor, but the further you get from Toronto, the less the passenger load. On my morning train from Hamilton, there are (charitably) a couple dozen passengers on the whole train for several stations. As for national rail in Canada, it is rare to hear that anyone has used Via. I've used it once in my life, but I found out later that a bus on the same route would have been faster and dramatically cheaper.
Long-haul rail networks are attractive to politicians because of what they represent, but to transport consumers, the reality of long haul passenger rail is that it is rarely the best option. When passengers bear the cost, long-haul passenger rail is, by natural means, rarely the best option in the U.S.
> with levels of unmatched efficiency?
"unmatched" by what? High speed rail is extremely capital intensive, and expensive at the point of sale, and that's when you don't have any trouble clearing land for it. In the U.S, most of the viable places for passenger rail already have rail lines, but they are not appropriate for high speed rail. Conventional passenger rail is too slow to attract fares, and is still very expensive.
Dude it's alright to like trains, trains are cool; but none of what you said justifies the subsidies that would be required in order to make a comprehensive U.S. long-haul passenger rail network that's worth using, and no policy would make it worth the cost.
If you have some brilliant business practice, policy, or idea that will change this, I implore you to develop it! :- )
China has extreme restrictions on domestic flights, and a great deal more population; and on top of that, so much is different about the way things are done in China, the state will just bulldoze things for looking too "towny".
> What? You mean, except for literally every other developed country has well developed rail lines that transport billions of people
Britain is a developed country with well developed rail lines, but probably few there would tell you that it's great right now. Some of the failure there can be attributed to their poorly-designed pseudo-privatization of the trains and crews themselves (but not the rails or facilities, which remain national), but a big part of the reason that was politically viable was that the rail services weren't all that great when they were national either. France's TGV is really cool, when the operators aren't on strike.
Up here in Ontario, we have one relatively useful rail corridor, but the further you get from Toronto, the less the passenger load. On my morning train from Hamilton, there are (charitably) a couple dozen passengers on the whole train for several stations. As for national rail in Canada, it is rare to hear that anyone has used Via. I've used it once in my life, but I found out later that a bus on the same route would have been faster and dramatically cheaper.
Long-haul rail networks are attractive to politicians because of what they represent, but to transport consumers, the reality of long haul passenger rail is that it is rarely the best option. When passengers bear the cost, long-haul passenger rail is, by natural means, rarely the best option in the U.S.
> with levels of unmatched efficiency?
"unmatched" by what? High speed rail is extremely capital intensive, and expensive at the point of sale, and that's when you don't have any trouble clearing land for it. In the U.S, most of the viable places for passenger rail already have rail lines, but they are not appropriate for high speed rail. Conventional passenger rail is too slow to attract fares, and is still very expensive.
Dude it's alright to like trains, trains are cool; but none of what you said justifies the subsidies that would be required in order to make a comprehensive U.S. long-haul passenger rail network that's worth using, and no policy would make it worth the cost.
If you have some brilliant business practice, policy, or idea that will change this, I implore you to develop it! :- )
I mean, absolute statements like yours can be easily disproven. If carbon is taxed, gasoline or kerosene becomes expensive, a rail system is justified for cost.
So you’re just saying give up on the dream, its too Late. Commercial rail is expensive, too slow.
Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism changes. Why argue about an extensive rail network if even big cities like Houston and Dallas don’t have rail?
So you’re just saying give up on the dream, its too Late. Commercial rail is expensive, too slow.
Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism changes. Why argue about an extensive rail network if even big cities like Houston and Dallas don’t have rail?
> Several big cities can be interconnected in a profitable way if NIMBYism changes.
It's not even NIMBYism. Consider the utter hate that California's high speed rail gets on HN despite very much no one being negatively effected by it. Then consider what a freeway does when it's run through a city.
It's not even NIMBYism. Consider the utter hate that California's high speed rail gets on HN despite very much no one being negatively effected by it. Then consider what a freeway does when it's run through a city.
> Why argue about an extensive rail network if even big cities like Houston and Dallas don’t have rail?
Because the topic at hand is Amtrak, the U.S's national long-haul rail network, not the local mass transit operators of Houston and Dallas. This is why I contrasted the relatively useful short rail lines in Ontario, and in particularly their most useful legs, with long-haul rail networks like Amtrak and Via.
Because the topic at hand is Amtrak, the U.S's national long-haul rail network, not the local mass transit operators of Houston and Dallas. This is why I contrasted the relatively useful short rail lines in Ontario, and in particularly their most useful legs, with long-haul rail networks like Amtrak and Via.
> Have you ever actually taken Amtrak?
Yes I have and your statement is correct. Amtrak is almost entirely dysfunctional but rail as a concept is not dysfunctional and actually works in many other countries.
It's like healthcare, which is an absolute shitshow in the US, however in the rest of the developed world it's not a shitshow.
Likewise with the military.
What is it about the US that makes so many fundamental services needed for the functioning of society into shitshows?
Yes I have and your statement is correct. Amtrak is almost entirely dysfunctional but rail as a concept is not dysfunctional and actually works in many other countries.
It's like healthcare, which is an absolute shitshow in the US, however in the rest of the developed world it's not a shitshow.
Likewise with the military.
What is it about the US that makes so many fundamental services needed for the functioning of society into shitshows?
With the military, I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks.
Healthcare might be the same thing. US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and that's used to fund healthcare research. Then the products of that research are given to other countries without them having to pay much.
Healthcare might be the same thing. US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and that's used to fund healthcare research. Then the products of that research are given to other countries without them having to pay much.
> I think other countries around the world intentionally don't invest much because they know they can rely on the US's military to scare off attacks.
Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except possibly for formal US allies.
Ukraine has proved that's not true for US-friendly countries facing US-hostile foes, which is essentially the optimal scenario short of actual formal alliance, so I don't think that actually is a plausoble explanation except possibly for formal US allies.
This is a really insightful example. It pretty near demolishes all the self-serving theories pushed by MIC-underwritten think tanks etc. So what are we left with? Maybe most other nations have just rationally decided that human life can and should be more peaceful, so it's not necessary to stockpile enough armaments to kill all humans fifty times over.
It's not particularly insightful or correct. It is absolutely true that our traditional NATO allies (except maybe Turkey) cheapen out on defense spending in reliance on U.S. protection. Their leaders admit that themselves: https://apnews.com/0229dd7556264040810d9e7f96f3aa0a/France%2...
> In a speech to French ambassadors in Paris, Macron said “Europe cannot rely on the United States only for its security. It’s up to us to meet our responsibilities and guarantee our security, and therefore European sovereignty.”
Nobody has decided that "human life can ... be more peaceful" without military superiority. Now that Trump has given Europeans reason to be skeptical about America's commitment, there is already a push to build up Europe's military forces. Macron will increase defense spending by 35% over six years, reversing a decade of decline: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-defence/france-com...
https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/29/eu-countries-increase-mi...
Ukraine is not a particularly good counter-example of that theory. First, Trump is the first U.S. President to exhibit some isolationist tendencies since Carter. But European disinvestment in defense has been going on since the USSR collapsed. Second, Ukraine is a former USSR country with a complicated history with Russia. It's not indicative of whether the U.S. would come to the defense of a real U.S. ally.
> In a speech to French ambassadors in Paris, Macron said “Europe cannot rely on the United States only for its security. It’s up to us to meet our responsibilities and guarantee our security, and therefore European sovereignty.”
Nobody has decided that "human life can ... be more peaceful" without military superiority. Now that Trump has given Europeans reason to be skeptical about America's commitment, there is already a push to build up Europe's military forces. Macron will increase defense spending by 35% over six years, reversing a decade of decline: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-defence/france-com...
https://www.euronews.com/2019/04/29/eu-countries-increase-mi...
Ukraine is not a particularly good counter-example of that theory. First, Trump is the first U.S. President to exhibit some isolationist tendencies since Carter. But European disinvestment in defense has been going on since the USSR collapsed. Second, Ukraine is a former USSR country with a complicated history with Russia. It's not indicative of whether the U.S. would come to the defense of a real U.S. ally.
> US residents pay a lot for healthcare, and that's used to fund healthcare research.
I'd really like to see a source for that, because that's far from obvious to me. I could see that being true for pharmaceuticals, but then there's a lot more to health care than just drugs.
In the US, health care seems more like the Parkinson's law of the economy: health care costs expand to suck up much (most?) of the economic surplus that results from any improvements in overall productivity.
I'd really like to see a source for that, because that's far from obvious to me. I could see that being true for pharmaceuticals, but then there's a lot more to health care than just drugs.
In the US, health care seems more like the Parkinson's law of the economy: health care costs expand to suck up much (most?) of the economic surplus that results from any improvements in overall productivity.
US residents pay too much for healthcare because we let healthcare and insurance companies squeeze as much profit as possible from people. It’s fucked up that an unplanned medical emergency can make you bankrupt. Somehow everyone else in the world manages to avoid that, and yet Americans either cry about socialism or think it’s some kind of impossible dark magic.
It'll never work in the US. Outside of a handle of locations, we just don't have the population density. On the coasts maybe, but even high-speed rail is just too slow for the west and mid-west.
The sweet spot for rail seems to be journeys of 100-300 miles... lots of even major US cities don't have another major city in that radius.
