New at Reason

December 19, 2005

Heading home for the holidays on Amtrak? Peter Bagge prepares you for the ride.

Comments

|12.19.05 @ 8:33AM|#

Two-thirds of the ticket price is subsidized by the taxpayer? Talk about a ride.

|12.19.05 @ 8:41AM|#

My mom took the train up here last month from a little town a less than 3 hours away by car.

It took her almost 9 hours. Seems the train only goes the a town a few stops north of her so she had to transfer to another train...if it had gotten that far.

The train was late so they piled everyone on buses and took them to another train station so they could catch the connection.

I, myself, took the train when I went to pick up a car for my aunt. The trip - which would have taken 4 hours by car - took 10 hours.

We stopped, literally, every 15-20 minutes at EVERY single podunck and outhouse of a train station.

PLUSES? Having ridden Greyhound and Trailways as a poor starving college student (Indiana to FLorida was a 28 hour bus drive for all of the same reasons) it was nice to take a form of transportation that...

1. Had a bar
2. Had plenty of room to walk around
3. Had plenty of room to sit - much more than ANY bus or plane I've ever been on
4. Didn't smell like the bus bathroom.

So while Amtrack does> suck, for all the reasons peter bagge lays out, I'll take it over a bus...but not if I really need to get there fast.

|12.19.05 @ 8:43AM|#

Amtrak has got to be, for me, the most mysterious federal boondoggle. I mean, how powerful a lobby can they possibly have? Is this run on nostalgia and inertia alone?

Warren|12.19.05 @ 8:56AM|#

Amtrak is the poster-child I haul out when countering Enron. When corruption or incompetence is exposed in the market, all the money flees and the bleeding stops. Damage is done, to be sure. However, no stock-holder rewards loosing money with ongoing and increasing subsidies.

|12.19.05 @ 9:00AM|#

I rode Amtrak recently. The ride was pleasant enough, though there seemed to be too many stops. There were more Amtrak employees on the train than passengers for much of the trip. I got an earful from one of them for switching seats (the sun was in my eyes, I attempted to explain). Apparently I had messed up his system of keeping track of the passengers. Why he needed a system to keep track of 6 people I don't know. Perhaps too much of his brain capacity was tied up in being madly in love with his own stupid little hat. If my experience is at all representative, it is pretty clear that in this area the demand does not exist (even with the artificially low fares) to justify this clanking, jostling, metal behemoth.

|12.19.05 @ 9:21AM|#

I am not familiar with the details, but the claim that 2/3 of the ticket price is subsidized seems too incredible to take on face value. Can anyone point to a second source for that? This means that tickets should really cost three times what they they currently do, which just seems insane.

|12.19.05 @ 9:22AM|#

I've taken Amtrak many times in New York state, and it's routinely faster than the bus or driving.

Madog|12.19.05 @ 9:27AM|#

I've taken MetroNorth from New Haven to New York on several occasions, and find it to be worth the cost -- even if the trains are a little dirty.

Amtrak needs to be subsidized because most of their routes cost more to run that they bring in in ticket sales. There are only a few routes that really make money, mostly between the big Northeastern cities.

|12.19.05 @ 9:36AM|#

Rhywun and Madog-the routes you mentioned�commuter lines between East Coast cities�are, so far as I know, the only ones that make any business sense at all. I did the DC to Baltimore shuttle (I think it was run by Amtrack, but wouldn't swear to it) and it was ok-no worse than any mass transit. I've also done Chicago to Kansas City, and that was a nightmare. A long, delay-filled nightmare.

|12.19.05 @ 9:39AM|#

My favorite Amtrak story is this one.(It's a bit old, but still relevant). I don't want to spoil it for you, but you have to love a "company" that employs 55 superfluous VP's.

Warren|12.19.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Mac Daddy,
It's a few years old, and it doesn't break it down on a per ticket subsidy, but this is worth looking at. Lot's numbers regarding big spending, low fares, and crappy management. Also, a couple of oddly lucent comments by Sen. McCain are gems.

Course the source is suspect.

|12.19.05 @ 9:56AM|#

What does government do well?

Mike|12.19.05 @ 9:57AM|#

Mac Daddy-
This GAO report gives the operating ratio (expenses divided by revenues) for various Amtrak routes, The Sunset Limited (LA-Orlando) comes in at 3.16, losing $284 per passenger. More on Amtrak woes here.

|12.19.05 @ 9:59AM|#

My experience with Amtrak was fairly good.

