Amtrak ridership up, funding for more rail built by states.

[Rahvin]

I've taken the train from Sacramento to SF a few times, and generally it was on time. I've had friends and relatives occasionally delayed due to breakdowns on specific trains, but the worst I ever experienced was a 20-odd minute delay due to traffic.

And as a tall guy (6'6") I much prefer taking the train to flying (I love the flying part, not so much the sardine-can part) or driving (and don't even get me started on Greyhound). Amtrak trains typically have far more than enough legroom even for me, much more comfortable seats that I can actually sleep in, almost zero hassle for security...The more new rail they lay out here in California the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Surlethe]

I once contemplated on using Amtrak to get to Hartford, Conn from here. The price was $40. One way. I instead used the gas guzzling Greyhound for a round trip of $32.

If they can make traveling by rail cheaper than the road, I'll gladly go for it.

I am curious as to what the White House people meant about the lack of spending accountability in the bill.

A coworker is planning to go from Indiana to Maryland later this summer; I suggested taking a look at Amtrak, since she didn't want to drive. The round-trip cost was about $400, and it would take 17 hours. Taking her car would cost her about $300 in gas and take only about 12 hours. Out here in the midwest, Amtrak is not quite a viable option yet.

[darthkommandant]

I just took my first Amtrak 3 weeks ago from Amsterdam NY to Penn Station in NYC. It took about 3 hours to get there and it was a comfortable trip.

[Losonti Tokash]

Generally, rail on the West Coast is terrible. The closest I've ever been to on time was 2 hours late. The worst occasion was when I was traveling from Klamath Falls, Oregon to Portland and my train arrived at Klamath after I was actually due to arrive in Portland. I don't remember exactly how late it was, but it was easily 6-7 hours.

Meanwhile on the east coast, it's fantastic. I've taken the train between Penn Station in NYC and New Brunswick several times and it's always fast and reliable.

[SirNitram]

Improving bad rail service takes money, and yet the Right Wing excuse is that they shouldn't spend money until it's improved. They don't understand their own economics.

Anyway, the bill has money for grants that will open more high-speed corridors. It could see one in the West Coast, especially if there's a push.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's nice to see this finally go through--more than doubling Amtrak's funding and divesting it of the Corridor will be enormously helpful, and get Amtrak back on track as a long-distance service provider, letting a local authority handle the NEC.

Wrong. Have you even looked at Amtrak's quarterly statements available on their website? Everything but the NEC bleeds money. The NEC is the only part of the system that reliably operatates at a profit and the profits from that help subsidize the other money losing trains. Peel off the NEC and watch Amtrak quality plummet.

No, remove the NEC and see quality improve across the rest of the system enormously, the NEC is a huge money drain, Shep. The figures on Amtrak's quarterly statements are cooked, if you do analysis based on ridership miles like all of the airlines do, instead of the useless metric of ridership numbers, the Empire Builder from Seattle/Portland to Chicago is the most profitable train, and the NEC's regional services are close to the least profitable.

The cost of the physical infrastructure upkeep of the NEC simply is never factored by Amtrak into NEC trains, but spread out as an "operating expense" over the entire system, presenting an entirely false picture of their budget.

[Darth Fanboy]

Generally, rail on the West Coast is terrible. The closest I've ever been to on time was 2 hours late. The worst occasion was when I was traveling from Klamath Falls, Oregon to Portland and my train arrived at Klamath after I was actually due to arrive in Portland. I don't remember exactly how late it was, but it was easily 6-7 hours.

Meanwhile on the east coast, it's fantastic. I've taken the train between Penn Station in NYC and New Brunswick several times and it's always fast and reliable.

Maybe in the Northwest where you are at, but I have never had anything but a pleasant experience on the trains in my neck of the woods, and i've ridden to most amtrak stations between Santa Barbara and San Diego.

[Coyote]

Improving bad rail service takes money, and yet the Right Wing excuse is that they shouldn't spend money until it's improved. They don't understand their own economics.

Oh, they understand, all right-- they'd love any excuse to eject a "subsidized, socialist" program. After all, only European crypto-Marxist girlieman states worry about "making the trains run on time!"

They'd cut funds to Amtrack, let it wither and die, declare it "un-competitive" and then brag to stranded taxpayers about how they "cut government pork".

