Why don't we have a sensible train system in this country?

[jpgray]

Maybe I don't need to ask. Bush's Chief of Staff is a former auto lobbyist, isn't he?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. In a word, oil.

Also you can't convience Americans to give up their cars no matter how cheap and effient a trani system might be. Nor can you convience them to take the rain when they can drive faster.

Besides...trains are so "Old Europe". Please, quit being so gauche.

[Atlant]

7. You can't even convince them when they can drive slower!

> Nor can you convience them to take the rain when they can drive faster.

You can't even convince them when they can drive slower! They'd
still rather sit, stopped in their cars, sitting all alone in traffic.

Americans are either incredibly self-centered, morons, or both.

Atlant

[DarkPhenyx]

10. More actually.

"Americans are either incredibly self-centered, morons, or both"

You also forgot arogant, egotistical, agressive...

But tehy are also comapssionate, giving, and many other things. As with everyone Americans are good and bad in a single package.

In this case, on this issue, it is mostly bad though. I freely admit taht I am part of it too though.

[pnb]

20. Or perhaps you're self centered

For not realizing that people drive for many different reasons and that your judgment on those reasons is way off.

[Atlant]

28. People drive because...

People drive because, when they consider just their own little
world, it's easier.

If they considered the systemic effects of their choosing to drive in
terms of pollution, energy waste, the waste of planetary resources
(steel, copper, aluminum, water, oil, etc.), the waste of real estate
(for roads, parking lots, and junkyards), the actual expense of the
car they drive (when all factors including hidden subsidies are taken
into account), the death rates caused by their driving (including
deaths due to pollution and resource depletion), etc., they'd never
choose to drive. But we conveniently hide most of these ugly details
from people so they, naively, decide to drive.

Atlant

[pnb]

75. People would still choose to drive...

Most won't give a damn about the things you mention or simply see them as they price to pay for convenience.

[Atlant]

76. Until the air or the oil or the steel runs out...

> Most won't give a damn about the things you mention or simply see
> them as they price to pay for convenience.

I understand this; it's the "American" way. Short-sighted,
me-firstish, childish.

But their understanding will be deepened when the air or the oil or
<whatever> runs out. At that point, they will suddenly give a damn
and wonder why "no one told them!" of the impending disaster.

Atlant

[spinbaby]

24. I think you're wrong

Give Americans decent train service and they'll use it. Give us train service with weird hours and no parking and we won't use it.

The lack of decent train service in this country is one of my pet peaves. I've TRIED to take trains to get places. I'd LOVE to take a train. From Pittsburgh to Toronto by train leaves at something like 3:00 am and it takes 24 hours to get there by way of Michigan. From Pittsburgh to Florida also leaves at something like 4:00 am and requires an 8-hour layover in a DC train station. Plus, there's nowhere to leave your car if you take the train--no long-term parking like at an airport. It's no freakin wonder no one takes the train--it's darn near impossible even if you want to.

What gets me is that we USED to have decent train service. I live in rural PA, and right behind my house is an old railroad right of way. You used to be able to catch a narrow-gauge train from near my house into Washington, PA. From there you could go anywhere in the country by train. I think it stopped running sometime in the 1920s.

[ForrestGump]

58. Yep, oil

Never mind that trains are more cost-efficient than fleets of semis, when done right. The big oil companies and GM don't like trains.

[Richardo]

73. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956.

Created the infrastructure to support car- and truck-based economy.

[Brian Sweat]

74. You couldn't be more wrong

In 2000 the voters in Florida ratified an amendment to the state constitution that would force the state government to build a high speed rail system linking the five largest urban centers in the state. The amendment passed by a significant margin.

Jeb Bush is oppposed to this amendment and has urged the legislature to put an amendment on the ballot in 2004 to repeal the original amendment.

Also, America does have a very good rail system in the Northeast Corridor. The reason, is because rail works there. Rail works in the Northeast because there are a number of cities (Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York and Boston) that are fairly close to each other that have excellant mass transit. That is what you need to make long distance rail work. You need cities that are close together with good mass transit. We do not have that anywhere else in the country and that is why we do not have good rail systems in the rest of the country.

