What Should be the Future of Amtrak

[CLAX1911]

In Hong Kong the subways are privately owned. Does that mean they are not infrastructure?

in the United States railroads aren't that is infrastructure for which Amtrak uses to do their business. but Amtrak itself is not infrastructure not any more than JB Hunt or Greyhound is.

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?

River locks are equivalent to railroads not the company who operates the boat that floats through them. Amtrak is equivalent to the boat that floats through them. If Amtrak is not doing business with a profit it is no longer useful. I don't think airports are losing business.

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

and it's a ****y investment on our part to burn money up in that fire. It's creating a monopoly which breeds mediocrity.

We should never subsidize private companies. I don't care what they do.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

I was taken aback by it at first but that was so many years ago. These days it doesn't rattle me at all, however that said, it's clear that lane splitting isn't practiced very well by either bikers or cars. We get quite a few motorcycle wrecks during rush hour.

Yes, poor quality drivers here, but I daresay just as poor as other areas, just that we're going faster when the roads are clear.
And yes, that is WHY I think CA needs to raise the bar, drastically.
In fact, most state driver tests in this country are a joke.
I have had DL's in Maryland, NY, MN, Arkansas, Texas and California. None of those states required much on their road tests beyond "can you parallel park and can you drive 5 mph in a circle and remember to use your turn signal".

It's been thirty years since I got behind the wheel of a semi (or a commercial coach) but as the song goes, "I've driven every kind of rig that's ever been made". So for me, driving a car is small potatoes, I really appreciate the better handling of a car compared to an eighty thousand pound big rig or a seventy passenger bus, although I still do love driving the buses very much.

 

[Risky Thicket]

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

Absolutely.

I enjoy train travel. In our experience, all the trains we've taken in Canada have been far superior to our American train travel.

 

[Risky Thicket]

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.

Lane splitting is legal in Arizona.

 

[Risky Thicket]

When I living in Florida I once bought an Acura. When buying the car I told the salesman that I didn't want cruise control. He sputtered and farted, "Huh? Why would you not want cruise control?"

I told him I didn't want it and didn't want to pay for it. I was ordering the car, why would it be a problem?

He couldn't understand why I didn't want it.

I told him that I actually enjoy driving. One of the reasons I was buying an Acura was because of its handling, which he had proudly talked about when he was selling the car. More than that, I told him to tell me where I could I drive in Florida and use cruise control for even thirty minutes other than a stretch cutting across the state from Jacksonville to Tallahassee. He couldn't think of any. That was about 25+ plus years ago. Interstate traffic was godawful. Now it's much worse.

End of story I got cruise control but they deducted the cost from the price of the car.

Now, when I travel to West Palm Beach I fly to Miami because I get much better flight options at a better price. I take the Brightline train from Miami to West Palm for about $10.00. It is clean, modern and relatively fast. I can sit in comfort, use wifi and watch the suffering bastards stuck in miles and miles of traffic on the interstate.

Hell of a deal.

 

[Rexedgar]

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.

I live on the east coast and have been riding motorcycles for nearly 50 years. In my state they only recently permitted lane sharing by motorcycles, two abreast in the same lane. Used to have to ride staggered if in the same lane. A number of years ago I rode cross country to see family and for the experience. Brother was living in San Diego, at the time. We went out riding and I took to lane splitting right away. Once you get used to it, it is quite the rush. The other drivers don’t try to close you down and I once looked over and there was a CHP motor officer lane splitting in an adjacent lane. I can see that it might not be for everyone, but I enjoyed the hell out of it. I am now back on the east coast, so lane splitting is not a daily thing; that being said, it was stimulating.

 

[Waddy]

Lane splitting is legal in Arizona.

Don't think so.

As of February 2018, lane splitting in Arizona remains illegal. Section 29-903 of the Arizona Revised Statutes states that no motorcyclist shall “overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle overtaken.” It also prohibits operating a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between two adjacent rows of vehicles. In other words, no motorcyclist shall use the same lane or the space between lanes to pass other vehicles – no lane-splitting. The only time the state of Arizona permits motorcycle lane-splitting is if the motorcyclist is a peace officer performing official duties.

