What Should be the Future of Amtrak

BahamaBob said:

You are not traveling West of Chicago then. They have few riders.

Click to expand...

Actually, yes, most often I take the California Zephyr, which runs from San Francisco via Denver to Chicago. I can probably explain this though, as frequently I exit at Galesburg, IL. Anybody heading to central Illinois or Saint Louis, MO, exits at Galesburg, and takes a bus into central Illinois, where they connect with the Chicago/Saint Louis train. Amtrak often combines bus legs with their train routes.

be

Media_Truth said:

As mentioned, I'm of the opinion that no transportation system stands on it's own - especially the infrastructure. Even a bike trail doesn't stand on it's own. I'm glad you enjoyed your train ride!

Click to expand...

We sure did. That doesn't mean I expect to travel with you or someone else paying part of my fare. I am not worthy.
You are certainly correct, in this old world, be you Communist, Socialist, or Capitalist, nothing is free. At the very least, in our naked Capitalist society, ones worth is decided by their ability to contribute in some way. If no contribution from the lesser of us is forthcoming, we will still handle it. History has taught us that the Communistic(Socialism light) society is much less forgiving than the Capitalist societies. q.v. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. Hitler, Mussolini, etc.
Regards,
CP

Helix said:

my vote is don't expect it to make a profit, but keep funding it. making a profit isn't the most important spect of a public service.

Click to expand...

I don't expect mass transit it to be profitable. Especially if we are in the dark ages still relying on pathetically slow trains. Because of the distances between cities across most of this country we should be building state of the art high speed transit that is moving at airplane speeds. Light weight, aerodynamic, maglev, individual and group vehicles moving the individual as well as groups of people. Do we really need or want hundreds of tons of steel train to move people like cattle. I am thinking of parking my car at the mall swiping my credit card and being on the other side of the country in 4 hours moving at 500mph.

No more hour ride to the airport hopefully including parking. Then 2 or more hours checking luggage, getting through security, and with luck actually getting on the plane and leaving. Then there are the layovers and connecting flights. Delays and waiting for your luggage. An all day event most of the time. We need to end the dark ages and move on to the 21st century. Just like the highway system we need to just do it.

Waddy said:

Building high speed rail in this country, unlike where it has been successfully built, like China, here there are many roadblocks to construction. Basically high speed rail works best on elevated track. And our geography isn't conducive to high speed rail. It can take years to get all the permits, regulation hurdles, and land acquisition before a mile of track ever gets constructed. That gets real expensive real fast.

Click to expand...

Main reason the latest attempt in California failed.
So now they're now discussing a bill that, if passed, would add two additional lanes to Interstate 5 and Interstate 99 outside of the major metro areas with NO speed limit in those special lanes, sort of a California Autobahn.
I suspect that eventually they WILL impose some kind of speed limit but it will probably be something like 110 mph.

I'd actually be okay with no speed limit whatsoever with two provisos, namely prospective drivers have to pass an additional driving test that demonstrates advanced skills, and their cars have to pass an additional safety check.

Anyway, it's doubtful we will get high speed rail in California anytime soon but travel between LA and SF will probably be a lot quicker someday soon.

LA to SF in three and a half hours? By air it's one and a half hours but you have to add on an hour at the start for security and check in, plus another half hour to baggage claim and about an hour travel time TO the airport, for a total of about four to four and a half hours.
So it's actually faster if you go by car at 110 mph LA to SF. It might also be cheaper, too unless you drive a gas guzzler.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Main reason the latest attempt in California failed.
So now they're now discussing a bill that, if passed, would add two additional lanes to Interstate 5 and Interstate 99 outside of the major metro areas with NO speed limit in those special lanes, sort of a California Autobahn.
I suspect that eventually they WILL impose some kind of speed limit but it will probably be something like 110 mph.

I'd actually be okay with no speed limit whatsoever with two provisos, namely prospective drivers have to pass an additional driving test that demonstrates advanced skills, and their cars have to pass an additional safety check.

Anyway, it's doubtful we will get high speed rail in California anytime soon but travel between LA and SF will probably be a lot quicker someday soon.

LA to SF in three and a half hours? By air it's one and a half hours but you have to add on an hour at the start for security and check in, plus another half hour to baggage claim and about an hour travel time TO the airport, for a total of about four to four and a half hours.
So it's actually faster if you go by car at 110 mph LA to SF. It might also be cheaper, too unless you drive a gas guzzler.