A person living in Washington DC can take the metro to Union Station, take Amtrak to New York city and then take the Subway to just about anywhere they want to go in New York. It would cost a little more than driving, but you don't have to deal with the traffic, so hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of people do just this every year.

I live in Jacksonville Florida. We don't really have mass transit in Jacksonville. There is a Skyway downtown, but it is a joke. We do have buses, but Jacksonville is a monument to urban sprawl. This makes the bus system pretty useless because you have to walk several miles to get a bus stop. If I wanted to take the train to Orlando, I would have to drive to the station and leave my car in the parking lot. Once I get to Orlando, I would have to rent a car to get around, because Orlando is just as spread out as Jacksonville.

Instead, I could drive my car to Orlando. It would be cheaper and faster and much more convenient. This is why I voted against the High Speed Rail amendment. The layout of Florida's cities is not conducive to rail travel and a high speed rail system in Florida will be a huge waste of money.

[priller]

2. They tried to build a "bullet train" in Texas

to connect Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. I thought it was a terrific idea. I would much rather hop on a train than go through all the airport hassle for those short trips. Probably 80-90% of the airline traffic out of Austin goes to Dallas or Houston, and therein lies the problem. The airlines, particularly Southwest, worked very hard to kill the effort. And they succeeded.

To answer your question, then, I would say one problem is "too many vested interests". And it didn't start with Dubya, this has been the problem for a long time.

[Maine Mary]

3. I don't know but I wish we ANY train service up my way

Passenger trains used to only go as far as Boston up until 2 years ago. We FINALLY have them coming as far as Portland, Me but that is still about 120 miles south of me. :-(

I'd blame Bush's Chief of Staff but the situation has been like this for years. I guess they don't think my State is profitable enough? :shrug:

[Atlant]

5. And just to make sure they're not "too convenient"...

> Passenger trains used to only go as far as Boston up until 2 years
> ago. We FINALLY have them coming as far as Portland, Me but
> that is still about 120 miles south of me. :-(

And just to make sure they're not "too convenient", we provide that
handy little two-or-so-mile gap between the tracks of the "Northeast
Corridor" and the tracks that the Downeaster runs on. And the
Northeast Corridor's nicely electrified whereas the tracks north
of Boston aren't.

The end result is you get to waste an hour or so and two subway
rides trying to get from Boston South Station to Boston North
Station to continue your journey. It's a shame they didn't build the
North-South Rail Link along with the $14.7B Big Dig, ehh?

Atlant

[Maine Mary]

15. Yup. Very aggravating

I was going to take a train to Philly awhile back. Had the tickets and everything until I discovered it'd only be 30 bucks more for a 2 hour flight. It definately seemed worth the extra money especially considering that connecting mess in Boston.

[KamaAina]

46. Try the Orange Line T from North Sta. to Back Bay/South End

the latter has a walkway to Amtrak's Back Bay Station (just down the line from So. Sta.).

There! You have now wasted only 40 minutes and a single subway ride making the connection, plus you only have to worry that all the seats will be taken by college kids if you're riding one of the nonreserved trains. </sarcasm>

[Atlant]

62. Yes, but you had to wait...

> There! You have now wasted only 40 minutes and a single subway ride
> making the connection, ...

Yes, but you had to wait for the THIRD Orange Line train before
there was one where, by taking a running start from the platform, you
could body-slam enough people back from the doors to actually fit
yourself onto the train. Well, "almost fit". The doors then tried to
close on you butt several times before you actually got it safely
tucked inside the train.

But your luggage is still on the platform. Oopsy.

Atlant

(Occasionally seen on the Orange line
from Wellington to NEMC or vice-versa)

[Spentastic]

4. Because

Motor companies bought and destroyed their competition. They were fined a dollar for this egregious assault.