I took it from Chicago to Carbondale, IL several times. It took 4 hours to make the trip which is about the same amount of time it would by car.

Still, there is no justification for the subsidies.

|12.19.05 @ 10:04AM|#

"Amtrak needs to be subsidized because most of their routes cost more to run that they bring in in ticket sales. There are only a few routes that really make money, mostly between the big Northeastern cities."

No, that's why Amtrak needs to be killed. I say this even though every experience I've had with Amtrak has been perfectly satisfactory. I always took it between Portland and Seattle, and it was always either as fast or faster than driving or flying (once you factor in time at the airport).

That said, Amtrak's business model probably should consist of two parts:

1. Run a lot of trains between relatively close major cities.

2. Run some long distance trains for railroad tourists willing to pay tourist prices.

Needless to say, this model should be implemented post-privatization.

|12.19.05 @ 10:14AM|#

While it may be a failure as a mass transportation system, Bagge does point out that it is a great outreach program for persons with Asperger's Syndrome and other autism disorders.

I've run into a few of those trainspotters, without trains, they'd be dangerous.

|12.19.05 @ 10:20AM|#

Rhywun and Madog-the routes you mentioned-commuter lines between East Coast cities-are, so far as I know, the only ones that make any business sense at all.

Actually, my trips were between NYC and Buffalo, but I agree with your point. In fact, I believe Amtrak or any post-privatization company could do with a lot MORE service in the Northeast.

The Sunset Limited (LA-Orlando) comes in at 3.16, losing $284 per passenger.

I wonder how much of that is subsidized by the taxpayer vs. other passengers in the NE & the Chicago area.

|12.19.05 @ 10:24AM|#

alkurta,

if it takes you 4 hours to drive from carbondale to chicago, you must be breaking the damned sound barrier!

amtrak from st. louis to chicago takes nearly 6 hours - and that's according to their own timetables. it takes about 5ish to drive. madpad nails the problem in that there are about 100 stops at which only about 3 people get on or get off! aarrggh!!

i'm a big fan of rail transportation, however, the only bonus for amtrak is that it drops you off in downtown chicago and you don't have to hassle with driving/parking if you don't like messing with that - which i don't. that's about it. this route does sell out.

|12.19.05 @ 10:25AM|#

Bagge makes plenty of good points, but his cartoons are about as funny as Herblock's -- or the new Garry Trudeau.

Timothy|12.19.05 @ 10:37AM|#

I took Amtrak once, from Portland, OR to Whitefish, MT when I was a kid. It took forever, the train smelled terrible, and the bunk wasn't actually big enough to sleep in.

Trains are in every way less efficient than flying, and it costs about the same amount to travel the same distance. Even between Eugene and Portland when I was in college, it was cheaper to pay for the tank of gas than to take the train, and driving only took 90 minutes. Kill Amtrak, please, if only so I won't have to listen to any more train enthusiasts.

|12.19.05 @ 10:39AM|#

madpad nails the problem in that there are about 100 stops at which only about 3 people get on or get off!

I don't know what Amtrak's reasoning is, if any. There are a dozen or so large towns along the route to Buffalo that could benefit from a stop, but Amtrak has never stopped there. Yet it stops every 10 miles in the middle of Montana.

|12.19.05 @ 10:40AM|#

I took the Coast Starlight from Oakland to Portland, OR a few years ago, and we were only 2 hrs late. If you don't care about being on time it's not bad at all - and as long as you don't care about benefitting from the taxpayers' unwilling largesse. If I remember it cost us something like $110 for a family of 4 to get a first class cabin - that's cheaper than flying, and certainly well below what it costs Amtrak to run that train. I'm certain the 2/3 subsidy is, if anything, understated. And even at that price they can't fill up the train.

|12.19.05 @ 10:56AM|#

I really enjoy train travel when I have the time for it. It's just a unique experience, and far more comfortable than car or plane. If I had to pay the full cost of my trip, though, it is highly unlikely that I would ever travel by train.

Of course, if Amtrak *was* privatized, I imagine over time the cost per passenger would come down significantly as the rail was disciplined by true market competition. I also expect they would start running on schedule more often and offer nicer traveling conditions. Who knows, it might even be enough to attract a different class of customer than the mouth-breathing horde that is currently an Amtrak staple.

