What should happen to Amtrak? It should live or die by its own merits

Blasphemy! Burn the heretic! How dare he threaten our monorail?

https://youtu.be/taJ4MFCxiuo

What should happen to Amtrak? It should live or die by its own merits

That would be wonderful, but that would mean you'd have to get the government out of the running of it.

One problem with the bullet train in California is that every representative from every podunk little village in the Central Valley wants the shiny new toy to stop in his district. How can you gain "bullet train speeds" if you're stopping every 30 miles?

Amtrak has the same issue. Every tiny town or collection of semi-inhabited buildings wants a train station and has a Congressman to make sure it gets one.

Other problem include union and government demands. Rail was heavily unionized and heavily regulated until the '80s when Carter administration deregulation efforts went into effect.

American Enterprise Insitute, in a 2013 article, shed light on Amtrak's profitability, or lack thereof.

Passenger rail, alas, is a different story. It was a big money loser for railroad companies under the old regulatory regime, and they were happy to slough it off to the government-created Amtrak in 1971.

Amtrak was supposed to be a profit-making enterprise but would receive government subsidies, uh, just temporarily. It’s still getting them 42 years later.

One reason is that Congress insists on passenger service in 46 of the 50 states. The long lines are huge money losers, but if Amtrak cuts off service to Havre, Montana, someone will complain — and get loads of publicity from the passenger-train lobby.

Amtrak is also saddled with union restrictions and procurement rules that mean it loses money when it charges captive customers $15 for a hamburger.

And about that "profitable" Northeast Corridor:

Amtrak claims to make money on three lines in the Northeast, where population densities and travel distances make passenger trains a natural. But, curiously, it counts maintenance as a capital expenditure not an operating cost.

Kinda worried that ALL transportation ventures are intimately dependent on government support... If not buy subsidies, than by tax breaks and other sorts of grease.

It isn't the small town connections that kill Amtrack outside of the north-east Conan. It is that Amtrack isn't willing to pay for priority on the rails. I'm not sure about the north-east corridor but in most of the nation there aren't separate passenger and freight tracks. So you can get trapped at the station waiting for a load of cows or coal to go because it has priority.

Driving in a car from Dallas to Houston takes about 4 hrs. On a bus you have priority ones that don't stop in all those towns and take roughly that long. Even if you don't ride the priority bus and stop in all the little towns you are looking at 6-8 hrs. Amtrack is over 24 hrs for that same distance. And costs more than the bus too.

Should Amtrack be cut lose to live or die on it's own, definitely. But in the end it is an insignificant sum from the federal budget. Making a few people mad to save an insignificant sum doesn't make political sense. Hence Amtrack keeps surviving.

What should happen to the interstate highway system? It should live or die by its own merits.

It isn't the small town connections that kill Amtrack [sic] outside of the north-east Conan.

Au contraire, mon ami. That is part of Amtrak's problems. One part of them. Waiting for freight trains with track priority is another part of their problems, probably a bigger one than all those myriad small town stops.

Ever ridden Amtrak? It's not that bad a ride. My wife and I, under the delusion that rail travel would be scenic like Narrow Margin, rode the train through the Central Valley once. Once. That drive was normally a 4.5 hour drive (if traffic cooperates) and the train made the trip in just over 5 hours. So far, not bad.

The seats were comfortable and roomy. We had a table for six to ourselves with outlets to charge computers and phones. The restrooms were roomy and didn't require you to hunch over like airplane lavatories. So far, still not bad.

Confined to freight train rails, the train swung to the west side of the Valley, stopping in every small town along the way, and passed every stock yard, feed lot, and junkyard in Central California. After a few hours of smelling cattle and chemicals, one loses one's desire for a romantic train ride along with one's appetite.

The "dining car" sold pre-packaged sandwiches for the price of filet mignon and no alcohol. On the drive, we'd stop at Harris Ranch and enjoy real food in a nice setting. On the train, stale bread, lunch meat, and warm soda had to suffice.

It was interesting to see Mexican locomotives in the rail yards alongside American ones (NAFTA, one presumes), but not interesting enough to overcome the stench of industrialized agriculture and bad service.

Progs loooooove trains and hate buses. There are express chinese bus services in the NE (can't remember where) that the local government keeps trying to put out of business. City buses are so much cheaper than trains and are flexible but progs steal money to fund high speed rail. insane

The Chinatown Express connects Boston and New York, probably other cities too.

