Where are the Passenger Trains in America?

[Nightshade]

Forget car free & car light. It's much worse than anyone thought.

From James Howard Kunstler daily blog.....
"Now get this: we are sleepwalking into a transportation crisis. As I already said, the airline industry is dying. The price of petroleum-based aviation fuel is killing it. And forget the fantasies about running it on bio-diesel or used french-fry oil. Driving cars will not be an adequate substitute, either. It's imperative that this country gets serious about restoring the passenger rail system."

http://www.kunstler.com/index.html

[Machka]

Oh ... hmmmmmm ... what did Machka say over in the $4/gallon gas thread .... let's see:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6493010&postcount=50

And that isn't the first time Machka has said similar things on this forum.

[Nightshade]

Oh ... hmmmmmm ... what did Machka say over in the $4/gallon gas thread .... let's see:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6493010&postcount=50

And that isn't the first time Machka has said similar things on this forum.

Glad to see that the Canadians are at least talking about this issue.

[Machka]

Glad to see that the Canadians are at least talking about this issue.

Unfortunately that's all they're doing.

[wahoonc]

Tightwad,
Read the same article...Passenger Rail (javascript:openWin('http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/national.pdf', 970, 640)) in the US is non existent out side of a few main corridors. And don't even get me started on the bus service! I can remember even as recently as the mid '80s still using Greyhound/Trailways to get places and it was reasonably priced and still fairly efficient. Now it is freakin'g joke, probably could get their fast hitch hiking...

Aaron:)

[K6-III]

I'm just wondering how long it'll take the railroads to figure out that it makes business sense. With the short-haul airlines more or less disappearing, its just a matter of time.

[Machka]

There is Amtrak in the US ... at least it is relatively accessible and affordable. Here in Canada, our VIA rail is so expensive only the wealthy can use it.

[jamesdenver]

Where are the Passenger Trains in America?

11 hours delayed because they're sitting on a siding just east of Clines Corners New Mexico awaiting a BNSF to pass.

[Aquajag]

The problem with Amtrak is that it wasn't making enough money and for that reason, it's not capable of running in certain areas. Freight business is going up due to fuel prices, perhaps the commuter trains can take advantage of that as well. One can only hope.

[bmclaughlin807]

The problem with Amtrak is that it wasn't making enough money and for that reason, it's not capable of running in certain areas. Freight business is going up due to fuel prices, perhaps the commuter trains can take advantage of that as well. One can only hope.

Amtrak had a hard time maintaining a profit because they were pretty much expected to build and maintain their own rail lines... imagine how much money the trucking companies would have made if they had to build and maintain all their own roads....

Amtrak couldn't afford to maintain rail ways in any areas but the very busiest, so everywhere else they lease from the freight railroads... and the freight trains get priority on those lines.

Pretty hard to compete in that situation, huh?

[Roody]

Amtrak had a hard time maintaining a profit because they were pretty much expected to build and maintain their own rail lines... imagine how much money the trucking companies would have made if they had to build and maintain all their own roads....

Amtrak couldn't afford to maintain rail ways in any areas but the very busiest, so everywhere else they lease from the freight railroads... and the freight trains get priority on those lines.

Pretty hard to compete in that situation, huh?

Good point. Most Americans believe that Amtrak is heavily subsidized by public funds, but this is far from the truth. Amtrak is a lot like PBS TV-- managed by a quasi-public corporation but funded by "passengers like you... Thank you." I think the industry that gets the biggest government handout is the trucking industry. Airlines aren't far behind with their free airports and terminals.

[gwd]

A couple years ago at some festival they displayed some rail cars from the old times. One of those cars was a mail sorting car. Apparently postal workers rode along with the mail cars and sorted the mail as it traveled so that at the destinations the letters were presorted saving time on the total delivery time. I had the impression that the mail cars were on passenger trains because that was the focus of the display. If Amtrak could cut a deal with the post office like that then it might be able to have another income stream. By saving the sorting time over truck or air delivery mail by rail might even be the fastest way. That mail car was before the time of zip codes so the sorters might be more efficient nowadays.

