Bush proposes Amtrak to get the budget ax again

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So you think every car and your every location should be known by a private company?
There is endless possibilitys of abuse in that idea. and it's kinda 1984 freaky.
No thanks, i'd rather stay on the train.

A private company has a record of all of your telephone calls, I bet. Problems analogous to 1984 do not come from free enterprise, but rather they come from government.

Actually they come (potentially) from anyone having too much information about you. Right now, the government probably has more information about you than any other group, but in the absence of government, most of that information would still be collected, and for sale.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So you think every car and your every location should be known by a private company?
There is endless possibilitys of abuse in that idea. and it's kinda 1984 freaky.
No thanks, i'd rather stay on the train.

A private company has a record of all of your telephone calls, I bet. Problems analogous to 1984 do not come from free enterprise, but rather they come from government.

Actually they come (potentially) from anyone having too much information about you. Right now, the government probably has more information about you than any other group, but in the absence of government, most of that information would still be collected, and for sale.

But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure, let's scuttle mass transit and put more people in cars, buying more gas, polluting the air more.



Wonderful.

I have a better idea. Let private industry take over mass transit. There is absolutely no reason for the government to be subsidizing transit. Transit, like any other good in the economy can be providing by private enterprise.

its to bad that would never happen :roll:

So you are saying that no one would bid if say the New York City subway system was put up for auction?

i'm saying that noone would ever build one.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure, let's scuttle mass transit and put more people in cars, buying more gas, polluting the air more.



Wonderful.

I have a better idea. Let private industry take over mass transit. There is absolutely no reason for the government to be subsidizing transit. Transit, like any other good in the economy can be providing by private enterprise.

its to bad that would never happen :roll:

So you are saying that no one would bid if say the New York City subway system was put up for auction?

i'm saying that noone would ever build one.

Why wouldn't they? I think there is more than enough demand in NYC for a subway system due to the fact that the roads are clearly not enough to supply transportation in the city. Furthermore, there would be even more incentive to build/operate a subway system if all the roads in NYC were privatized, and people (including taxi drivers) had to pay to use them.
 
May 10, 2001
2,669
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I have been anxiously awaiting the Daylight Express to be reopened (high speed rail between SF and LA) for years sadly they have cut Amtrak even worse.

then work to get your state or local government to get it going, it's not like the federal government has an obligation to make sure that there's high-speed rail in your state.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I use the bus daily and I make it to work fine, economiclly it kicks ass all over a car and a lot less pollution.
Isolated suburbanites with road-rage are a thing of the past!
Naysay all you want but soon this is seriously going to have to be considered, why not start now?

I disagree.. I don't think trains will EVER be a solution in this country.. no matter how bad the traffic gets. You live in San Francisco, don't assume that your cities traffic is the same as my cities traffic. Why is taking the bus cheaper for you? Because you are only paying a very small percentage of the actual cost.. the rest of us are picking up the tab for you to use the bus..

Besides, I am perfectly capable, and willing, to pay the extra cost to have my own car. Why should you tell me I can't? Besides, I am sure you, even if you don't own your own car, have hopped into Friends cars when it was convenient to go somewhere.. I'm sure you didn't say for them to go ahead and you would take the trolly.


Long range trains can easily replace airlines (fast, cheap, and don't take up tons of land). Not to mention long distance travel in general. On top of that the suburbs are going to die in about a generation or two.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
I don't know how i feel about this. While i do think it is important for people whom live in rural areas to have access to transportation at an affordable rate, i'm not a fan whatsoever of corporate welfare. There should be no reason why a company who's primary role is to make a profit should need assistance from any external source. At the same time, i am not informed enough about bus/rail/air schedules and fares to begin to defend the need for a subsidized railway system.

Looking at the current budget deficit however, i think the last thing on the minds of anyone democrats or republicans is more spending. There are going to be cutbacks, especially considering there will be not repealing of the tax cuts, so might as well get spending down as not to make your children pay for the $5 you save taking the train.

Also, without financial data from the company itself, how can one determine how much subsidies a company should get? Why not an increase?...how high can you go?...i think amtrak should try to remain competitive with busus by reducing costs and bocoming more competitive rather than ask for handouts. Again i have no idea how much waste is in amtrak or what the transit systems are in the states.

I do however find it interesting that not only state but federal governments are funding this company, there could be a very good reason for that. I think steeplerot touched on that a bit, but at the same time i think dissipate has the stronger point, just from an economics perspective. Again this all comes down to the transportation networks in the US...
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I use the bus daily and I make it to work fine, economiclly it kicks ass all over a car and a lot less pollution.
Isolated suburbanites with road-rage are a thing of the past!
Naysay all you want but soon this is seriously going to have to be considered, why not start now?

I disagree.. I don't think trains will EVER be a solution in this country.. no matter how bad the traffic gets. You live in San Francisco, don't assume that your cities traffic is the same as my cities traffic. Why is taking the bus cheaper for you? Because you are only paying a very small percentage of the actual cost.. the rest of us are picking up the tab for you to use the bus..

Besides, I am perfectly capable, and willing, to pay the extra cost to have my own car. Why should you tell me I can't? Besides, I am sure you, even if you don't own your own car, have hopped into Friends cars when it was convenient to go somewhere.. I'm sure you didn't say for them to go ahead and you would take the trolly.


Long range trains can easily replace airlines (fast, cheap, and don't take up tons of land). Not to mention long distance travel in general. On top of that the suburbs are going to die in about a generation or two.

Are you on some sort of mind altering substance? Planes travel through the AIR.. they have nothing to do with LAND other than for takoff and landing.. So you have an airport taking up say 10 square miles of land in every city.. As opposed to rail lines running everywhere? And you think they won't take up any space? Especially if they are high speed lines? They would take up TONS of space and need space all around them.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)

You take the good with the bad. In this case you get a whole lot of good, with potentially a little bad. You forget the better traffic enforcement that would result in less fatalities i.e. compare a public bureaucracy that is out there only to get more tax dollars to a private company that wants to maximize motorist safety. An analogy is where would you rather be at 3 A.M. in the morning? Disney World or Central Park?
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I have to disagree with you about your statement that your traffic is the same.
I am sure it is worse here becasue of geographical limitations. (And we haven't banned the damn cars yet.)
We have 24/7 buses within a few blocks of everyones home.
And I do not even know anyone with a car. A car is a obsolete and a burden to have when their is a viable alternative.
The statement that people is USA do not want trains is bunk LOTS of people use trains. Heck I know plenty of people who have never had a licence and never will most likley. People who live somewhere with no trains I could see not understanding though.
US males have some angup on their car like it has some direct correclation to pen0r size. Attitudes will have to change yes. But then time marches on.
If you want to have a car good for you, enjoy your rightly deserved 8$ gallon of gas while we ride in style.

By contrast, in Milwaukee and the surrounding communities.. I do not know ANYONE who has never had a car or a license.. EVERYONE I know, whether they live in downtown or in the burbs owns a car.. From the poorest to the richest, everyone has a license, everyone has a car.. and we have buses that run everywhere too... People don't WANT to use them.. they want the convenience of their own car.

I'd gladly pay the $8 per gallon of gas if you agree to pay the $15 per trip on the bus that the actual cost is rather than the $1.50 you are paying now.

$20,000 car every 5 years

$4,000 a year

$11 a day just to own a car

plus gas, insurance, maintainance, interest, etc etc.

Your probably paying no less than 6 grand a year to use and own a single car.


Originally posted by: Crimson

So, your definition of a dying technology is one that is growing like crazy? I'm confused I think... Why are cars dying?

And, if I understand your reasoning correctly on these 'dying' cars.. one day, cars will simply cease to exist.. All at once.. Not sure if this is because some sort of alien craft is going to vaporize them, or what.. But what makes you think we will not have the ability to build more train tracks in time for this sudden mass disapearance of cars?

Of course, thats all assuming rail be the solution, which I don't think it will be.
they are dying, but their death is inevitable and imminent. Thats what happens when you can't find or pay for gas.

Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I use the bus daily and I make it to work fine, economiclly it kicks ass all over a car and a lot less pollution.
Isolated suburbanites with road-rage are a thing of the past!
Naysay all you want but soon this is seriously going to have to be considered, why not start now?

I disagree.. I don't think trains will EVER be a solution in this country.. no matter how bad the traffic gets. You live in San Francisco, don't assume that your cities traffic is the same as my cities traffic. Why is taking the bus cheaper for you? Because you are only paying a very small percentage of the actual cost.. the rest of us are picking up the tab for you to use the bus..

Besides, I am perfectly capable, and willing, to pay the extra cost to have my own car. Why should you tell me I can't? Besides, I am sure you, even if you don't own your own car, have hopped into Friends cars when it was convenient to go somewhere.. I'm sure you didn't say for them to go ahead and you would take the trolly.


Long range trains can easily replace airlines (fast, cheap, and don't take up tons of land). Not to mention long distance travel in general. On top of that the suburbs are going to die in about a generation or two.

Are you on some sort of mind altering substance? Planes travel through the AIR.. they have nothing to do with LAND other than for takoff and landing.. So you have an airport taking up say 10 square miles of land in every city.. As opposed to rail lines running everywhere? And you think they won't take up any space? Especially if they are high speed lines? They would take up TONS of space and need space all around them.

Railline take up much less space than an airport. Even 100 feet wide and 100 miles in length in even city, thats still less than 2 square miles, not to mention its quieter, cleaner, and doesn't use oil., and costs less.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)

You take the good with the bad. In this case you get a whole lot of good, with potentially a little bad. You forget the better traffic enforcement that would result in less fatalities i.e. compare a public bureaucracy that is out there only to get more tax dollars to a private company that wants to maximize motorist safety. An analogy is where would you rather be at 3 A.M. in the morning? Disney World or Central Park?

I wouldn't be so sure you get more good. What happens when I buy the road infornt of your house and start charging you and your friends 10 grand to enter or exit?
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,572
66
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You can't break even when they do not even have rail of their own. Let's see how well USPS would do running on nothing but toll roads and a worse then shoestring budget servicing very few sections of america. :roll:
why do they have to have access to every corner of he US to be profitable? You act like The USPS doesnt have travel expenses. pfft wake up. They compete with Fedex and UPS, both private corps, and do just fine, Amtrack has almost no competition in the rail travel industry, they have a *gasp* MONOPOLY, and cant even break even. That should tell you something. Show them a little tough love.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,572
66
91
www.bing.com
btw, this thread is totally ruining my searching the forums for "Train"

bastards, everyone start referring to them as locomotives from now on.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)

You take the good with the bad. In this case you get a whole lot of good, with potentially a little bad. You forget the better traffic enforcement that would result in less fatalities i.e. compare a public bureaucracy that is out there only to get more tax dollars to a private company that wants to maximize motorist safety. An analogy is where would you rather be at 3 A.M. in the morning? Disney World or Central Park?

I wouldn't be so sure you get more good. What happens when I buy the road infornt of your house and start charging you and your friends 10 grand to enter or exit?

Communities and businesses adjacent to the roads would obviously get first chance at the buy. In any event, a road owner would have a strong disincentive to charge prices so high that nobody would use their road because then they wouldn't make any money at all. However, they could charge some customers higher prices i.e. those who drive recklessly.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)

You take the good with the bad. In this case you get a whole lot of good, with potentially a little bad. You forget the better traffic enforcement that would result in less fatalities i.e. compare a public bureaucracy that is out there only to get more tax dollars to a private company that wants to maximize motorist safety. An analogy is where would you rather be at 3 A.M. in the morning? Disney World or Central Park?

I wouldn't be so sure you get more good. What happens when I buy the road infornt of your house and start charging you and your friends 10 grand to enter or exit?

Communities and businesses adjacent to the roads would obviously get first chance at the buy. In any event, a road owner would have a strong disincentive to charge prices so high that nobody would use their road because then they wouldn't make any money at all. However, they could charge some customers higher prices i.e. those who drive recklessly.

Sure they might reduce the value of the road. But if they just want to get your land for cheap I don't think they would care. Oh and isn't it a little socialist to allow some people to buy the road at less then market price.
 

alent1234

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2002
3,915
0
0
the biggest problem for Amtrak is that the US is so big. Why would anyone want to spend 3 days on a train from NYC to LA when you can fly in 6 hours? NYC to florida is 24 hours and an airplane is less than 3 hours. When people have a limited time on vacation no one wants to waste any time sitting in a train when it's cheaper and faster to fly. The other problem with Amtrak is that Congress has it's hands in the cookie jar. to please Congress, Amtrak has built track through as much congressional districts as it could thereby insuring continued funding. Too bad this makes service a lot worse.

High speed rail in the US will never take off. The US is too big and the cost of the project before you lay a single rail is too expensive. The rails will cross a lot of private land and that is a lot of land use contracts that need to be signed and checks mailed off to property owners. In the northeast and other high population areas high speed rail also has problems. In the Boston/NYC/DC corridor trains will spend 90 minutes of a trip going slowly because it's too dangerous to go fast in these areas. There is a lot switching and commuter trains run on the same tracks. The Acela only travels at high speeds over a small part of it's trip.

There are private rail companies that serve consumers in the US that are profitable. But they cater to the niche market of people that like trains. The majority will fly and/or drive.
 

Dissipate

Diamond Member
Jan 17, 2004
6,815
0
0
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)

You take the good with the bad. In this case you get a whole lot of good, with potentially a little bad. You forget the better traffic enforcement that would result in less fatalities i.e. compare a public bureaucracy that is out there only to get more tax dollars to a private company that wants to maximize motorist safety. An analogy is where would you rather be at 3 A.M. in the morning? Disney World or Central Park?

I wouldn't be so sure you get more good. What happens when I buy the road infornt of your house and start charging you and your friends 10 grand to enter or exit?

Communities and businesses adjacent to the roads would obviously get first chance at the buy. In any event, a road owner would have a strong disincentive to charge prices so high that nobody would use their road because then they wouldn't make any money at all. However, they could charge some customers higher prices i.e. those who drive recklessly.

Sure they might reduce the value of the road. But if they just want to get your land for cheap I don't think they would care. Oh and isn't it a little socialist to allow some people to buy the road at less then market price.

Considering that they were never allowed to build the road themselves in the first place, no.
 

MisterCornell

Banned
Dec 30, 2004
1,095
0
0
Rail travel does not make sense in a low population density, sprawled out country like the U.S. Only rail travel in certain corridors makes sense, like Boston to DC. That is in fact almost profitable.

To ride the train from Jacksonville, FL to LA makes not sense, and hardly anyone does. It is usually cheaper to fly, and takes maybe 1/10 as much time once you factor in all the typical delays. I think most of Amtrak's routes should be shut down.

The biggest problem with Amtrak is that its routes are not set by the market, they are set by Congress. I think Amtrak could probably develop a few high speed corridors, but they don't have the money for it, because all their excess cash is used to cover their many unprofitable routes. The problem is that Congressman Billy Bob from Bumfvck, Colorado (pop. 21) wants a train running through his town, and making a stop. So Amtrak has to oblige. Just take a look at Amtraks routes, they are ridiculous. And it's not just sparsely populated states like CO, also in states like Texas there are only 400 Amtrak riders per week.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Dissipate
But under your theory there, can't be a market for information. Remember? ;)

In any event, I wouldn't care if they sold information on where I traveled to, or at least had information on where I traveled to. For one thing it would help them price things better. For those who didn't want the information sold or given away, they could have privacy agreements.

There could certainly be a market for that sort of information - finding out where people live/drive/work/etc for marketing purposes - it's pretty easy to assess the potential value of such information (especially in aggregate).

I don't necessarily think it would be worse than the way governments sometimes handle information, but the big brother potential would still be there - or maybe it would be more like having multiple medium-sized brothers;)

You take the good with the bad. In this case you get a whole lot of good, with potentially a little bad. You forget the better traffic enforcement that would result in less fatalities i.e. compare a public bureaucracy that is out there only to get more tax dollars to a private company that wants to maximize motorist safety. An analogy is where would you rather be at 3 A.M. in the morning? Disney World or Central Park?

I wouldn't be so sure you get more good. What happens when I buy the road infornt of your house and start charging you and your friends 10 grand to enter or exit?

Communities and businesses adjacent to the roads would obviously get first chance at the buy. In any event, a road owner would have a strong disincentive to charge prices so high that nobody would use their road because then they wouldn't make any money at all. However, they could charge some customers higher prices i.e. those who drive recklessly.

Sure they might reduce the value of the road. But if they just want to get your land for cheap I don't think they would care. Oh and isn't it a little socialist to allow some people to buy the road at less then market price.

Considering that they were never allowed to build the road themselves in the first place, no.

