Rethinking Amtrak and rail in the U.S.

[RocketJet]

Contrary to what you may think, there are members on this very forum that actually agree with some of the thoughts you've shared but have not necessarily come to the same conclusions you have. A certain GB Norman comes to mind as he has voiced his opinion several times about his views on long distance routes. Nevertheless there is still a discussion that ensues and though both sides agree to disagree, both sides take something away from the conversation. That's at least the way I've seen it during my membership.

One of the biggest mistakes is to come to the table with a conclusion and expect an actual discussion. That is how the thread started and so there is very little room left for evolution in that discussion and thus folks like myself and others are frustrated and turn our attention elsewhere. Instead of repeatedly conveying your conclusion, think about asking questions learn about the other side's justifications for supporting what to you would seem like a broken system. Don't expect for everyone to "see the light" from your point of view. It should be a learning experience for both sides. Unfortunately, I have personally, yet to see anything "new" from your point of view that I haven't heard before and it is pretty typical of Washington Amtrak opponents (as it exists today anyway).

Unfortunately your posts suggest that you approach the discussion with a closed mind casting anyone who disagrees with your conclusion as an Amtrak fan with a nostalgic affection for the organization. Many have all heard the "bottom line" argument beat to death over and over. Why? Because it's the simplest "black and white" argument to use that requires little analysis other than looking at the numbers. Factoring in economics, social issues and understanding of how transportation infrastructure cannot be determined solely on profitability make it a bit more of a sophisticated topic.

I say this with all due respect with no intention of insulting you or your opinions. I personally welcome the debate but not "talking in circles".

I appreciate that last bit but that was still hypocritical, yours were equally as one sided as mine. We did not even debate what a national network should look like regardless of how much of it Amtrak operated. Like I said earlier it takes two to go in a circle. I neither expected or wanted to be completely agreed with, I wanted to take that map apart to look at what should go where, what is working, and what is not. You keep arguing with me about LD trains the whole time, that was just a small piece of it.

Now back on topic, does everyone think that diesel trains at 110mph is what we should have for most of the chicago hub network? I disagree, I think an electrified system at least between Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-Indianappolis, and Chicago-Detroit is needed, in the long run at least.

[mlrr]

Contrary to what you may think, there are members on this very forum that actually agree with some of the thoughts you've shared but have not necessarily come to the same conclusions you have. A certain GB Norman comes to mind as he has voiced his opinion several times about his views on long distance routes. Nevertheless there is still a discussion that ensues and though both sides agree to disagree, both sides take something away from the conversation. That's at least the way I've seen it during my membership.

One of the biggest mistakes is to come to the table with a conclusion and expect an actual discussion. That is how the thread started and so there is very little room left for evolution in that discussion and thus folks like myself and others are frustrated and turn our attention elsewhere. Instead of repeatedly conveying your conclusion, think about asking questions learn about the other side's justifications for supporting what to you would seem like a broken system. Don't expect for everyone to "see the light" from your point of view. It should be a learning experience for both sides. Unfortunately, I have personally, yet to see anything "new" from your point of view that I haven't heard before and it is pretty typical of Washington Amtrak opponents (as it exists today anyway).

Unfortunately your posts suggest that you approach the discussion with a closed mind casting anyone who disagrees with your conclusion as an Amtrak fan with a nostalgic affection for the organization. Many have all heard the "bottom line" argument beat to death over and over. Why? Because it's the simplest "black and white" argument to use that requires little analysis other than looking at the numbers. Factoring in economics, social issues and understanding of how transportation infrastructure cannot be determined solely on profitability make it a bit more of a sophisticated topic.

I say this with all due respect with no intention of insulting you or your opinions. I personally welcome the debate but not "talking in circles".

I appreciate that last bit but that was still hypocritical, yours were equally as one sided as mine. We did not even debate what a national network should look like regardless of how much of it Amtrak operated. Like I said earlier it takes two to go in a circle. I neither expected or wanted to be completely agreed with, I wanted to take that map apart to look at what should go where, what is working, and what is not. You keep arguing with me about LD trains the whole time, that was just a small piece of it.