In short, I hope Amtrak is put out of its misery toot sweet. But I also hope that passenger rail in the U.S. has a long, healthy life.

Jeff P.|12.19.05 @ 10:59AM|#

My last ride on Amtrak was a Saturday afternoon NYC to New Haven trip. I recall that we were told it was policy that the bar car was closed on Saturdays.
As you know, nobody drinks on the weekends...

|12.19.05 @ 11:06AM|#

I don't know about Left Coast experiences, but the reason you won't convince me to kill off Amtrack is because the private sector alternatives are equally as much of a joke. The only comparable alternative for intercity travel here in the Northeast is flying, and it's a local truism that the Boston-Philly flight (monopolized mostly by US Air) is consistently in the top 10 most delayed flights. (Philly is one of USAir's major hubs, so most East Coast traffic gets routed through that excuse for an airport). About 50% of the scheduled flights from Philly are delayed 2-3 hours due to "weather" (I guess the weather's gotten much, much worse in the last 10 years?), so the airlines don't have to help you much.

In a Boston Globe article a couple months back, a business traveller flying from Boston to Philly got sick of an announced 3 hour delay and took the Metroliner, while his partners stayed for the plane. Flying time is about 50 minutes; train time is like 4 hours. He got home 2 hours before his partners did. Some private sector initiative.

Why can't this country have a rail service comparable to Europe's? I don't mind paying full cost for a government service IF it's delivered with accuracy, cleanliness and speed, all of which apply to my experiences in Europe recently. Maybe not cross-country, but at least on the coasts and between major cities.

|12.19.05 @ 11:08AM|#

what i want to know is why trains aren't more like roller coasters. real fast. two or 3 seats wide, electromagnetic propulsion and all that. get in - strap in - and hang on. chicago in 2 hours!

yes, i'm serious.

Warren|12.19.05 @ 11:09AM|#

I don't know what Amtrak's reasoning is, if any ... it stops every 10 miles in the middle of Montana.

Their reasoning is simple. If the tracks run through a congressional district, there had better be a stop in that district.

|12.19.05 @ 11:09AM|#

I recall that we were told it was policy that the bar car was closed on Saturdays.

That sounds like the effect of a union "benefit" to me.

Speaking of which... NYC is about to be thrown into chaos by our wonderful transit workers union, who is demanding a retirement age of--hold your breath--50. So I'm feeling a little foul about unions right now...

|12.19.05 @ 11:13AM|#

I don't mind paying full cost for a government service IF it's delivered with accuracy, cleanliness and speed

Neither do I, but name one government service that is provided with accuracy, cleanliness and speed.

|12.19.05 @ 11:21AM|#

Neither do I, but name one government service that is provided with accuracy, cleanliness and speed.

i believe that they are out there, but it seems that they become harder to find as you go up the ladder of federalism. a nationwide system like amtrak obviously has more issues than, say, our local lightrail whose daily operation is very clean and timely.

this is why i would prefer an integration of regional rail systems as it seems that the more local the control of these services, the better they are run. (i know this is not a universal truth)

|12.19.05 @ 11:22AM|#

name one government service that is provided with accuracy, cleanliness and speed

German trains.

|12.19.05 @ 11:26AM|#

"the private sector alternatives are equally as much of a joke."

It's a little misleading to refer to air travel as "private sector." Air fares have been deregulated, but a lot of aspects about airt travel have not. Also, very often when an airline has a hub in a municipal airport they have essentially paid for privileges at that airport. It's not unusual for airlines to offer horrible service into their hubs but fine service elsewhere. Northwest through Detroit is a nightmare, while Northwest through Chicago tends to be pretty good.

|12.19.05 @ 11:31AM|#

"I don't mind paying full cost for a government service IF it's delivered with accuracy, cleanliness and speed, all of which apply to my experiences in Europe recently."

Europe has (at least) two factors that tend to lend themselves to better rail travel:

1. Generally shorter distances between high density population centers.

2. Reliance on rail transportation by a broader section of the populace (so if things don't run well, the gov'ts can expect a lot of backlash).

Also, don't forget that it's entirely possible that European trains are *too* accurate, clean and speedy. By this I mean that the costs of maintaining a rail system at that level of quality may exceed the price Europeans would be willing to pay for it.

|12.19.05 @ 11:59AM|#

Warren and Mike,

Thanks for the links. Wow.