Is Lane Splitting Legal in Arizona?

Unless the law was changed very recently, it is against the law to lane split in Arizona.

 

[Parrish]

I really enjoy the trains also. I like the big, wide seats, with nearly-full-recline capability. I like being able to get up and walk around. I like having a nice dinner in the dining car, and communing with other travelers. I like the fact that they announce "quiet time" in the evening, before sleeping hours. All-in-all, I think it's well-run.

I also like the fact that when I travel to NYC or Boston I don't have to drive across the Wm. Preston Lane, Jr. Bridge, especially in the rain.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Don't think so.



Is Lane Splitting Legal in Arizona?

Unless the law was changed very recently, it is against the law to lane split in Arizona.

It was. Maybe it is no longer.

 

[BahamaBob]

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.

Occasionally Amtrak may have to wait a few minutes while other trains clear the track. However, freight lines can be fined for this.

Under a 2008 federal law, freights may be penalized if they cause passenger trains to be late by not pulling over to allow the trains to go first.

Freight Railroads Fight New Rule for Amtrak Trains

 

[Media_Truth]

Occasionally Amtrak may have to wait a few minutes while other trains clear the track. However, freight lines can be fined for this.

Under a 2008 federal law, freights may be penalized if they cause passenger trains to be late by not pulling over to allow the trains to go first.

Freight Railroads Fight New Rule for Amtrak Trains

Thanks for sharing - that's a new one on me. I rode Amtrak a little in the '90s, and they were notoriously late - often by hours. I started riding again around 2015, and have done a number of long trips (1000 mile average), and they do seem to be much more timely. I think you've explained the reason.

 

[Media_Truth]

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.

With your logic, all roads should be toll roads - if you want to use the road - ante up. Right?

 

[upsideguy]

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

Because Europeans are willing to tax themselves to do things like infrastructure. Like any business, you have to re-invest in yourself to keep your business relevant. America has been unwilling to reinvest in America, which is why America is slipping away from 1st world status.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Occasionally Amtrak may have to wait a few minutes while other trains clear the track. However, freight lines can be fined for this.

Under a 2008 federal law, freights may be penalized if they cause passenger trains to be late by not pulling over to allow the trains to go first.

Freight Railroads Fight New Rule for Amtrak Trains

From reading the comments on railfan sites, Amtrak delays to accommodate fast freight are commonplace.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

in the United States railroads aren't that is infrastructure for which Amtrak uses to do their business. but Amtrak itself is not infrastructure not any more than JB Hunt or Greyhound is.

River locks are equivalent to railroads not the company who operates the boat that floats through them. Amtrak is equivalent to the boat that floats through them. If Amtrak is not doing business with a profit it is no longer useful. I don't think airports are losing business.


and it's a ****y investment on our part to burn money up in that fire. It's creating a monopoly which breeds mediocrity.

We should never subsidize private companies. I don't care what they do.

The definition of infrastructure:

Infrastructure is the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function. Infrastructure is composed of public and private physical improvements such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, and telecommunications (including Internet connectivity and broadband speeds). In general, it has also been defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions"

Greyhound is part of our transportation infrastructure. J.B. Hunt is part of our shipping infrastructure. Just because something is privately owned does not mean that it's not part of a country's infrastructure. Just because something is part of our infrastructure, does not always mean we have to publicly fund it.

For example, in Kansas much of the interstate system is operated and maintained by the Kansas Turnpike Authority, an organization that doesn't receive taxpayer funds. Yet it is still infrastructure. Amtrak functions like what would be called a state owned enterprise in China. The government owns virtually all of it. AllGov - Departments

Now, as to whether we should continue to fund it, or fund it in it's current form is another question altogether. I don't think we should continue to fund it in it's current form. However, it's part of our country's infrastructure.