Click to expand...

So high speed highways instead of high speed rail. Might work. Wonder what vehicle insurance companies think of the idea? Also, the highway itself has to be impeccably maintained for it to work. You just can't dump some asphalt in the pothole and call it good to go. And on European highways lane integrity is strictly enforced; no changing lanes willy-nilly like we do here.

Europe has always been rail oriented. All gas needed to be imported, so more expensive. After WWll their rail infrastructure was in bad shape, and since they depended much more on rail than private cars, they re-invested in passenger rail. Europe wasn't keen on building interstate highways in any case. And the distances between major cities wasn't that great.

The American rail system was worn out by WWll. The rails, rolling stock and locomotive fleet. Rather than rebuild the rail system America turned to auto's and an interstate highway system. Fuel was cheap, and autos/highways meant lots of jobs. GM slowly bought out the inner city electrified trolley fleets and encouraged the switch to busses. Many of those trollies were dumped into the nearest harbor. And now bus service is abysmal in many large cities.

So we are basically locked into a car culture. Americans still love their cars. However, there is a price to pay. Cars are always getting more and more expensive. Insurance can be expensive. One of the main roadblocks to poor people getting a job is they often don't live near where the jobs are; lack of dependable transportation is a real hindrance to upward mobility.

One more point; when I cross the river here I can see 5 bridges all within a few hundred yards of each other. We are constantly adding more and more miles of roadway. But that also means more future maintenance costs, more patrolmen, more salt in the winter, more repairs, which weren't part of the original cost estimate. At some point we will have to ask ourselves how much roadway do we want to maintain? How much can we afford to maintain?

concernedpuma said:

Certain forms? Rather undefined isn't it? I can't imagine that you would expect others to fund those things to which you approve, do you? In the world today, it would seem incumbent upon one proposing a gift from the Federal Treasury to give a good(likely financial) reason to join that idea.
Better measure? What is it?
Regards,
CP

Click to expand...

sure, i do support taxes going towards transportation / health care / other programs.

Waddy said:

So high speed highways instead of high speed rail. Might work. Wonder what vehicle insurance companies think of the idea? Also, the highway itself has to be impeccably maintained for it to work. You just can't dump some asphalt in the pothole and call it good to go. And on European highways lane integrity is strictly enforced; no changing lanes willy-nilly like we do here.

Click to expand...

Tell ya what...I am and always HAVE BEEN in favor of upping the bar on driver education in this country.
I think that the California Driver's License test should surpass GERMANY in terms of difficulty.

And if we ARE going to get lucky and get our own "Autobahn", we better damn well consider that very seriously because as much as I favor the Autobahn concept, I am not looking forward to what will no doubt be a series of rather spectacular accidents as it goes through some growing pains.

By the way, I've been commuting between Whittier and Long Beach every single day ever since my wife went into the Long Beach VA Hospital for a long term stay, recuperating from major surgery, and I swear to God, every single day I get on that stretch of I-605, once I get south of the 105 freeway exits, I can be doing 75-78 mph (above that my fuel econ goes straight to Hell so I refuse to exceed 78**) and I am getting passed by as if I am crawling...not just by one or two hot dogs, by dozens of cars, many dozens, maybe even a HUNDRED per trip.

It's a simple FACT that, south of the 105 freeway, the I-605 de facto speed limit IS 80-85 mph, maybe even NINETY, except during rush hour.

(**below 75 mph I can get about 48-55 mpg in my Prius snotbox, above 78 it starts to dip to 40 and sometimes even as low as 38 mpg.)

Strangely enough, if I take my wife's 5800 pound handicap equipped Chrysler Pacifica van, I can still manage to get 24 mpg even at 85 mph, which is VERY impressive for a big fat box shaped pigmobile that weighs almost three tons.
Unfortunately the HYBRID option is not available for handicap equipped vans because the slide out ramp goes right where the batteries normally go AND the floor is dropped about a foot anyway.
Otherwise, in hybrid mode, I am told 40 mpg is possible at 85 mph.

Going through the Arizona desert, much of which might be below sea level, we actually were getting almost 35 mpg at 85 miles per hour.

UNBELIEVABLE.

Media_Truth said:

What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.

Click to expand...

