https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini...ks-big-lie

"Recent articles in respected business journals report that Amtrak lost only $29.8 million in 2019 (out of $3.3 billion in total revenues) and that it expects to make a profit in 2020. This is a remarkable turnaround for a company that cost taxpayers more than $100 billion in its first 49 years of existence. Amtrak accomplished this using a simple yet apparently effective technique: It's called lying...."

<<According to the article, Amtrak doesn't use its audited financial numbers. Amtrak is including $234 million in state subsidies as revenue and ignoring $868 million in depreciation. And that doesn't even consider its deferred maintenance issues.>>

"...Amtrak's biggest lie is that passenger trains are somehow vital to the nation's economy. Last year, Americans traveled an average of 15,000 miles by automobile, 2,100 miles by plane, and 1,100 miles by bus. Amtrak's contribution was less than 20 miles per person. Even in the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak reluctantly admits that it carries only 6% of intercity travelers.

According to the best available estimates, Americans bicycle 8.5 billion passenger miles a year compared with 6.5 billion passenger miles on Amtrak. Being less important than bicycles, Amtrak certainly doesn't deserve the $2 billion in annual subsidies that it requires to run a supposedly almost-profitable operation...."

It would actually be nice if train travel was more used in the country, but it shouldn't be subsidized to survive.

They would be doing much better had Burisma not stolen Hunter Biden from their board.....

(01-16-2020 03:00 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  They would be doing much better had Burisma not stolen Hunter Biden from their board.....

(01-16-2020 02:04 AM)banker Wrote:  It would actually be nice if train travel was more used in the country, but it shouldn't be subsidized to survive.

If it were viable, it would be used more... but I'm not spending $100 per person on a train ticket when I can pack my family in a car and put $20 in the tank and get to the same place.

Amtrak is just as expensive as flying, if you're going long distance. It just takes 10 times longer to get there.

(01-16-2020 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 02:04 AM)banker Wrote:  It would actually be nice if train travel was more used in the country, but it shouldn't be subsidized to survive.

If it were viable, it would be used more... but I'm not spending $100 per person on a train ticket when I can pack my family in a car and put $20 in the tank and get to the same place.

Right.

We looked into taking a trip up to Boston from Washington DC. Round trip we were looking at $265 per person.

It would be nice if high speed rail was more economical.

(01-16-2020 09:43 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 02:04 AM)banker Wrote:  It would actually be nice if train travel was more used in the country, but it shouldn't be subsidized to survive.

If it were viable, it would be used more... but I'm not spending $100 per person on a train ticket when I can pack my family in a car and put $20 in the tank and get to the same place.

Right.

We looked into taking a trip up to Boston from Washington DC. Round trip we were looking at $265 per person.

It would be nice if high speed rail was more economical.

there's no way they can compete w/o a subsidy....rail and maintenance vs. air and maintenance??? toss in the manufacturers and jobs created vs. either, and it's a tap-in...

It’s like a Greyhound on rails.

(01-16-2020 09:53 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It’s like a Greyhound on rails.

The ONLY way I'd travel via Amtrak is with a private room. But at that cost, you might as well fly business class.

The US is just too damn big for passenger trains to ever be financially feasible like air travel, etc. Sure Europe has great trains but compared to the US geographically Europe is tiny.

Amtrak is one of the worst investments the federal government makes.

There are only a few corridors where it works and Amtrak doesn't even do those well.

We should shut down 90% of the routes.

Amtrak incurs $4.3B in operating expenses. They either need to drop the whole thing or give up trying to run it like a business, subsidize it, and sell the tickets for something like $10 so it makes sense to actually use it. I'd be fine with either case.

I've used it a few times in the past year. It is the easiest way for me to get to our Holding Company's office.

The biggest issue that I see with it is it is just not efficient from a time standpoint. It may save me a 1/2 hour in relation to the drive (if I don't include the travel to the train station); however, it does keep me from driving through or around NYC which just makes you crazy.

Speaking of rail, recent story on the Cali epic boondoggle.
Facing war with Trump, troubled California bullet train pushes biggest contract ever

The California bullet train authority is moving ahead with an aggressive plan to issue its biggest contract in history, steering into sharp criticism by federal regulators and even the state-appointed peer review panel that it is overreaching.

The agency took a key step last week toward issuing a 30-year-long contract to install track, set up high-voltage electrical lines, create a digital signaling system, build a heavy maintenance train garage and obligate future maintenance of the equipment and track.

It would cover future track from San Jose to Bakersfield, more than half the proposed Los Angeles-to-San Francisco system. It would lock the state into a maintenance contract, as well as equipment, on segments that it currently does not have money to build..................................
https://www.latimes.com/california/story...ing-deeper

There has to be some epic kickbacks and bribes with this deal.

(01-16-2020 11:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Amtrak incurs $4.3B in operating expenses. They either need to drop the whole thing or give up trying to run it like a business, subsidize it, and sell the tickets for something like $10 so it makes sense to actually use it. I'd be fine with either case.

Do you really want to subsidize rail and subsequently hurt several other more privatized transportation industries as a result?

You'd lose tax base from those industries, and add tax liability for a long while until trains catch up.

The capitalist in me is getting nervous about opening that can of worms...

(01-16-2020 09:33 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Amtrak is just as expensive as flying, if you're going long distance. It just takes 10 times longer to get there.

I will still say Trains do have their advantages.

Disadvantages:

1) Costs are pretty much the same as flight for longer trips.
2) Get where your going sooner.
3) Planes are actually safer (at least til Boeing f'd up) - and you're supposedly more likely to survive a plane crash than a train crash.

Advantages:

1) Got my ticket.. got my seat, I can stretch out! (Won't always work for short city to city routes... but long routes... yep)
2) I don't have to be at the train station 2 hours before the train leaves, only about 30 minutes.
3) Baggage fees... Don't think most trains have any.
3a) Plus I SAW where they put my baggage, so I know where it is at all times.
4) Short trips? 20 to 60 bucks vs. 300 to 400 dollars? Yes please.
5) Dining options...and scenery.

I LOVE traveling by train, but it's stupidly expensive for all but local trips. Bakersfield to Fresno was like $12. CV to SF was about $40... but to get to LA, you had to switch to a bus.

Stupid

(01-16-2020 12:15 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 11:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Amtrak incurs $4.3B in operating expenses. They either need to drop the whole thing or give up trying to run it like a business, subsidize it, and sell the tickets for something like $10 so it makes sense to actually use it. I'd be fine with either case.

Do you really want to subsidize rail and subsequently hurt several other more privatized transportation industries as a result?

You'd lose tax base from those industries, and add tax liability for a long while until trains catch up.

The capitalist in me is getting nervous about opening that can of worms...

No, that's not what I want, but if we are subsidizing it anyway, I'd rather make it a viable option than have it be the complete waste of money it is now. Not sure how much it will hurt air travel. I doubt businesses are going to require their people to take 2 days travel to make a meeting when they can fly. It will take cars off the road around the major metros, but we don't have the infrastructure to handle what we have now anyway. Viability is probably in the 1-5 hour driving range... too close to fly.

If I ever had a reason to go to Raleigh by myself I'd consider taking the Carolinian an $80 round-trip, but I don't have a reason, so.......