At best we can hope that regional governments step in and get a Western high-speed line going, as you mentioned. I can see a West Coast line, a Easte Coast/Great Lakes line, and possibly a Texas-Gulf Coast-Florida line. The rest of the country wouldn't get much. Well, the LA/San Diego region would get a spur to Las Vegas!

[houser2112]

Acquiring the necessary land for the ROW now would be extremely expensive, to say nothing of the actual construction of the line.

Amtrak is government run. Couldn't Eminent Domain be used?

[The Spartan]

Acquiring the necessary land for the ROW now would be extremely expensive, to say nothing of the actual construction of the line.

Amtrak is government run. Couldn't Eminent Domain be used?

Eminent Domain doesn't mean they don't have to pay for it. They might get away with paying less, but considering the sheer amount of land needed when you factor in the number of miles of track, it is a significant amount.

[NeoGoomba]

I just took my first Amtrak 3 weeks ago from Amsterdam NY to Penn Station in NYC. It took about 3 hours to get there and it was a comfortable trip.

I've never had issues with the trains in NY either. Either going west to Buffalo or south to NYC, I can't recall any delays that werent less than 20 minutes.

[Broomstick]

I've taken Amtrak between Chicago and Detroit multiple times, mostly during the period when I had severe fear of flying (yes, I did - obviously, I got over it). MOST of the time the trains ran reasonably on time, at least as well as the airlines and heck, I've gotten delays when traveling by road, too. Delays are a hazard of any form of transportation, and I don't consider 5 or 15 or even 30 minutes to be outrageous when traveling long distance. The only time I had a massive delay - 6 hours - was when we hit someone. Between the having to clean the gore off half the train, the necessary cops-and-coroner stuff, checking passengers for possible injury due getting flung about or clobbered by flying objects during the emergency stop, and having to replace the driver who was, frankly hysterical at having helplessly reduced to paste a young man not only in the same age range as his son but also with a passing resemblance to same... well, the time went by. I don't think that delay was Amtrak's fault.

They've reduced service from three trains each way each day to just one over the past 15 years, but really, with the rising price of gas and the hassle of airlines I think there's an untapped market here in the upper Midwest.

[Surlethe]

They've reduced service from three trains each way each day to just one over the past 15 years, but really, with the rising price of gas and the hassle of airlines I think there's an untapped market here in the upper Midwest.

And in the lower and eastern Midwest, too. Indianapolis has grown leaps and bounds since people last thought seriously about trains, and the interstates leading to and from Indy are clogged. I-70 and I-69 in particular have no rail route as an alternative; the only train lines through Indiana are in a diagonal corridor from Louisville and Cincinnati up to Chicago. No lines connect to the next largest cities in the state; the nearest station to Ft. Wayne is about twenty miles north, and there's nothing remotely near Evansville. If you want to get to a city in the interior of Ohio from Indianapolis, you're out of luck; if you want to get to Detroit, you have to go up to Chicago and transfer there.

[Surlethe]

I've been doing some calculations. It seems that Amtrak is not really cost-competitive, even with $4/gallon gasoline. Say I want to honeymoon in Chicago. If I drive from Muncie to Chicago, I'll take 69 south to Indy and pick up 65 north to Chicago. That's about 225 miles; if the car gets efficiency e, the round trip transportation will cost some dp/e, where p is the price of gas and d is distance. As it stands, at average $4/gallon gas and 22 mpg, the transportation will cost about $82.

If I want to take a train from Muncie to Chicago for the honeymoon, I have several options. I can drive north to Waterloo, south to Connorsville, or just go to Indy and take the train from there. A trip from Connorsville to Chicago costs, round, $148 + gas; a trip from Waterloo to Chicago costs, round, $112 + gas; and a trip from Indianapolis to Chicago costs, round, $72 + gas.

Waterloo is 103 miles from Muncie, so the round trip to that station will cost about $38. Total trip from Waterloo: $150. Connorsville is about 45 miles from Muncie, so the round trip to that station will cost about $16. Total trip from Connorsville: $164. Indy is about 60 miles from Muncie, so the round trip to Indy will cost about $22. Total trip from Indianapolis: $94.

That doesn't take into account the fact that driving will take less than five hours in one direction, while the minimum expected train time is five and a half hours.

