• 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
DifferentDrummr said:
The fuel to generate electricity for a maglev system still comes to less than that required to fly airplanes over the same route.

Current maglev systems are above ground, so there's too much wind resistance. I was talking about a subway.

And do you know why Concorde was retired? It got too expensive to fly commercially.
Click to expand...

Last I read, even if every passenger drove cars between destinations, it would use less fuel than an airline.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Except Amtrak passenger cars don't have as many passengers.

My understanding is Amtrak is only a little better in mileage. An aircraft about 80 MPG per passenger, Amtrak about 100 MPG. Yet, the airplane for the longer journeys is so much faster.

Now the 747 actually archives around 100 mpg per passenger, but that's for longer flights that we see continental. Once an airplane is in thin atmosphere, there is much less resistance. It's the transition through the lower atmosphere that a plane gets poor mileage.
Click to expand...

We've seen how faulty your understanding in this very thread, regarding road wear from semi-trucks. You never post links, and expect others to buy into your unsupported drivel.
 
Media_Truth said:
We've seen how faulty your understanding in this very thread, regarding road wear from semi-trucks. You never post links, and expect others to buy into your unsupported drivel.
Click to expand...

Your blogger link in post 100 is very far fetch.

Can you back it up with facts?
 
Post 100 uses the mass ratio and does a fourth power calculation, disregarding footprints.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your blogger link in post 100 is very far fetch.

Can you back it up with facts?
Click to expand...

I already responded to this. I'm awaiting your scientific study. This was me response ---

You call that chart bogus, and you come up with nothing to refute it, other than your persistent unsupported nonsense. Come on, put up or shut up! Find me a link that states that trucks don't damage the roads worse than cars. Come on! I dare you!!!!
 
Media_Truth said:
I already responded to this. I'm awaiting your scientific study. This was me response ---

You call that chart bogus, and you come up with nothing to refute it, other than your persistent unsupported nonsense. Come on, put up or shut up! Find me a link that states that trucks don't damage the roads worse than cars. Come on! I dare you!!!!
Click to expand...

You claim to have a BS in engineering. I see the direct math for what is it. Nothing but the ratio of weight to the fourth power, with no variable used for load per square foot. Real data will not be that simple, and not a fourth power equation.

Day in and day out, you prove you don't know squat about engineering.

You should just come clean with us.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The fuel to generate electricity for a maglev system still comes to less than that required to fly airplanes over the same route.

Current maglev systems are above ground, so there's too much wind resistance. I was talking about a subway.

And do you know why Concorde was retired? It got too expensive to fly commercially.
Click to expand...

And how much does 3000 miles of subway cost? We'll never know.
 
Media_Truth said:
I already responded to this. I'm awaiting your scientific study. This was me response ---

You call that chart bogus, and you come up with nothing to refute it, other than your persistent unsupported nonsense. Come on, put up or shut up! Find me a link that states that trucks don't damage the roads worse than cars. Come on! I dare you!!!!
Click to expand...

Why should I attempt to prove anything?

Your link is so laughable, no need to refute it with another.

When you finally find the real numbers, don't forget that trucks pay more in road tax because of the higher amount of fuel consumed per mile.

I'll bet the next blogger you find forgets that inconvenient fact.
 
Hey Media propaganda...

If you really believe that, why do you support public transportation. Surly an inter city bus, by your beliefs, cause 100+ times more damage than the average passenger miles by car.
 
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...

travel by train in europe is more accepted...the trips are shorter...and the trains are ran much more efficiently

here we fly or drive....

that could change if we would build the tokyo system where the trains get up to 250mph....but a train from nyc to dallas takes 24 hours....who has that time?
 
Media_Truth said:
This is the equivalent of making all state and federal highways toll roads. That way, they can be self-sufficient.
Click to expand...

Actually, it wouldn't but it would make Amtrak operate more like a business and wouldn't require but a small increase in costs to the users.
 
antiquity said:
$6.25? What is it now? I live near Puget Sound and the ferry ride from Seattle to the other side, takes less than an hour, is more than that. $8.50 walk on.
Click to expand...

An average increase of about $6.25. Some routes less and others more of an increase.
 
gdgyva said:
travel by train in europe is more accepted...the trips are shorter...and the trains are ran much more efficiently

here we fly or drive....

that could change if we would build the tokyo system where the trains get up to 250mph....but a train from nyc to dallas takes 24 hours....who has that time?
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd like to live at a somewhat slower pace. IMHO, America would benefit as a nation if we'd learn to slow down a bit.

I am fairly certain we won't, however.
 
Never ridden a train in the USA...
 
Risky Thicket said:
Actually, I'd like to live at a somewhat slower pace. IMHO, America would benefit as a nation if we'd learn to slow down a bit.

I am fairly certain we won't, however.
Click to expand...

I dont think we would exist as a nation if we slowed down. But there are certainly places where people can do both. The problem is when they try to force their way on others by building a high speed rail through their farm.
 
Moderate Right said:
It's asinine for something to lose money. Amtrak should be downgraded to being more of a local subway system. If that doesn't work then off with it's head. They had passenger trains in the 19th century for God's sake. Next up: The US postal service. Sell it off and let private business run it. If you have to rely on heavy subsidies then they shouldn't be around in the the first place.
Click to expand...

Good point! Our interstate system makes money, why can't Amtrack!!??
 
Lord of Planar said:
Why should I attempt to prove anything?

Your link is so laughable, no need to refute it with another.

When you finally find the real numbers, don't forget that trucks pay more in road tax because of the higher amount of fuel consumed per mile.

I'll bet the next blogger you find forgets that inconvenient fact.
Click to expand...

All your rhetoric and snide remarks just show that you could not backup your statements, which were totally assinine to begin with...
 
gdgyva said:
travel by train in europe is more accepted...the trips are shorter...and the trains are ran much more efficiently

here we fly or drive....

that could change if we would build the tokyo system where the trains get up to 250mph....but a train from nyc to dallas takes 24 hours....who has that time?
Click to expand...

If the object is to get from A to B in the shortest time possible, I would agree. However, a lot of things that are done at home can be done on the train. They tend to be a quiet environment, so office work can be done. Computer work. You can get up and walk around. Socialize with the family, playing cards and games on the observation deck, etc.

Personally, I enjoy the train experience much more than a cramped, claustrophobic airline.
 
JasperL said:
Good point! Our interstate system makes money, why can't Amtrack!!??
Click to expand...

A lot of irony in that statement :mrgreen: I would not doubt that if some read it, that they'll actually believe that the Interstate Highway system makes money.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
France has quite a few populous cities that are all fairly close to one another. The closest thing the US has is the Northeast Corridor, which is not nearly as densely packed. So of course it would be cheaper to run passenger rail service in France.

Much of the expense that the US faces is maintaining tracks that run through hundreds of miles of basically nothing - and often going up some high mountains.
Click to expand...

Great points. I wasn't even sure of the options on the poll (not sure how efficient Amtrak really is).
 
Media_Truth said:
A lot of irony in that statement :mrgreen: I would not doubt that if some read it, that they'll actually believe that the Interstate Highway system makes money.
Click to expand...

As Ray Wylie Hubbard (Up Against the Wall You Redneck Mother) once said, "The only problem with irony is that some people don't get it." That is, of course, true but there's nothing better than rich, thought-provoking, irony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom