Amtrak posts record annual ridership

[Fear No Evil]

We invented these things called rubber tires which allow trains to travel almost anywhere there is a road. We call them 'buses' now.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yeah, all those "rich" neighborhoods definitely love it when government wants to put a highway/freeway that runs through or next to it.

this has never happened in the last 20 at least years

 

[K1052]

Tell you what else isn't accounted for: billions in other govt revenue soley generated because of the existence of that highway.

Take an acre of land out in the middle of nowhere with no road/highway access how much money you think it generates in govt revenue from r/e tax? Not much.

Put a highway next to it, particularly with exist/on ramps and you're looking a multi-million $ piece of property generating tons of revenue for the govt.

Piece of land next to RR tracks. Ugh.

Highways are typically a good investment and judging them soley on gas taxes or tolls is wrong.

Amtrack's increased ridership is likely more a reflection of the economy and gas prices than anything else. I'm unpersuaded it speaks to viability of passenger rail in this country.

Fern

Nowhere did I discount the economic benefits of roads. In fact our reliance on them illustrates the need for their upkeep which is increasingly unprovided for. We built and built without thinking about what it's going to cost to maintain the system going forward and that tab is going to be in the hundreds of billions at a minimum.

Additionally adding capacity through the nation's worst choke points borders somewhere between really difficult to impossible for financial and political reasons. You can't just bulldoze a few neighborhoods in an urban area anymore to toss up a new freeway.

Amtrak's increased ridership dispels the notion that Americans won't ride rail, that in fact they are increasingly doing so. Economics definitely plays a role but so does time and ever increasing road congestion.

 

[rudder]

Well, IMO if the govt. supports highways then they should also support rails...

highways are supported by gasoline taxes. You drive, you burn gas, you pay for the highways. Why should I subsidize train service? A similar tax on trains would mean $200 to go from new york to boston.

 

[monovillage]

"Demise of the high speed rail boondoggle"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...nors_nix_obamas_high-speed_trains_111667.html

 

[K1052]

highways are supported by gasoline taxes. You drive, you burn gas, you pay for the highways. Why should I subsidize train service? A similar tax on trains would mean $200 to go from new york to boston.

That is not accurate. Revenue shortfalls from fuel taxes have caused both the federal government and states to prop up their road funds with general revenue. Estimates are that the federal Highway Trust Fund will require annual infusions of at least $6-$10B every year for the next five years assuming revenue doesn't fall further (and it will).

That's also not to say that the fund had actually been entirely on the ball about funding needed projects. Many have been deferred.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Amtrak's increased ridership dispels the notion that Americans won't ride rail, that in fact they are increasingly doing so. Economics definitely plays a role but so does time and ever increasing road congestion.

I don't know about that.

I like rail and have used it.

I worked in Manhatten but lived nearby in CT. I'd walk or drive to the rail station and take the train to Grand Central. From there you don't need a car because buses and the subway exist and go everywhere.

Likewise when I lived in Europe. For several years over there I didn't even have a car. Going on vacation leaving Paris for some small town? No problem, over there the small towns have public transportation available so no car was necessary upon arrival.

Over here? Totally different. Unless you're going into a big city like NY the train is of little help. You still need a car to get around once you arrive. It ruins the whole thing.

Too bad because I prefer trains. I hate airlines. Over here, I just drive everywhere even if it's across the country because you gotta have a car upon arrival except in a very limited number of places.

Fern

 

[K1052]

"Demise of the high speed rail boondoggle"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...nors_nix_obamas_high-speed_trains_111667.html

HSR programs should only have been pursued on the NEC and with the Chicago hub system. California was/is a longshot and a lot of other states didn't have firm commitments.

 

[K1052]

I don't know about that.

I like rail and have used it.

I worked in Manhatten but lived nearby in CT. I'd walk or drive to the rail station and take the train to Grand Central. From there you don't need a car because buses and the subway exist and go everywhere.

Likewise when I lived in Europe. For several years over there I didn't even have a car. Going on vacation leaving Paris for some small town? No problem, over there the small towns have public transportation available so no car was necessary upon arrival.