[artfan]

6. becasue

after WWII the gov needed to put money into transportation and they decided that a highway system made more sense. The 2 biggest reasons were that they wanted to stimulate the auto industry and that highways could be used as runways in the event of war.(that is why there are long streaches of highway that are very straight every so often)

[Kellanved]

8. hmm

A 50 year old rail-system wouldn't be any good for modern high-speed trains.

[artfan]

11. it

sure we could start from scratch but the decision to go with a highway system made America into a 'car' country. Automobiles are deeply ingrained into our culture and it would be very difficult to overcome. For generations cars have been a sign of freedom/independance/youth etc. It would be very difficult to change thngs now.


I love the idea a rail travel but think we may be better off starting in cities. Bring back trollys and have parking areas outside major areas of activity and use public transportation to bring people from the parking areas into the city. Then a local rail service should be established to bring commuters to the same type of drop off point. The specifics are not as important as the fact that Americans need to be weaned from automobiles.

[OldSoldier]

9. No transportation system that moves passengers makes money

None of them do, so don't argue this. Their profits come from freight.

You run a passenger system either as a public service or as a glamorous face to your profitable freight system. FedEx is one of America's largest airlines. It is profitable because it has no passenger system, just freight. United Airlines has a passenger service...and they've been in and out of bankruptcy how many hundreds of times?

Similarly, CSX is profitable because they only move freight.

Freight doesn't eat. Freight doesn't need an in-flight magazine or a pillow. Freight needs to show up on time in an undamaged condition.

The problem Amtrak has is that, as a quasigovernmental body, it can't compete with the private sector...so it can't haul freight. If it can't haul freight it can't make a profit, so it's running as a public service--but the GOP demands it be profitable if it wants to continue to exist.

Reality demands one of two paths, since a good train system is something America needs. The first and most logical is to assume that running Amtrak as a serious transportation option is cheaper than illegal oil wars and maintain it as a public service, expanded and modernized of course. The other is to allow Amtrak to enter the freight business.

[Kellanved]

12. not quite

Japans public rail system makes a profit. And the German train-service makes money with passangers; cargo is running a deficit.
I don't know about the French system, but AFAIR it's the same there.

It depends, whatever the state or the company owns the rails.

[ShimokitaJer]

17. Japan has ultra-high volume

The train systems there are so widespread and so widely used that the insanely high number of riders on trains in the cities makes up for fewer riders in rural areas. Also, owning a car in Japan is very expensive (high annual auto taxes, high garage fees in cities, high gas prices, almost all highways are toll roads) so trains are comparatively cheap.

The real problem in America is not that passenger trains are too expensive, but that automobile travel is artificially cheap. Somehow Americans have a negative view of government funds for building and maintaining train tracks whereas doing so for highways is considered natural and essential. Gas prices are the cheapest in the world and the auto lobby shifts nearly all the infrastructure costs to the government and keeps subsidies to auto manufacturers coming. And somehow industrial jobs making more cars in factories look more real to politicians than jobs keeping trains running.

I think few realize the real costs to taxpayers of maintaining this "car culture" that supposedly defines America.

[Richardo]

72. Plus freight is HEAVY and there's LOTS of it....

Weight+distance+loaded cars=profit.

Richard <--- former railroad ape.

[GOPisEvil]

13. Short answer? The cost vs. time.

I think only regional trains would have any chance at long-term success. National train travel would never succeed on any large scale because airplanes move people faster and cheaper.

[ShimokitaJer]

18. But it's the regional travel by car that needs to be replaced

Airplanes move people from coast to coast faster and cheaper, but most travel we use cars for isn't that long.

I used to live near Detroit, and it was a four-hour drive to Chicago. A train ticket between the two cities was far cheaper and more efficient than a plane ticket, especially if you factor in the time getting to and waiting in the airports, parking, etc.

Driving of course seemed cheaper than the train, both because of the price of gas and because I didn't see the cost of buying and regularly maintaining my car, paying taxes for highways, etc. as part of the price of that trip.

