Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh ... No GTCORNDOG -- Savannah did indeed draw nearly 12 million people last year. That number you cite is very, very old. Even the Orlando and Atlanta numbers are old and inaccurate.
But i refuse to discuss this with anyone disrespectful enough to call me (or anybody else) "BOY." Guess I'll just block you again.
Boy, Savannah gets about 6.85 million visitors per year.
Even if a train only captured 2% of those visitors that would be 137,000 a year and 375 riders a day. If you bop it to 5% you get 342,500 riders a year and 948 per day. If you use Newsboy's figures you get even higher ridership figures.
That's not negligible. I'm assuming there are probably 15 flights a day from Atlanta to Savannah, and even if everyone of them has 100 passengers that's not a whole lot more (1500 vs. 948).
If there was a nice train to Savannah I know we'd go down a few times a year. It's the sort of trip that's no fun to drive and way too complicated to fly for a casual trip. If we wanted to fly down to Savannah for a long weekend it could easily cost us $900 plus parking and all the hassle.
As I mentioned earlier, it's hard to really give rail travel a fair shake when you're looking at one route isolation and giving massive subsidies to air and auto travel. A major part of travel is having connectivity.
Something can be self-sustaining and be perfectly viable. A "profit" isn't a hard requirement for success, particularly when it comes to critical infrastructure elements like core transportation networks.
Did the Interstate System make a profit? I suspect not, but the country has derived benefit from the results of that effort for well over 50 years.
Exactly. All you hear in GA is all this making profit rubbish when it comes to any infrastructure that will benefit the region. In the mean time other states are leaving us in the dust. This mentality will long term doom GA to be considered a backward state with business and skilled workers passing us by.
I completely agree that we need to make smart investments but trying to test them in terms of short term profitability is a losing game. We're already behind some of our peer states and if we allow this window to close without taking action we will be squandering the advantages we built up in the last century.
Does that matter? Are we in a train "arms race"? If it becomes economically viable, that's when you build.
We're in a science and technology arms race. This nation has placed less and less priority on keeping up with the front of the pack, choosing instead to gut expenditures on necessary services such as education and infrastructure. Seriously, I can't even believe than in the year 2012, we're having this debate. I can't believe than in an age of rising gas prices, rising global temperatures (anybody checked those out lately?), and increased global competition and connectivity, we wouldn't be looking to stay ahead of the curve. And for what? Because "it's not profitable."
Quote:
You pay a gas tax and other fees.
Taxes? That sounds like Big Government subsidies!
Quote:
Uh...somehow we have to generate wealth to pay for it. Why should we add a money losing passenger rail system? What problem is that solving?
Jesus, let this strawman die already. You make it sound like the guv'mint trains are hauling away money and dumping them in some sooper seekrit hole. Newsflash: Public agencies are not designed to turn a profit, nor should they be expected to.
Quote:
Taking the train is expensive. It's not a cheap form a passenger travel. The train trip took six hours from Atlanta to Savannah and you still have all that waiting and you still need that rental car.
What train? And who said it should be super-cheap? You were the one who suggested ATL-to-Savannah flights; you know how expensive it is to fly an airplane?
Quote:
Train travel is not our economic savior, otherwise CSX and Norfolk Southern would be adding that service.
Then please explain why Warren Buffett made a HUGE investment in rail recently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathmanMathman
Fine, pitch your idea to Norfolk Southern and CSX. I'm sure they'd like another profitable venture that integrates into their present business. Other than Amtrak, who better to provide the service?
Strawman. Let it die, OK? Please take off your rose-colored glasses, and you will see that there is more to this than just profit.
How come no one on the "pro Sav-Atl" rail side is willing to even try to put together some sort of projections?
I put some together and will share what I have once someone shows their projection. The cost or operations, maintenance and initial investment are not pretty. No wonder no one will share their rough estimates.
Do we even owe these to you? We could give you the most accurate cost-benefit analysis possible, and you would simply rant about how it's not profitable and is just more "Big Government." I know this game, corndog. Improved infrastructure has degraded into a level of political discourse that I didn't think was possible, and it spills over into discussions such as these.
Now if someone wants to talk about what routes would be better than others, what services the trains should provide, how to acquire any new right-of-way, and details such as that, by all means that's fair game for debate. So is whether to have trains in the first place--IF you can come up with a rational argument that doesn't add up to "It doesn't turn a profit." Our roads turn a 0% profit, for goodness' sake.
Do we even owe these to you? We could give you the most accurate cost-benefit analysis possible, and you would simply rant about how it's not profitable and is just more "Big Government." I know this game, corndog. Improved infrastructure has degraded into a level of political discourse that I didn't think was possible, and it spills over into discussions such as these.
Now if someone wants to talk about what routes would be better than others, what services the trains should provide, how to acquire any new right-of-way, and details such as that, by all means that's fair game for debate. So is whether to have trains in the first place--IF you can come up with a rational argument that doesn't add up to "It doesn't turn a profit." Our roads turn a 0% profit, for goodness' sake.