The future of Amtrak should be a massive infrastructure investment in modern high speed rail; the antiquated state of rail transit in the States is a pathetic embarrassment, and an absolute travesty versus our counterparts in Asia and Europe.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Tell ya what...I am and always HAVE BEEN in favor of upping the bar on driver education in this country.
I think that the California Driver's License test should surpass GERMANY in terms of difficulty.

And if we ARE going to get lucky and get our own "Autobahn", we better damn well consider that very seriously because as much as I favor the Autobahn concept, I am not looking forward to what will no doubt be a series of rather spectacular accidents as it goes through some growing pains.

By the way, I've been commuting between Whittier and Long Beach every single day ever since my wife went into the Long Beach VA Hospital for a long term stay, recuperating from major surgery, and I swear to God, every single day I get on that stretch of I-605, once I get south of the 105 freeway exits, I can be doing 75-78 mph (above that my fuel econ goes straight to Hell so I refuse to exceed 78**) and I am getting passed by as if I am crawling...not just by one or two hot dogs, by dozens of cars, many dozens, maybe even a HUNDRED per trip.

It's a simple FACT that, south of the 105 freeway, the I-605 de facto speed limit IS 80-85 mph, maybe even NINETY, except during rush hour.

(**below 75 mph I can get about 48-55 mpg in my Prius snotbox, above 78 it starts to dip to 40 and sometimes even as low as 38 mpg.)

Strangely enough, if I take my wife's 5800 pound handicap equipped Chrysler Pacifica van, I can still manage to get 24 mpg even at 85 mph, which is VERY impressive for a big fat box shaped pigmobile that weighs almost three tons.
Unfortunately the HYBRID option is not available for handicap equipped vans because the slide out ramp goes right where the batteries normally go AND the floor is dropped about a foot anyway.
Otherwise, in hybrid mode, I am told 40 mpg is possible at 85 mph.

Going through the Arizona desert, much of which might be below sea level, we actually were getting almost 35 mpg at 85 miles per hour.

UNBELIEVABLE.

Click to expand...

The strength of hybrids and electric cars is start-and-stop driving, not highway driving. Regenerative braking is the key, and this efficiency is 100% lost in a gas guzzler.

BahamaBob said:

Amtrak does not have any tracks. They run on other railroad's tracks. This is very costly for the railroads hosting Amtrak because Amtrak always has the right of way and the other railroads have to put their trains in sidings while Amtrak passes.

Amtrak is a needed and well used along the East Coast. They also have a few areas in California where they are used. However, their trains through the Midwest and often through the Northwest are usually empty or close to it. They should abandon their routes that have few riders. However, government being what it is will never allow that.

Click to expand...

As it happens I often lurk on a railfan site, and Amtrak doesn't have the right of way, which is why it's timekeeping is so bad. Only last night, the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles sat outside La Plata Mo. for almost 20 minutes while 3 freight trains took priority.

concernedpuma said:

Certain forms? Rather undefined isn't it? I can't imagine that you would expect others to fund those things to which you approve, do you? In the world today, it would seem incumbent upon one proposing a gift from the Federal Treasury to give a good(likely financial) reason to join that idea.
Better measure? What is it?
Regards,
CP

Click to expand...

Isn't that how all of infrastructure funding works though? How is subsidizing a road different than rail? How is subsidizing rail different than airports? As I stated earlier in the thread, I think it's foolish to continue to heavily subsidize our antiquated Amtrak system, but in the end it's all choices about which "certain forms" get the money.

Media_Truth said:

What should be the future of Amtrak? Although Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 Billion in 2017, it still lost $194 Million. Is it reasonable to expect Amtrak to turn a profit? Roads are built using Federal, State and Local tax revenue. Often states extract Sales Tax revenue (General Fund) for road projects. The Federal Government is about to pass another huge "Infrastructure" bill.

Why Amtrak train tickets are so expensive - Business Insider

In an attempt to rescue the service, then President Nixon signed a law in 1970 that ensured government funding. This act created the National Railroad Passenger Corp., which eventually became Amtrak. Of the 26 railroads offering passenger service, six declined to join Amtrak.
...
To this day, trains still have a low profit margin and rely heavily on subsidies to operate. According to the company's 2017 fiscal year report, Amtrak had a total revenue of $3.3 billion. Unfortunately, this wasn't enough to make Amtrak profitable. It still had a total operating loss of $194 million.
...
According to Amtrak's company profile, it operated some 300 trains a day in 2017. In comparison, SNCF, the French National Railway Co., operated 14,000 trains daily. That's about 47 times as many trains, serving a nation that has a quarter of the population of the United States. France is also even smaller than the size of Texas.

Click to expand...

Stop all subsidies if it can't turn a profit it's a failed business model.

Surrealistik said:

The future of Amtrak should be a massive infrastructure investment in modern high speed rail; the antiquated state of rail transit in the States is a pathetic embarrassment, and an absolute travesty versus our counterparts in Asia and Europe.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I think it's worth pointing out that high speed rail only makes sense in high population densities like the northeast, the lower west coast, much of the eastern midwest and southeast. It will never make sense to have a high speed rail link running through Wyoming or from Minneapolis to Seattle and so on.

CLAX1911 said:

Stop all subsidies if it can't turn a profit it's a failed business model.

Click to expand...

Do roads turn a profit?

SouthernDemocrat said:

Do roads turn a profit?

Click to expand...

Roads aren't a business Amtrak is.

CLAX1911 said:

Roads aren't a business Amtrak is.

Click to expand...

Really? You ever been on a turnpike? How about airports (some are, some are not)?

I not for continuing to subsidize Amtrak as I think its antiquated, but the vast majority of infrastructure doesn't turn a profit. That is why governments typically base funding decisions on infrastructure on its economic multipliers to the overall economy.

Media_Truth said:

I'm of the opinion that no transportation system stands on it's own - especially the infrastructure. Amtrak pays hefty fees to the owners of the tracks, who must maintain the infrastructure. Roads are much worse to maintain. They need constant repair - sometimes every 2 or 3 years. Likewise for bridges and other infrastructure. Amtrak had revenue of $3.3 billion in 2017, with $194 million of debt. That amount of debt is nothing compared to road budgets.

Click to expand...

Then why charge customers at all? What's the point of making a business out of it that is guaranteed to lose money? I mean if customers want to use the transportation then they should ante up and pay for it. At least break even if you aren't going to make a profit. Either raise your prices or increase taxes to cover the costs. Amtrak is a losing proposition, just like the post office. People can either take planes, buses, or cars. Trains aren't needed for people transportation and private enterprise can run the postal system. It's kind of stupid to charge 55 cents for a stamp to mail a letter either just across the street or from Maine to Hawaii.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Really? You ever been on a turnpike? How about airports (some are, some are not)?

I not for continuing to subsidize Amtrak as I think its antiquated, but the vast majority of infrastructure doesn't turn a profit.

Click to expand...

Amtrak isn't infrastructure it's a business.

That is why governments typically base funding decisions on infrastructure on its economic multipliers to the overall economy.

Click to expand...

Amtrak is a business it uses infrastructure just like J.B. hunt or Greyhound do but they aren't infrastructure just because they use rail reads.

It's a business.

If it's a failing one we aren't getting our money worth

Grand Mal said:

Asinine to lose money? What would you say to someone who's casino went bankrupt?

Click to expand...

Lot's of businesses lose money until they go under, including many Casinos in Atlantic city during hard times. This thread is about continuing with a business that always loses money and of course the left want to keep it up and running.

As long as the government is connected to Amtrak, it will be a mess. Government does terrible job of involving itself in any business.

Hard to say, since I've never rode with Amtrak. However, this would be a good opportunity for private businesses to capitalize on this and consider making train travel profitable. Bullet trains might actually be the way to go, when it comes to passenger trains (that are not subway trains), like they do in Japan. Back up the prices with good service and quality management. This would actually make it nice for the Holiday Season and turnover a major profit by offering good discounts and setup a system where you earn points and, well, you get the rest.

I wouldn't mind seeing the passenger locomotive industry make a comeback. Amtrak, unfortunately, has been giving it a bad name, and hasn't done anything to improve itself. Train travel can be so much more affordable if they gave everyone a good reason to use them, instead of basically saying "we're here, use us just cuz." Think of how much air travel costs nowadays and you have to travel from, let's say, from Ohio, where I live, down to Florida. Average cost of a plane ticket costs $379 (I don't know if that's how much it would cost, but let's go with this price). That's a lot of money dropped for air travel. It's fast sure, but tickets can still go down in price. Right now, the average train ticket can range anywhere from $20-$400. It's not as fast and it could, potentially, cost more. It could cost, one way, $300 (again, just an example), but it they could jack the price up. You're still looking to save money and, let's say there's an alternative passenger train business that may only cost. Instead of $300 for a ticket, this place can charge $150. For a family of 4 to go, they say it'll cost $225, one way. So long as the service is good and they're close to on time for departure and arrival as possible, I think the choice is clear of who to go through.

Again, I have no real opinion on what should happen to Amtrak because I never used them before, but based on what I heard, they need an overhaul, starting from the top-down. But, then again, it might be time for a new, more modern, company(s) to come along and provide services.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Tell ya what...I am and always HAVE BEEN in favor of upping the bar on driver education in this country.
I think that the California Driver's License test should surpass GERMANY in terms of difficulty.

And if we ARE going to get lucky and get our own "Autobahn", we better damn well consider that very seriously because as much as I favor the Autobahn concept, I am not looking forward to what will no doubt be a series of rather spectacular accidents as it goes through some growing pains.

By the way, I've been commuting between Whittier and Long Beach every single day ever since my wife went into the Long Beach VA Hospital for a long term stay, recuperating from major surgery, and I swear to God, every single day I get on that stretch of I-605, once I get south of the 105 freeway exits, I can be doing 75-78 mph (above that my fuel econ goes straight to Hell so I refuse to exceed 78**) and I am getting passed by as if I am crawling...not just by one or two hot dogs, by dozens of cars, many dozens, maybe even a HUNDRED per trip.

It's a simple FACT that, south of the 105 freeway, the I-605 de facto speed limit IS 80-85 mph, maybe even NINETY, except during rush hour.

(**below 75 mph I can get about 48-55 mpg in my Prius snotbox, above 78 it starts to dip to 40 and sometimes even as low as 38 mpg.)

Strangely enough, if I take my wife's 5800 pound handicap equipped Chrysler Pacifica van, I can still manage to get 24 mpg even at 85 mph, which is VERY impressive for a big fat box shaped pigmobile that weighs almost three tons.
Unfortunately the HYBRID option is not available for handicap equipped vans because the slide out ramp goes right where the batteries normally go AND the floor is dropped about a foot anyway.
Otherwise, in hybrid mode, I am told 40 mpg is possible at 85 mph.

Going through the Arizona desert, much of which might be below sea level, we actually were getting almost 35 mpg at 85 miles per hour.

UNBELIEVABLE.

Click to expand...

WOW... You live and drive in California. You've got guts. A state I vowed to never visit again. Not for any political reasons, but because of how dangerous it is to drive there. About four years ago my wife and I were at the Grand Canyon, and she got the urge to see the ocean. So off we went to California. It was beautiful scenery. But somewhere around LA I'm driving along at around 60mph on a crowded multi-lane when (maybe) 15 or 20 motorcyclists shot right past; what's called lane splitting. That was one of the most dangerous stunts I ever saw. An inch on either side from disaster. Happened a couple more times, but only one motorcycle doing it. Later I find that California is the only state that allows lane splitting.

Btw; I own a motorcycle. I would never risk lane splitting. And it just isn't done around here.

CLAX1911 said:

Amtrak isn't infrastructure it's a business.

Amtrak is a business it uses infrastructure just like J.B. hunt or Greyhound do but they aren't infrastructure just because they use rail reads.

It's a business.

If it's a failing one we aren't getting our money worth

Click to expand...

In Hong Kong the subways are privately owned. Does that mean they are not infrastructure? There are privately owned major airports around the world, does that mean they are not infrastructure? Some river locks are privately owned and operated, does that mean they are not infrastructure?

Amtrak may be a company, but it's our only major intracity rail passenger transport, thus it's also infrastructure.

Here's another option that hasn't been touched on: upgrade the technology to magnetic levitation.

Moreover, if the trains ran underground, and if the tunnels were pumped down to a vacuum, the speed of the trains would be limited only by the curvature of the earth.

That would allow you to travel between the East and West Coasts in less than an hour.

Risky Thicket said:

Passenger rail in Europe is often much, much better than in the US. The TVG in France is excellent.

Click to expand...

I agree. Transportation in the US is really bad and has been for years. We are really behind other major countries.