We don't need trains to replace all other kinds of transportation, but to be used efficiently in conjunction with them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. The problem

Yes, trains get you from city to city, but then you need transportation from there. Cars get you point to point, not NEAR your destination. Only a few major cities have really good mass transit and even that doesn't stretch far into the suburbs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. We don't have one

And building one in the crowded areas of the U.S. would be almost impossible. The existing lines are all mostly devoted to freight so we'd need new passenger lines and there is no place to put them.

We have a hard time building one highway in the East right now. Imagine building a whole rail network.

[MassDem4Life]

16. Because the majority

of people would rather drive than ride the train.

It has been tried, but even in the northeast corridor(Boston, NYC, Washington) they can not make a profit. AMTrACK loses billions a year, all of it taxpayer money.

Add to that the fact that it takes 4 hours to get from Boston to NYC on the (high speed Acela) train, and you can drive it in 3.5 hours.

[JanMichael]

21. That's the problem...People assume that they MUST be profitable.

Another poster suggested that no mass transit system, that doesn't also transport goods, turns a profit. Yes, there may ba a couple, but generally speaking I'd say that's a good theory.

So we then have to decide what's best for us as a Society and bite the bullet and accept that subsidising something positive is OK.

[Atlant]

23. But "What's good for GM is good for America!", no? (NT)

[MassDem4Life]

53. What do you mean?

And what does that comment have to do with my response?

[Atlant]

63. I guess you're too young to remember that line...

> What do you mean? And what does that comment have to do with my response?

I guess you're too young to remember that line. :-)

In any case, my response was to JanMichael, not you, but if you're
wondering what I was talking about, see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=102809&mesg_id=102809#103008

where The Loan Liberal explains it.

Atlant

[mainer]

29. Well, yeah!

The wonderful train systems in Europe are all subsidized, because the governments there realize that good, efficient mass transportation benefits businesses as well as private citizens. It's as vital as schools, fire departments, and air traffic control. No one expects it to turn a profit, just as fire departments don't turn a profit.

After 9/11, I was stranded in Seattle for nearly a week because of the airport shut-downs. I couldn't get a rental car, the buses were full, and there was no way to get a train home to Maine. The country came to a standstill. It was obvious how completely dependent this country is on air travel -- without it, we can't function as a nation.

In England, they attempted an experiment with their rail system, turning it over to private enterprise. The result was a disaster -- poor service, train wrecks, and loss of life. Now the Brits are returning to a nationalized system because they realize that vital public services CANNOT be trusted to the private sector.

[MassDem4Life]

54. only part right I am afraid

one reason trains are more practical in Europe than flight is the short distances.

England is only 800 miles from top to bottom.

I lived there for 4.5 years.

British rail is great, as long as you can wait, and dont have to be there quickly.

The trains do not run on time, And all trains run into and out of london. that is the hub.

So if you need to go from Banbury, Oxon to Northampton, a distance of about 60 miles driving, it will take you, 3 hous by train. you have to go into london and back out again on the Northants line.

[MassDem4Life]

52. But we HAVE BEEN doing that for twenty five years...

and what do we have to show for it?

The fact is that the vast majority of Americans dont want to ride it, if they wont ride it, they dont wish to pay for it. simple.

Even where there Is some demand, such as the northeast corridor, there isnt enough demand between cities to make it a priority.

I would use the Amtrack to NYC, if they could get me there faster than I can drive it but they dont seem to be able to do that.

And this is supposed to be the High-Speed train. Yeah Right!

[JanMichael]

64. "Vast Majority"? No, no, no.

Sorry but you are seriously mistaken.

http://www.apta.com/media/releases/wirthlin.cfm

"Public transportation remains a favorite of Americans and a plurality link increased investment in public transportation to enhanced quality of life. Fully, four-in-five (81%) agree that increased public investment in public transportation would strengthen the economy, create jobs, reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, and save energy. Recognition of public transportation quality of life benefits is consistent across locales.

"Almost three-quarters (72 %) support the use of public funds for the expansion and improvement of public transportation.

