Amtrak ridership hits record high...again

[K1052]

Conspiracy theory? It went all the way to the freaking supreme court and these corporate CEOs were charged formally for destroying infrastructure.

So..its a conspiracy that its a conspiracy?

Silly.

GM worked to that end but all they might have accomplished was to hasten the impending demise of a few struggling systems slightly ahead of the general decline of all of them due to larger forces. In short, it didn't really matter. Interestingly enough in many cities the rails are still there, just covered over with asphalt since the stone pavers made an ideal base. I still see them peek up on occasion from potholes around here.

That will be the end of my comment in this particular vein.

 

[Steeplerot]

I still see them peek up on occasion from potholes around here.

This is good. Hopefully you all will have a restoration project to get the trains moving again at some point since you are already ahead of the game. Many cities had theirs ripped out instead of paved over. Cheers.

 

[Steeplerot]

This.

It almost seems to me that the Democratic party must be populated with a bunch of little boys whose mom's would not buy them train sets 😀

Sorry, I went out and busted my ass as a kid and earned my train sets, and slaved over a hot soldering iron to make the signaling awesome on far too many evenings I would rather then to admit.

I still dig trains. Got a problem? No, I wasn't playing with dolls or whatever your damage is.

Oh sorry, being a conservative you were probably plucking the wings off flies or whatever and cackling over the results.


:whiste:

 

[CycloWizard]

DB is entirely owned by the German federal government.

DB as a whole is a privately held company, part of which is owned by the German Federacy (DB Netze which owns and manages the infrastructure). The passenger transport operations are privately held. I don't understand how the entire system is organized and the breakdown of its finances, but I do know that it's a much better model than what we have.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The freeways always had major resistance to them here from the get-go.

The central freeway plans were supposed to have it all over the heart of downtown but was stopped by the citizens of SF and finally torn down -thanks to the earthquake of 89.

We cut down on the freeway spam, and kept most of the big box stores out, this is imo a big reason why we didnt turn into one of these terrible depressing parking lot/giant corporate chain store sign landscaped places to live in like the rest of the USA. (the mess of the east bay is a good example of the difference close to home)

LOL you are so full of delusional fail.

Target has as of this year opened a store in downtown SF providing 200+ jobs in the current location known as the Metreon Center which was renovated after it went bust. Now Target is planning on opening a store on the outer-Richmond in a defunct Mervyns/Sears shopping center near Geary and Masonic.

http://blog.sfgate.com/bottomline/2012/10/17/2nd-citytarget-to-open-in-sf-at-geary-masonic/

 

[Steeplerot]

LOL you are so full of delusional fail.

Target has opened a store in downtown SF recently providing 200 jobs in the current location known as the Metreon Center which was renovated after it went bust. Now Target is planning on opening a store on the outer-Richmond in defunct Mervyns shopping center,.

http://blog.sfgate.com/bottomline/2012/10/17/2nd-citytarget-to-open-in-sf-at-geary-masonic/

The metreon is a big movie house full block complex thing many stories tall. Not a "big box".

It is a service for tourists from the rest of America, in a mostly non-inhabited area when there are no movies. (totally deserted at night except for the occasional drunk tourists looking for their hotels)


The new store is way out there in the boonies. A shame though, but there is a community awareness and a fight still. They try that with Walgreens and they only get like half of them opened.

We have had a Target for ages down in Colma in the next county, but I have only been there once while visiting someone "down south up in the mountains".

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The metreon is a big movie house full block complex thing many stories tall. Not a "big box".

It's 119,000 square feet in size. Its a freaking big box store and Target is not known for opening small stores. Maybe in your flawed and desperate mind you could attempt to reclassify it as something else but honest people understand that it is a big box store because Target is a big box retail store chain.

That is for tourists also, that is not a inhabited area, but the business district. (totally empty at night)

It's still a big box store in the heart of SF.

The new store is way out there in the boonies. A shame though, but there is a community awareness and a fight still. They try that with Walgreens and they only get like half of them opened.

