It's about time

[Harry P.]

Where is money made in private road trasport? How much tax money is spent on the road network?

It would seem to me that if rail travel was what people wanted, many more people would use it. We have a pretty comprehensive passenger rail grid here, yet Amtrak can't turn a profit. Makes you wonder...

Yes, we spend tax money on the roads. But that money is collected largely from the taxation of gas, so the peole who use the roads pay for their upkeep, which is as it should be.

But every American taxpayer is forced to subsidize Amtrak (via federal tax $$$). I've never ridden Amtrak in my life, yet I've had the "privilege" of contributing to it for many years.

[MikeMc]

We need the railroads, But what happened with the ICC and the regulation of freight is the industries turned to containerized freight and as the ocean shippers shipped more, they standardized the whole thing ...in the end it has worked out, but the cost to the railroads stuck to maintaining useless branch lines , mandated by outdated and stubborn contracts was bankruptcy. In the end the federal govt was ordered to take over the bloated inefficient carriers and we all still pay. The reality today is freight railroads shipping modern 4 container cars are the best way to ship hard goods coast to coast. People are a different story....High speed rail in the state of FL has been hot for years...reality....doesn't have enough need to make it work . If you want to take a fun trip...book an Amtrak sleeper to the coast...it really is fun...not cheap...I rode the BN and SOO between northern IL and WI for years...still remember the neat scenery only seen by rail....

[Junkman]

Yes, we spend tax money on the roads. But that money is collected largely from the taxation of gas, so the peole who use the roads pay for their upkeep, which is as it should be.

See, Amtrak doesn't have the benefit of public roads they can use. They have to finance their own infrastructure. And a railway, like a road system, is part of a nation's infrastructure and can thus never be seen as a profit centre.

[Kit Basher]

For what it's worth, I have ridden Amtrak, and it's a great way to travel. From VA to RI, it takes about the same time as driving, costs not much more than gas, no stress. Pack a lunch and a couple of beers, take a nap, read a copy of MCM, and you're there. Unfortunately, there's a lot of places they don't go.

[Harry P.]

See, Amtrak doesn't have the benefit of public roads they can use. They have to finance their own infrastructure. And a railway, like a road system, is part of a nation's infrastructure and can thus never be seen as a profit centre.

In order to be a viable enterprise, Amtrak should at least break even. Why not even make a buck or two?

The fact that is doesn't proves that the economic model doesn't work. There simply aren't enough people willing to use the system to cover the system's cost of operation. American taxpayers are being forced to fund a transportation system that we don't want to use... at least not in numbers enough for it to make sense, financially.

You can't hold a gun to the people's collective head and force them to ride the train. And left to their own devices, Americans in general have shown to prefer their own car over rail travel for almost all short-to-medium trips, and airplanes for long-distance trips. In America the trains are basically limited to tourists and vacationers with plenty of time on their hands (NY to LA takes days, a plane will make the trip in a couple of hours). They are not a serious form of day-to-day transportation.

[Eshaver]

Nown Harry, go tell all that to our esteemed Vice President , Smokin Joe Biden ! Ed Shaver

[Harry P.]

Nown Harry, go tell all that to our esteemed Vice President , Smokin Joe Biden ! Ed Shaver

I know what you mean. Sometimes I wonder what he is smoking!

[Junkman]

In order to be a viable enterprise, Amtrak should at least break even. Why not even make a buck or two?

The fact that is doesn't proves that the economic model doesn't work. There simply aren't enough people willing to use the system to cover the system's cost of operation. American taxpayers are being forced to fund a transportation system that we don't want to use... at least not in numbers enough for it to make sense, financially.

You can't hold a gun to the people's collective head and force them to ride the train. And left to their own devices, Americans in general have shown to prefer their own car over rail travel for almost all short-to-medium trips, and airplanes for long-distance trips. In America the trains are basically limited to tourists and vacationers with plenty of time on their hands (NY to LA takes days, a plane will make the trip in a couple of hours). They are not a serious form of day-to-day transportation.

That situation is not that dissimilar in Europe. Since the privatisation of the railways, they have to be subsidized with tax money. When they were still nationalized, they weren't seen as profit centres at all, they were just part of the infrastructure, and that's exactly what they should be. Now they have to keep shareholders happy, thus they get subsidized with taxpayers' money. And believe me, distances in Europe are long enough to make trains only feasible for vacationers too, and the long distance trains don't carry many passengers. Where the railway really does make sense is suburban and inter city commuting, in essence travels up to 300km long. Anything further away, you are better off taking the plane.

[Harry P.]

Where the railway really does make sense is suburban and inter city commuting, in essence travels up to 300km long. Anything further away, you are better off taking the plane.

I would agree. And since America is such a large country, the percentage of long trips taken is higher than in Europe. In America the car is king, the plane takes over when the distance dictates it, and the trains are left to collect dust (at least as far as passenger service goes. Railroads are used in the US mainly for the shipping of goods cross country).

[Danno]

The problem with rail travel in the U.S.? I live in the fifth largest city/metro area in the United States, but there's no rail service here.

I have to travel 2 hours by some means (car) to reach an Amtrak terminal in order to take a train that goes nowhere I would care to go.

To go somewhere I would care to go (Denver), I have to travel 11 hours by car to get to an Amtrak terminal in Salt Lake City, then 15 hours by train to Denver.

I can drive directly to Denver in a little more than the same 11 hours it takes to get to an Amtrak terminal, and for the same amount of wear and tear and fuel costs.

I'd love to utilize rail service; there's just none available.

[fumi]

People just prefer to drive themselves from place to place. I can't say it's the ideal scenario in every case, but it just seems to be how the vast majority of Americans feel. They equate their personal car to "freedom," the ability to jump in and go anywhere, any time, not on the train's or bus's schedule, but on their own schedule. There's a powerful attraction to that concept.

With a properly run public transportation system you wouldn't face that problem, at least in urban centres. Our subway service is on a 4-minute schedule on regular hours, 2-minute during rush hours. Buses are on a 5-10 minute schedule. Combined they can reach most places within the city. I'd be far more likely to be bound by my car should I take it instead of public transit, with all the congestion and the need to find a place to park and what not.

It's not subsidized by the government neither. Combined with property developments and consultancy services provided to other countries' transit systems, it is making a profit every year.

It's probably the mentality of "car equals freedom" that makes it so hard to implement in North America. When your gas costs as much as ours (roughly $8/gallon as of now), that "freedom" of driving to anywhere no matter what will suddenly lose its appeal.

As far as rail transportation... Amtrak (the largest network of passenger rail lines in the country) is heavily subsidized by the government. If rail is such a good idea, why is Amtrak losing money?

Like others have said, nationwide rail service should be viewed as an infrastructure, for the reasons they have already mentioned.

[Agent G]

It's been about an eleven year fight to get one stinking rail line for passenger travel from LA to Las Vegas. Eleven frickin years! This town only exists due to the rail road, all the fun stuff came much later. (insert showgirl emoticon here)

I'd love to ride a train to LA and back. Heck I'd like to see a line to Phoenix too. Trouble is, will we be spending as much for the choo choo as an airplane? The train has travel times equal to an auto, so will cost keep me driving?

I don't even know where I'd find an Amtrack station, like Danno I guess I'd drive the 9 hours to SLCity.

Then again, ever try to drive to San Francisco from Vegas? Ya gotta go south to go north in the spring/winter/fall because they close the passes in NorCal. Took right at 15 hours to see my lady friend in Santa Cruz back in my single days.

G

Edited September 4, 2011 by AgentG

[Aaronw]

It's been about an eleven year fight to get one stinking rail line for passenger travel from LA to Las Vegas. Eleven frickin years! This town only exists due to the rail road, all the fun stuff came much later. (insert showgirl emoticon here)

I'd love to ride a train to LA and back. Heck I'd like to see a line to Phoenix too. Trouble is, will we be spending as much for the choo choo as an airplane? The train has travel times equal to an auto, so will cost keep me driving?

I don't even know where I'd find an Amtrack station, like Danno I guess I'd drive the 9 hours to SLCity.

Then again, ever try to drive to San Francisco from Vegas? Ya gotta go south to go north in the spring/winter/fall because they close the passes in NorCal. Took right at 15 hours to see my lady friend in Santa Cruz back in my single days.

G

To be fair "they" don't close the passes, it would be the 30 feet of snow that does that.

[Jon Cole]

Wasn't this about Dodge Chargers? 2 door vs. 4 doors?

http://www.streetlegaltv.com/news/rumor-is-dodge-really-considering-a-two-door-charger/

[Danno]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

OMGNAGLT!!

[Junkman]

The train has travel times equal to an auto, so will cost keep me driving?

Inter City trains travel at speeds in excess of 150mph. You would be hard pressed to catch up with them using an auto even on German Autobahns.

Given that airports are far away from the Cities they are named after, you having to take the car or train to go to them, having to show up an hour before take-off, then take the train or hire car from the destination airport to the city you may like to visit, the trains, going from city centre to city centre, effectively beat air travel time wise on any journey up to around 700km length.

Furthermore, even when considering that electricity isn't created by magic, the ecological aspect is also clearly in favour of the trains.

[Greg Myers]

Will that pic bring it back on topic?

I don't know, what's on the roof ?