"A majority of the population expresses support for candidates supporting public transportation and 64% said they would be more likely to support a candidate for Congress who supports improving public transportation options."

Isn't it funny how if you listen to the nightly news they don't mention stuff like this?

[SharonAnn]

60. We subsidize highways and airports and airlines

why not trains?

[Atlant]

22. You're shaving the truth here.

I happen to have a Northeast Corridor schedule sitting right in
front of me. Most Acela Express trains run from Boston to Penn
Station, NYC in exactly or just under 3.5 hours, same as your
proposed number for a car trip. (Week-end trains seem to take 3:42.)

And 3.5 hours for a car is pretty much "Best Case". There had
better not be any traffic in Boston, Hartford, or NYC. Nor ac-
cidents or construction on the Merritt Parkway.

Atlant

[MassDem4Life]

55. Try riding it.

they dont do it in 3.5 hours

[Atlant]

67. Actually...

> Try riding it. they dont do it in 3.5 hours

Actually, I've spent my life travelling the Northeast Corridor between
Philly and Boston. And for a while, my son was commuting between my
house and my ex's. So I have a lttle experience in this area. :-)

No transportation method is 100% reliable and on-time across the NEC.
But Amtrak usually does it pretty reliably. (By comparison, USAir,
the monopolist on the route, offers absolutely attrocious on-time
performance and doesn't give a shit about it; after all, in their
eyes, what choice do you have?) Driving would be my second choice for
on-time performance, although only if I was bypassing the NYC metro
area or we were way out of peak hours.

Lately, my favorite method of getting from NH to NYC is to drive to
New Haven and take the Metro North railroad from there. It's not a
huge amount more driving than driving to Boston or Route 128 station
(2-1/2 hours vs. 1-1/2 hours) and it's a lot less expensive than
Amtrak. And Metro North's on-time performance seems to be very good
with clean, comfortable (albeit "commuter") trains.

Atlant

[Throckmorton]

69. Unless you change peoples basic thought process,

intercity trains in the USA just aren't going to make sense.

While what you are saying about automobile traffic between Boston and NYC is true, it is not all roses for train traffic either. Just take a look at the on-time record for trains traveling the same route. They do make the trip in 3 and a Half hours (230 miles), as long as no turn 20th century draw bridges are stuck open, no power or signal failures have occurred, no accidents or stalled freight trains block the tracks, et al.

The NEC is the one of only a few portions of the rail system that makes sense. The USA is not Europe or Japan, Germany for instance has nearly twice the population density of the Northeastern United States (including New Jersey, New York, and the New England states). Why does rail work there, simple, you can get there from here. When you consider that almost 1/3 of the land area of the northeast is in the State of Maine (population density of 42 people per square mile) its little wonder that passenger railroads are doomed.

Railroads in the USA are successful only where they make sense, the NEC, greater Chicago, and some areas of California (in those areas, bad public policy has hurt their success). Some other areas of the USA are reaching the densities required for commuter rail to make sense, but intercity travel by train just doesn’t meet most peoples needs.

[Atlant]

70. Hence my point in this reply, where I said...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=102809&mesg_id=107116&page=

> I guess the theory is that if Manhattan, Kansas can't get a train,
> then Manhattan, NY doesn't get one either. (I wonder how many crop
> subsidies New Yorkers get?)

If we had a sensible transportation policy, we'd build a
transportation network that used intermodal transportation
to optimize travel across a wide variety of distances.

High-Speed electric passenger trains would be the obvious choice
for the densely-populated NEC and the Pacific Rim, at least
between San Diego and San Francisco.

Atlant

[bowens43]

25. Oil interests

[wontmoveon]

26. I started a rant about this when Jimmy Carter was in office:Oil companies!

If we had started in the 70's to build up our rail infrastructure just think where we might
be today!! With all the billions going into fighting ME wars and pumping billions into the ME
to bribe people and to sustain Israel, bribe Egypt, and support dictators around the world
...just think what all that money could have done for our own country.