Over here? Totally different. Unless you're going into a big city like NY the train is of little help. You still need a car to get around once you arrive. It ruins the whole thing.

Too bad because I prefer trains. I hate airlines. Over here, I just drive everywhere even if it's across the country because you gotta have a car upon arrival except in a very limited number of places.

Fern

I've heard that argument a lot. Americans won't ride it because they want to be independent, blah, blah

The northeast is definitely the place to do real HSR since it can hook into well established transit systems in Boston/NYC/Philly/DC while further reducing air and road travel in the region. I mean the Port Authority estimates that it will cost $10B+ to do any meaningful capacity upgrades at JFK and EWR. Other Northeast airports are looking at similar tabs, just to accommodate regional traffic.

 

[Fear No Evil]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/14/nasa-buys-flights-on-virgin-galactics-private-spaceship/?test=latestnews

We're privatizing space flight but need the government to run the choo choo trains. Makes sense to me.

 

[Fern]

I've heard that argument a lot. Americans won't ride it because they want to be independent, blah, blah
-snip-

It's got nothing to do with "independence".

When I leave NC to go to the beach near Jacksonville FL how the heck does that work?

OK, I get into Jacksonville, now how do I get to my beach house that's south of St Augustine?

OK, I take an expensive cab ride. But how do I get to the grocery and liquor store (almost) everyday?

How do I get to restaurants at night?

I'm not fuggin walking that far (10 mile roundtrip) with (or without) bags of groceries etc.

You gotta have a car. Might as well just drive there. It's cheaper, faster travel and I won't need to rent one when I get there.

It's the impracticability and expense of not having a car upon arrival that renders rail travel undesirable.

Fern

 

[K1052]

It's the impracticability and expense of not having a car upon arrival that renders rail travel undesirable.

I should have clarified, I've heard that argument even when people want to travel into urban areas that have transit and rail.

If I want to go from say Carbondale, IL to say Lake of the Ozarks I probably won't be taking air or rail. If I want to go from Carbondale to Chicago I'd want to take rail. There is no one size fits all solution to transportation and I didn't pretend there was.

However a lot of car trips on already overburdened highways can be alleviated by using more rail. I occasionally have to go to Springfield, IL and I take the train every time because it always saves at least an hour of sitting in traffic trying to get out of the city and now costs less than driving.

 

[alphatarget1]

In the case of toll roads around Chicago, right?

At least that's what they tell you when they go to build the damn things and its going to be a "temporary' toll. :whiste:

Roads are expensive to construct and even more expensive to maintain, especially in the midwest when there is freeze-thaw and a ton of deicing salt.

Texas has been building a lot of toll roads. I have no problem paying to use them.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I should have clarified, I've heard that argument even when people want to travel into urban areas that have transit and rail.

If I want to go from say Carbondale, IL to say Lake of the Ozarks I probably won't be taking air or rail. If I want to go from Carbondale to Chicago I'd want to take rail. There is no one size fits all solution to transportation and I didn't pretend there was.

However a lot of car trips on already overburdened highways can be alleviated by using more rail. I occasionally have to go to Springfield, IL and I take the train every time because it always saves at least an hour of sitting in traffic trying to get out of the city and now costs less than driving.

Have any facts to back that up? Honestly how many rail cars/tracks would be needed to even eliminate 10% of the traffic of a city like Chicago? Not saying rail can't be a good option for some people traveling to and from very specific locations but to say it would help solve traffic congestion is simply absurd. And lets say by some miracle you actually managed to eliminate 50% of the traffic. You don't think that would just go back up since now driving takes 50% less time?

 

[K1052]

Have any facts to back that up? Honestly how many rail cars/tracks would be needed to even eliminate 10% of the traffic of a city like Chicago? Not saying rail can't be a good option for some people traveling to and from very specific locations but to say it would help solve traffic congestion is simply absurd. And lets say by some miracle you actually managed to eliminate 50% of the traffic. You don't think that would just go back up since now driving takes 50% less time?