 

[CLAX1911]

The definition of infrastructure:

Infrastructure is the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function. Infrastructure is composed of public and private physical improvements such as roads, bridges, tunnels, water supply, sewers, electrical grids, and telecommunications (including Internet connectivity and broadband speeds). In general, it has also been defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions"

Greyhound is part of our transportation infrastructure. J.B. Hunt is part of our shipping infrastructure. Just because something is privately owned does not mean that it's not part of a country's infrastructure. Just because something is part of our infrastructure, does not always mean we have to publicly fund it.

For example, in Kansas much of the interstate system is operated and maintained by the Kansas Turnpike Authority, an organization that doesn't receive taxpayer funds. Yet it is still infrastructure. Amtrak functions like what would be called a state owned enterprise in China. The government owns virtually all of it. AllGov - Departments

Now, as to whether we should continue to fund it, or fund it in it's current form is another question altogether. I don't think we should continue to fund it in it's current form. However, it's part of our country's infrastructure.

Sorry, I don't agree that Amtrak is part of our infrastructure, nor is jb hunt or Greyhound.

 

[jonny5]

Rail is a loser in the USA for transporting people. Planes are faster, go more places, and use less infrastructure. Buses and cars are just as fast, go even more places, and are cheaper. Other than local service, there simply is no point in continuing passenger rail in the USA. Privatize Amtrak 100% and let it fail.

 

[Moderate Right]

With your logic, all roads should be toll roads - if you want to use the road - ante up. Right?

Roads aren't a business. Amtrak is a business. You are talking apples and baseball.

 

[Gaius46]

Honestly, I have taken Amtrak twice. I like it. I am planning another longer trip soon. Much more humane way to travel.

That said, i think we put it back in the hands of private carriers with the provision that the main carriers must provide passenger routes. There will be better service and a bigger priority for on-time performance. Also a bigger probability of high speed connections.

Me too. We recently took Amtrak (and Canada’s VIA rail) from NYC to Quebec. It took significantly longer - 10 hours in total - but the seats were much bigger and more comfortable than standard economy class airline seats, the views were pretty good, there was WiFi in the US and I had plenty of time to read.

Biggest pain was crossing the border.
Took 2 - 2.5 hours in both directions. Would be node if they can speed up that process.

 

[rocket88]

Rail is a loser in the USA for transporting people. Planes are faster, go more places, and use less infrastructure. Buses and cars are just as fast, go even more places, and are cheaper. Other than local service, there simply is no point in continuing passenger rail in the USA. Privatize Amtrak 100% and let it fail.

Actually trains serve places without an airport. Have you ever used a train. Much better than flying.

 

[rocket88]

From reading the comments on railfan sites, Amtrak delays to accommodate fast freight are commonplace.

Yes, all the time. That is because Amtrak doesn't own the tracks, the freight companies do and understandably prioritize their own traffic.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Britain took the privatisation route and it's been fairly disastrous, to be kind. The track is operated by one franchise, and the train operators are spilt into eight semi-competing companies. (there's some overlap of routes, but each has a section of their own monopoly patch.) The subsidies remain, prices have doubled and redoubled, services have been cut, and the investors have made out like bandits.

 

[antiquity]

Amtrak and the USPS should be sold to a private concern..but I doubt any one would want to buy a money losing project. So us taxpayers who have no access or want access to Amtrak will get stuck with the bill.

 

[jonny5]

Actually trains serve places without an airport. Have you ever used a train. Much better than flying.

Yes, they are much slower and not much different cost wise. Flying is in almost all aspects a more efficient way to transport people. Just let the market speak for itself. 700 million air passengers vs 30 million rail. 5,000 paved airports vs 500 passenger rail stations. Heck, you can fly yourself to 15,000 different airports in the USA if you wanted.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Yes, they are much slower and not much different cost wise. Flying is in almost all aspects a more efficient way to transport people. Just let the market speak for itself. 700 million air passengers vs 30 million rail. 5,000 paved airports vs 500 passenger rail stations. Heck, you can fly yourself to 15,000 different airports in the USA if you wanted.

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.