The plain truth is that we have too many special oil and gas interests and these people are
powerful, treacherous, and control the military. Period!

[The Lone Liberal]

27. You must think back to when "GM" ran the country.

When during the 50s the CEO of GM said, "What's good for GM is good for the USA." he was not kidding. GM owned and ran this country, so along with the oil, tire companies, road contactors and all those who lead us into a world dominated by the car is the reason that we do not have a rail system or a rapid transit system.

[spinbaby]

33. GM destroyed a lot of public transportation

Do a quick google and you can find all manner of links about how GM systematically bought and destroyed trolley systems.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=general+motors+trolleys

"In 1922 only one American family in 10 owned an auto. Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., GM's president, decided to change this. With friends at Firestone Rubber, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum and Mack Truck, Sloan began secretly, first to buy up and then destroy the rail systems in America's cities. To hide his campaign from the public eye, he hired an unknown, E. Roy Fitzgerald, as a figurehead, advertising him as an entrepreneur from the sticks. They formed a company, National City Lines, and quickly purchased Yellow Bus, America's largest diesel bus builder, and Omnibus, a bus-operating company.

"National City Lines, headed by Fitzgerald, but privately funded by a consortium organized by Sloan and friends began buying up the rail systems in America's cities, one by one. Their approach was simple: using political know-how and money to influence city councils, while they paid Madison Avenue to tell the country "the trend was away from rail," they systematically destroyed America's clean, electric rail systems, replacing them with their polluting diesel buses. By 1941, National City Lines owned the transportation system in over 83 American cities across the country."

http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Because W is too busy blowing a billion a week

in Iraq.

If we spent that billion a week rebuilding the US instead of Iraq, we could have any god damn thing we wished.

If we really wanted to end our dependence on foreign oil and fight terrorism, a viable national train system should be a top priority.

[Aaron]

31. IIRC in Portland, Oregon GM killed the city train system

Someone correct me here if I'm wrong - this is all a little rought in my memory. We have tracks, that poke through the streets sometimes, all over the greater downtown area. Many many years ago we had trains on them. IIRC, GM bought the train company and started running busses instead to kill the trains so they could sell busses or so trains wouldn't compete with busses or something like that. The tracks were paved over, but sometimes still poke through if the pavement over them wears down. Meanwhile now we are spending tons of money to add rail transit to the downtown area and lay new track - rather than having the old track and trains we'd have had if GM hadn't schemed to do away with our urban rail system.

[Atlant]

34. It happened in cities all over the country.

LA may be the most famous example. It's even referenced in
the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" where it forms one of
the sub-plots.

Atlant

[samsingh]

32. the car and oil lobby

everything in the country is determined by the power of the lobby.

Smoking is legal, but pot is not.
You can own a gun but not certain types of knives.

[jobendorfer]

35. there are other difficulties, too

Europe has some advantages over the U.S. in terms of planning
rail transport. First, there's simply a difference of scale.
The distance between Los Angeles and Seattle is about 1200
miles (roughly). It's 2000ish miles from the West Coast to
Chicago. Even at 150mph, you're looking at lengthy travel.
By way of contrast -- Marseille to Paris, 300 miles. Naples
to Milan, maybe 400 miles (I don't have a map handy).

The second advantage is the density of their cities. Athens
has a population of 4.x million, roughly comparable to the
population of Seattle. But the geographic "footprint" of
Athens is perhaps 500 square miles; the footprint of the
Seattle conurbanation starts at the 100 mile mark on I-5
and is a corridor 20+ miles wide for over 120 miles (until
you get north of Everett). It's a lot easier to build an
urban transit network in a 500 square mile space than a
~3000 square mile space.

I don't think you can separate urban planning, growth
management, and mass transit.

J.

[Mountainman]

36. Passenger rail service has always been a losing proposition

The only time railroads made money hauling passengers is when they had a government contract to haul the mail. They had railway post offices where postal employees sorted the mail enroute and dropped it off and picked it up at each town they went through. They didn't even have to stop to pick up the mail. It was hung on a pole and the train picked it up while going by.