I see your point Amy but damned if there isn't that little part of me that sees China and the ME getting all the cool new technology... and the US, not.

You can have a high-speed train that just stops in major cities, and also have a region to regional train, and local train.

What I'm looking forward to are driverless trains prioritized by cargo.

Carload of IKEA furniture? Last place.

People, animals, fruits, vegetables, and fruity almost-a-vegetable people who behave like animals when they smash their IKEA furniture during an assembly attempt?

First place.

That's great an all for that line Conan. Try looking at ones in the rest of the nation. More specifically anywhere away from the coast. I wasn't kidding or exaggerating that a 4 hr drive between Dallas and Houston is a full day train ride. And that is typical for most routes away from the coasts. It isn't the small town thing that is killing most of Amtrak's geographic routes.

I wasn't kidding or exaggerating that a 4 hr drive between Dallas and Houston is a full day train ride. And that is typical for most routes away from the coasts. ~ Ben at April 25, 2019 1:13 PM

I believe you. I was just sharing my experience actually riding Amtrak.

My wife and I looked into taking Amtrak from Oakland to Denver once. It's a 4.5 hour flight and a 34 hour train ride. We opted to fly since the 34 hours does not factor in any delays and my experience, both on that earlier trip and with picking people up from the local train station, is there are always delays with Amtrak.

That earlier train ride I mentioned left the station almost 2 hours late. So, in reality, it was an 7-hour trip vs. a 4.5-hour drive (although 580 and 5 frequently had traffic issues and delays, so the 4.5 hour drive-time was a best-case scenario). On other occasions, when I've had to pick up people from the local station, the train's departure from its starting point has always been late, usually by several hours.

Amtrak is by no means a reliable or efficient method of getting from place to place.

Sorry, 3.5 hour flight.

> that little part of me that
> sees China and the ME getting
> all the cool new technology

Few technologies in the world are as cool, or as endlessly reinvigorating (new!, every time) as one's own automobile waiting patiently at a nearby curb or garage.

The reason the Cali speed train was always going to suck is that there are too many stakeholders. Chinese and ME governments, authoritarians all, have no hesitation telling their populations where the trains will go, where they will stop, how much they will cost, what amenities (and risks) will be provided to riders, what time trips will begin and end, and what desecrations will be borne by the environment and affected communities.

To dream of trains running on time is to dream of government power. There's nothing "cool" about it.

Gog-Magog, your idea only exacerbates the problem with passenger rail.

Rail is an incredibly efficient means of transporting bulk cargo. It's a HORRIBLE way to transport people. It's simple physics. On a freight train, 75% or more of the mass being moved is payload. On a completely full passenger train, less than 20% of the mass being moved is payload.

Furthermore, the travel patterns of people are fickle and constantly shifting. Planes and buses can be allocated to new routes to meet shifting demand instantly and cheaply. Trains, not so much. Planes and buses can also be allocated to routes and schedules with greater granularity, reducing wasteful empty runs.

American trains were much better almost until the day Amtrak was launched in 1971, and far more numerous. After the 1941 war billions of tax dollars went into airports, the air traffic control system, and "free"ways. By contrast, only 7 % of the railroads were built on land grants and in any case all American railroads carried government cargo (during two world wars, remember) at half rate until 1946.

In the face of heavily subsidized competition the private railroad companies could not charge fares high enough to maintain their passenger service, let alone afford to replace the superb postwar cars when they began to wear out in the 1960's. Had the government not ruined the network of independent railroads we would have passenger train service second to none, as we had for decades.

Sure some people would insist on flying - I do myself when I'm in a hurry - but let airline passengers support the full cost of the air network themselves, which is what many of you are telling rail passengers to do. The domestic air system hasn't made money, on a fully-allocated cost basis, since it was founded in 1913. So let's drop all the nonsense about what makes money and what doesn't.

I say privatize it all - Amtrak, the airports, the air traffic control system, and the Interstates. (Love to see 18-wheelers paying for all the damage they do to the roads!) It's too late to reverse all the damage done by bad transportation policy over most of the last century, but a level playing field would help even now.

isn't Greyhound subsidized? Links looks like maybe that was only in Canada.

