Bush to seek Amtrak subsidy cuts

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'd like to remind to the proponents of privatization, however, that a privatization is not always good news.

Private rail companies will have to be profitable. Which means they can't have artificially low prices for their fare. It will deprive many to use trains. In turn, these people will switch to cars and worsen transportation on highways, which is bad news for everybody (negative externalities). Besides, some people will not be able to afford transportation at all, because they cannot invest in a car. By destroying their mobility, privatization also bars employers in neighbouring cities for having access to an enlarged pool of workers.

If the government takes responsibility for rail infrastructure and replaces the current poorly maintained tracks with high-quality unsegmented rail, we can expect the train speeds to increase exponentially. Hi speed train travel on all commuter lines - not just DC-NYC line - will generate more new customers. The private companies operating the rail car service on these lines will compete and keep the prices down through their competition. Not only will they compete against each other but against the relative cost of commute by other modes like plane, car, bus..

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why? Because you want to see a conspiracy where none exists? Airlines are already beating the tar out of Amtrak and it is unlikely that those who travel cross country on the trains will switch over to planes.

This may have to do with the US' size.

But if planes are a cheaper way to travel than trains in smaller and more dense areas like New England (as said, I don't know jack about the specifics of the US transportation industry), this clearly means the trains are very badly managed, or they aren't nearly as subsidized as they should. In France, trains are far cheaper than planes for most lines except the cross-country ones. Also, since most journeys last less than 3 hours, it's often more sensible to take the train (from city-centre to city centre without having to wait in the station for a long time).

In Germany, ever since the prices have risen with the botched attempt at privatization, planes are significantly cheaper than trains. In my surroundings, many have switched from train to pllane, because German planes, at least, are not overexpansive nor sluggish. Something the trains could learn.

[DanS]

This is a good start.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by bfg9000
If the government takes responsibility for rail infrastructure and replaces the current poorly maintained tracks with high-quality unsegmented rail, we can expect the train speeds to increase exponentially.

I don't know about the quality of your tracks, but unless they're similar to the third world's, you wont't get that much speed from better maintenance. High-speed railways are specific technologies, and they're viciously expansive to build (because of the cost, it took decades for the French government to decide building the much needed high-speed track from Paris to southern Germany). The needed investments in infrastructure are huge, if you want high-speed tracks.

Hi speed train travel on all commuter lines - not just DC-NYC line - will generate more new customers.

That is completely true. The ability to win or lose customers with other commuter modes os often overlooked. Trains have a natural advantage on medium distances, for which cars are too slow, and planes are too much of a hassle to bother. If train can be fast enough (while remaining acceptably cheap), it wins over both the others.

The private companies operating the rail car service on these lines will compete and keep the prices down through their competition.

This is far from sure. You may end up with a "natural monopoly" of sorts, with only one really big player and some small niche players. The one big player will have to remain vigilant from potential competition, but there will still be room for complacency, as nobody will make the large initial investments to challenge the well-implemented actor, if the expected profits are too low or too slow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well in the densily populated areas, the trains (and buses) are cheaper than planes. That makes sense, since it costs more to load up the plane and fly it to somewhere close by than it does to fly cross country. Though, in places like New England and Mid-Atlantic, a private train system should be HIGHLY profitable.

That's not the problem. The problem is the cross country stuff, which is basically all the rest of the country.

[DanS]

Without a change to railcars that are much faster than Japan's bullet trains, cross-country rail makes little sense in the U.S. It's fundamentally not a good idea.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's not the problem. The problem is the cross country stuff, which is basically all the rest of the country.

I don't think that cross-country line to ever become profitable. Because I don't see how it could ever be useful for passenger transportation, now that commercial planes do exist.

Maybe the best idea would be to turn the cross-country track into freight-only, and to subsidize some air travel, so that cross--country transportaiton remains affordable (the aim of the cross-country train, from what I understand)

[DanS]

The cross country track is already overwhelmingly freight and is privately owned by the freight railways.

The freight railways make good money on the cross country lines and are expanding their rail networks to accomodate additional traffic. There was an excellent article about this in the Wall Street Journal over the holidays.

[DinoDoc]

Screw Amtrak. The fact a large number of their trains have virtually no riders should be a clue of how well they use the money.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Screw Amtrak. The fact a large number of their trains have virtually no riders should be a clue of how well they use the money.

Something is definately wrong with Amtrak. They cost as much as a plane to take, and take longer than a bus to arrive. Privatising it isn't the answer, since the reason Amtrak exists is because all the private passager rails went out of business. As the Japanese and Europeans show, government rail isn't the problem. Something else is.

They need to think of Amtrak as public transit, instead of a regular corporation. Using Amtrak cuts down massively on pollution, so we should subsidize it more, lower costs, and get more people to use it, as opposed to planes, cars, and buses.

As it is now, many of our airlines are going out of busines. United isn't going to last much longer. The holding company is squeezing it dry and forcing cuts on the employees, who are all looking for new jobs since they don't get paid enough to live anymore, and they no longer get free travel.

[DanS]

As the Japanese and Europeans show, government rail isn't the problem. Something else is.

It's pretty easy to figure out what the problem is. It costs $35 roundtrip from Washington to NYC by bus and $152 by train.

What idiot would subsidize the train enough so that it is competitive with bus? And this is an area (the NE corridor) where passenger rail is supposed to make sense!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
It's pretty easy to figure out what the problem is. It costs $35 roundtrip from Washington to NYC by bus and $152 by train.

How long does it take by bus, by rail and by plane?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DanS


It's pretty easy to figure out what the problem is. It costs $35 roundtrip from Washington to NYC by bus and $152 by train.

What idiot would subsidize the train enough so that it is competitive with bus? And this is an area (the NE corridor) where passenger rail is supposed to make sense!

$85 round trip airfare from Atlanta to most NorthEast destination cities (in markets normally held hostage by US AIR no less)

[DanS]

How long does it take by bus, by rail and by plane?

Bus and rail take about 4 hours. Maybe a couple minutes longer for bus. Plane takes 1 hour + security checks + cab ride to and from downtown NYC or Washington.

As Adam Smith has pointed out on numerous occassions, they could improve the switching near New York that would cut some 1/2 hour to 45 minutes from the rail trip.

[monolith94]

I recently wrote a poem about trains, passenger rail in particular.

It's so sad that they've been mismanaged.