Amtrak, will this work?
I'm not a fan of Amtrak. It's slow, unpredictable and the service is spotty. Part of the problem, from what i read, is that most of Amtrak service goes on freight lines and the freight has priority. So passengers wait while a 400 car slow moving train pulls out of Gary. For this reason I think Amtrak cannot work and should die as we know it.
Having said that I am a fan of rail travel. I think it can work, just doesn't. High speed rail on the east coast makes a lot of sense. High speed downtown to downtown service between the major cities of the east coast can work IMO. I'm also sympathetic to the notion that if the US should spend a faction of what it does for car and air travel on high speed rail.
But I'm always hung up on what a bad implementation Amtrak is.
So there's a new idea out there. Some reorganization. What do you all think?
Having said that I am a fan of rail travel. I think it can work, just doesn't. High speed rail on the east coast makes a lot of sense. High speed downtown to downtown service between the major cities of the east coast can work IMO. I'm also sympathetic to the notion that if the US should spend a faction of what it does for car and air travel on high speed rail.
But I'm always hung up on what a bad implementation Amtrak is.
So there's a new idea out there. Some reorganization. What do you all think?
- Amtrak, over six years, would become three companies: a private passenger rail company that runs trains under contract to states; a company that operates and maintains the Northeast Corridor; and a government corporation that would retain Amtrak's rights to use freight railroad tracks and its corporate name. States would contract for the right to use tracks and Amtrak's name for the passenger rail service they sponsor.
- States would form multistate compacts to invest in and run passenger railroads.
- States would submit proposals for capital investment and operations to the Transportation Department. Eventually, the states could pick a train operator from private companies and public transit agencies that would presumably bid for the contract.
- The federal government would no longer pay for operating costs; that would be left up to the states. But the federal government would pay for 50 percent of infrastructure costs.
- Amtrak's property on the Northeast Corridor would be leased to a coalition of the states it runs through between Boston and Washington. For a time, the federal government would pay for capital improvements to infrastructure and equipment.
- For a while Amtrak would maintain and operate the Northeast Corridor. Eventually, private companies and public transit agencies would bid for contracts to maintain and operate the railroad.
Comments
1. It's slow
2. It's too much ****ing money
90 dollars for me to go from NY to DC and takes 3 hours
Hell, it costs 29 bucks to fly from Oakland to Long Beach and it takes an hour
3 days to go from NY to SF by Amtrak and a ton of $$$
5.5 hours and 139 bucks by plane.
why's it cost so much?
Originally posted by applenut
why's it cost so much?
"Nobody uses it."
"Why doesn't anybody use it?"
"It costs too much."
-------------
why's it cost so much?
"Nobody uses it."
"Why doesn't anybody use it?"
"It costs too much."
Just like Macs!
i think it is 2x the price of greyhound and about the same as the airlines.
I like it because it is easy for me to get home whenever I want and I don't have to go through airport security. Plus I can go online the whole trip through my cell phone...
the only time i don't take amtrak is when I have a ride or some group at school charters a bus to go home (so I dont have to travel an hour on the T to get to south station
I just looked up the fare for the next US trip I am planning for this fall:
2 adults round trip from chicago to seattle with two weeks in between and bedrooms both ways: $1224.
****ing insane.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The only profitable passenger line on Amtrak is the Northeast corridor line between Boston and Washington. Interstate highways and air travel have combined to take away both the short- and medium-distance market, and the long-distance travel market respectively. America is too spread out locally and, of course, it's a damn big country.
Good point. For long hauls it can't work. Short hauls ... take your car. Then there's both the middle as well as high density urban areas. Traffic is only getting worse and the airlines waist more and more of people's time.
Take my trip. Ann Arbor to Chicago about once a week. Four hour drive vs 5 hour train trip. With the car I can drive from door to door, gas is cheap, I leave when I want and I have a car to use at my distention. With the train I get to relax, it's safer in bad weather, I get to use my time. The not door to door is a real problem because it takes and hour to get from the train station to my place in chicago. It needs to be is cheaper and faster and I can deal with not having a car when I get there.
Maybe that's why this new idea seems to strike me. If Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Detroit ... they'll figure it out for themselves. They'll come up with a better solution than a national line.
Somewhere in there there's got to be a workable service.
Frequency of trains need to improve. Perhaps they could combine passenger and freight to improve the cost? That means an empty passenger car would still be connected to a train carrying freight so it could make a little money.
you can have 400 cars on a freight train, and 4 people you're dealing with for the entire cargo. 400 passenger cars would at least be 3,000 different people/transactions to keep track of. (not to mention business accounts are always easier to deal with anyway than personal accounts)
as for why they're so expensive compared to flying, it's not like most airlines are doing all that well anyway. airline are probably under priced.
train rides are a great way to see the west though.
Originally posted by applenut
Hell, it costs 29 bucks to fly from Oakland to Long Beach and it takes an hour
.......
3 days to go from NY to SF by Amtrak and a ton of $$$
5.5 hours and 139 bucks by plane.
Hmm that pretty cheap.
Originally posted by alcimedes
as for why they're so expensive compared to flying, it's not like most airlines are doing all that well anyway. airline are probably under priced.
my airline prices were jetBlue..... a very profitable and successful airline.
viva jetBlue!!!!
Originally posted by Scott
I don't think that would work. The big problem being that freight and passengers don't go to the same places. Plus for freight companies the passenger market is so small why bother with it at all?
Well I'm not saying freight companies should offer to move people, but Amtrak should offer to move freight. And not 400 cars worth, just some.
You're correct about where freight goes, but some freight does/could go where Amtrak does. Hell, the US Mail buys space on airplanes to ship stuff. I'm sure Amtrak could sell some space to them as well. If the cost to the USPS could be less than on a plane, then it might work.