Now back on topic, does everyone think that diesel trains at 110mph is what we should have for most of the chicago hub network? I disagree, I think an electrified system at least between Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-Indianappolis, and Chicago-Detroit is needed, in the long run at least.

Actually, I addressed that much earlier in the thread with no counterpoint from you:

2) You also have to consider that just because the train itself runs from say Chicago to Los Angeles, doesn't mean that the people are doing that (ok, ok, people like me and my Grandmother will but that's on a totally different story ). Most folks are taking the shorter trips such as riding from Trinidad, CO to Lamy, NM or Lawrence to Dodge City, etc (on a much smaller scale, I'm working on a transit project where there are similar travel patterns. The end-to-end times don't look "appealing" but our forecast numbers show destination WITHIN the corridor not just end-to-end). Its more economical to run the daily train THROUGH than set up an exclusive daily train for that service. This is where states come in. They'll notice the ridership patterns between two points and say "hey, there's a demand for this service and if we add more we'll surely get more patronage. Let's start a commuter rail agency" OR (like the state of California) "Let's partner with Amtrak and their operating experience to provide more frequent service and we'll come to the table with the funds".

HSR will be MOST practical in corridors similar to the NEC, Pacific NW, California and other areas of the country where the terrain is favorable and land uses support rail travel. A good rule of thumb is to casually look at corridors that are heavily traveled via air travelers and the distance. The shorter the distance and/or higher the speed of the train, the more competitive rail will be with the airline and the more appealing rail will be to the traveler (hey, the time moving is much more productive than waiting to check in and then waiting to get through security). Acela in the NEC is a living example of that principle as it carries the majority of the traffic between NYC and BOS.

The only thing I would add to your 110MPH diesel statement is that the 110MPH running should be an incramental step. Those upgrades are "cheap" in comparison to the upgrades necessary for true electrified, HSR and thus has a better chance for political support. It's a slow process but I believe Amtrak IS looking ahead but these corridors need to mature and if planned right the rail corridors will mature with them.

I think the US has fallen behind in the last half of the 20th century in terms of its respective rail corridors maturing with the surrounding populations. We're now at the beginning stages of playing catch up.

[futureprez2z4z]

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

Anyway, I am a firm believer in the dissolution of Amtrak. I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Second, I like high speed rail. BUT, we need not connect every single route. No matter how fast a train goes (on current technology w/ no vacuum) planes will be faster. However, routes up to 500 miles long should be deemed viable (NEC is about 440 miles, perfect example). Let us look at the 5 or 6 places this could work, and get plans up and running NOW.

PS, Amtrak has tried "incremental" improvement s since its inception. As a result, our trains (such as ones running into Chicago) have average speeds on par with the third world. So, let us take a visionary route byprivatizing long routes (over to companies), and plan faster, more flexible, and modern services.

[mlrr]

Welcome aboard!

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Have you driven cross-country? If you have, can you imagine if congress and the powers that be took the same approach with the interstate system? There are plenty of links "vital" but underutilized and essentially money pits...

Just sayin'

[Noel Weaver]

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

Anyway, I am a firm believer in the dissolution of Amtrak. I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Second, I like high speed rail. BUT, we need not connect every single route. No matter how fast a train goes (on current technology w/ no vacuum) planes will be faster. However, routes up to 500 miles long should be deemed viable (NEC is about 440 miles, perfect example). Let us look at the 5 or 6 places this could work, and get plans up and running NOW.

PS, Amtrak has tried "incremental" improvement s since its inception. As a result, our trains (such as ones running into Chicago) have average speeds on par with the third world. So, let us take a visionary route byprivatizing long routes (over to companies), and plan faster, more flexible, and modern services.