The mail contract was given to the airlines in the 50's and that took away any profit the railroads made in the passenger service. Also the interstate highway system was built and this competed with rail travel. Since then the railroads have discouraged passengers from riding trains by being inconvenient and by not improving the equipment. The railroads were all mostly bankrupt in the 60's 70's and 80' and did not repair the tracks so trains had to go slow so as not to derail. The government subsidises went to airlines and to build airports. The railroads could not compete with air travel.
Amtrak was formed to solve the problem but only the New York to Washingpassenger trains kept losing money.

People won't ride them and they have to be subsidized so it is not a profitable thing in this country.

[TheBigGuy]

43. I dont know if I agree with that.

Back in the 1930s and 1940s the railroads introduced streamliners to attract and and keep passengers, as well as improving travel times between citys.

Alot of this depended on the railroad, too....

[Throckmorton]

71. and then air travel killed them in the late 40's.

I have an Idea, lets bring back the Boston to New York Steam Ships. Oh, thats right, the evil railroads killed those companies back in the 1900's.

[shance]

45. That makes no sense

I know I would ride them. And eventually they would be hugely profitable and not wreak half the damage we are doing with cars and trucks and everything else needing oil.

The oil and auto industries have the sweetest thing going with cars lasting about oh ten years or so and oil well, what bigger addiction is there? (There probably are some, but I think you get my point**)

[jagguy]

37. because the government created AmTrak

and with it came mindless regulations that have hobbled that service to where it is a money pit on the verge of collapse.

[Mountainman]

38. I have yet to see any improvement in service by deregulation

Too many regulations is a good argument until you have to look to the results of deregulation. Check out the airline industry after deregulation. The airlines are always at the trough of government handouts. Check out what Enron did because of deregulation of the energy market in California.

[jagguy]

51. two things

First, Amtrak is not regulated independent corporation, its owned by you and me (hahahaha).

Second, look at the regulations that are harming it. They are forced to maintain unproductive routes and stations. They are forced to run trains that noone wants.

Let them apply some common sense to their business and the prices could drop to where it was competetive and they would not have to run crying to Congress for more and more billions to piss away.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

39. A publically funded inter-city rail system would help the economy

A high speed, inter-city rail system, controlled by the public for public use, would be a great way to revitalize our economy and put people to work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Forget the cost for a second

How could you make it happen otherwise? Most of the areas that need serving are so built up that a major rail line would opposed by everyone, not just the auto folks.

[Nikia]

41. As far as cost goes

I live in the state of Wisconsin that spends a ridiculous amount of money on roads. In this way, automobile traffic is subsidized. Isn't that the same thing as subsidizing the passenger train system.

[MiltonLeBerle]

42. Mostly because of the geography involved.

there's just a lot more wide open space to cross here than in Europe, and when the Highway system came into being for interstate commerce, gas was cheap.

[Atlant]

65. That's a fine excuse nationwide, but...

> Mostly because of the geography involved. there's just a lot more
> wide open space to cross here than in Europe, ...

That's a fine excuse nationwide, but it doesn't explain why the Northeast Megalopolis or the desnely-populated Pacific Rim are both
so underserved.

I guess the theory is that if Manhattan, Kansas can't get a train then
Manhattan, NY doesn't get one either. (I wonder how many crop
subsidies New Yorkers get?)

Atlant

[SoCalDem]

44. Auto lobby, concrete lobby,oil lobby

:)

[TheBigGuy]

47. Do we even need a national rail network? I dont think so.

I can see regional systems, like the Northeast Corridor, and commuter systems in certain urban regions, like Chicago, the Bay Area, etc...

But do we really need a national long-distance passenger rail system when we have Greyhound, the interstate highways, and air travel?

It seems rail travel makes sense in certain parts of the USA, but not in every part of the USA, or to every part.