Geary and Masonic is not the boonies. However I understand that you want to cover up for you overreaching comments.

 

[Steeplerot]

It's 119,000 square feet in size.

It's inside a HUGE tourist mall. A few floors they are moving into.

I dont see it even affecting the local economy since its basically for tourists in their hotels. We also have Macys/Nordstroms here that dwarf that Target.

Its the financial/hotel district. It's weird but it's buffered by the tenderloin so tourists are usually reigned in to their area and keep out of the main part of the City. Dunno, it worked out like that in the gold rush days.

I live literally a half dozen or so blocks from the Metreon, its HUGE. You could probably put a few of you guys whole towns into it.

But I never go in there. Nor do I know anyone who does. (besides the IMAX theater) Why? It's cheap junk swarmed by tourists.

 

[ElFenix]

I dont see it even affecting the local economy since its basically for tourists in their hotels. We also have Macys/Nordstroms here that dwarf that Target.

how are macy's and nordstrom not big box stores?

 

[Steeplerot]

how are macy's and nordstrom not big box stores?

Macy's

Big Box store:

See if you can spot the difference.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

how are macy's and nordstrom not big box stores?

Because he wants to redefine the term to preserve his own fantasy he has created in his head.

Edit: This is the next site Target will expand to in SF. Hardly the boonies.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=maso...ff&hq=masonic+and+geary&radius=15000&t=h&z=20

 

[ultimatebob]

Amtrak's Northeast Routes are profitable... So why aren't they improving them? I can already get a ride from New Haven CT to Baltimore faster than I can get a plane ride for a lower ticket price, but it would be so much better if they could run those Acela trains running at full speed through most of the route.

 

[K1052]

Amtrak's Northeast Routes are profitable... So why aren't they improving them? I can already get a ride from New Haven CT to Baltimore faster than I can get a plane ride for a lower ticket price, but it would be so much better if they could run those Acela trains running at full speed through most of the route.

They are albeit slowly. Capital funding doesn't exist to get the whole line up to 160mph standard anytime soon, it would cost several billion dollars and still take a number of years. I would have preferred the California HSR money been spent on the NEC instead to do just that.

 

[Steeplerot]

Because he wants to redefine the term to preserve his own fantasy he has created in his head.

Edit: This is the next site Target will expand to in SF. Hardly the boonies.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=maso...ff&hq=masonic+and+geary&radius=15000&t=h&z=20

If you think Masonic and Geary (or the UCSF outlying area) is downtown you don't know SF. The Inner Richmond, the Presidio (and the Sunset dist on the other side of the park) are the boondocks.

That area actually has quite a few very big stores and UCSF buildings. But the only reason to go there would be to sleep if you had a place that far out or passing through to get to the beach on the streetcar.

We call those areas "the dunes" because it was all built quickly on the vast flat sands of nothing between the (19)06' quake and the 1930s. The park itself also.

When we ask someone where they live and they say "Inner Richmond" the usual response is "Damn, that's far, must suck." The usual reply "I am looking for a place not so far in the middle of nowhere asap."

Oh well, at least its not the Sunset. That's even worse. (although about the same distance away from the city)

It's a tiny peninsula with a lot of old neighborhoods. You literally have as much diversity in one 5x5 mile area then regions of the USA.

East west on the northern side California street is kinda the borders of "civilization", west is Divisadero (although upper Haight St and the Panhandle stick out to the west) 16th and or 24th BART on mission are the southern borders. SOMA is the eastern point. Although it stretches down sailors row along the south to the "dogpatch" almost to the county line.

This is "in the city" outside of this is no mans land. Even farther is the fabled and much maligned east bay where Oakland, Berkeley, and dragons be, the mysterious desert dwelling comrade southsiders twinkling tinsel city of Lost Angels is out there also. Somewhere far south across countless mountain ranges.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

If you think Masonic and Geary (or the UCSF outlying area) is downtown you don't know SF. The Inner Richmond, the Presidio (and the Sunset dist on the other side of the park) are the boondocks.