Unfortunately this one has reared its "ugly head" again. To close down or get rid of Amtrak would be the worst possible thing that could happen. We need much more intercity passenger service and not less of it. Amtrak is the provider of this vital service and it needs and deserves our full support. I would love it if the moderators would put the padlock on this one and throw away the key.
Noel Weaver

[RocketJet]

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

Anyway, I am a firm believer in the dissolution of Amtrak. I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Second, I like high speed rail. BUT, we need not connect every single route. No matter how fast a train goes (on current technology w/ no vacuum) planes will be faster. However, routes up to 500 miles long should be deemed viable (NEC is about 440 miles, perfect example). Let us look at the 5 or 6 places this could work, and get plans up and running NOW.

PS, Amtrak has tried "incremental" improvement s since its inception. As a result, our trains (such as ones running into Chicago) have average speeds on par with the third world. So, let us take a visionary route byprivatizing long routes (over to companies), and plan faster, more flexible, and modern services.

Exactly! This is what I am saying, so much of what they are talking about are the same sort of answers we have been offered since the 1970's. We keep looking at Amtrak as if it were still serving 1950's America which it is not. The vast majority of Americans own cars and those who travel long distance can usually fly. The Amtrak system we have today is easily the worst train system in the developed world which I can say because I have ridden trains all throughout Europe although I still have yet to see the Chinese system but from everything I have read, it is infinitely better then ours.

High Speed Rail only should be put where there is a huge market, I certainly agree. I think the california thing is going to be a gamble because I worry how Californians are going to feel about leaving the cars when they offer such a convenience but I think over time, it will gain popularity. Further investment in the NEC is a must, it is one of the few routes Amtrak routes that actually contributes to the economy by transporting business men and women and not tourists/retired elderly.

I think the whole spend money to build highER speed diesel trains is so pointless. If we are going to spend money, we need to put it toward modern systems. I mean 110 miles per hour between Chicago and it's cities with diesel power is just pathetic. "Incremental improvements" is just slower reform that just puts the breaks on progress. We cannot continue to have stops in every small town, that just multiples the duration of the trip and discourages most modern day travelers who only use cars to go these short distances and would only use trains for point to point travel. We need to look where rail is successful. In Europe, they have accepted the point-point design where there are stops only where there are large amounts of people who are actually interested in riding.

We need to get away from the frame of mind where we just accept mediocre investments in rail. We need to either fund the real deal or we might as well use that money to widen our roads. My problem is american infrastructure projects are few and far between and take FOREVER. The California projects is going to take well over 25 years to complete at the least. That is just so pathetic

[NRGeep]

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

Anyway, I am a firm believer in the dissolution of Amtrak. I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Second, I like high speed rail. BUT, we need not connect every single route. No matter how fast a train goes (on current technology w/ no vacuum) planes will be faster. However, routes up to 500 miles long should be deemed viable (NEC is about 440 miles, perfect example). Let us look at the 5 or 6 places this could work, and get plans up and running NOW.

PS, Amtrak has tried "incremental" improvement s since its inception. As a result, our trains (such as ones running into Chicago) have average speeds on par with the third world. So, let us take a visionary route byprivatizing long routes (over to companies), and plan faster, more flexible, and modern services.

Further investment in the NEC is a must, it is one of the few routes Amtrak routes that actually contributes to the economy by transporting business men and women and not tourists/retired elderly.

Well, tourists and retired elderly contribute to our economy too.

[ThirdRail7]

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

Anyway, I am a firm believer in the dissolution of Amtrak. I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Second, I like high speed rail. BUT, we need not connect every single route. No matter how fast a train goes (on current technology w/ no vacuum) planes will be faster. However, routes up to 500 miles long should be deemed viable (NEC is about 440 miles, perfect example). Let us look at the 5 or 6 places this could work, and get plans up and running NOW.

PS, Amtrak has tried "incremental" improvement s since its inception. As a result, our trains (such as ones running into Chicago) have average speeds on par with the third world. So, let us take a visionary route byprivatizing long routes (over to companies), and plan faster, more flexible, and modern services.