[Alferd Packer]

The cost of the physical infrastructure upkeep of the NEC simply is never factored by Amtrak into NEC trains, but spread out as an "operating expense" over the entire system, presenting an entirely false picture of their budget.

Compounding the problem is that the NEC is extremly heavily used by commuter rail systems over most of its length. There's the MBTA in Boston the Shore Line East and Metro-North in Connecticut, NJ Transit here in the Dirty Jerz, SEPTA in Philadelphia, and MARC in Baltimore/Washington. Since Amtrak owns the ROW, they're stuck with maintaining five hundred miles of the most heavily used rail in the United States. Actually, it's quad-tracked for a good chunk of the way, so it's really approaching 1500 or so miles of track, all electrified with overhead catenary (and third rail for some small portions of it).

[phongn]

That doesn't take into account the fact that driving will take less than five hours in one direction, while the minimum expected train time is five and a half hours.

Well, when you're on the train it's probably a lot more relaxing than driving. Also, don't forget depreciation costs on your vehicle.

[EnsGabe]

Also, don't forget depreciation costs on your vehicle.

further along those lines, a good all-in-one way of estimating car costs is the state/federal mileage reimbursement rate. My understanding is that this rolls all associated car-related costs into an amortized per-mile cost. I found this which is a few years out of date and only for Texas, but it should give you a ball park estimate to recalculate the comparative costs.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I've been doing some calculations. It seems that Amtrak is not really cost-competitive, even with $4/gallon gasoline. Say I want to honeymoon in Chicago. If I drive from Muncie to Chicago, I'll take 69 south to Indy and pick up 65 north to Chicago. That's about 225 miles; if the car gets efficiency e, the round trip transportation will cost some dp/e, where p is the price of gas and d is distance. As it stands, at average $4/gallon gas and 22 mpg, the transportation will cost about $82.

If I want to take a train from Muncie to Chicago for the honeymoon, I have several options. I can drive north to Waterloo, south to Connorsville, or just go to Indy and take the train from there. A trip from Connorsville to Chicago costs, round, $148 + gas; a trip from Waterloo to Chicago costs, round, $112 + gas; and a trip from Indianapolis to Chicago costs, round, $72 + gas.

Waterloo is 103 miles from Muncie, so the round trip to that station will cost about $38. Total trip from Waterloo: $150. Connorsville is about 45 miles from Muncie, so the round trip to that station will cost about $16. Total trip from Connorsville: $164. Indy is about 60 miles from Muncie, so the round trip to Indy will cost about $22. Total trip from Indianapolis: $94.

That doesn't take into account the fact that driving will take less than five hours in one direction, while the minimum expected train time is five and a half hours.

Amtrak is much cheaper over long distances. You can go from Chicago to Seattle for as little as $125, and usually around $156 coach depending on the time of year. Hell, two people going in sleeper compartments can do the trip one-way for as little as $225.00 in the off-season per person, which means a round-trip per person of $450.00, which would include six meals and free champagne and wine in each direction (twelve meals, wine and cheese-tasting sessions, and two bottles of champagne per person) and access to a shower, with your own private compartment to share. Granted, these prices are only available for a couple weeks each year and are much higher in the summer, but for a couple months they'd only be about thirty dollars more expensive per person, each way.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Also, Broomstick, there are substantially more Chicago-Detroit trains than that, they just go by a different route. The Wolverine service on the Pontiac-Detroit-Chicago route has three daily round trips presently.

[CmdrWilkens]

Union station is a beautiful, happy place, especially for me. It's nice to see this finally go through--more than doubling Amtrak's funding and divesting it of the Corridor will be enormously helpful, and get Amtrak back on track as a long-distance service provider, letting a local authority handle the NEC.

