Bush Admin. wants to kill Amtrak

[Ma Deuce]

Actually it's 2004, but rail is still dead.

That can possibly be argued in the case of intercity passenger rail in North America, but commuter and freight rail is definately alive and well...

[Worlds Spanner]

I took Amtrak from New Orleans to DC once, and I must say that it sucked. It took 27 hours, cost a ton, and wasn't very confortable. I took Delta from Shreveport to National in about four hours if I remember correctly for much much less. I hate to point out the date, but this is 2003, rail travel died decades ago. Amtrak is nothing more than a bloated and ineffecient waste of tax dollars and if it can't survive on it's own than so be it. Let's heave in to the capitalist junkyard next to the telegraph where it belongs. If another private company can come in and make rail work, then fine, more power to them. If not, then let's use the saved money to inprove ATC, build runways and highways, cut taxes, etc.

Read the damn FAIR article I linked to above. Then show me your highways and airlines operating without huge amounts of tax dollars.

I'm calling your bullshit.

[Ma Deuce]

I don't find theirs and our system of rail travel to be comparible. Of course I could have said 'unmodernized rail travel the way Amtrak does it is dead' which would have been more specific.

In what way is it "unmodernized"?

[Howedar]

I hate to point out the date, but this is 2003, rail travel died decades ago.

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

It should be obvious that the higher population density in those countries makes rail a more attractive transit system than in the US.

[Wicked Pilot]

Read the damn FAIR article I linked to above. Then show me your highways and airlines operating without huge amounts of tax dollars.

I'm calling your bullshit.

Airlines can go out of business. Amtrak should have done that a long time ago. Moreover, airlines getting subsidies in most cases isn't right either, and I would argue against corporate welfare for them too. If United went down and Southwest or Jet Blue took it's place you would see no tears from me. And as to highways, those are traveled on by most people, so I don't object to my tax dollars being used for their maintance, nor do I object to tax dollars keeping rail lines up since freight depends on it. And as a comparison to Amtrak, government doesn't subsidize my vehicle purchase cost, gas, insurance, maintance, etc.

[Wicked Pilot]

In what way is it "unmodernized"?

Just picture an Amtrak next to a European bullet train, and you'll see my arguement.

[Worlds Spanner]

I hate to point out the date, but this is 2003, rail travel died decades ago.

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

It should be obvious that the higher population density in those countries makes rail a more attractive transit system than in the US.

Which is why the NEC works. Makes me wonder what Amtrak lines there are in the West, let's say from LA so SF. Of course, that's as long as the NEC with no major cities like say, NY or Philly in between. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington are all top ten cities, and they're what, 4 hours apart, 2 hours apart, and 3 hours apart, respectively?

[Ma Deuce]

In what way is it "unmodernized"?

Just picture an Amtrak next to a European bullet train, and you'll see my arguement.

Why, because most Amtrak locomotives are diesels? Most of the locomotives Amtrak operates now are less than ten years old (and are technologically current, including such features as microprocessor managed functions, and electronic cab displays and controls). Much of their the rolling stock (like the Superliner an Amfleet coaches) are indeed older than that, but are still more than adequate. Surely do don't think that a continent-wide high speed electric rail network is viable in North America, do you?
Amtrak operates on other companys' rails, and in all places except the NEC, the speed limit for passenger trains does not exceed 79mph (there are a handful places where it reachs 90, but they are rare) even though Amtraks' diesels are rated to travel at 110mph, because the tracks simply won't allow for higher speeds. There would be no advantage to using European-style "bullet trains" on existing lines outside the NEC. Most of those trains (like the TGV) had tracks laid specifically for their use.

[Joe]

I hate to point out the date, but this is 2003, rail travel died decades ago.

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

It should be obvious that the higher population density in those countries makes rail a more attractive transit system than in the US.

Not to mention cultural differences, car ownershup and use is so highly valued here. Americans just aren't likely to accept that kind of mass public transportation.

[Worlds Spanner]

Read the damn FAIR article I linked to above. Then show me your highways and airlines operating without huge amounts of tax dollars.

I'm calling your bullshit.

Airlines can go out of business. Amtrak should have done that a long time ago. Moreover, airlines getting subsidies in most cases isn't right either, and I would argue against corporate welfare for them too. If United went down and Southwest or Jet Blue took it's place you would see no tears from me. And as to highways, those are traveled on by most people, so I don't object to my tax dollars being used for their maintance, nor do I object to tax dollars keeping rail lines up since freight depends on it. And as a comparison to Amtrak, government doesn't subsidize my vehicle purchase cost, gas, insurance, maintance, etc.