Exactly! This is what I am saying, so much of what they are talking about are the same sort of answers we have been offered since the 1970's. We keep looking at Amtrak as if it were still serving 1950's America which it is not. The vast majority of Americans own cars and those who travel long distance can usually fly. The Amtrak system we have today is easily the worst train system in the developed world which I can say because I have ridden trains all throughout Europe although I still have yet to see the Chinese system but from everything I have read, it is infinitely better then ours.

High Speed Rail only should be put where there is a huge market, I certainly agree. I think the california thing is going to be a gamble because I worry how Californians are going to feel about leaving the cars when they offer such a convenience but I think over time, it will gain popularity. Further investment in the NEC is a must, it is one of the few routes Amtrak routes that actually contributes to the economy by transporting business men and women and not tourists/retired elderly.

I think the whole spend money to build highER speed diesel trains is so pointless. If we are going to spend money, we need to put it toward modern systems. I mean 110 miles per hour between Chicago and it's cities with diesel power is just pathetic. "Incremental improvements" is just slower reform that just puts the breaks on progress. We cannot continue to have stops in every small town, that just multiples the duration of the trip and discourages most modern day travelers who only use cars to go these short distances and would only use trains for point to point travel. We need to look where rail is successful. In Europe, they have accepted the point-point design where there are stops only where there are large amounts of people who are actually interested in riding.

We need to get away from the frame of mind where we just accept mediocre investments in rail. We need to either fund the real deal or we might as well use that money to widen our roads. My problem is american infrastructure projects are few and far between and take FOREVER. The California projects is going to take well over 25 years to complete at the least. That is just so pathetic

Oh, look who's back...and with reinforcements too! Now that you're back, are you fielding and responding to questions or only making statements like last time? Perhaps we'll have more luck with Mr 1 post, but we'll soldier on.

In response to my question:

Amtrak numbers keep climbing despite the fact that the system is "substandard" as you put it. If you took the money that you plan to invest in your system and put it into the Amtrak system, how do you think it would work out? How do you think it would play out if a dedicated source of funding existed? How substandard do you think the system would be if Amtrak had the full blessing and cooperation of the host carriers, which resulted in shorter running times and increased service?

You asked me why would I want to continue to pay for a model that is principally flawed and financially unsustainable. Fair enough. The thing that constantly amuses me (other than keeping the Auto train while sniffing at transporting the tourists/retired elderly which is EXACTLY what the Auto Trains does) is your constant comments about the NEC.

Which brings me to my question. How do you think the NEC became what it is today? Do you think the trains were tooling around at 150 mph in 1910 or do you think the same incremental approach built the NEC? First, the majority of the corridor was turned over to Amtrak (from Conrail), which means they control the movements, maintenance and infrastructure. Slowly, but surely, the corridor has climbed from an 80mph operation, to 90, to 105, to 110 to 125, to 135, to 150 and soon, 160mph. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't cheap. Dare I say billions upon billions have poured into this 30+ year effort, with more money needed to maintain what is already here, let alone improve on it.

This is why I mentioned if you actually invested into the system in a consistent and proper manner, how many more corridors would have been completed? How many trains that are up and running right now (like the Florida service) would move at higher speeds? How do you think the NEC would favor it is was still under the control of a freight operator? I'd bet you a lot of money that if the tracks were under the control of a properly funded Amtrak, you'd see hours upon hours shaved off these routes. Trust me when I say you wouldn't plod along at 70mph on the cab signaled RF&P. Would they compete with airlines? Of course not! Would they compete with cars? That's a stretch too, but again, is that really the ultimate goal in everyone's mind?

No, the goal is to have a balanced transportation network that includes cars, planes, trains, subways as well as ferries. While the trains are point to point, the passengers...not so much.

In closing, I'd like to mention a few things. This isn't China. It isn't Sri Lanka. It isn't India, Japan, Canada, South Africa, Antarctica, Greenland, Iceland, Germany or any other country you're attempting to compare it to. If we were in some of the aforementioned country we wouldn't need this conversation as they understand the importance of funding railroad operations. The lack of vision is what started killing off the railroads. The narrow vision that planes and cars are all that is need is now coming back to haunt the planners of the past. Additional lack of vision and funding is what will stymie future growth.