[Galls]

I have taken Amtrak from Little Rock->Chicago->NYC. Me and my girlfriend had a bedroom from Chicago to NY.

It was more of a government subsidized vacation than an actual get somewhere trip.

I am gonna correct some people here.

You can very much go across country on Amtrak, and much more than a select few corridors are served. The problem is the route structure certainly is not geared toward intercity rail.

http://www.amtrakvacations.com/file.php?id=1661
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Amtrak_schematic3.png

Amtrak has never made a profit, even though it was intended to do such when Nixon signed it into existence. It is heavily subsidized but probably small compared to roads and planes.

Amtrak owns the North East Corridor, for the most part and that is it. Most of Amtrak's routes operate on the tracks owned by the freight lines. Legally Amtrak has right of way over these freight lines and at a deep discount but law and reality are often two different things.

[murphstahoe]

Awesome.

If there is any doubt "Build it, they will come", I present the following...

[StephenH]

The reason Amtrak was created in the first place is because the railroads couldn't make money on passenger travel. As long as the freeways are full of cars and the airports are full of planes, that isn't going to change.

Amtrak comes through Dallas. They go through Grand Junction (and that's a scenic area). So we once checked on making the trip between them. Turns out you have to go through Chicago to get from one place to the other- see the map above. So a 2-hour flight plus 3 hours in a rent car turns into a 24-hour train marathon. Not good. And it wasn't cheap, either.

People always look at Europe or Japan as models of how trains should work. The problem is, those places have more people in smaller areas, fewer autos, etc., and what works there won't necessarily work here.

[Roody]

Here's what wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak) says about the causes of decline in passenger rails service, which occurred mostly between 1946 and the 1960s


Literature suggests that the causes of the decline of passenger rail were complex. The industry was hobbled by government regulation and labor inflexibility, which undermined passenger rail just as the industry faced an explosion of competition from flexible and subsidized automobile and airplane transportation. These for-profit railroads were structured to sell access to elaborate, efficient roads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads) at a profit; they lost in the competition for passengers to parallel, publicly-funded, non-profit turnpikes, air strips, and highways in the sky.


And more about subsidization of competitors:


While passenger rail faced internal and governmental pressures, new challenges appeared that undermined the dominance of passenger rail: highways and commercial aviation. The passenger rail industry wilted as government backed these potent upstarts with billions of dollars in construction.

Beginning roughly in the WWI era, cars became more attainable to most Americans. This newfound freedom and individualization of transit became the norm for most Americans because of the increased convenience. Government actively began to respond with funds from its treasury and later with fuel tax funds to build a non-profit network of roads not subject to property taxation[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#cite_note-13) that rivaled and then surpassed the for-profit network that the railroads had built in previous generations with corporate capital and government land grants. All told between 1921 and 1955 governmental entities, using taxpayer money and in response to taxpayer demand, financed more than $93 billion worth of pavement, construction, and maintenance.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#cite_note-MorganD-9)

In the 1950s, a second and more formidable threat appeared: affordable commercial aviation. Government at many levels supported aviation. Governmental entities built sprawling urban and suburban airports, and funded construction of highways to provide access to the airports.

[Bikepacker67]

Unfortunately that's all they're doing.

Well truth be told, Alberta is less Canadian as it is Texas north. :D

[ericy]

Good point. Most Americans believe that Amtrak is heavily subsidized by public funds, but this is far from the truth. Amtrak is a lot like PBS TV-- managed by a quasi-public corporation but funded by "passengers like you... Thank you." I think the industry that gets the biggest government handout is the trucking industry. Airlines aren't far behind with their free airports and terminals.

Interesting that you mention that. This story appeared in the paper just yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/20/ST2008042002409.html

RADFORD, Va. -- When Bob Billingsley hired on with Norfolk Southern railway 31 years ago, he was a rookie on work crews that were closing unused lines as the nation's economy turned its back on the railroads.