Well, most of the big airlines should have been out of business for a long time then.

[Sea Skimmer]

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

The problem is geography. Passenger railways do best on trips of around 300-400 miles, too far for a comfortable drive and too short to make the waiting lines at airports worthwhile while being long enough that a decent amount can be charged for the service. It also lets the same engine and rolling stock make multiple trips in a single day enve if they aren;t very high speed. while you don't need any expensive dinning or sleeping cars. Europe and Japan are full of such routes, the US far less so except for the North East corridor which as I noted breaks even and gets a very large share of the total traffic between those cities.

Frankly a Warrington/DC/Boston Bullet train would sure as hell help things

Probably, but ACELA is as fast as things can get unless we build all new high-speed tracks. It's already extremely fast for a train running on preexisting rails and on straight stretches can go 150mph which is pretty close to the original bullet trains 164mph. Though the latest ones are at nearly 190.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, most of the big airlines should have been out of business for a long time then.

Ideally a couple of the big US ones would be dead, leaving those that remain with enough traffic to cover all there massive overhead and operating costs and stay profitable.

[Col. Crackpot]

I hate to point out the date, but this is 2003, rail travel died decades ago.

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

and whose entire countries are the size of Iowa.

[Colonel Olrik]

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

and whose entire countries are the size of Iowa.

Take away the japanese, the rest of the examples are part of an unified railway system that AFAIK is decent enough, although the EU is (still) smaller than the US.

[Col. Crackpot]

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

and whose entire countries are the size of Iowa.

Take away the japanese, the rest of the examples are part of an unified railway system that AFAIK is decent enough, although the EU is (still) smaller than the US.

granted. but it is still a hell of a lot cheaper to fly from any given US city to another than it is to go by rail. Consumers know this and choose air travel. Yet the government still shovels money into the bottomless pit that is Amtrak.

[Oberleutnant]

I hate to point out the date, but this is 2003, rail travel died decades ago.

Tell that to the British, Germans, French, Japanese, etc, who have efficient working
passenger trains.

and whose entire countries are the size of Iowa.

How about Sweden or Finland? They both have a small population, but long distances make trains an ideal method of transportation. Of course a comparison to more densely populated countries of Central Europe or Japan isn't very good.

Low-cost airlines are quickly expanding their network in Europe and with their cheap airfare tickets they'll certainly attract travellers, who might otherwise use a train.

[Col. Crackpot]

How about Sweden or Finland? They both have a small population, but long distances make trains an ideal method of transportation. Of course a comparison to more densely populated countries of Central Europe or Japan isn't very good.

Low-cost airlines are quickly expanding their network in Europe and with their cheap airfare tickets they'll certainly attract travellers, who might otherwise use a train.

a long distance trip in finland is what.... Helsinki to the Laplands up north...whats that 600 or 700 KM? By contrast a long distance trip in the US New York to Los Angeles is several thousand KM. Even still, a trip in the us of a comparable distance.... say Boston to Washington DC would still be cheaper by air on a discount carrier like Southwest. They are advertising $79 one way specials. By contrast the Amtrak Acelea on the northeast corredor would cost about $100 just to get to New York, and then you'd have to pay anothor $100 to get to DC. All for the privlidge of getting to your destination later than you would have if you flew. No thanks, i'll stick to flying.

[Wicked Pilot]

In what way is it "unmodernized"?

Amtrak operates on other companys' rails, and in all places except the NEC, the speed limit for passenger trains does not exceed 79mph (there are a handful places where it reachs 90, but they are rare) even though Amtraks' diesels are rated to travel at 110mph, because the tracks simply won't allow for higher speeds. There would be no advantage to using European-style "bullet trains" on existing lines outside the NEC. Most of those trains (like the TGV) had tracks laid specifically for their use.

You answered the question for me better than I could.

[RedImperator]

Even with Southwest coming into the Northeast (which should be the deathblow for US Airways, by the way), Amtrak is still far more comfortable convenient. If I want to fly to Boston on Southwest, I have to drive to Philadelphia International Airport, find long term parking, check in, go through security, cram myself into the seat, fly to Manchester and then rent a car, call a cab, or get a ride into Boston. Whereas if I take the train, I can ride PATCO to 30th Street Station, go through far less hassles boarding the train, and ride right into North Station. The same goes for New York, Baltimore, and Washington (especially New York--only a masochist would want to fly into Newark, LaGuardia, or JFK or fight the Turnpike, the Hudson river crossings, and Manhattan traffic rather than just ride to Penn Station).