That area actually has quite a few very big stores and UCSF buildings. But the only reason to go there would be to sleep if you had a place that far out or passing through to get to the beach on the streetcar.

We call those areas "the dunes" because it was all built quickly on the vast flat sands of nothing between the (19)06' quake and the 1930s. The park itself also.

When we ask someone where they live and they say "Inner Richmond" the usual response is "Damn, that's far, must suck." The usual reply "I am looking for a place not so far in the middle of nowhere asap."

Oh well, at least its not the Sunset. That's even worse. (although about the same distance away from the city)

It's a tiny peninsula with a lot of old neighborhoods. You literally have as much diversity in one 5x5 mile area then regions of the USA.

East west on the northern side California street is kinda the borders of "civilization", west is Divisadero (although upper Haight St and the Panhandle stick out to the west) 16th and or 24th BART on mission are the southern borders. SOMA is the eastern point. Although it stretches down sailors row along the south to the "dogpatch" almost to the county line.

This is "in the city" outside of this is no mans land. Even farther is the fabled and much maligned east bay where Oakland, Berkeley, and dragons be, the mysterious desert dwelling comrade southsiders twinkling tinsel city of Lost Angels is out there also. Somewhere far south across countless mountain ranges.

You're anecdotal responses mean nothing to me. Furthermore I never said that Geary and Masonic was "downtown". I just contested your warped view that it was in the "boonies". There are no "boonies" areas in SF. Especially when taking into account the size of the city itself. Additionally Geary and Masonic is literally only 5-10 minutes (depending on traffic and the route you take) from SF's downtown, a stone's throw away from the Haight, etc via car.

Basically by car a person could be on one side of the city and then travel to the other side in less than 10-20 minutes and that is taking into account traffic and using an indirect route that has one going through many back streets to avoid said traffic.

Thus there is nothing that could even remotely be considered to be in the "boonies" in SF. In addition there is a rather long corridor of businesses on Geary itself up until you hit 32-33 ave at which point most businesses are located on Balboa St.

The rest of your dribble is just you trying to cover for yourself again. Oh and Target is a "Big Box" retailer on par and in competition with Wal-mart. There is literally no one who does not consider Target and its store anything else but a "Big Box" store. Which includes the dumbfucks who fought to keep Target and the 200+ jobs it provided out of the city due to moronic notion that Target would spell the end of the world or some other bullshit reason spouted off by the screamers and ranters who dominate SF politics.

In fact the term "Big Box" refers to any set of businesses that are multi-regional/national in scale. For example Lowe's which has a store on Bayshore Avenue is another "Big Box" store in the city along with every other major national retail store found in SF like Best Buy, OfficeMax, Office Depot, Macy's etc.

 

[Steeplerot]

You're anecdotal responses mean nothing to me. Furthermore I never said that Geary and Masonic was "downtown". I just contested your warped view that it was in the "boonies". There are no "boonies" areas in SF. Especially when taking into account the size of the city itself. Additionally Geary and Masonic is literally only 5-10 minutes (depending on traffic and the route you take) from SF's downtown, a stone's throw away from the Haight, etc via car.

Basically by car a person could be on one side of the city and then travel to the other side in less than 10-20 minutes and that is taking into account traffic and using an indirect route that has one going through many back streets to avoid said traffic.

Thus there is nothing that could even remotely be considered to be in the "boonies" in SF. In addition there is a rather long corridor of businesses on Geary itself up until you hit 32-33 ave at which point most businesses are located on Balboa St.

The rest of your dribble is just you trying to cover for yourself again. Oh and Target is a "Big Box" retailer on par and in competition with Wal-mart. There is literally no one who does not consider Target and its store anything else but a "Big Box" store. Which includes the dumbfucks who fought to keep Target and the 200+ jobs it provided out of the city due to moronic notion that Target would spell the end of the world or some other bullshit reason spouted off by the screamers and ranters who dominate SF politics.

In fact the term "Big Box" refers to any set of businesses that are multi-regional/national in scale. For example Lowe's which has a store on Bayshore Avenue is another "Big Box" store in the city along with every other major national retail store found in SF like Best Buy, OfficeMax, Office Depot, Macy's etc.

You dont understand the city and neighborhoods much, you must be from a smaller town or something. And no big box is a name coined for giant prefab boxy architecture.

By the way, 30th (st I assume not ave) is waaaay out in the boondocks. You would have to live here I guess. anything past 12th (van ness) is not downtown. Our main street literally runs into a mountain at 20th ave. (its gets really full of bends and hilly, -like straight up into the sky at parts)

We dont travel by direct route, we travel "topographically" here. We use paved stairs, not sidewalks a lot. You sound like a flatlander. 😉

This is twin peaks, the big street down the middle is "main street" (Market St) and this is much closer then geary and masonic.

Geary and Masonic is behind this pic and way off to the left. Not even close to downtown.

5 miles sounds like a tiny amount of land, but honestly no one even goes to the last 3. Its just endless rows of 1930s era houses. We just build UP here. Not out. (if we built out it would be into the pacific ocean or up huge mountains)

On a weekday afternoon we have about 5 million people in a 2 mile by 2 mile area. You have to think vertical.

At night SF is only about 850k people. All the people coming in is the price you pay for being the financial capital of the west coast, we even give NYC a run at times. Not so bad for a lil plot.

 

[werepossum]

REVENUE != NET INCOME

I don't understand why people focus on ridership rather than profitability (hell breaking even would be a start) when it comes to amtrak. If you drop the prices by 50% you can increase the ridership even more; that in no way make it a good idea.

This, in a nutshell. If we're having to subsidize the damned thing, why on Earth do we want more people using it? And if we're having record ridership, why on Earth do we still need to subsidize the damned thing?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

The freeways always had major resistance to them here from the get-go.

The central freeway plans were supposed to have it all over the heart of downtown but was stopped by the citizens of SF and finally torn down -thanks to the earthquake of 89.

We cut down on the freeway spam, and kept most of the big box stores out, this is imo a big reason why we didnt turn into one of these terrible depressing parking lot/giant corporate chain store sign landscaped places to live in like the rest of the USA. (the mess of the east bay is a good example of the difference close to home)

Lol which is why you're spending $1 billion extra for a central subway system because people can't walk to Chinatown from Powell? So the 30 Stockton riders don't have to walk? LOL

You act like San Francisco is some definition of high standard of living because you're better than the East Bay. Well Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo aren't model towns for any part of the US. So you proved yourself to be better than trash?

Maybe you should look north or in the south bay. Those are typical suburbs. The newer developments in south San Jose are littered with cookie cutter plazas with your typical chain stores. Target, BJs, Applebees, etc. And you know what? Life's far better. We don't have to fight for parking, pay ridiculous amounts for rent for a run down rickety place. I know. My girlfriend pays $1400 for a place. My best friend can't find a single bedroom for less than $2400 in SOMA. Worth it? Nah. All for what? My good friends in the south bay pay $650 for a room and can park no problem and can drive no problem to work.

Look, San Francisco is a fun place to go to, and even party it up. But the SF elitism is just ridiculous. Keep living in that bubble, because I'll enjoy my higher disposable income and higher quality of life in the south bay.

Oh yeah, let's not forget how many freeways we have down here. Not to mention expressways. Makes that 30 minutes to get from downtown to the sunset district look like a joke.

On a weekday afternoon we have about 5 million people in a 2 mile by 2 mile area. You have to think vertical.

BS. If you had those kinds of densities, BART would be a full fledged subway in San Francisco, not just a commuter rail with 5 lame stops in the city.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This, in a nutshell. If we're having to subsidize the damned thing, why on Earth do we want more people using it? And if we're having record ridership, why on Earth do we still need to subsidize the damned thing?

Ticket prices still do not cover the expenses.

 

[K1052]

This, in a nutshell. If we're having to subsidize the damned thing, why on Earth do we want more people using it? And if we're having record ridership, why on Earth do we still need to subsidize the damned thing?

Because increasingly it's the best alternative available. The era of massive highway construction through urban areas has been over for a while. It isn't politically or economically possible to do it again. That pretty much leaves rail as the viable option.

Road funding is falling behind at an increasing rate. Gas taxes that were already insufficient are now totally inadequate to even maintain the existing road system. Congress pouring billions in general revenue funds into the insolvent system isn't fixing the problem either.

 

[K1052]

Lol which is why you're spending $1 billion extra for a central subway system because people can't walk to Chinatown from Powell? So the 30 Stockton riders don't have to walk? LOL

You act like San Francisco is some definition of high standard of living because you're better than the East Bay. Well Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo aren't model towns for any part of the US. So you proved yourself to be better than trash?

Maybe you should look north or in the south bay. Those are typical suburbs. The newer developments in south San Jose are littered with cookie cutter plazas with your typical chain stores. Target, BJs, Applebees, etc. And you know what? Life's far better. We don't have to fight for parking, pay ridiculous amounts for rent for a run down rickety place. I know. My girlfriend pays $1400 for a place. My best friend can't find a single bedroom for less than $2400 in SOMA. Worth it? Nah. All for what? My good friends in the south bay pay $650 for a room and can park no problem and can drive no problem to work.

Look, San Francisco is a fun place to go to, and even party it up. But the SF elitism is just ridiculous. Keep living in that bubble, because I'll enjoy my higher disposable income and higher quality of life in the south bay.

Oh yeah, let's not forget how many freeways we have down here. Not to mention expressways. Makes that 30 minutes to get from downtown to the sunset district look like a joke.

BS. If you had those kinds of densities, BART would be a full fledged subway in San Francisco, not just a commuter rail with 5 lame stops in the city.

I think you and Steep just have opposing visions of how you want to live. One is not any more correct than the other and trying to compare them is pointless. For my part I have no interest in living in a suburban environment, I grew up in one and I'll never go back...but that is just a personal preference.

As for BART, it essentially is a subway inside the downtown core with close stop spacing. It turns in to commuter rail as you get further out. I don't think SF has the population to support 24/7 heavy rail operations through most of it's area. The Central Subway does appear to be a huge waste of money for a LRT line that is so short walking will probably be faster for a lot of people. Money would have better spent bringing BRT lines to the western part of the city.

 

[Steeplerot]

I pay half that rent, and have not needed a car in 18 years, everything is walking distance. No gas, no parking, no traffic (well besides dodging all the stupid cars in the city)

1400 is a ripoff. And my place is not "run down". (some parts of Richmond/Oakland look like Kabul, Afghanistan, burned out warehouses, crushing poverty.

No disrespect to the East/South Bay. But I grew up in a totally different lifestyle.

If you have to pay for a car, and high rents then why not live in backwoods Tennessee and pay 400$ a month? Same difference in lifestyle. Suburbia.

I have mostly lived downtown SF or NYC. Hell, my drivers licence is expired in 1998. (I only GOT a licence because someone offered to pay for it when I lived in LA when I was 16 years old.)

Like I said, I am in a car maybe once every few years when people visit from Oregon or something.

Most folks I know never even learned to drive.

Police harassment/taxation:

The last time a officer asked for my ID for anything was back in 1997 when I was drinking out of a glass bottle at a bus stop. (he made me pour it out and let me go luckily -lesson learned)

Tickets? DMV fees?
I have never even had a traffic ticket in my life. I always pay my "fare share" on public transit as a matter of civic respect and never got a transit ticket either.

My local SFPD know me by name as a long term resident of my 'hood and businessperson. I can sit and talk politics with them and do so often, they even come by and play ball with my Black Labrador since the city removed the street out front and turned it into a park/plaza.

I couldn't imagine giving up my life to be pissed at traffic everyday and hoping some moron isnt drunk and plows into me with tons of fast moving steel on my way to buy dishsoap.

To quote my favorite line from Repo Man (the ultimate automobile LA movie)

"The more you drive, the less intelligent you are."

<---Does his best thinking home in the City


Is 30 Stockton getting a BART line?

Actually that area is SWARMED with senior citizen Chinese ladies who have to hobble around carrying tons of bags blocking the streets, the 30 Stockton MUNI drivers literally have to PUSH the buses through a sea of humanity everyday. This is a good route IMO. Chinatown is super dense and the people there move around a LOT.

It would be nice to see the Chinese American seniors get a little love from SF. I have a lot of respect for them as neighbors. And that neighborhood is very overlooked and in disrepair. For centuries. (besides the Grant st main strip the City keeps up for tourists to buy fake kimonos and plastic fat Buddha statues)

Anyhow, being forced to drive to me means you live in a undeveloped area lacking basic transit infrastructure.

Living in suburbia also supports our extremist enemies overseas and provides a (even faster) polluted future for young folks.

Really, if I wanted to go camping I would go to Yosemite.

 

[Zargon]

REVENUE != NET INCOME

I don't understand why people focus on ridership rather than profitability (hell breaking even would be a start) when it comes to amtrak. If you drop the prices by 50% you can increase the ridership even more; that in no way make it a good idea.

thats how they do it

the local fed sub'd bus system just dropped annual membership from like 400 to 60 bucks a year, and is now talking its ridership up.....

 

[werepossum]

Ticket prices still do not cover the expenses.

Agreed - but ticket prices aren't set by G-d. I can see partially financing the initial construction with appropriations, but there is absolutely not excuse for setting ticket prices below that needed to run the system.

Because increasingly it's the best alternative available. The era of massive highway construction through urban areas has been over for a while. It isn't politically or economically possible to do it again. That pretty much leaves rail as the viable option.

Road funding is falling behind at an increasing rate. Gas taxes that were already insufficient are now totally inadequate to even maintain the existing road system. Congress pouring billions in general revenue funds into the insolvent system isn't fixing the problem either.

Gas taxes certainly need to go up to reflect higher mileage vehicles, but diverting money into a system that doesn't come close to paying for itself simply makes things worse. The more Amtrak we have, the more we must spend to subsidize it.

One thing on which I'd agree - whenever we build a new Interstate highway, we should also acquire land for two to four parallel high speed tracks, ideally one long haul and one commuter in each direction. Inevitably the land next to an Interstate gets built up, at least at access points, which makes it much more difficult to add rail lines and makes new rail lines much less suitable for high speed rail. Pick the straightest, most level route feasible and plan from the start on highways and rail. Worse case we'll have a bit more green space.

 

[K1052]

Agreed - but ticket prices aren't set by G-d. I can see partially financing the initial construction with appropriations, but there is absolutely not excuse for setting ticket prices below that needed to run the system.


Gas taxes certainly need to go up to reflect higher mileage vehicles, but diverting money into a system that doesn't come close to paying for itself simply makes things worse. The more Amtrak we have, the more we must spend to subsidize it.

One thing on which I'd agree - whenever we build a new Interstate highway, we should also acquire land for two to four parallel high speed tracks, ideally one long haul and one commuter in each direction. Inevitably the land next to an Interstate gets built up, at least at access points, which makes it much more difficult to add rail lines and makes new rail lines much less suitable for high speed rail. Pick the straightest, most level route feasible and plan from the start on highways and rail. Worse case we'll have a bit more green space.

Even a straight per gallon tax probably isn't enough now with rising MPG and new technologies. We'd have to be looking at mileage and congestion charges.

The vast majority of the money Amtrak is loosing is on the long distance routes that congress won't ever let them drop for reasons I've mentioned before. Increasingly states are picking up the tab for expanded corridor services they want Amtrak to run (something I'm fine with). The NEC, which is Amtrak's heaviest ridership, runs at a substantial profit.

Outside tollways there are going to be very few greenfield interstate builds in the future. It might be possible to adapt current interstate ROWs to high speed rail but IIRC there are substantial issues with curves being to sharp which would limit speed.