• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Should be the Future of Amtrak

What Should be the Future of Amtrak

  • Continue Subsidies at Current Level

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Stop Subsidies for Amtrak completely.

    Votes: 20 39.2%

  • Continue Subsidies, and Maybe More, but Improve Service

    Votes: 26 51.0%

  • I have never ridden Amtrak, and never will.

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • Total voters
    51
I lived in Ukraine for a number of years. Kyiv has a fabulous (and gorgeous) underground (subway system). Passenger train travel (almost to anywhere) is the most popular and cheapest form of mobility getting from A to B or to Z.

And they've mastered timetables. Status boards in stations have a dozen arrivals/departures listed, down to the minute (and a seconds countdown on station approach) and are never wrong. It's kinda amazing.

Ideally, Amtrak should turn a yearly profit. But I also realize how important the service is on the East Coast. Tough call.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. I agree that not every worthwhile thing will make a profit and may require a subsidy. I really would like a Think Tank dedicated to trimming, or maybe expanding services prior are to granting renewed subsidies, just to see if there are possibilities for improvement in the bottom line.
Regards,
CP
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Magnetic-levitation subway trains could be at least equally fast, and the stations are generally in the middle of town, not miles away like an airport is.
Click to expand...

Still slower than airplanes and a lot more land needed. Certainly airport to city center would be more reasonable, but cars are already cheaper and more useful as you still need a car when you get off the train.
 
jonny5 said:
Still slower than airplanes and a lot more land needed.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you run a maglev inside a tunnel that's been depressurized, the speed is limited only by the curvature of the earth. That's MUCH faster than airplanes.
Also, if the tunnels were underground, you would be using almost no land on the surface.

Certainly airport to city center would be more reasonable, but cars are already cheaper and more useful as you still need a car when you get off the train.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Plenty of cities have excellent bus and local subway systems.
 
jonny5 said:
Still slower than airplanes and a lot more land needed. Certainly airport to city center would be more reasonable, but cars are already cheaper and more useful as you still need a car when you get off the train.
Click to expand...

It depends. High speed trails are typically faster than any other form of transportation with 100 to 500 mile distances. With distances greater than 500 miles, air travel is faster.

For example, last November I took the high speed train from Shanghai to Hangzhou. The 109 mile trip, with stops included, was just 52 minutes. I have taken 500 mile high speed train trips in China that took just 4 hours with all the stops included. You can go a long ways fast when you are rolling along at over 200 mph.

It's distances greater than 500 miles where air travel is faster. Of course a plane goes faster than a high speed train, but you have to figure all the airport time with a flight. Train stations are much, much faster to get in and out of.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
As I mentioned in an earlier post, if you run a maglev inside a tunnel that's been depressurized, the speed is limited only by the curvature of the earth. That's MUCH faster than airplanes.
Also, if the tunnels were underground, you would be using almost no land on the surface.


Not necessarily. Plenty of cities have excellent bus and local subway systems.
Click to expand...

Maglev Tunnels going everywhere a plane goes is science fiction. This is not the future of amtrak.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It depends. High speed trails are typically faster than any other form of transportation with 100 to 500 mile distances. With distances greater than 500 miles, air travel is faster.

For example, last November I took the high speed train from Shanghai to Hangzhou. The 109 mile trip, with stops included, was just 52 minutes. I have taken 500 mile high speed train trips in China that took just 4 hours with all the stops included. You can go a long ways fast when you are rolling along at over 200 mph.

It's distances greater than 500 miles where air travel is faster. Of course a plane goes faster than a high speed train, but you have to figure all the airport time with a flight. Train stations are much, much faster to get in and out of.
Click to expand...

I can take an airplane today from Jacksonville to Miami, about 400 miles. It takes an hour. Whether its 100 or 1000 miles, a plane simply flies faster.

Trains may be faster to get in and out of, but its more than lost in the slower speed and the stops. And thats before people are even really using them. Ultimately its the cost of building. Two airports and a plane are much cheaper than thousands of miles of land. Its just a out of date technology that came and went.
 
jonny5 said:
I can take an airplane today from Jacksonville to Miami, about 400 miles. It takes an hour. Whether its 100 or 1000 miles, a plane simply flies faster.