[Worlds Spanner]

Even with Southwest coming into the Northeast (which should be the deathblow for US Airways, by the way), Amtrak is still far more comfortable convenient. If I want to fly to Boston on Southwest, I have to drive to Philadelphia International Airport, find long term parking, check in, go through security, cram myself into the seat, fly to Manchester and then rent a car, call a cab, or get a ride into Boston. Whereas if I take the train, I can ride PATCO to 30th Street Station, go through far less hassles boarding the train, and ride right into North Station. The same goes for New York, Baltimore, and Washington (especially New York--only a masochist would want to fly into Newark, LaGuardia, or JFK or fight the Turnpike, the Hudson river crossings, and Manhattan traffic rather than just ride to Penn Station).

Very well put, RedImperator.

[Col. Crackpot]

Even with Southwest coming into the Northeast (which should be the deathblow for US Airways, by the way), Amtrak is still far more comfortable convenient. If I want to fly to Boston on Southwest, I have to drive to Philadelphia International Airport, find long term parking, check in, go through security, cram myself into the seat, fly to Manchester and then rent a car, call a cab, or get a ride into Boston. Whereas if I take the train, I can ride PATCO to 30th Street Station, go through far less hassles boarding the train, and ride right into North Station. The same goes for New York, Baltimore, and Washington (especially New York--only a masochist would want to fly into Newark, LaGuardia, or JFK or fight the Turnpike, the Hudson river crossings, and Manhattan traffic rather than just ride to Penn Station).

i did a price check for ya red.

amtrak: Philly-Boston $148 roundtrip for the cheapest possible ticket. travel time: appx 6 hours each way.

american airlines: $188 roundtrip cheapest ticket. travel time: 75 minutes each way.

an extra $20 each way ($40 total) shaves 5 hours off of each leg of your trip (10 hours total) . Even if you get to the air port an hour earlier than you would get to the train station to accomodate the extra security you still save 4 hours off of each leg (8 hours total). Sorry man, but time is money as far as i'm concerned.

[RedImperator]

Convenience is money, too, and North Station is a hell of a lot more convenient than Logan International, let alone Manchester International. Ditto for 30th Street Station and Philly International.

And Philly to Boston is at the extreme range for rail travel anyway. Run the numbers for Philly-New York and factor in convenience there and you'll have a good idea why rail travel is still a good idea, at least in the NE corridor, even if a national passenger rail system isn't necessary.

[Col. Crackpot]

Convenience is money, too, and North Station is a hell of a lot more convenient than Logan International, let alone Manchester International. Ditto for 30th Street Station and Philly International.

And Philly to Boston is at the extreme range for rail travel anyway. Run the numbers for Philly-New York and factor in convenience there and you'll have a good idea why rail travel is still a good idea, at least in the NE corridor, even if a national passenger rail system isn't necessary.

for such a short route (philly-nyc) i'd agree. Although Grand Central is cut from the same cloth as JFK and LaGuardia... thats the Clusterfuck Cloth to be precise. I've just never been impressed with the Amtrak northeast corridor service. When ever i go to NYC i just drive an hour to New Haven and ride the Metro North Railroad into grand central for a couple of bucks.

[RedImperator]

Amtrak could stand quite a bit of improvement in service; nobody who deals with them on any kind of regular basis could deny that. But it's not as if US Airways is any better (I'll reserve judgement on Southwest because I've never had the pleasure of flying with them).

As for Grand Central, I can't comment because I've never been there--I always come in from the south, to Penn. But no matter how bad GC is, it has one advantage Kennedy and LaGuardia will never have: when you step out of Grand Central Station, you're on Fifth Avenue, not out in the ass end of Queens.

[Col. Crackpot]

another little tidbit about the redundancy of Amtrak: I can ride the metroliner from Provicence to Boston for about $20 round trip plus taxes. OR I can do what i usually do and ride the MBTA Purple T Line for $10 round trip INCLUDING taxes. You'll see that redundancy in a lot of places on the Northeast Corredor.... Hartford or New Haven to NYC on the Metro North eats Amtrak's lunch. So do most places in Jersey on the PATH.