Road congestion will only increase, the tollways being the only entity building new highways with none of those addressing the worst congestion. Rail has the power to mitigate the rate at which congestion rises. It also can reduce short haul air travel (which places undue burdens on airports for airspace/landing + gate slots) in the case of higher speed services.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Rail is for the poor why should we subsidize that. Now, if you wanted to ban the charging of sales tax on yachts so the people who buy them can make more jobs instead. Then we'd be talking something worthwhile.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Road congestion will only increase, the tollways being the only entity building new highways with none of those addressing the worst congestion. Rail has the power to mitigate the rate at which congestion rises. It also can reduce short haul air travel (which places undue burdens on airports for airspace/landing + gate slots) in the case of higher speed services.

The problem is though that government wants to build rail where it makes no sense. Like the recently cancelled Tampa to Orlando route. There is absolutely NO infrastructure in either city to support rail passengers once they get to either destination. So people would have to take Taxi's or rent cars once they get to their destination which won't change the problem of traffic jams in the downtown areas of both cities.

If you travel between Orlando and Tampa you will find there are 2 places you get stuck almost without fail. Downtown Tampa, and Downtown Orlando. In between there is a bunch of farmland with a 6 lane highway and a 75mph speed limit. The vast majority of the traffic in those 2 areas are by people who live and work in those cities. How will having a train going from Tampa to Orlando eliminate ANY of that traffic? And anyone who actually DOES travel that route has to rent a car once they get there anyway.

Rail makes very little sense except for very specific highly populated areas which, for the most part, already have it. People in less populated areas don't want to take a train.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

There are a lot of people confusing light rail passenger systems with railroads. For the most part railroads couldn't care less about passengers. That's not their strong point or their "bread and butter." Amtrak has been a failure except in a few specific locations from the day it was created. Trains are still important and considerably cheaper than over the road long haul trucking. Until the airlines become so expensive that only ATOTers can fly, trains will not be considered by most as a reasonable alternative. Trains are very much in the same place as the electric car industry.

 

[K1052]

The problem is though that government wants to build rail where it makes no sense. Like the recently cancelled Tampa to Orlando route. There is absolutely NO infrastructure in either city to support rail passengers once they get to either destination. So people would have to take Taxi's or rent cars once they get to their destination which won't change the problem of traffic jams in the downtown areas of both cities.

If you travel between Orlando and Tampa you will find there are 2 places you get stuck almost without fail. Downtown Tampa, and Downtown Orlando. In between there is a bunch of farmland with a 6 lane highway and a 75mph speed limit. The vast majority of the traffic in those 2 areas are by people who live and work in those cities. How will having a train going from Tampa to Orlando eliminate ANY of that traffic? And anyone who actually DOES travel that route has to rent a car once they get there anyway.

Rail makes very little sense except for very specific highly populated areas which, for the most part, already have it. People in less populated areas don't want to take a train.

Orlando to Tampa was supported by the state until the Gov killed it, that said it was a marginal project at best. Neither city has meaningful public transit to tie into locally

I was largely unhappy with how the HSR money was meted out in the first place. The bulk of it should have gone to the Northeast Corridor with both the density and a strong history of rail ridership, not to mention ready access to huge established local transit systems. After that the Chicago Hub network should have gotten the rest since all states except Wisconsin are willing to support it across partisan lines and have made rail improvement a long term goal.

California was a long shot but I can understand why they did it. I just don't see the state being able to pull it off now.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Orlando to Tampa was supported by the state until the Gov killed it, that said it was a marginal project at best. Neither city has meaningful public transit to tie into locally

I was largely unhappy with how the HSR money was meted out in the first place. The bulk of it should have gone to the Northeast Corridor with both the density and a strong history of rail ridership, not to mention ready access to huge established local transit systems. After that the Chicago Hub network should have gotten the rest since all states except Wisconsin are willing to support it across partisan lines and have made rail improvement a long term goal.

California was a long shot but I can understand why they did it. I just don't see the state being able to pull it off now.

I met a lot of people in Florida who supported it. Unfortunately none of them would actually RIDE it. That is the stupidity of it. Asking people if they support a choo-choo train and most jump up and say yes. Then they get in their car and drive home. We need to stop the stupidity of trying to build trains where they are not NEEDED.