The sweet spot for rail seems to be journeys of 100-300 miles... lots of even major US cities don't have another major city in that radius.
lots...
I've got Denver, SLC... where else?
I've got Denver, SLC... where else?
I am from Minneapolis. I’m trying to imagine a fast rail connect to Chicago as being better than driving. Once in Chicago I think I’d like to have a car? It’s only a day’s drive away so I imagine I’d rather drive. Basically the net is that the US is car centric and it will be a lot of work to change that. (Which I’m on board for, it’s just not easy or quick.)
I had a few friends that commuted 1 hour by train each day, and they simply decided to buy and share an old car in the destination station. Just to make the 3 miles between the station and workplace. Bus were disfunctional, so they couldn't be relied on.
They huge amount of money saved in tolls and gas (gas here is not as cheap as in the US), plus the free time and more comfortable trip in the train, made the old crap car investment quite a no brainer.
If the rail line were really straight, Milwaukee would be right at 300 miles from the Twin Cities. (I agree, Des Moines doesn't really count as a "major city".)
briandear(3)
Amtrak's lack of profitablity isn't the issue per se.The lead here is who ultimately benefits. These subsidizes don't benefit the masses. They are an entitlement for those who don't need entitling.
Short flights are fine until they’re canceled and you go to the rental car counter and they charge you $500 for a day rental because, hey, supply and demand amirite?
I've commuted on Amtrak quite a bit - sac to bay area...
And I have looked into using them even more - but their is a litany of reasons why its impractical:
THeir ticket prices, staffing, schedules, lack of full-through-connection services, and delays all but make it hard to use as a service for all but one specific type of commuter.
Lets look at staffing.
They will know that its the commute hour; yet they will schedule ONE ticket agent at the counter in a major station - who has no incentive to be efficient with their tasks, and have made myself and MANY others miss the trains they were trying to get to. When you complain to the staff, they immediately take an attitude. Once when I asked why they only had one ticket teller during the major rush hour, the ticket teller didnt answer me, but called the Amtrak police to come question me. (I was being polite - and asked matter-of-fact why they would make such an oversight.)
Pricing: The tickets are way over priced for the service. Also, lets look at the "rewards" benefit - and the "10-pass" packets.
1) The rewards - it costs $19 to go from Sac to Martinez. You get (2) reward points per dollar you spend. For that same $19 leg to redeem points for a "free" ticket costs 900 points. -- That means you have to spend $450 to get ONE $19 reward.
2) A 10 pack ticket expires after 45 days. No matter what. Last holiday season - with validations, office shutdowns, holidays etc - there was no way to use the tickets I had until after the new year - yet they would "expire" on 12/31 - no matter what.
Their rewards points often fail to show up on your account - and its a tedious process to rectify - and even when you do rectify, it take more than 3-weeks for them to hit your account.
The pricing to go any distance, is just absolutely too high.
Now, the good things about Amtrak:
They have power, wifi and a snack car. The cars are clean (generally), and the ride is smooth - and actually faster than driving (more relaxing at least) along 80.
---
I really want Amtrak to succeed - but I wish they would address the problems they do have.
And I have looked into using them even more - but their is a litany of reasons why its impractical:
THeir ticket prices, staffing, schedules, lack of full-through-connection services, and delays all but make it hard to use as a service for all but one specific type of commuter.
Lets look at staffing.
They will know that its the commute hour; yet they will schedule ONE ticket agent at the counter in a major station - who has no incentive to be efficient with their tasks, and have made myself and MANY others miss the trains they were trying to get to. When you complain to the staff, they immediately take an attitude. Once when I asked why they only had one ticket teller during the major rush hour, the ticket teller didnt answer me, but called the Amtrak police to come question me. (I was being polite - and asked matter-of-fact why they would make such an oversight.)
Pricing: The tickets are way over priced for the service. Also, lets look at the "rewards" benefit - and the "10-pass" packets.
1) The rewards - it costs $19 to go from Sac to Martinez. You get (2) reward points per dollar you spend. For that same $19 leg to redeem points for a "free" ticket costs 900 points. -- That means you have to spend $450 to get ONE $19 reward.
2) A 10 pack ticket expires after 45 days. No matter what. Last holiday season - with validations, office shutdowns, holidays etc - there was no way to use the tickets I had until after the new year - yet they would "expire" on 12/31 - no matter what.
Their rewards points often fail to show up on your account - and its a tedious process to rectify - and even when you do rectify, it take more than 3-weeks for them to hit your account.
The pricing to go any distance, is just absolutely too high.
Now, the good things about Amtrak:
They have power, wifi and a snack car. The cars are clean (generally), and the ride is smooth - and actually faster than driving (more relaxing at least) along 80.
---
I really want Amtrak to succeed - but I wish they would address the problems they do have.
