Amtrak Unveils Plan For Eastern High-Speed Rail

[^_^ 5,021]

Amtrak has unveiled its long-term vision for high-speed rail lines along the Northeast Corridor.

The railroad's 30-year plan calls for trains that can travel up to 220 mph.

It would reduce travel time between New York and Washington, D.C. The trip is currently 162 minutes on the Acela Express, but would be closer to 90 minutes with the high-speed upgrade.

A trip from New York to Boston would go from 215 minutes to 84 minutes.

The proposal would require new tracks to be built between Boston and Washington.

Amtrak says funding is not yet in place for the proposal.

http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/transit/126266/amtrak-unveils-plan-for-eastern-high-speed-rail/

[^_^ 5,021]

It would undoubtedly significantly expand the mobility of residents of the Northeastern United States.

Amtrak claims that once in operation the line could produce an annual profit of almost $1 billion a year (in 2010 dollars), increasing overall intercity rail ridership along the corridor from about 12 million today to 38 million by 2050. Total construction costs would be $117.5 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars, or $42 billion in 2010 dollars, about the same as the California High-Speed Rail project.

...

The fact that the Congress has thus far only committed $10.5 billion total to high-speed rail projects across the country does not seem to have fazed anyone in Amtrak management, though it may have resulted in the decision to propose spreading out spending over a 25-year period, rather than, for instance, building it all in ten years.

...

Amtrak will need a massive and long-term commitment from the federal government to make this project possible. It will have to find a way to build a coalition between Republicans and Democrats on the matter, since each party will inevitably be in power at some point over the next thirty years. It will have to make a strong case for why investing in the system fulfills national objectives.

...

Amtrak will have to assemble major political force behind this project to see it through. This will not be a simple project, either from a funding or construction standpoint. But for the nation’s densest and most economically productive region, it may be the best way forward.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/09/28/amtrak-unveils-ambitious-northeast-corridor-plan-but-it-would-take-30-years-to-be-realized/

[Danno 1,228]

The High speed line might be a good idea but why am I doubtful about the claim they make here?

<<<Amtrak claims that once in operation the line could produce an annual profit of almost $1 billion a year (in 2010 dollars)>>>

What kind of profits do they make on their existing system?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Won't work.

If it would, a private company would already be making billions on it. They would not leave it on the table for the government to do. Can anyone get through their head that if the government has to subsidize it...it is not viable. Capitalists do not need the government to "show them the light" They are constantly looking for the light. When they find a good, marketable, profitable idea they bring it to market.

That is why we have "Pet Rocks" but not hi-speed rail. Americans will buy a Pet Rock. At least for a while. They will not buy a train ticket when it is cheaper to fly and trains will never be as fast as airplanes (except for very short runs) They will buy something "As seen on TV" but not a train ticket.

The headline should read "Amtrak announces plans to confiscate more money from working Americans to keep unnecessary government workers employed and politicians employed that have no viable work qualifications"

[^_^ 5,021]

The High speed line might be a good idea but why am I doubtful about the claim they make here?

<<<Amtrak claims that once in operation the line could produce an annual profit of almost $1 billion a year (in 2010 dollars)>>>

What kind of profits do they make on their existing system?

The northeast corridor is the only profitable route Amtrak has. Anecdotally, every time I've boarded a train on the Metro Park - Wash DC route (quite a few times), it's been packed.

Amtrak loses money overall because of having to provide service in other parts of the country.

They will not buy a train ticket ...

Trains on the NEC line are packed. Maybe those aren't people, but pet rocks.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The northeast corridor is the only profitable route Amtrak has. Anecdotally, every time I've boarded a train on the Metro Park - Wash DC route (quite a few times), it's been packed.

Amtrak loses money overall because of having to provide service in other parts of the country.

Trains on the NEC line are packed. Maybe those aren't people, but pet rocks.

a business is not made viable because it works in one tiny geographical area. and most of these commuter rail sysytems would STILL lose money if they were not subsidized by millions more people that DO NOT ride them, because the people "packing" the trains would not pay the REAL price of the tickets if they had to.