The other thing I wanted to mention is you were actually in my thoughts in your absence. Train 95 was having some sort of problem that delayed its arrival to DC. So, they held train 91 (to Florida) for an hour to wait for the connecting passengers. In the same period of time, train 64 (from Montreal) was delayed by 2 failed freights and heat restrictions. Train 639 (a keystone) was held for 45 to wait for the passengers, which created a new dilemma: there were passengers on 639 connecting to the New Jersey Transit train to Atlantic City at Philadelphia. In the end, 639 left and was in no position to intercept 4651 at Philadelphia, so they advanced it to North Philadelphia, held him and when 639 went by, they made an unscheduled stop at North Philadelphia and made a cross platform transfer.

As all of this (and a few more situations) occurred I thought about you stating the "slower" trains don't feed the system.

That gave me a good a laugh.

PS: We're still standing by waiting for you to pony up the passenger demographic and counts to support your claims.

[mlrr]

Finally signed myself up with you guys because I saw it was a good post.

Anyway, I am a firm believer in the dissolution of Amtrak. I believe the long-distance routes should be discontinued first (yeah, it will be hard, but it shows what would remain of Amtrak that the people are serious about controlling it). An added benefit is no longer having considerable funds go to trains that are under-utilized.

Second, I like high speed rail. BUT, we need not connect every single route. No matter how fast a train goes (on current technology w/ no vacuum) planes will be faster. However, routes up to 500 miles long should be deemed viable (NEC is about 440 miles, perfect example). Let us look at the 5 or 6 places this could work, and get plans up and running NOW.

PS, Amtrak has tried "incremental" improvement s since its inception. As a result, our trains (such as ones running into Chicago) have average speeds on par with the third world. So, let us take a visionary route byprivatizing long routes (over to companies), and plan faster, more flexible, and modern services.

Exactly! This is what I am saying, so much of what they are talking about are the same sort of answers we have been offered since the 1970's. We keep looking at Amtrak as if it were still serving 1950's America which it is not. The vast majority of Americans own cars and those who travel long distance can usually fly. The Amtrak system we have today is easily the worst train system in the developed world which I can say because I have ridden trains all throughout Europe although I still have yet to see the Chinese system but from everything I have read, it is infinitely better then ours.

High Speed Rail only should be put where there is a huge market, I certainly agree. I think the california thing is going to be a gamble because I worry how Californians are going to feel about leaving the cars when they offer such a convenience but I think over time, it will gain popularity. Further investment in the NEC is a must, it is one of the few routes Amtrak routes that actually contributes to the economy by transporting business men and women and not tourists/retired elderly.

I think the whole spend money to build highER speed diesel trains is so pointless. If we are going to spend money, we need to put it toward modern systems. I mean 110 miles per hour between Chicago and it's cities with diesel power is just pathetic. "Incremental improvements" is just slower reform that just puts the breaks on progress. We cannot continue to have stops in every small town, that just multiples the duration of the trip and discourages most modern day travelers who only use cars to go these short distances and would only use trains for point to point travel. We need to look where rail is successful. In Europe, they have accepted the point-point design where there are stops only where there are large amounts of people who are actually interested in riding.

We need to get away from the frame of mind where we just accept mediocre investments in rail. We need to either fund the real deal or we might as well use that money to widen our roads. My problem is american infrastructure projects are few and far between and take FOREVER. The California projects is going to take well over 25 years to complete at the least. That is just so pathetic

Oh, look who's back...and with reinforcements too! Now that you're back, are you fielding and responding to questions or only making statements like last time? Perhaps we'll have more luck with Mr 1 post, but we'll soldier on.

"Exactly! This is what I'm saying!" (lol)

Note how my comments weren't even addressed and I actually stepped out on a limb and chose NOT to ignore the post. UNBELIEVABLE.