Trains may be faster to get in and out of, but its more than lost in the slower speed and the stops. And thats before people are even really using them. Ultimately its the cost of building. Two airports and a plane are much cheaper than thousands of miles of land. Its just a out of date technology that came and went.
Click to expand...

It does not take you 1 hour to travel from Jacksonville to Miami by plane.

1. You have to drive to the airport which is going to be located away from the city center of town.

2. You have to go through TSA checkpoints.

3. You have to wait to board the flight.

4. The flight you board has to wait on the tarmac until its approved to takeoff.

5. You fly to Miami and wait on the tarmac until you get a gate.

6. You exit the gate into the terminal and then have to travel through the airport, a very large one in this case, until you can get to the curb to get an uber, public transport or a rental.

Total travel time from your home to Miami is going to be about 4 hours even though the flight itself is just a little over an hour.

Compare this to how high speed trains operate:

1. You drive to the train station that is almost always centrally located.

2. You go through security, but it takes only a couple of minutes and is much faster than airport security.

3. Even a large train station is much smaller than a typical airport in terms of how fare you have to walk through it. You can be from the parking lot through security and to the platform in 15 minutes or less.

4. The train boards in less than 5 minutes.

6. With stops, on a modern high speed train, the travel time from Jacksonville to Miami would be about 2 hours.

7. Your train arrives in Miami, you are off it in less than 5 minutes and to the curb to get an uber or rental in just a few minutes at most.

Your total travel time, 3 hours or less.

I know this because I have taken domestic flights and high speed trains in China many times, and you have to be traveling more than 500 miles before flying is faster.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It does not take you 1 hour to travel from Jacksonville to Miami by plane.

1. You have to drive to the airport which is going to be located away from the city center of town.

2. You have to go through TSA checkpoints.

3. You have to wait to board the flight.

4. The flight you board has to wait on the tarmac until its approved to takeoff.

5. You fly to Miami and wait on the tarmac until you get a gate.

6. You exit the gate into the terminal and then have to travel through the airport, a very large one in this case, until you can get to the curb to get an uber, public transport or a rental.

Total travel time from your home to Miami is going to be about 4 hours even though the flight itself is just a little over an hour.

Compare this to how high speed trains operate:

1. You drive to the train station that is almost always centrally located.

2. You go through security, but it takes only a couple of minutes and is much faster than airport security.

3. Even a large train station is much smaller than a typical airport in terms of how fare you have to walk through it. You can be from the parking lot through security and to the platform in 15 minutes or less.

4. The train boards in less than 5 minutes.

6. With stops, on a modern high speed train, the travel time from Jacksonville to Miami would be about 2 hours.

7. Your train arrives in Miami, you are off it in less than 5 minutes and to the curb to get an uber or rental in just a few minutes at most.

Your total travel time, 3 hours or less.

I know this because I have taken domestic flights and high speed trains in China many times, and you have to be traveling more than 500 miles before flying is faster.
Click to expand...

Theres a lot of dependant factors there which have nothing to do with mode of travel. And the USA is not China.
 
jonny5 said:
Theres a lot of dependant factors there which have nothing to do with mode of travel. And the USA is not China.
Click to expand...

It all has to do with the mode of travel. That is the whole reason why a plane is faster over 500 miles, a high speed train is usually faster under 500 miles.
 
Manc Skipper said:
From reading the comments on railfan sites, Amtrak delays to accommodate fast freight are commonplace.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly railfan sites are just like other sites. There are a number of people who have no idea what they are talking about.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It all has to do with the mode of travel. That is the whole reason why a plane is faster over 500 miles, a high speed train is usually faster under 500 miles.
Click to expand...

You can't compare high speed rail with air travel in the US because high speed rail does not exist. High speed rail does work well in Europe but the average country in Europe is the size of a small state in the US and has 40 million people. What that boils down to is automobile traffic is a nightmare so rail traffic rules. In the more congested areas of the US, rail works well too. However it is not a great option in the less congested areas. Even on existing conventional rails it is prohibitively expensive to run passenger trains.