[Nikia]

49. I wouldn't take Greyhound

I don't know about the area you live in or would want to travel to, but anytime I investigated alternative travel arrangements (as opposed to driving) the projected travel time for Greyhound was almost twice as long than Amtrak. I believe that Amtrak was a little more expensive. I think that if train service was a bit cheaper, more people would take it for trips that would normally involve driving about a day's journey away.

[MiltonLeBerle]

50. Wouldn't a high-speed rail system be a juicy terrorist target?

They wouldn't even need a surface-to-air missile to take one out.

[Lars39]

48. The trend towards cars and against trains started with Henry Ford.

City after city started pulling up their trolley tracks, train service started to decline, steam engines went out, interstates came in, and the ever powerful auto industry came to rule the roads.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

56. National Defense. National Defense, National Defense, National Defense

I said this yesterday.
It should be the same as the interstate highway system, and be considered an integral part of the National Defense System.

1. It reduces depenedence on oil and makes us more energy independent.

2. It is useful in times of emergency. (How did people get around in the days after 9/11?)

Who cares how much money it loses? IT'S A GOOD IDEA!!!

[Trad Bass]

57. SPAIN has awesome trains

I took the AVE from Madrid to Seville. Fast and smooth ride.

[SharonAnn]

59. They don't use enough oil.

eom

[Yupster]

61. Just back from Amtrak vacation

We just got back Monday. We flew to Albuquerque, then took Amtrak to Williams, Arizona. Then we took an Amtrak side package to the Grand Canyon for two days. Then back onto Amtrak overnight to San Diego Legoland, Padres game, zoo, seaworld, changing trains in LA. We trained back to LA (Universal Studios) and then flew back home.

It was a very nice trip. I wanted my 6-year old to see the country and he did. It was pretty relaxing, except sleeping on the train.

On the down side, the service was extraordinarily bad. They don't announce stops, so we were afraid we'd miss Williams Junction Arizona. When my wife asked the conductor how many more stops it was, the conductor told her exactly this... "Don't worry. We want you off this train just as much as you want to get off." Can you believe that for customer relations?

We were also smart enough to make reservations at the dining car ahead of time for 8 pm. At 9:15 we were still standing in line in the next car bumping along. When I got my $ 20 meal, I could only pick at it because standing in the aisle on line for an hour got me car sick.

As far as the route went, it was kind of ridiculous. There's not a whole lot between Albuquerque and say Flagstaff. I don't see how you could ever hope to attract enough riders on that route to ever make it even close to worthwhile. There just isn't a large population base to begin with, and you can't go to cities like Flagstaff because you need a car once you're there.

I can see Amtrak working in the northeast corridor, but I was surprised that the train from LA to San Diego was empty too.

Overall, it was a very nice vacation, but I don't know if the best use of taxpayer money is subsidizing this rich guys vacations.

We loved Legoland, Seaworld, the zoo, and even my kids first ML baseball game at the Padres (kind knowledgeable fans), but I thought Universal Studios was overrated and just so crowded. I would have rather had another day at Legoland.

That's my report -- what I did this summer.

[theboss]

66. 3000 miles of country

I think trains work best on a small scale. Amtrack would be workable if they limited themselves to a Boston to DC or Richmond corridor. I will take the train to New York since when you factor in security and baggage and so forth, it is faster than flying. But I couldn't imagine going much further than 200 miles on a train.

[Atlant]

68. Consider the TGV...

> But I couldn't imagine going much further than 200 miles on a train.

Consider the TGV Atlantique: It does 200 MPH, so you're talking about
a one-hour train ride. Because you probably went city-centre to city-centre, you avoided about 2 hours getting-to/getting-through the departing airport and an hour-and-a-half getting through/getting-from the arriving airport (or 3-1/2 hours of wasted overhead time). And
you didn't even need to take off your shoes, although you could, once
seated on the train.

High-Speed trains are actually time-effective across distances
as large as the entire Northeast Corridor. Boston-Washington (~500
miles or so) is an entirely feasible ride in a 200 MPH electric train.

Atlant