Bush Admin. wants to kill Amtrak

[Oberleutnant]

a long distance trip in finland is what.... Helsinki to the Laplands up north...whats that 600 or 700 KM? - SNIP

It's about 1000 km, but I get your point. If that is the case then it's no wonder that air travel dominates the market over there.

[Wicked Pilot]

If the NEC train market is so great, then I'm sure that some company could acquire Amtrak if they went under, turn the business around, and make it work with a profit. Frankly I don't see why Amtrak has any incentive to do anything to improve when government will constantly bail them out.

And the service on Southwest is generally very good even though they are a 'no thrills' airline.

[phongn]

Southwest is very good at being on-time but they aren't the most comfortable airline to fly. JetBlue is still relatively inexpensive and has much better service on the plane.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I'm going to look at this from a selfish point of view.

If killing Amtrak (I'm talking out the runs out here in California) reduces the noise levels at my condo then Im for it.

If killing Amtrak causes an increase in traffic because someone else is more sucessful them Im against it.

[Xenophobe3691]

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.

Have you ever taken European trains, as opposed to American ones? There's a huge difference...

[Worlds Spanner]

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.

Amtrak is NOT a regional rail service. That's what MetroNorth, the MBTA, (dare I say it?) SEPTA, etc are for.

You're doing these price and time comparisons for PHL-BOS and Providence to BOS, why don't you do one for NYC to BOS?

Regional rail can't get you there due to a gap between New Haven and Providence, and flying requires spending at least an extra 2 hours getting out to a NYC airport and an extra 30 minutes (at least) to get into Boston from Logan, which makes flying take 3 hours, the same amount of time as the train. But flying requires transfers between cars and planes on both ends, stress to make connections, dealing with security, and smaller seats all around. On Amtrak, you sit down, plug in your laptop, and do whatever you want until you get there.

[Symmetry]

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 at least three times the population density.

[Broomstick]

Of course rail loses money - it's ONLY people-carrying transit system that is NOT subsidized by the government. Or did you folks think the highways paved themselves?

The government (state and federal) supports highways and airlines, but pulled the rug out from under rail. How in the hell is unsubsidized rail supposed to compete with subsidized road and air? Hardly fair, is it?

That said - 9/11 should have taught folks the utility of an alternate form of long-distance travel to the airlines, which were shut down for days. All of a sudden rail didn't look so bad.

Perhaps long-distance rail linking major population centers, supplemented by bus travel would work better than our current system. But the fact is, no one in DC really wanted Amtrak succeed.

As for private service - it was the failure of the private passenger rail systems to support themselves that lead to the formation of Amtrak in the first place!

I myself ride one of the very few passenger rail services outside of Amtrak - the South Shore and South Bend railroad, which has been in existance since the 19th century. It does get money from the state of Indiana. So what? It enables 20,000+ Hoosiers a day to work in Chicago and bring their paychecks back to Northwest Indiana, and their taxes, too. So net the state comes out ahead. In fact, there's talk of expanding it.

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.

By that rationale how about we cut the subisdies to the highways and airlines, too? I mean if you can't afford roads you shouldn't have them, right?

And what do I need the airlines for? I can do my own flying. Maybe I can just be a selfish bastard and sit in my little fort and fuck the rest of humanity - there's a plan.

If not, then let's use the saved money to inprove ATC, build runways and highways, cut taxes, etc.

You use ATC? Oh... that's right, some pilots are required to use it rather than having a choice...

Sorry, just a little snarky on that one, but I just had to shout down another bunch of assholes this week who are trying to protect us from ourselves by legislating general aviation out of existance. If my fuel taxes have to go to support an air traffic control system run mainly for the benefit of the airlines and cargo carriers, a system I seldom use, then I don't see the difference between getting soaked for that vs. soaked for rail or soaked for highways. Sometimes, as a member of a society you pay for things you don't want and don't use because the folks who do want that stuff are paying for things they don't want/use but YOU do.

Of course, I'm biased - I depend on a railroad to get to work Monday through Friday. From my viewpoint, it makes more sense to subsidize rail, but I acknowledge that plenty of folks need those highways to get to their jobs. But while ya'll are cheering the demise of the iron horse and saying let it die, I'm wondering how the hell I'm supposed to get to work without it. Drive? Well, yeah, but 400,000+ people work in the Chicago Loop and there's only 65,000 or so parking spaces. You do the math. Talk about a clusterfuck!

[Col. Crackpot]

Amtrak is NOT a regional rail service. That's what MetroNorth, the MBTA, (dare I say it?) SEPTA, etc are for.

You're doing these price and time comparisons for PHL-BOS and Providence to BOS, why don't you do one for NYC to BOS?

Regional rail can't get you there due to a gap between New Haven and Providence, and flying requires spending at least an extra 2 hours getting out to a NYC airport and an extra 30 minutes (at least) to get into Boston from Logan, which makes flying take 3 hours, the same amount of time as the train. But flying requires transfers between cars and planes on both ends, stress to make connections, dealing with security, and smaller seats all around. On Amtrak, you sit down, plug in your laptop, and do whatever you want until you get there.

NYC to Boston would be about the only niche that Amtrak would be sucessful. Too long for commuter rail, too short for air. That's why the Northeast Corridor is the only profitable Amtrak rail line. Too short for air, too long for commuter rail. My issue on that last post was to point out redundancy. Why does Amtrak offer such a redundant service that is not only better served by commuter rail, but done at almost half the price?