The US is very large, has many EPA standards and has a great highway system. These factors all work against a high speed rail system. High speed rail is also extremely expensive. The proposed high speed rail system between LA and SF would have cost at least $77 billion. That is about $20 million a mile. That does not include equipment and operating expenses.
 
jonny5 said:
I can take an airplane today from Jacksonville to Miami, about 400 miles. It takes an hour. Whether its 100 or 1000 miles, a plane simply flies faster.

Trains may be faster to get in and out of, but its more than lost in the slower speed and the stops. And thats before people are even really using them. Ultimately its the cost of building. Two airports and a plane are much cheaper than thousands of miles of land. Its just a out of date technology that came and went.
Click to expand...

How long are you there before the flight? How long to get from the airport into town? Add an hour either end to be realistic..
 
jonny5 said:
Then, again, why bother when flying is faster and cheaper?
Click to expand...

Flying isn't faster: train takes 1 hour coast-to-coast; airplane takes 5.

Planes won't be cheaper forever, either. They can't keep burning fuel in the atmosphere indefinitely.
 
At current subsidies, Amtrak would make a profit if they raised ticket prices by about 6%. At that level it seems like a mismanagement. However, Subsidies for Amtrak are huge. Around 45% of their revenues, at around $1.4 billion in the 2018 budget. They are reduced to $738 million in the 2019 budget.

I see arguments about France's success with rail. Keep in mind what the 1/4 the population is on land less than 1/12th the size on the 48 contiguous states. This means we are having to serve more than three times the passenger mile per person than France, especially since AMTRAK goes into Alaska also.

I really wish people would gave a better understanding of comparing one system to another. Every state, country, etc. has different challenges. Comparisons must take in all significant factors. Population density is one of them with economics involving distances. The latest population density numbers I have seen for the contiguous 48 USA and France are 104 vs. 271 people per square mile.

Amtrak is generally used between Urban areas. Also consider the average travel distances between the urban areas of France vs. the USA. It simply costs far more in the USA per passenger mile.

I really wish people would remember such important facts in debates.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course, though I would certainly explore the feasibility of a coast to coast line to link those high density corridors.
 
Lord of Planar said:
At current subsidies, Amtrak would make a profit if they raised ticket prices by about 6%. At that level it seems like a mismanagement. However, Subsidies for Amtrak are huge. Around 45% of their revenues, at around $1.4 billion in the 2018 budget. They are reduced to $738 million in the 2019 budget.

I see arguments about France's success with rail. Keep in mind what the 1/4 the population is on land less than 1/12th the size on the 48 contiguous states. This means we are having to serve more than three times the passenger mile per person than France, especially since AMTRAK goes into Alaska also.

I really wish people would gave a better understanding of comparing one system to another. Every state, country, etc. has different challenges. Comparisons must take in all significant factors. Population density is one of them with economics involving distances. The latest population density numbers I have seen for the contiguous 48 USA and France are 104 vs. 271 people per square mile.

Amtrak is generally used between Urban areas. Also consider the average travel distances between the urban areas of France vs. the USA. It simply costs far more in the USA per passenger mile.

I really wish people would remember such important facts in debates.
Click to expand...

You should think about some facts in your debates.

1. Any ROAD transportation system is heavily subsidized.
2. Freight transportation by truck is SUPER-HEAVILY-SUBSIDIZED. More than anything, trucks wear down the roads and bridges. The freight rail companies are expected to maintain their tracks without subsidies. AMTRAK must pay them to use these tracks, and that provides some income for maintenance.
3. Pundits expect AMTRAK to stand on it's own. If cars and trucks were to stand on their own, every road would have to be a Toll Road.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
It depends. High speed trails are typically faster than any other form of transportation with 100 to 500 mile distances. With distances greater than 500 miles, air travel is faster.