You can’t buy the tickets in an app or similar?
That’s why you do in Norway, and I guess large parts of the developed world
That’s why you do in Norway, and I guess large parts of the developed world
You appear to have some odd expectations. I can see why they called the cops on you.
My expectation is that when there are 40 people in line and its rush hour during a work week, and they know this every single day, that they have employed more than a single person to man the ticket counter.
I can see why you’re to obtuse to understand.
I can see why you’re to obtuse to understand.
I hope one day we stop comparing rail to cars on passenger-mile basis - like infrastructure costs per passenger-mile. These are apples and oranges. There is zero similarities between riding on modern trains and driving.
I’ve taken hundreds of trips, anywhere between 2 and 8 hours, on TGV, ICE, and Eurostar trains in Europe. I loved it every time and came out refreshed even after longer trips. At times when I wanted to get work done (probably 60-75% of total time spent on trains) I was as productive - likely more productive, due to lack of distractions - as at the office. In contrast, I don’t think I can remember any road trip lasting more than 2 hours when I could say I enjoyed it; many times I was so exhausted that I needed rest upon arriving to destination.
So, if we are going to try to fit this into some sort of economic model let’s not forget about countless billions of hours of productivity loss due to people stuck behind the wheel staring at traffic.
Not to mention both emotional and physical strain associated with driving (nope, can not stand up when you like, or walk over to the buffet car for a coffee), respective health care costs, and more productivity losses. Once we do that, the picture will be very different. It’s sad we in the US haven’t realized this yet.
I’ve taken hundreds of trips, anywhere between 2 and 8 hours, on TGV, ICE, and Eurostar trains in Europe. I loved it every time and came out refreshed even after longer trips. At times when I wanted to get work done (probably 60-75% of total time spent on trains) I was as productive - likely more productive, due to lack of distractions - as at the office. In contrast, I don’t think I can remember any road trip lasting more than 2 hours when I could say I enjoyed it; many times I was so exhausted that I needed rest upon arriving to destination.
So, if we are going to try to fit this into some sort of economic model let’s not forget about countless billions of hours of productivity loss due to people stuck behind the wheel staring at traffic.
Not to mention both emotional and physical strain associated with driving (nope, can not stand up when you like, or walk over to the buffet car for a coffee), respective health care costs, and more productivity losses. Once we do that, the picture will be very different. It’s sad we in the US haven’t realized this yet.
FTA
> The host railroads have been obligated to give the company preference over freight trains so Amtrak can run on time, but that statute has not been enforced, he says.
Anyone know the details on this? It’s something I’ve experienced to a degree and a complaint I’ve heard from other riders.
> The host railroads have been obligated to give the company preference over freight trains so Amtrak can run on time, but that statute has not been enforced, he says.
Anyone know the details on this? It’s something I’ve experienced to a degree and a complaint I’ve heard from other riders.
“Where we want to be as America's railroad is to cover all of our operating costs through our revenues,” [the CEO] says, “and then use the grant that we receive from our owners, the United States government, to invest in the infrastructure, the rail infrastructure across America.”
That's some unconventional accounting. Most GAAP accountants would tell you that capital investments should be amortized over their expected lifetime, with the first depreciation hit in the year they're made. That would of course mean an additional expense to cover before calling yourself profitable.
That's some unconventional accounting. Most GAAP accountants would tell you that capital investments should be amortized over their expected lifetime, with the first depreciation hit in the year they're made. That would of course mean an additional expense to cover before calling yourself profitable.
In that quote the CEO's describing operating cash flow, a GAAP measure. Nothing about it is unconventional. And it includes real-world depreciation to a large degree since maintenance costs are part of operating expenditures. The problem is the article's author omitted discussing profit per se, not that the CEO's goal is having positive operating cash flow.
Compare to bus companies, where the infrastructure is almost entirely not even their problem. The roads are simply dealt with by the government (built by private companies, who win contracts from the government). For whatever reason, that's not how we do rail infrastructure for the most part.
So, one could argue that Amtrak's rail infrastructure _should_ be entirely off-budget, because really it shouldn't be part of Amtrak at all, to make a comparison to bus companies more valid.
So, one could argue that Amtrak's rail infrastructure _should_ be entirely off-budget, because really it shouldn't be part of Amtrak at all, to make a comparison to bus companies more valid.
Why do we care about public transportation turning a profit? The benefit of a good transit network is massive and far above simply the fare fees.
There's barely a road in the entire country that's turned a profit (gas and vehicle registration taxes don't come close to covering road construction costs, and of course most roads aren't tolled), yet we still rightly consider roads as being worth it. We should treat our rail, transit, and other transportation infrastructure similarly. Expecting a profit is completely missing the point, but doing so is a nice bonus.