Now he's in charge of raising the roof of a Norfolk Southern tunnel in southwestern Virginia to clear headroom for the double-stacked container cars that have become the symbol of the industry's sudden surge thanks to a confluence of powerful global factors.

"For years, we were looking for ways to cut costs to increase profits," said Billingsley, as a train rumbled by. "Now, we're building business to increase profits."

The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001.

This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department.

They mention Amtrak as well - saying that:

2007 was Amtrak's fifth consecutive year of increased ridership, up 6 percent from 2006.

All of this being said, the railroads were in a pretty tough shape not that many years ago. Too much deferred maintenance, too many places where they went to single-track to save money. At least it is headed in the right direction.

[AllenG]

Amtrak is unfathomable.
I just check what it would be to travel from Atlanta to Portland and back.
A minimum of a seven days on the train and would cost over $700.00 for a coach seat.

If I wished to lay down during the trip (sleeper seat) the price jumps to $1,300.00 ish.
And for a sleeping room the price is $5,000.00 ish.

[wahoonc]

Amtrak is unfathomable.
I just check what it would be to travel from Atlanta to Portland and back.
A minimum of a seven days on the train and would cost over $700.00 for a coach seat.

If I wished to lay down during the trip (sleeper seat) the price jumps to $1,300.00 ish.
And for a sleeping room the price is $5,000.00 ish.

That is it in a nutshell. And did you factor in the layovers?:eek: I am currently using Amtrak between Charleston, SC and Fayetteville, NC. But if I had to go too many other places it wouldn't work. I just wish I had found it earlier. I can leave my job site at 0930 on a Friday morning and can be within 17 miles of my house by 1300 (or having a late lunch with my parents, who live about a mile from the Fayetteville Amtrak station) I can't drive it that fast and it costs about half of what my fuel costs would be for the same trip. Return trip is similar on Sunday afternoon. Only thing I haven't figured out is the price disparity between the early train and the late train...$40 difference.

However! we also are taking on a project in Cleveland, OH...FAHGEDABOUDIT 22 hours on the train...one way, cost is about $320 (coach seat) round trip, I can drive it for about the same amount in half the time. And better yet is airlines. Current ticket cost is around $300 and I can be there in under 3 hours:o

Also might add, we also have a project in Richmond, VA...trains for the next 2-3 weeks between FAY and RVR are sold out! Kind of sucks if you are depending on it to get back and forth on a weekly basis.

Somewhere, somehow it needs to be fixed. Apparently train travel is "greener" (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1178294035703&ssid=6) than both airplane and automobile. Hopefully as fuel costs increase we will see an increase in passenger train service and the revival of some of the "lost routes". I certainly don't mind riding the train, if it is reasonably close in cost/convenience to other modes of transportation.

Aaron:)

[Roody]

I agree with Aaron. If you're carfree and planning an interurban trip, I suggest you check bus and plane fares before you book on Amtrak. You're likely to save a lot, especially with the bus. You might also get there sooner, with more convenient schedules.

[timmhaan]

i would like more passengers trains, but i would really like to see more freight trains first. it makes no sense having long haul trucks moving stuff around when trains can do it far more efficiently.

[Doug5150]

The reason Amtrak was created in the first place is because the railroads couldn't make money on passenger travel. As long as the freeways are full of cars and the airports are full of planes, that isn't going to change....
I recall reading a magazine article some years back, that noted that the ONLY Amtrak run that was consistently profitable was the Boston-DC run. And if you have been paying attention--that's the only run they've upgraded to a high-speed rail line.
~

[wahoonc]

i would like more passengers trains, but i would really like to see more freight trains first. it makes no sense having long haul trucks moving stuff around when trains can do it far more efficiently.

They are...in the article above that ericy posted a link to, it says they are planning to spend $10 billion on infrastructure upgrades in the next year with $148 billion needed by 2035. Maybe I need to get a job with the railroads!:eek:

Aaron:)

[timmhaan]

They are...in the article above that ericy posted a link to, it says they are planning to spend $10 billion on infrastructure upgrades in the next year with $148 billion needed by 2035. Maybe I need to get a job with the railroads!:eek:

Aaron:)

true. this is one reason why warren buffet is investing heavily in railroads. and he usually knows where things are heading.