I am now DIRECTLY challenging RocketJet to respond to my remarks regarding his claims.

On the other hand I can take it as a sign the he nor any other "reinforcements" have any substantive response other than the same old borrowed rhetoric. My co-workers have come up with better arguments with substance.

[mlrr]

In response to my question:

Amtrak numbers keep climbing despite the fact that the system is "substandard" as you put it. If you took the money that you plan to invest in your system and put it into the Amtrak system, how do you think it would work out? How do you think it would play out if a dedicated source of funding existed? How substandard do you think the system would be if Amtrak had the full blessing and cooperation of the host carriers, which resulted in shorter running times and increased service?

You asked me why would I want to continue to pay for a model that is principally flawed and financially unsustainable. Fair enough. The thing that constantly amuses me (other than keeping the Auto train while sniffing at transporting the tourists/retired elderly which is EXACTLY what the Auto Trains does) is your constant comments about the NEC.

Which brings me to my question. How do you think the NEC became what it is today? Do you think the trains were tooling around at 150 mph in 1910 or do you think the same incremental approach built the NEC? First, the majority of the corridor was turned over to Amtrak (from Conrail), which means they control the movements, maintenance and infrastructure. Slowly, but surely, the corridor has climbed from an 80mph operation, to 90, to 105, to 110 to 125, to 135, to 150 and soon, 160mph. It didn't happen overnight, and it wasn't cheap. Dare I say billions upon billions have poured into this 30+ year effort, with more money needed to maintain what is already here, let alone improve on it.

This is why I mentioned if you actually invested into the system in a consistent and proper manner, how many more corridors would have been completed? How many trains that are up and running right now (like the Florida service) would move at higher speeds? How do you think the NEC would favor it is was still under the control of a freight operator? I'd bet you a lot of money that if the tracks were under the control of a properly funded Amtrak, you'd see hours upon hours shaved off these routes. Trust me when I say you wouldn't plod along at 70mph on the cab signaled RF&P. Would they compete with airlines? Of course not! Would they compete with cars? That's a stretch too, but again, is that really the ultimate goal in everyone's mind?

Thank you Mr. ThirdRail7. I couldn't have said this better myself. What's even funnier is that Amtrak is doing this today. Various corridors are slowly being improved. The irony is that they are "forced" into incremental improvements so that they are politically acceptable to folks like the OP. The one-shot investment to optimize the performance of these corridors would be staggering to almost everyone and would likely not have the support needed.

It is clear that the poster hasn't done their research before starting a thread where he/she makes bold claims about how the current system is flawed. In fact, most folks who know little about Amtrak jump on this bandwagon, assuming that its a corrupt, mis-managed organization that "robs the public blind" and placing it on the same playing field as the airlines (which we all know is an apples and oranges comparison).

[djlong]

I can only think of two times that a public announcement of a HUGE project was made that actually happened.

1) "I believe this nation should commit itself to avhieving the goal, in this decade, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth"

2) Eisenhower signing the Interstate Highway Act.

If Eisenhower were to introduce the Act today, it would be called "too expensive" and "too grandiose".

[RocketJet]

Ok I'm back, I know its been a while, I just completely forgot about this thread and am back after seeing the recent developments in California and the Northeast. So you keep asking for passenger demographics to support my claims, here they are.

PS: We're still standing by waiting for you to pony up the passenger demographic and counts to support your claims.

According to Amtrak's recent figures from 2008, their Long Distance routes have resulted in a loss of $481,800,000 but only served 4,170,359 people. That is only 14.52% of Amtrak's passengers that year. The Northeast Corridor, a single line served 10,897,852 people that year and made a profit of $369,000,000. This is the only current corridor that comes close to fitting my bill of rational rail by targeting markets with viable populations where people will use the train for daily needs and not a vacation. The other 29 shorter regional routes Amtrak operates served 13,648,196 people and compared to the loss of LD trains $481,800,000, these 29 only lost $117,500,000.