I disagree with divesting Amtrak of the NEC if only because 1) they own the damn tracks so that's a HUGE capital writeoff to have to take and 2) It currently has the highest ridership of any amtrak service and thus it serves as a gateway for further rail travel. If I hadn't had the experience of riding on the NEC every few months for meetings in NYC and Philly then I would probably never consider cross-country rail travel. When we strat to get to the point that long-distance air-carriers are no longer affordable for the median earning household THEN people will be forced into using Amtrak for long-distance inter-city but in the interim its is going to take familirization and a comfort level to get people to make the choice more. For the NorthEast this should mean continuing the NEC. Moreover while one could in a few years time look at taking MARC to SEPTA to NJT it just isn't viable in the mid-term, we would be looking at 2030 or so before you could reasonably look at commuter rail handling it and if a private enterprise were to take over the NEC then there is the huge upfront investment that goes to getting the trackage.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Amtrak is much cheaper over long distances. You can go from Chicago to Seattle for as little as $125, and usually around $156 coach depending on the time of year. Hell, two people going in sleeper compartments can do the trip one-way for as little as $225.00 in the off-season per person, which means a round-trip per person of $450.00, which would include six meals and free champagne and wine in each direction (twelve meals, wine and cheese-tasting sessions, and two bottles of champagne per person) and access to a shower, with your own private compartment to share. Granted, these prices are only available for a couple weeks each year and are much higher in the summer, but for a couple months they'd only be about thirty dollars more expensive per person, each way.

God, that's absurdly luxurious. Cheese and wine tasting sessions , what is it, a 6 star rolling hotel?
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the comparative pricing on normal tickets? (No food included, or private rooms, just a chair, or maybe a bunk if over 8 hours?)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I disagree with divesting Amtrak of the NEC if only because 1) they own the damn tracks so that's a HUGE capital writeoff to have to take and 2) It currently has the highest ridership of any amtrak service and thus it serves as a gateway for further rail travel. If I hadn't had the experience of riding on the NEC every few months for meetings in NYC and Philly then I would probably never consider cross-country rail travel. When we strat to get to the point that long-distance air-carriers are no longer affordable for the median earning household THEN people will be forced into using Amtrak for long-distance inter-city but in the interim its is going to take familirization and a comfort level to get people to make the choice more. For the NorthEast this should mean continuing the NEC. Moreover while one could in a few years time look at taking MARC to SEPTA to NJT it just isn't viable in the mid-term, we would be looking at 2030 or so before you could reasonably look at commuter rail handling it and if a private enterprise were to take over the NEC then there is the huge upfront investment that goes to getting the trackage.

I was actually thinking of creating a second federally owned corporation called Acela Corp. to operate the NEC and handle other high-speed corridors that may be developed elsewhere, with Amtrak handling long-distance trains and lower-speed corridors, and both of them having integrated ticketing.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

God, that's absurdly luxurious. Cheese and wine tasting sessions :shock: , what is it, a 6 star rolling hotel?
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the comparative pricing on normal tickets? (No food included, or private rooms, just a chair, or maybe a bunk if over 8 hours?)

Two classes, coach and sleeper. I gave you the cost of the coach ticket from Chicago to Seattle--125 to 156 each way (except during the middle of summer it may be slightly higher if you buy the ticket like, the day before traveling). A sleeping compartment is designed for two people, and so the total cost ($200 minimum to $260 for this trip, for, say, Chicago to D.C., $160, though you're on the train a shorter time) is to buy the sleeping compartment as a lump sum--you have to pay that amount if you have a party of two, or a party of one, but you have to pay it. And that's each way. So to get the exact cost, you assume two people, and then divide it between them. So the round-trip is going to be at minimum $450.00 from Seattle to Chicago per person when two people are traveling like that.

And yes, it's enormously luxurious. I mean, those meals include steak cooked to order in the dining car. You get dinner the first day, breakfast, lunch, and dinner the second day, and breakfast and lunch the third day (over a 44 hour span in total), with a wine and cheese tasting also on the second day. And when you board, a bottle of champagne, of course.

This is how the upper middle class will travel when (soon enough) an airline ticket from Seattle to Chicago costs $1,200.00 one-way for a coach seat.

[Dark Hellion]

My parents rode the Chicago-Seattle line and enjoyed it immensely. Frankly, a lot of men my fathers age have a mild obsession with the railroad. It has a hint of romanticism.

Personally, I love riding the metra and the Chicago lines and wish that every major metropolitan area had similar. Chicago is so friendly because of it, and you can get to almost anywhere on foot in under 90 minutes all for the cost of about $5, which is awesome.

[Adrian Laguna]

Personally, I love riding the metra and the Chicago lines and wish that every major metropolitan area had similar. Chicago is so friendly because of it, and you can get to almost anywhere on foot in under 90 minutes all for the cost of about $5, which is awesome.

And that is why I still don't drive, or even have a (US) license. I mean, where's the incentive to get one?