I took Amtrak a couple of years ago and it worked great and was even cheaper than the bus. I would like to use it to visit my parents but it just takes too long or too costly. The drive is about 2:45. Taking Amtrak the train part is 2:30 minutes and $22 one way. If I take public transportation to the train station it takes almost 2 hours. If I uber it the cost is about $60 (taxi about $100). Then someone has to come pick me up once I get off the train or I have to take an uber $45. Then I have to come home.

I thought about taking Amtrak to a concert where I would meet some friends. Concert is Sat night. I would have to catch the train in the middle of the afternoon on fri and I would get dropped off around 6am. The one option for coming home was about 11pm so I would have to catch it on Sunday and get home mid afternoon on Monday. For about the same price I could fly Sat afternoon and fly home Sunday morning. If i wanted a seat that made into a bed on the train I had to book two seats for about 2,5x the price of one seat.

Robert at April 25, 2019 5:57 PM is a good read, even if you disagree.

> The "dining car" sold pre-packaged
> sandwiches for the price of filet
> mignon and no alcohol.

(Etc.) Just read an article about his a couple days ago, a narrative of a plane flight traded for a train ride just for the experience. (Tried to find it again but couldn't.) There were many poignant disappointments like Conan's, including a description of the worn, joyless train stations.

" It's a HORRIBLE way to transport people."

Okay.

If Gog means that there are more important things that "efficiency" when it comes to human beings, I completely agree

On the drive, we'd stop at Harris Ranch and enjoy real food in a nice setting

Yeah, but except inside the restaurant itself you enjoy the fragrance of thousands of cattle and their end-product. (I've made that drive many times.)

"(Love to see 18-wheelers paying for all the damage they do to the roads!)"

Wondering what you think trucks pay in taxes.

Which, by the way, is key. The costs of traveling by car are hidden by their distribution. Look in your own garage at what you've paid and are paying.

"but let airline passengers support the full cost of the air network themselves"

They do. Passengers pay ticket taxes. Airlines pay landing fees, gate rentals, and fuel taxes. (In Europe, they also pay fees for air traffic control services.) Freight pays cartage taxes, and for international shipments, duties and point-of-entry fees.

Same goes for highways. Cars and trucks pay registration fees, ad valorem taxes and fuel taxes. Truckers pay mileage and weight taxes too. And some highways are tolled. Nearly every state collects more in vehicle and fuel taxes than it actually spends on highways. (In most states, whatever mass transit exists is subsidized in part by taxes on highway users.)

"Love to see 18-wheelers paying for all the damage they do to the roads!"

Thanks, CD, for pointing that out. Furthermore. since most of the cost of road maintenance and repair comes from fuel taxes, and because fuel mileage is inversely correlated with vehicle weight, which is directly correlated with damage done to the road, the system of fuel taxes to fund road maintenance is one of the fairest systems you can get.

"I took Amtrak a couple of years ago and it worked great and was even cheaper than the bus."

Cheaper for you, because the taxpayers picked up a hefty piece of the tab. Crowing about the great bargain you got on an Amtrak trip is like bragging about your Obama phone.

"Robert at April 25, 2019 5:57 PM is a good read, even if you disagree."

Fairy tales are always good reads. The same components are subsidized for rail travel as for air travel, and air travelers pay far more per mile than rail passengers.

Passenger rail is about the least green thing there is. The wheels,axles, and suspension on a passenger rail car typically weigh more than the people it's carrying.

In order:

You often see stickers on 18-wheelers that say "This vehicle pays $xxxx in annual road use taxes." Nothing about how much damage these things cause. One day I was waiting to merge onto a superhighway. An 18-wheeler exiting on an adjacent elevated ramp caused the section of roadway I was stopped on to shake up and down. Factor in that kind of wear and tear when you talk about the "cost" of road transport. I've seen one estimate that 18-wheelers cause 80,000 times as much damage to roads as the average car. Do they pay a proportionate share of taxes and user fees?

Cousin Dave, I always look forward to your comments, but let's take a step back here. In 1954 the railroads serving New Orleans paid millions to build a new union station to replace the separate stations from earlier times. Around that same time the New Orleans airport was built entirely with milions in public money. That scenario was repeated ad infinitum across America. The domestic airline industry paid none, or very few, of its immense capital costs. The charges you refer to are user fees, not capital expenditures.

For the other commenter, if the above is a "fairy tale", tell me why. And while you're at it, ask yourself how much more your car weighs than you do. And ask yourself what the cost of motor vehicle-based sprawl is. Look at the vast concrete desolation of every area built up since the 1941 war. Doesn't sound too "green" to me. Or is this also "fiction?"

There is nothing conservative/libertarian about socialized air and road systems competing with privately owned railroads that pay real estate taxes on their tracks and terminals. I agree, Amtrak is a poor excuse for a passenger train system and we need something better.

America's railroads, and its once-incomparable network of passenger trains, lost a rigged game. I was a teenager when it happened, and had to watch the tragedy unfold. I wish you could have ridden some of the great trains my family and I rode before the end.

You guys are being weird.

> And ask yourself what the cost
> of motor vehicle-based sprawl is.

I would say that the "cost of motor vehicle-based sprawl" is bliss. Uncountable millions in the developed world, and billions around the globe, are able to live where they want, leading the lives which appeal to them, and give there time on our world meaning and fulfillment.

You fellers are simply not concerned with animals or plants… We can tell. So when you compose these goofy sentences, could you possibly have anything on your mind besides taking command of other people?

Because I sure don't see it.

"Vast concrete desolation"?

GTFOH

You are nuts Robert. What vast concrete desolation? It sure looks like a fiction from where I sit.

"An 18-wheeler exiting on an adjacent elevated ramp caused the section of roadway I was stopped on to shake up and down."

Stand on a freeway overpass when a car goes by at 70mph; without the suspension of your own car beneath you, you'll feel it pass. Those structures are MADE to vibrate a certain amount.

"For the other commenter, if the above is a "fairy tale", tell me why.

"And while you're at it, ask yourself how much more your car weighs than you do."

I'm SOOOOO glad you decided to go there.Using the generous average human weight of 225 lb.:

My car weighs about 2900 lb. and will comfortably seat 900 lb. of people, making payload 23% of total mass.
An Amtrak train with six cars and one locomotive carries 56.7 tons of passengers and weighs 540 tons, making payload 10.5% of total mass.
At least 30% of my commuting is done on a 425 lb. motorcycle and I weigh 175 during my least active months, for payload of 29% of total mass.
Let's also keep in mind that freight trains run with payload at 50-75% of total mass, and passenger trains consume track hours that could be used to move more freight.
...and we haven't even touched on the nightmare of real cost per passenger mile.

"I agree, Amtrak is a poor excuse for a passenger train system and we need something better."

Actually. it's probably no worse than any other current passenger rail system. It's just that certain aspects of being a large, spread out country where people/jobs/commerce shift around more often exacerbates the insanity of passenger rail here more than in Europe, and Americans are less tolerant of subsidies.

"America's railroads, and its once-incomparable network of passenger trains, lost a rigged game."

No more so than buggy whip makers. American railroads' greatest failing was to see themselves are railroad companies, rather than transportation companies, if they'd been more forward thinking, we'd be flying Norfolk Southern instead of Delta.

"I wish you could have ridden some of the great trains my family and I rode before the end."

And thus we see that you're really just expressing nostalgia for your youth.

If you REALLY want to see the insanity of passenger rail, look at local public transportation, where officials gut flexible, efficient bus systems to build out light rail boondoggles.

"So when you compose these goofy sentences, could you possibly have anything on your mind besides taking command of other people?"

I think Crid's got your number.

Another thing propping up passenger rail and driving proposals for bullet trains is infrastructure triumphalism, the tendency of politicians to build boast-worthy grand edifices. It's the telltale of banana republics and failing empires.

Robert, your statements regarding truck damage to highway structures and the payload weight ratios of cars to trains, (which fall flat when someone actually does the math) have the smell to them of people who wear t-shirts saying "I f**king LOVE science" but who can't explain the difference between an isotope and an ion and who are easily duped into signing petitions to ban di-hydrogen monoxide.

The statement about how the railroads paid all of their own capital costs is simply not true. The construction of many railroads was subsidized, usually by the regions that wanted rail lines built through their areas. (To be fair, in the early days, the same thing happened with highways -- yes, there was a time when people actually wanted highways through their towns.) The entire mythos of the cowboy and the cattle drives came about because the state of Texas refused to pay the railroads to build rail lines in their state, which made it necessary to drive cattle to Kansas in order to put the meat on trains. (In the process, the cattle lost about a third of their weight.)

CD, you forgot to mention that most of the railroad right of ways were granted gratis by the federal government. That's why there are a lot of rail lines that should be relocated for efficiency of transport and land use, but never will be because of the cost of assembling new right of ways.