My point is simple. Amtrak lost a total of $230,300,000 in 2008, where not including the profits made by Acela and a few short distance trains, that loss would have been that $481,800,000 from just LD trains, more than their total loss and that was just serving 4,170,359 people (15 different routes!) in a whole year, most of those LD routes served less than 300,000 people in that whole year.

So many more people could benefit if that $481,800,000 was spent elsewhere, particularly if it was put towards operating (not construction) of some of the corridors my plan mentioned.

In 2009, the top 10 most-traveled domestic flight routes are between
1. New York City or Newark-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (8,748,534 People)
2. Los Angeles-->San Francisco or Oakland (6,306,638 People)
3. Atlanta-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (5,045,415 People)
4. New York City or Newark-->Chicago (4,705,007 People)
5. New York City or Newark-->Atlanta (4,544,176 People)
6. New York City or Newark-->Los Angeles (4,355,755 People)
7. New York City or Newark-->Orlando (4,032,427 People)
8. New York City or Newark-->London, UK (3,881,558 People)
9. Los Angeles-->Las Vegas (3,733,037 People)
10. Los Angeles-->Phoenix (3,434,874 people)

Now granted, 3 of these routes are a little out of the question as far as distance goes but they show that there is a market for these routes in between cities. There are tons of people I know who would love an alternative to flying. But if it takes significantly longer, it will not be as widely used.

You spoke of a balanced transportation system, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The demand for slow, long distance rail in this country is miniscule. I would argue that all the money going towards those subsidized vacations should be put towards building railroads that will not only create jobs but make a SIGNIFICANT economic contribution after they are built. A high speed train from Chicago to New York via Pittsburg and Philadelphia will accomplish that. A high speed train from Chicago to Milwaukee, St. louis, or Detroit will accomplish that. TH\his is money well spent. If they are built, people will ride these trains.

I keep saying we need to change how we look at rail. Times have changed and if we want rail to be utilized again, it cannot be built like how it was a century ago where it would stop at everyone's small town. The new world economy is moving toward the cities, small towns are dying, and suburbs are no longer spreading. Let's begin addressing actual travel needs, not putting tax dollars toward vacations as pretty as they might be.

[ThirdRail7]

Ok I'm back, I know its been a while, I just completely forgot about this thread and am back after seeing the recent developments in California and the Northeast. So you keep asking for passenger demographics to support my claims, here they are.

PS: We're still standing by waiting for you to pony up the passenger demographic and counts to support your claims.

According to Amtrak's recent figures from 2008, their Long Distance routes have resulted in a loss of $481,800,000 but only served 4,170,359 people. That is only 14.52% of Amtrak's passengers that year. The Northeast Corridor, a single line served 10,897,852 people that year and made a profit of $369,000,000. This is the only current corridor that comes close to fitting my bill of rational rail by targeting markets with viable populations where people will use the train for daily needs and not a vacation. The other 29 shorter regional routes Amtrak operates served 13,648,196 people and compared to the loss of LD trains $481,800,000, these 29 only lost $117,500,000.

My point is simple. Amtrak lost a total of $230,300,000 in 2008, where not including the profits made by Acela and a few short distance trains, that loss would have been that $481,800,000 from just LD trains, more than their total loss and that was just serving 4,170,359 people (15 different routes!) in a whole year, most of those LD routes served less than 300,000 people in that whole year.

So many more people could benefit if that $481,800,000 was spent elsewhere, particularly if it was put towards operating (not construction) of some of the corridors my plan mentioned.

In 2009, the top 10 most-traveled domestic flight routes are between
1. New York City or Newark-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (8,748,534 People)
2. Los Angeles-->San Francisco or Oakland (6,306,638 People)
3. Atlanta-->Miami, Fort Lauderdale or West Palm Beach (5,045,415 People)
4. New York City or Newark-->Chicago (4,705,007 People)
5. New York City or Newark-->Atlanta (4,544,176 People)
6. New York City or Newark-->Los Angeles (4,355,755 People)
7. New York City or Newark-->Orlando (4,032,427 People)
8. New York City or Newark-->London, UK (3,881,558 People)
9. Los Angeles-->Las Vegas (3,733,037 People)
10. Los Angeles-->Phoenix (3,434,874 people)

Now granted, 3 of these routes are a little out of the question as far as distance goes but they show that there is a market for these routes in between cities. There are tons of people I know who would love an alternative to flying. But if it takes significantly longer, it will not be as widely used.