[Galls]

I recall reading a magazine article some years back, that noted that the ONLY Amtrak run that was consistently profitable was the Boston-DC run. And if you have been paying attention--that's the only run they've upgraded to a high-speed rail line.
~

That is called the North East Corridor, and it is only profitable it you do not, as amtrak does not, count capital investments, such as maintenance.

[Nightshade]

Passenger rail started to die out when GM killed light rail to
sell more cars.

http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

[mtnroads]

That is called the North East Corridor, and it is only profitable it you do not, as amtrak does not, count capital investments, such as maintenance.
When did maintenance become a capital investment? It is an operating cost.

[wahoonc]

When did maintenance become a capital investment? It is an operating cost.

Yep and that is why I have a job;)...I do heavy industrial building siding and roofing. (Field Project Manager) Plants like the one I am at now have put off doing maintenance to keep the profits up. Now they are spending MILLIONS on replacing roofs and siding that would have lasted another 5-10 years with proper maintenance. But if it is done as capital expense it changes the way it is reported and taxed. They would rather let something wear out almost to the point of failure, then replace it, rather than do routine maintenance on it.

Aaron:)

[gz_]

I recall reading a magazine article some years back, that noted that the ONLY Amtrak run that was consistently profitable was the Boston-DC run. And if you have been paying attention--that's the only run they've upgraded to a high-speed rail line.
~

Even with the high-speed rail, the bus from NYC to Boston is faster than the train. Only on the NYC to DC leg does it really get up to speed for a significant amount of time. There is one stretch from Providence to Boston where the Acela can get up to speed, but it's not for long.

[Galls]

When did maintenance become a capital investment? It is an operating cost. In a normal business this is true, but Amtrak is a political dog more than anything.

On the Amtrak annual report, the costs are associated as a capital investment. If you ever wanna see some cooked books you can look at Amtrak, it is filled with semantics.

They literally take the "profits" of the NEC (as I mentioned earlier, they do not count the true costs of the NEC) and use those "profits" to fund the rest of the system and then mark maintenance on the corridor as capital investment. The way they cook the books though was born out of necessity, so many political games have been played with the company. In past years Bush threatened zero subsidies, this year he offered around 600 million, but congress gave the company 1.3 billion.

[Roody]

Yep and that is why I have a job;)...I do heavy industrial building siding and roofing. (Field Project Manager) Plants like the one I am at now have put off doing maintenance to keep the profits up. Now they are spending MILLIONS on replacing roofs and siding that would have lasted another 5-10 years with proper maintenance. But if it is done as capital expense it changes the way it is reported and taxed. They would rather let something wear out almost to the point of failure, then replace it, rather than do routine maintenance on it.

Aaron:)

I guess one problem in doing this with railroad tracks is that you might have derailments and passenger deaths, which might account for some of the unpopularity of passenger trains.

[Dahon.Steve]

In a normal business this is true, but Amtrak is a political dog more than anything.

On the Amtrak annual report, the costs are associated as a capital investment. If you ever wanna see some cooked books you can look at Amtrak, it is filled with semantics.

They literally take the "profits" of the NEC (as I mentioned earlier, they do not count the true costs of the NEC) and use those "profits" to fund the rest of the system and then mark maintenance on the corridor as capital investment. The way they cook the books though was born out of necessity, so many political games have been played with the company. In past years Bush threatened zero subsidies, this year he offered around 600 million, but congress gave the company 1.3 billion.

Well if John McCain is elected, all of this talk about Amtrak maybe all for nothing because he wants to bankrupt it for good. Rail travel is growing, it's called lightrail. There are lightrails being built or on the books to be built in the very near future. Take my advice and move next to one, it will change your life!