For example, last November I took the high speed train from Shanghai to Hangzhou. The 109 mile trip, with stops included, was just 52 minutes. I have taken 500 mile high speed train trips in China that took just 4 hours with all the stops included. You can go a long ways fast when you are rolling along at over 200 mph.

It's distances greater than 500 miles where air travel is faster. Of course a plane goes faster than a high speed train, but you have to figure all the airport time with a flight. Train stations are much, much faster to get in and out of.
Click to expand...

Good points. i would like to point out that SPEED is not everything. Airline travel has become EXTREMELY uncomfortable. I'm not sure what minimum seating space requirements, but it seems that they have gotten very extreme. Meanwhile the average American body is bigger and broader. I LOATHE traveling by plane. If you don't have claustrophobia, you may develop it, during plane travel. The long distance trains of Amtrak provide completely reclineable seating. One can get up and walk around. One can have a nice meal in the dining car. One can relax and enjoy the scenery in the Observation car. A group of people can play cards in the Observation car.

If you ask anyone, this is the number ONE reason that people ride Amtrak. It's much more PLEASANT!!!
 
Media_Truth said:
You should think about some facts in your debates.

1. Any ROAD transportation system is heavily subsidized.
2. Freight transportation by truck is SUPER-HEAVILY-SUBSIDIZED. More than anything, trucks wear down the roads and bridges. The freight rail companies are expected to maintain their tracks without subsidies. AMTRAK must pay them to use these tracks, and that provides some income for maintenance.
3. Pundits expect AMTRAK to stand on it's own. If cars and trucks were to stand on their own, every road would have to be a Toll Road.
Click to expand...

I can point out fallacies on all your points, buy I'm not wasting my time.

You are a lost cause. Just remember this. Load limits on tires footprints. Maybe you should read such material before spouting your ignorance.

Funny how the groves in a road match a car track width rather than a trucks... Plus, less mileage, they pay more in fuel tax.

Just think for a moment about your silly argument. that's all the time I have to waste on this topic with you.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I can point out fallacies on all your points, buy I'm not wasting my time.

You are a lost cause. Just remember this. Load limits on tires footprints. Maybe you should read such material before spouting your ignorance.

Funny how the groves in a road match a car track width rather than a trucks... Plus, less mileage, they pay more in fuel tax.

Just think for a moment about your silly argument. that's all the time I have to waste on this topic with you.
Click to expand...

Good, because your arguments are total unsupported nonsense. Any Engineer, including myself, will tell you that the stress on infrastructure is primarily due to the heaviest vehicles, and the vibration that they cause. This results in hairline cracks in concrete, including bridges and other structures. Have you ever wondered why they have Weight Stations on Interstates? You're pseudo-science is lacking!
 
Media_Truth said:
Good, because your arguments are total unsupported nonsense. Any Engineer, including myself, will tell you that the stress on infrastructure is primarily due to the heaviest vehicles, and the vibration that they cause. This results in hairline cracks in concrete, including bridges and other structures. Have you ever wondered why they have Weight Stations on Interstates? You're pseudo-science is lacking!
Click to expand...

Yes, there are weight limits for a reason. I guess terms like "pound per square inch" mean nothing to you, as it is very important too. I already covered the "footprint" issue, which obviously went over your head.

The point I addressed was trucks being "heavily subsidized." That is what I argued against. An 18 wheeler for example can be a maximum of 40 tons. The pressure per square inch of those 18 wheels is little more than the four tires on a car. It's very seldom we see a maximum load for weight.

When will you stop pretending to be an engineer?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, there are weight limits for a reason. I guess terms like "pound per square inch" mean nothing to you, as it is very important too. I already covered the "footprint" issue, which obviously went over your head.

The point I addressed was trucks being "heavily subsidized." That is what I argued against. An 18 wheeler for example can be a maximum of 40 tons. The pressure per square inch of those 18 wheels is little more than the four tires on a car. It's very seldom we see a maximum load for weight.

When will you stop pretending to be an engineer?
Click to expand...

You didn't cover Jack DooDoo.

Chart of the Day: Vehicle Weight vs Road Damage Levels | streets.mn

Vehicle Road Wear.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom