Amtrak Unveils Plan For Eastern High-Speed Rail

[Pooky 3,844]

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.

When you've sat with an American on the Eurostar, travelled under the English Channel and then sped through the French countryside at over 180mph (not as fast as some, but still pretty quick), you get to appreciate why some are reticent about a project like this. It's because most have little clue what fast,comfortable mass ground travel is like.

Same happened to me, the Brit, because all I had to go on was British Rail, which wasn't fast, wasn't comfortable and sometimes just wasn't travelling ... anywhere

[Pooky 3,844]

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"

But the North East corridor is made up of short runs and, if the terminus in each city is centrally located, it will beat air travel on timing every time. With a 90 minute run from NYC to Washington and an 84 minute run from NYC to Boston, the train will be done with the trip before the airline passenger gets off the ground.

Combine that with a central location at the destination and it becomes a no-brainer to use the train.

This could well be a case of "Build it and they will come."

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

when was the last year amtrak made money?

:whistle: :whistle:

Amtrak still losing money on most passengers

Published: October 27, 2009

TAMPA - Amtrak lost money on 41 of its 45 train lines in 2008, including a $145.23 per passenger loss on the Silver Star that serves Tampa on its New York-Miami run, a Pew Charitable Trusts research group reported Tuesday.

System-wide losses ranged from about $5 to $462 per passenger. The average loss per passenger was about $32, four times the $8 per passenger Amtrak computed using different methods, according to the study by Subsidyscope, which reports on how federal subsidies are used.

The high-speed Acela trains between Boston and Washington made a profit of $40.50 per passenger, compared with conventional trains between Boston and Richmond, Va., that lost $4.73 a passenger.

"The report does not make a judgment on what is right or wrong but is intended to make it easier to show taxpayers and policy makers how fares or routes could be changed, including proposed high speed rail lines," said Marcus Peacock, project director for Subsidyscope.

Subsidyscope calculated profit and loss per passenger by including depreciation on equipment, a calculation Amtrak does not use.

Amtrak officials said they are working with Transportation Department officials to devise a fair way to determine capital expenses following a 2005 Government Accountability Office critique.

The Silver Star's average losses were $5.41 higher than the Amtrak's average loss of $139.82 for long-distance trains. Northeast Corridor trains _ high speed and conventional _ showed a $9.57 per passenger profit while state-supported and short distance trains nationwide lost an average of $32.90, Subsidyscope reported.

"'Subsidy per passenger' is often used as a cheap shot against the long distance trains, which do not get properly recognized for the much longer average trip lengths of their passengers," said Ross Capon, president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers in Washington.

Amtrak's Auto Train, which carries passengers and their vehicles between Sanford and Lorton, Va., just south of Washington, lost $69 a passenger, Subsidyscope reported.

link

[Danno 1,228]

In the past I have priced going by rail and it priced out, equal to airfare.

Think about how much cheaper one would assume it would be to move a train across the country with it's greater capacity and lower fuel consumption... and ease of operation yet the free market of air travel matches that of rail.

Perhaps there is more to it than I am considering but...

[Heracles 417]

In the past I have priced going by rail and it priced out, equal to airfare.

Think about how much cheaper one would assume it would be to move a train across the country with it's greater capacity and lower fuel consumption... and ease of operation yet the free market of air travel matches that of rail.

Perhaps there is more to it than I am considering but...

Price of an Amtrak fare is probably why it's not profitable, it's just too high. I can travel from Melb to Syd 12 hours each way, for 1/4 the price of a one way DC to NYC trip.

[Heracles 417]

When you've sat with an American on the Eurostar, travelled under the English Channel and then sped through the French countryside at over 180mph (not as fast as some, but still pretty quick), you get to appreciate why some are reticent about a project like this. It's because most have little clue what fast,comfortable mass ground travel is like.

Same happened to me, the Brit, because all I had to go on was British Rail, which wasn't fast, wasn't comfortable and sometimes just wasn't travelling ... anywhere

People here seem to have a fascination with being stuck in traffic and risking their lives on the ironically dilapidated roads. The rest of the developed world would rather jump on a modern, quiet and comfortable train, and commute stress free.

The reality is that if the US invested in high-speed rail in the east coast / Mid West and significantly expanded the rail network, all of the dead small towns outside major cities could be rejuvenated. Considering much of the country is modeled around the 18th and 19th century small planning, rail is the key to America's future. This very reason is why China is investing $350 Billion in 9,900 miles of high-speed rail, to be completed by 2020.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,533]

What all of you are missing is our horrible public trans inside our cities. Until that's cleaned up... who cares about going from one city to another. If you have to rent a car to get around, why take a train?

I realize there are places this could work, but that nowhere near justifies the price tag.