I think the move to lightrail is a start because we are NEVER going to have intercity rail travel again. Do you know why lightrail is growing and not intercity rail travel? Because lightrail developement creates transit oriented development along the line. My lightrail attracted over 1 billion dollars in real estate development in the past 10 years!

[Galls]

Well if John McCain is elected, all of this talk about Amtrak maybe all for nothing because he wants to bankrupt it for good. Rail travel is growing, it's called lightrail. There are lightrails being built or on the books to be built in the very near future. Take my advice and move next to one, it will change your life!

I think the move to lightrail is a start because we are NEVER going to have intercity rail travel again. Do you know why lightrail is growing and not intercity rail travel? Because lightrail developement creates transit oriented development along the line. My lightrail attracted over 1 billion dollars in real estate development in the past 10 years!
My 10 story zoned, large property a block away from a 24/7 subway, LIRR, shopping district and in a gentrifying neighborhood laughs at your light rail!

Since I can assume you live in Newark, I should say that you and I live on an almost European quality intercity rail line!

And McCain wanted privatize amtrak, not bankrupt it. In the north east corridor, california, the empire builder, the autotrain and the cascades it would probably yield very good results.

[rajman]

I was all ready to buy a ticket to chicago from toronto (I think it was called the metroliner...) Alas, it's gone:-(

I guess I should have taken the trip last century...

Judging by the commentary here VIA has the same issue - freight gets the first priority.

I've taken rail in Chile, Switzerland, France, Britain, and India, and it seems ridiculous that people would choose road trip over rail. It's just so much more civilized to have a dining car compared to a drive through...

[Roody]

I was all ready to buy a ticket to chicago from toronto (I think it was called the metroliner...) Alas, it's gone:-(

I guess I should have taken the trip last century...

Judging by the commentary here VIA has the same issue - freight gets the first priority.

I've taken rail in Chile, Switzerland, France, Britain, and India, and it seems ridiculous that people would choose road trip over rail. It's just so much more civilized to have a dining car compared to a drive through...

Sure you can take the train. The schedule is here (http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak). It'll take more than 15 hours and cost $109. You go via Buffalo. There used to be a train through Port Huron but I think that's been discontinued. (Maybe you can still do it by taking a bus from Sarnia to Port Huron--about one mile apart.)

[Aquajag]

I work for a freight company and can tell you that the freight companies are utilizing rail transport more often now with the fuel costs so high. By no means is it optimal in all situations, but we have several locations that are equally served time-wise and cost-wise due to consistency of the railroads. I believe with the cost of fuel so high, rail transport is a viable solution for moving freight.

[ericy]

I was all ready to buy a ticket to chicago from toronto (I think it was called the metroliner...) Alas, it's gone:-(

I guess I should have taken the trip last century...


I just looked to see what it would be from D.C. to Toronto, which is slightly more than an academic exercise since I work for a Canadian company with HQ outside of Toronto.

Looks like roughly a 24 hr journey each way, tickets are $122 each way. Greyhound is no faster.

I remember reading that one of the upgrades that they were working on was to increase the number of tracks from DC to Miami.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/042007/04292007/278084

CSX, THE RAILROAD that owns the tracks over which Virginia Railway Express and Amtrak trains run between Washington and Fredericksburg, wants its Washington-to-Miami line to be a "corridor of the future."

On that 1,200 miles of railway, CSX said, passenger trains could "travel unimpeded at 110 mph" and freight trains could "operate at speeds of 50 mph to 70 mph."

The line would be "sealed to prevent motor vehicle intrusion." Some 1,700 "at-grade highway rail crossings" would be closed and, where necessary, replaced with bridges. There would be three tracks between Richmond and Miami and four tracks between Richmond and Washington.

[eofelis]

They go through Grand Junction (and that's a scenic area).

I've been rafting the Colorado River in Horsethief/Ruby Canyons (downstream of GJ) and waved at the Amtrak train as it goes through. The train ride through there looks almost as much fun as the raft ride.

I'd love to travel by rail but it usually isn't too practical in this country.