Ok so I don't like my neigbhors so I buy the road infornt of my house which they have to travel on or drive 10 miles out of their way. What is to stop me from charging them a large sum of money to use a few feet of road. I then get some one on the other side to purchase the road we then effective can prevent the land owner from coming and going. He would be forced to sell his propery.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Granted yes, 550mph is way faster then we have now, nonetheless germany and japan have maglevs now -no track -whisper quiet and clean. These things just get faster with time.
espically if a huge country like US dumped some good old know-how into it. ,-=

Most people when they get in their car to go somewhere go very short distances. I don't really care how fast your train can get me between NYC and boston when I want to go to the store and buy some milk. It is the short routes that make trains usless not the longer ones. Well those are usless because of planes but a fast train might be able to come close on middum range routes.

ANd that problem would fall squarley on you for isolating yourself. That and the sortsightednss of your local urban development dept.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: conjur
Sure, let's scuttle mass transit and put more people in cars, buying more gas, polluting the air more.



Wonderful.

I have a better idea. Let private industry take over mass transit. There is absolutely no reason for the government to be subsidizing transit. Transit, like any other good in the economy can be providing by private enterprise.

its to bad that would never happen :roll:

So you are saying that no one would bid if say the New York City subway system was put up for auction?

i'm saying that noone would ever build one.
I guess subways across the world came from jesus lizards then
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
This is why more efficent service is needed. Cutting budgets to the bone once again is going to make good service less of a reality.
I guess you never heard of a express train. They are set-up for minimal transfers.
Right now if you live in the 'burbs the train is NOT a viable alternative I never argued that point.
But it IS the problem I have with the issue.

A train is only viable between cities with a viable subway system. Any other time a train is completly usless. And subways are only used in high desity cities. Ever where else people want to go in different directions. Very few people like mass tranist. Maybe we should bring back boats, you can take a few weeks to get to europe. I mean they used to use boats so they most be the greatest thing since sliced bread. The train died when the car and plane where invented get over it.

A car has nothing on a 250mph express train.
Same deal with timeframe you cannot just drive where you want whenever you want you will get stuck in rush hours and sit that car on the pavement idling.
With GPS and electric technologies cars and with a bit more speed even planes are obsolete.

That would require extensive (like a complete rebuild) upgrades to the rails that would cost a lot of money which neither the public nor anyone else will want to do. I agree our priorities are screwed up though.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
You can't break even when they do not even have rail of their own. Let's see how well USPS would do running on nothing but toll roads and a worse then shoestring budget servicing very few sections of america. :roll:
why do they have to have access to every corner of he US to be profitable? You act like The USPS doesnt have travel expenses. pfft wake up. They compete with Fedex and UPS, both private corps, and do just fine, Amtrack has almost no competition in the rail travel industry, they have a *gasp* MONOPOLY, and cant even break even. That should tell you something. Show them a little tough love.

I agree that they are a monopoly but there is a reason for this. The goverment meant it to be this way this is why they nationalized it. I don't think it is right but sometimes you have to nationize for infrastructure buildup.
It just happens to be that way right now all we need is the public awareness. The jobs created to build a REAL rail network to rival europe and asia would help a lot and benifit americans and our planet greatly.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Trains are the most retard overrated way to transport people. Give me a car any day over a damn train ticket that goes 10 miles out of the way. Stops 30 times and then drops you off a good 20 miles from the place you want to go. And just to make sure they suck hope you don't want to make any connections because only 3 cities in the US have main lines going into them and then the train only runs once a day.
Thats funny becasue the scedule points out that you are full of sh1t clearly. once a day lol
http://www.amtrak.com/timetable/oct04/W02.pdf

I didn't say all the trains. Your own post shows that most lines 75% only run one train a day. For an example of how F'n retard trains are for rural areas try to go from Vermont to say albany. First you have to take a 7 hour ride to NYC then spend the night then take the train from NYC to albany another 2.5 hours. Or you could drive for 3 hours save a day and about a hundred dollars.

Exactly. They should die, and die now. Amtrak has been an interesting experiment and it has failed and should die die die. :D
The U.S. is geographically unsuited for rail service.

edit: changed "wrong" to unsuited.


Funny rail networks served this country well until cheap gas. Even built this country...next,

So did the horse and buggy before automobiles. Next!
:D