If someone is making a proposal that they think is valid and is going to kick and scream like a little kid about how we need to spend tax money for a train to Savannah, then I would say you should provide some projections that prove the project is valid.
Are you advocating HSR or regular rail? I'll assume regular rail because the cost of HSR would be astronomical and absurd for a route to a city the size of Savannah. If regular rail, why? Buses already run that route for $54 round trip in 4.5 hours. Is the rail going to be cheaper? Heck no. Is it going to be faster, not likely. I can drive to Savannah from Atlanta in 3.5 hours for about $30 in gas and have the flexibility of having my own transportation to get around that city. Heck, you could fly too. There are multiple options already available, why spend money on a rail route that obviously is not feasible. What is the benefit of having conventional rail service to Savannah and what need does it meet that isn't already currently available? It is not faster, it is not cheaper, what is the unique benefit that rail provides?
Also, it isn't the fact that it won't turn a profit. If it is close to breaking even, it would be a project worth considering. However... it would leak money like the rest of the rail routes in the US. Our roads don't turn a profit, but they move massive amounts of people and are funded primarily through a consumption tax on them (gas tax). They are an economic engine that move not just commuters and travelers, but also key components of the goods and services that drive our economy. A passenger rail line does not add to the freight infrastructure in the same way as expanding a highway.
How much money would be spent to upgrade/build the rail line facilities? $50 million? $100 million? $200 million? The bond payment on a $100 million investment would be in the $6 million per year range.
Amtrak loses about $32 per rider. Using the optimistic ridership projection of 1,000 riders per day, the route would lose about $12 million per year. People in this thread are talking about losing a technological edge to China because we don't have trains (which is absurd, but I digress). What is the true cost of this investment? It isn't just the money wasted, but it is also the opportunity cost of that money. Why not use that $18 million a year instead in research or education spending. Heck, $18 million a year would fund close to 450 additional teachers for our schools. Or it could be used to give full tuition scholarships for about 1,000 college students interested in studying science and technology subjects at GT and UGA. Which would have a bigger long term impact? 1,000 extra college students studying math and science subjects or a train plodding to Savannah at 60 mph when cheaper and faster alternatives already exist. Hmmm...
how about reducing useless wars and educating our students in maths and science????dont link education with transportation. They are entirely different fields. trains transport people without dependent on expensive fuel. not everyone drives or want to drive or afford rental car etc. cant you inderstand this simple logic?????trains will give a boost to economy of the region by moving more people from one place to other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtcorndog
If someone is making a proposal that they think is valid and is going to kick and scream like a little kid about how we need to spend tax money for a train to Savannah, then I would say you should provide some projections that prove the project is valid.
Are you advocating HSR or regular rail? I'll assume regular rail because the cost of HSR would be astronomical and absurd for a route to a city the size of Savannah. If regular rail, why? Buses already run that route for $54 round trip in 4.5 hours. Is the rail going to be cheaper? Heck no. Is it going to be faster, not likely. I can drive to Savannah from Atlanta in 3.5 hours for about $30 in gas and have the flexibility of having my own transportation to get around that city. Heck, you could fly too. There are multiple options already available, why spend money on a rail route that obviously is not feasible. What is the benefit of having conventional rail service to Savannah and what need does it meet that isn't already currently available? It is not faster, it is not cheaper, what is the unique benefit that rail provides?
Also, it isn't the fact that it won't turn a profit. If it is close to breaking even, it would be a project worth considering. However... it would leak money like the rest of the rail routes in the US. Our roads don't turn a profit, but they move massive amounts of people and are funded primarily through a consumption tax on them (gas tax). They are an economic engine that move not just commuters and travelers, but also key components of the goods and services that drive our economy. A passenger rail line does not add to the freight infrastructure in the same way as expanding a highway.
How much money would be spent to upgrade/build the rail line facilities? $50 million? $100 million? $200 million? The bond payment on a $100 million investment would be in the $6 million per year range.
Amtrak loses about $32 per rider. Using the optimistic ridership projection of 1,000 riders per day, the route would lose about $12 million per year. People in this thread are talking about losing a technological edge to China because we don't have trains (which is absurd, but I digress). What is the true cost of this investment? It isn't just the money wasted, but it is also the opportunity cost of that money. Why not use that $18 million a year instead in research or education spending. Heck, $18 million a year would fund close to 450 additional teachers for our schools. Or it could be used to give full tuition scholarships for about 1,000 college students interested in studying science and technology subjects at GT and UGA. Which would have a bigger long term impact? 1,000 extra college students studying math and science subjects or a train plodding to Savannah at 60 mph when cheaper and faster alternatives already exist. Hmmm...
Uh ... No GTCORNDOG -- Savannah did indeed draw nearly 12 million people last year. That number you cite is very, very old. Even the Orlando and Atlanta numbers are old and inaccurate.
But i refuse to discuss this with anyone disrespectful enough to call me (or anybody else) "BOY." Guess I'll just block you again.
According to them, it is 6 million overnight and 5 million for a day. It's a very short stay vacation spot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