You spoke of a balanced transportation system, that is exactly what I'm talking about. The demand for slow, long distance rail in this country is miniscule. I would argue that all the money going towards those subsidized vacations should be put towards building railroads that will not only create jobs but make a SIGNIFICANT economic contribution after they are built. A high speed train from Chicago to New York via Pittsburg and Philadelphia will accomplish that. A high speed train from Chicago to Milwaukee, St. louis, or Detroit will accomplish that. TH\his is money well spent. If they are built, people will ride these trains.

I keep saying we need to change how we look at rail. Times have changed and if we want rail to be utilized again, it cannot be built like how it was a century ago where it would stop at everyone's small town. The new world economy is moving toward the cities, small towns are dying, and suburbs are no longer spreading. Let's begin addressing actual travel needs, not putting tax dollars toward vacations as pretty as they might be.

You're back...and still not answering questions. You're repeating the same refrain. Unless you lost track of your own thread, you know those aren't the numbers we're waiting for. I'll help you out:

For the people we want to bring back to rail by further HSR investment, small towns are not in their itinerary. If the Acela has taught us anything, for the most part, the stops aside from Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and DC only slow the system down. Now that does not mean those stops are not necessary, they just facilitate another need, commuter traffic. The reason Acela is the only completely successful non-commuter line in the U.S. is it is the only one that even comes close to getting people to their destination with a speed that rivals air travel.

LD train trips in this country do not do well because, for MOST Americans who either a) are not train lovers or b) do not live or have relations in small towns, the slow speed, long distance, and long traveling time does not appeal to them. We need to face it that in this day and age, few have the time to take more than a day to get to their destination.

I was trying to stay out of this, but I have to ask: are you a troll or did you really think about the above statement? What you consistently overlook is these "little" places that you summarily dismiss FEED the entire system. They don't SLOW the system down, they ARE the system. This is why they STOPPED running non stop and/or two stop Metroliners and Acelas.

The train runs point to point. The people? Not necessarily.

You also ignore the fact that Amtrak is not meant to rival buses, planes, boats or ferries. It is meant to supplement the other modes of transportation, creating a well rounded transportation network.

Show us your numbers. Since you plan to eliminate all service to Florida, we'll start there. What percentage of these passengers are point to point passengers or imtermediate travel? How many are business, commuters, vacationers or people who are terrified of planes? If you are so inclined, break it down by train please.

Have at it. Train by train please. Secondly, you've been on this board MANY times since this post. I would think after all this time, you would actually attempt to answer the multitude of questions people have put before you.

[RocketJet]

Bud, I think I have fully explained the current Amtrak numbers enough, you have made no objection that responds to any of those numbers...or have you agreed that Long Distance rail, in its current form, is a poor-use of rail capital? If not, explain that, although i would not know how that could be considering the numbers of both passenger usage and economic loss show such operations to be completely unviable. This website has all the numbers concerning current Amtrak operations you could want:

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/ ... rak/table/

As for my rail plan, the numbers you speak of do not exist yet as there is no high speed rail service in the U.S. outside the NEC. Look at the plane flight list I posted and if you still want to argue there is not a viable a market for electrified high speed rail on the routes I described, look up more flight data and use that to argue with me but I do not consider your persistent demanding for numbers to be an acceptable rebuttal. Explain to me what exactly you disagree with me on?

[lirr42]

In 2009, the top 10 most-traveled domestic flight routes are between
8. New York City or Newark-->London, UK (3,881,558 People).

Domestic flights do not typically leave the country...