[kmcrawford111]

It's unbelievable how far America has its head up its ass, isn't it? Almost everyone, to a man, believes that we'll just keep driving everywhere. We'll just power the cars with something else!!!11!1 Of course, even if it were possible to replace the insane amount of oil we quaff with something else to power our cars, almost nobody seems to realize that America is in no financial shape whatsoever to replace its car fleet. No, I'm quite certain we'll more or less keep running what we have, only less and less... you can hear the *****ing about how "expensive" it is coming a mile away. I look forward to the days when I start seeing the big cars that folks can't afford to keep and keep running getting scrapped and put to better use. It'll be nice to clean up this auto junkyard.

Can someone tell me when the US became such a bunch of brain-dead zombies? The "solution" to our transportation (and for that matter, health, environmental, financial...) problems is clear as day: living in development where it's feasible to walk to the store to buy a quart of milk, instead of the incredibly short-sighted and (laughably, if it weren't such a serious problem) ridiculous zoning that promotes driving to the fringe of town to buy some Chineese-made toys from Wal-Mart Oasis, located in the middle of Lake Parking Lot, courtesy of destroyed agricultural land... with a stop at McDonalds for a double Quarter Pounder with cheese, 1 lb. of fries, a 44 oz. Coke, and and a McFlurry on the way. Don't worry, sir, no need to get your ass out of your dual climate-controlled statusmobile... just go through the drive-thru.

Sometimes I feel like I must be in The Matrix, because nobody else around me (in person) seems to get this.

Although I think the most effort should be placed on living locally, lessening the need for longer travel in the first place, passenger rail, especially electric, does make a lot more sense than your local 8-lane highway. Here in Northwest Indiana, we have one of the few remaining streetcar systems, the South Shore Line, which travels between Chicago and South Bend. Ridership has been increasing right along with fuel prices. For trips to the windy city it is my vehicle of choice. Every time I see mention of GM's attack on streetcar systems, my blood boils.

What I think would be ideal is to live in a small city where you can walk or at least bike for your everyday needs, including to work, and to have a streetcar station within this zone as well for special long-distance trips. My station is just 3.3 miles from my house; unfortunately getting to it involves traversing a series of interconnecting highways. And when I checked on my last trip there, there isn't a single place for a bike at the station, even though there is an entire community next to it where everyone lives at most a mile and a half from it - another shining example of the extreme cluelessness that pervades (is your area this clueless?).

Fortunately, I believe we've just now started the fall down from the peak of all-time consumption. Cars will be driven less. More people will be on bikes. People will start to choose more local places to work and shop. America will be recompacted. Since we're so suburbanized, It will take a long, long time, but it's inevitable. Since almost nobody is prepared for it, it will be a difficult time. But for those of us (or perhaps I'm the only one) that can appreciate a less hectic, less consuming lifestyle, it's going to be real interesting.

[Juha]

People always look at Europe or Japan as models of how trains should work. The problem is, those places have more people in smaller areas, fewer autos, etc., and what works there won't necessarily work here.For Finland, fewer autos - yes. But we have an overall population density of about 15, compared to 31 in US (in 2005, persons per square km, source: Wikipedia). Some of our "towns" have too small population density to qualify as towns by the EU definitions. And still we have a reasonable passenger rail service. I believe it does need subsidies to run, at least in some of the more remote corners of the country. But it's generally considered more of a part of basic infrastructure here.

--J

[Aquajag]

Totally agree with you kmcrawford111. For many, it will be a process of slowing down our lifestyles. When I lived in California, many people didn't understand wanting to live within 5-10 miles of work as there are better places to live. Of course, what they didn't realize is the cost of living 40 miles from work and commuting that in a car makes up for the price difference of buying a house 30 miles closer. At my last residence in Cali, I was 1 mile from work and while I was not cycling then, I appreciated the expense of driving a vehicle as I've seen the gas prices go from $0.82 when I was a sophomore in high school (1995) to $3.50+ currently. It's not a pretty picture.