Or do you really expect us to beieve that only the government was smart enough to see this wonderful money-making opportunity?

[^_^ 5,021]

a business is not made viable because it works in one tiny geographical area.

Boston to DC is not tiny.

As for Amtrak, if it was private I have no doubt it would stop running trains in Oklahoma and focus on where the riders are - right here in the NE.

[mawilson 2,133]

Can anyone get through their head that if the government has to subsidize it...it is not viable.

It's viable with government subsidies. I'd rather see the government subsidize something

useful, like high-speed rail, than engage in a failed nation-building exercise in some country

that no-one gives a ####### about.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Screw the NE, we need a Vegas to L.A. high speed rail system.

[Danno 1,228]

It's viable with government subsidies. I'd rather see the government subsidize something

useful, like high-speed rail, than engage in a failed nation-building exercise in some country

that no-one gives a ####### about.

Who says it's an -either or choice?

[mawilson 2,133]

Who says it's an -either or choice?

It's not. I'm saying I'm not against government subsidies where it matters.

Like it or not, no private company can deliver a letter for 42c across the country in two days.

And don't give me the usual "UPS and FedEx" ####### - they'll do it for $42, not $0.42.

[Danno 1,228]

It's not. I'm saying I'm not against government subsidies where it matters.

Like it or not, no private company can deliver a letter for 42c across the country in two days.

And don't give me the usual "UPS and FedEx" ####### - they'll do it for $42, not $0.42.

When the time soon comes when a company can deliver that letter for 42 cents.... what cha wanna bet the Gov will still be in the postal business... and refusing to let companies put the letter in your mail box?

[Heracles 417]

It's not. I'm saying I'm not against government subsidies where it matters.

Like it or not, no private company can deliver a letter for 42c across the country in two days.

And don't give me the usual "UPS and FedEx" ####### - they'll do it for $42, not $0.42.

To ship a letter from from my house to my next door neighbor costs $9.01 using either of the two.

Everything has it's place. No private sector is going to invest large sums of money in something that requires a 20 to 30 year returns. It's why the government has to invest in such projects. It's why the Chinese government is investing $350+ billion in their high-speed network, in one of their many projects.

Here is an example. The Australian government is building a $43 billion dollar wholesale FTTH [Fios equivalent] network that with the private sector in a joint venture. Instead of waiting for their Verizon or AT&T equivalent to influence their future, who would be another monopoly with negligible competition, they are building their own wholesale network; which any retailer can resell. Naturally, no private company has the money, not even in the US, to invest in such a critical yet long-term oriented project.

It's the equivalent of building the roads and allowing the private sector to compete on it. The only reason PT is currently not viable in the US is because fuel does not reflect the actual cost of building and maintaining the roads, as it does everywhere else. After all, there is a reason why the roads and infrastructure are in the condition they are in.

The beauty about high-speed rail is that it frees the same Americans hurt the hardest by death of Manufacturing, to still live out in other places but commute and work in super-cities; which is where the trend is heading.

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

when was the last year amtrak made money?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Amtrak has unveiled its long-term vision for high-speed rail lines along the Northeast Corridor.

The railroad's 30-year plan calls for trains that can travel up to 220 mph.

It would reduce travel time between New York and Washington, D.C. The trip is currently 162 minutes on the Acela Express, but would be closer to 90 minutes with the high-speed upgrade.

A trip from New York to Boston would go from 215 minutes to 84 minutes.

The proposal would require new tracks to be built between Boston and Washington.

Amtrak says funding is not yet in place for the proposal.

http://www.ny1.com/c...igh-speed-rail/

Surely this is some Obama plan to put us all on high speed death trains with tweakers acting as engineers, ensuring our fiery end. But then again, it would most likely be tree-huggin' libruls on those trains, so I'm not sure if this is actually some covert Tea Party action.

No matter what, they're high speed death trains.