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.
And the massive amount of money to build this great rail system will come from where? How many people will actually use it?
Ironically, people like you would've killed the interstate highway system. The reason why transit in the United States (Amtrak and others) is underutilized is because it has been woefully underfunded. You can't expect a first-class rail system with third-world funding.
Ironically, people like you would've killed the interstate highway system. The reason why transit in the United States (Amtrak and others) is underutilized is because it has been woefully underfunded. You can't expect a first-class rail system with third-world funding.
Amtrak is underutilized because no one rides it. Try again.
Location: Mableton, GA USA (NW Atlanta suburb, 4 miles OTP)
11,335 posts, read 25,608,089 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaflsc
Amtrak is underutilized because no one rides it. Try again.
It also doesn't cover the US very extensively, the train takes forever when compared to air travel (even including the wait at the airport), and train tickets are most expensive than air tickets.
Hard to compete when the product costs more and provides inferior service to most markets.
Ironically, people like you would've killed the interstate highway system. The reason why transit in the United States (Amtrak and others) is underutilized is because it has been woefully underfunded. You can't expect a first-class rail system with third-world funding.
People like me? Nice.
First of all, the reason no one rides Amtrak outside of the northeast is because it cannot compete in service or price with airlines. Second, who says that an inter-city rail service should be "funded" by the government? If long distance high speed rail is such a great idea that's in demand and will provide such a needed service, then why hasn't it been built? Why hasn't some group of investors already provided the capital and invested in this great service that everyone needs and wants? People who want to make money have the money to build it.
The airlines aren't funded and they can turn a profit by providing a service that people need. Even when oil spiked to $140+ last summer, well run airlines like Southwest could still make money and didn't need to be "funded" by the government.
The problem with "people like you" is that you think it's the government's place to use taxpayer money to fund every pet politically correct project that comes down the pike, just because it makes you feel better about yourself. You don't care whether it would actually work and payback an ROI. You just think it sounds "environmental" so it must be good.
In Europe and in places like the northeast US where short distances and high density are the rule, high speed rail makes a lot of sense. It's worked in the northeast for years, despite the terrible management of Amtrak. For the other more vast distancess and lower densities, it hasn't worked since the 1940s, and that's part of the reason why passenger rail lost favor in the first place. The high capacity jet airplane does a much better job under those circumstances.
jetgraphics...I've ridden the TGV, the German equivalent, Brit Rail 125s, etc. It might also surprise you to know that I'm a member of the ERA and the NRHS (you'll know what they are), and I used to volunteer at Branford and Seashore, and some of my close friends have been or are now senior management at APTA, the CTA in Chicago, and the NYCTA in NY (send me a PM if you want to discuss details). I understand transit and railroads very, very well, but I'm realistic as to the limits and context of intercity rail in the US.
There is a huge difference between traveling between Paris and Brussels and between Atlanta and Savannah. You just cannot compare US domestic travel with European travel. The two are apples and oranges.
I haven't read through the entire thread but I couldn't agree with you more. As much as I support rail within the regional context, I think this idea of trying to copy Europe and Japan with intercity rail is pure folly for many of the reasons you've already mentioned.
Amtrak is underutilized because no one rides it. Try again.
What do you think my point was.No one utilizes it because it's massively underfunded. Before the gigantic government subsidized interstate highway program, trains were the preferred mode of travel, not cars. If you argue that trains were outdated with automobiles being the wave of the future, then I would argue that high speed rail now holds that position.
What do you think my point was.No one utilizes it because it's massively underfunded. Before the gigantic government subsidized interstate highway program, trains were the preferred mode of travel, not cars. If you argue that trains were outdated with automobiles being the wave of the future, then I would argue that high speed rail now holds that position.
So if it's funded, more people will use it? I don't see the correlation here.
Throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it. Look at our public schools for evidence of that.
It also doesn't cover the US very extensively, the train takes forever when compared to air travel (even including the wait at the airport), and train tickets are most expensive than air tickets.
Hard to compete when the product costs more and provides inferior service to most markets.
Train service is inferior to air service? What kind of phantom airline do you use?
The push for high speed rail is to offer an alternative as well as a supplement to air and auto travel (Crowded airports and traffic congestion), not to replace them.
High speed trains can't compete with air service everywhere, however their are many corridors where they make perfect sense; Boston - New York - Washington D.C. - Philadelphia ----The Texas triangle----Southern California----South Florida. Noone is proposing a cross-country high speed passenger rail system like what exist in France or Japan but rather regional corridors.
First of all, the reason no one rides Amtrak outside of the northeast is because it cannot compete in service or price with airlines. Second, who says that an inter-city rail service should be "funded" by the government? If long distance high speed rail is such a great idea that's in demand and will provide such a needed service, then why hasn't it been built? Why hasn't some group of investors already provided the capital and invested in this great service that everyone needs and wants? People who want to make money have the money to build it.
The airlines aren't funded and they can turn a profit by providing a service that people need. Even when oil spiked to $140+ last summer, well run airlines like Southwest could still make money and didn't need to be "funded" by the government.
The problem with "people like you" is that you think it's the government's place to use taxpayer money to fund every pet politically correct project that comes down the pike, just because it makes you feel better about yourself. You don't care whether it would actually work and payback an ROI. You just think it sounds "environmental" so it must be good.
In Europe and in places like the northeast US where short distances and high density are the rule, high speed rail makes a lot of sense. It's worked in the northeast for years, despite the terrible management of Amtrak. For the other more vast distancess and lower densities, it hasn't worked since the 1940s, and that's part of the reason why passenger rail lost favor in the first place. The high capacity jet airplane does a much better job under those circumstances.
I wasn't trying to insult you. If that's what you took from that, then I apologize.
Auto travel is the most popular form of transportation in America yet the Department of Transportation spent $32,300,000,000 just in 2002 for highway construction. That didn't include maintenance. Furthermore, air travel cost the taxpayer 14,000,000,000 in 2002 and just think how much has been spent over the years for the construction of airports. Now let us scale back those subsidies to the paltry amount that amtrak received that year ($521,000,000). You think your train cost alot and had poor service/maintenance !? Airliners can charge "so little" because the government built/maintains the airports and runs the air traffic control system to an extensive degree. The same can't be said for the passenger rail service of course which must contend with receiving less than 10% (Amtrak less than 1%) of the DOTD's annual funding.
I noticed that you mention the ONLY profitable U.S. airline carrier. Nice try. I could just as easily point to Amtrak's northeast corridor and say that because it's so successful, all of Amtrak is but that would be deceitful, right?
Your third paragraph is utter nonsense. That describes the interstate highway system, NASA, the national park service to name just a few. I guess we could have done without creating those "pet politically correct projects" as well, right? Secondly, the environmental impact would simply be a benefit and has never been a driving force.
In your last paragraph, you're actually echoing EXACTLY what is the consensus among "people like me." No one is calling for a connected rail network connecting every two-bit town in the nation nor large cities thousands of miles apart but rather regional hubs where it could make a profit such as the California, Pacific Northwest, Gulf Coast, and Florida corridors. In the same way airlines only connect to cities where they can turn a profit, high speed rail would only exist where it could be successful.
Last edited by Greenestgrass; 05-03-2009 at 06:48 PM..
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.