Many will resist, but it's alright. America needs to take a step back and get a better view on things. Slow down and appreciate what is here before we destroy it completely.

[StephenH]

Lest we forget, railroads have also been heavily subsidized- that's how they got all those miles and miles of right-of-way in the first place. They got the right-of-ways plus additional land just for building through. They didn't have to pay for all that like we did with freeways.

[Dahon.Steve]

And McCain wanted privatize amtrak, not bankrupt it. In the north east corridor, california, the empire builder, the autotrain and the cascades it would probably yield very good results.

Privatized Amtrak is the same phrase Bush was using to bankrupt the system. The North East Corridor does not make a profit according to David Gunn (the last president) because they run Acela at a huge loss! Please subscribe to Tains Magazine for the interview. The fare box is not and will never be enough to run Amtrak.

Queston. Which railroad runs at a loss?

a. MetroNorth
b. LIRR
c. NY MTA
d. SEPTA
e. All the above.

Anwser -------- E.. All the above.

[wahoonc]

IIRC most if not all European railways are at least partially subsidized by the goverment/taxpayers. As are cars, but most drivers like to conveniently forget that. There was a move in the large city near me to raise sales tax 1/2 cent to help upgrade the bus system. You should have heard all the hollering and carrying on, "make it pay for itself"..."raise the fares to cover the costs" etc, etc. Okay...then we need to toll road ever friggin' "freeway" to pay for itself! I pay state taxes that are used to build roads I never drive on..why?:rolleyes:

Aaron:)

[akatsuki]

It is the service and access requirements that kill Amtrak. If they only ran profitable trains and slowly expanded, we would be a lot further along I think. There are plenty of trips from NYC that I could see working (up to Boston, down to DC). But going across the country isn't really time-effective for most people. It would be better to have different regional networks that could be attached as demand changes and people get used to it.

Also, I seem to recall airlines suing to prevent rail from being built, but can't find the link right now.

[ericy]

Last night I was listening to public radio, and on the Tom Ashbrook show they had a segment about the airline industry. They had two guests talking about the challenges ahead, but nowhere did they mention peak oil. While they admitted problems they acted as if the future will just be more of the present...

Eventually they took callers, and a woman called in and asked about the challenges of "oil depletion and global climate change". The guests professed ignorance about oil depletion, and then argued that cars emit more greenhouse gasses than do aircraft.

[hiker1357]

The problem is population densities and usage. I currently reside in South Korea, which is a country approximately the size of Indiana with 50 million people. When I travel around the country, I usually use their high speed train, the KTX (based on the French H.S. train). It's the most efficient form of transport, but not the cheapest. It does save me 2 hours both ways, which is important on the weekend trips. They also have two other rail systems, and all of these are usually fairly busy. It's an extremely efficient way to get travel as the roads are heavily congested and the price for the other 2 railroads is comparable to the bus cost.

My point is that the population density isn't great enough in the US to merit large scale passenger service at a cheap rate. Prices will have to come down and more trains be offered to more places for the rail system to grow in the US, which I don't believe is possible without the density of population increasing. By the way, I found the rail systems of both Chicago and NY/NJ to be less efficient cost wise...20 dollars for a 1 way ticket from NY to NJ! That's extreme!

[farrellcollie]

I would like to see the us invest in high speed trains like I rode in japan -they were great. I have found amtrak to be like riding in a slow, inefficient, rude, dirty kindergarten with children running around, loud music, etc. It was painful. European and Japanese train travel was a pleasure (even on non-bullet trains).

[ericy]

My point is that the population density isn't great enough in the US to merit large scale passenger service at a cheap rate. Prices will have to come down and more trains be offered to more places for the rail system to grow in the US, which I don't believe is possible without the density of population increasing.

I don't really believe this. Yes the density is lower, so the specifics will be different.

Prior to World War II, people got around in this country by train without much trouble. The problem is that cheap fuel made it easier for people to drive or fly, so the railroads withered. Now that the days of cheap fuel are coming to an end, the trend is reversing.