The GAO report was impressive. At the risk of committing libertarian blasphemy, the GAO looks like it might be a pretty cool place to work.

|12.19.05 @ 12:35PM|#

Drive Chicago to Carbondale in 4 hours? Maybe at 83MPH with no bathroom breaks!

Bagge Rules!

Ken Hagler|12.19.05 @ 12:52PM|#

Last year I travelled from LA to Austin and back via Amtrak. It cost around $800 for a sleeping compartment and took 36 hours, making it considerably slower and more expensive than a plane. It was absolutely worth it, for one all-important reason: no "security" whatsoever the entire trip.

Greyhound would have been faster and cheaper, and similarly "security" free, but sitting in a bus seat halfway across the country would have been too uncomfortable.

|12.19.05 @ 12:56PM|#

Of course trains are subsidized, but then so are cars and trucks. If we all had to pay full whack for driving around the place in terms of road building, maintenance etc., we might find trains a bit more attractive. And if ridership increased and it became viewed as a real transport system, then we would put in the necessary effort to make it work.

And as for government vs. private, British Rail was privatised and has suffered a major collapse in safety, reliability and service.

bb|12.19.05 @ 12:58PM|#

I went up to Salinas from LA a couple of years ago and decided to take the train for a change. The trip up there was uneventful but on the way back, two marines asked to move to our car because theirs was filled with screaming kids. They simply wanted some peace and quiet. The conductor refused, but not only refused, he became incredibly beligerent and the next thing we knew, there were two railroad workers in a heated argument with the marines. I went to the bathroom and when I came back, they were still yelling. I finally suggested they allow the poor guys to stay in our almost empty car and the next thing I knew, I had three guys hovering over me (including the newly arrived "Chief Conductor" or whatever his title) and making all kinds of threats. I was actually told that they would kick me off the train if I didn't keep my mouth shut.

After they left, other passengers, that had kept quiet because they were evidently afraid, approached me with shock that I was treated in such a way.

I wrote to Amtrack and explained the situation. I had purchased a pass that allowed me so many rides in a month or something. I explained that I had no plan to ever get on one of their hellrides again.

They sent me a $50 coupon. Idiots.

To this day I have wondered if a train conductor can actually kick somebody off of a train like I was threatened with. It seems like there could be all kinds of liabilities involved but I'm no expert in train law.

|12.19.05 @ 1:16PM|#

I've taken far more Amtrak rides than I would have liked to - I went to boarding school in Delaware and I live in CT, so every vacation meant a ridiculous 6 hour trip (in comparison to the 2 1/2 hours I could go it in my car). They would bill it as a 3 hour ride, and inevitably "change engines" or do "routine maintainence work" in both Philly and NYC. I did, however, redeem the tax dollars I pay now by raiding the bar fridge when the attendent went to the bathroom. Nothing's more satisfying than about 10 little airplane-sized shots of cheap vodka and Bailey's.
I found the secret of comfort on long train trips - camp out in the handicapped bathroom in an empty car. No one ever uses them and they offer more spacious accomidations than the best seat on the train. I also learned that they get really angry if you lie down on the floor and go to sleep.

|12.19.05 @ 1:20PM|#

I was on a cross country trip on Amtrak. There was smoking only in the snack car, and the snack car was frequently closed, so one person kept smoking in other areas. They stopped the train in the middle of Iowa somewhere & the local sheriff met the train & took the person off.

Ouch.

|12.19.05 @ 1:21PM|#

Let me rephrase part of that - I liberated the bottles from their oppresive regime, and was greeted with sweet juniper flowers

|12.19.05 @ 1:26PM|#

The contention that a government subsidized system is better compared to this regulatory nightmare is specious, at best; disingenuous and hypocritical, at worst.

Yes, Europe has invested in their rail system more than us, but their autobahns and motorways and other infrastructure are still as good as ours; somehow they can do both, whereas Amtrak is the bastard child to be starved until he croaks.
In addition, your other points are unfounded; have you actually ever been stranded after missing your connection? First of all, you are at the mercy of the airline that screwed you to get a connecting flight, or you have the option of buying your own ticket on another carrier, which means more $$$ out of pocket at last-minute rates without hope of getting a REFUND. Better yet, if it's on business travel, typically you need to clear the schedule change with your company's travel dept. to get them to pay--and they often won't for the reasons stated above. And the airline? Quite often they don't even have a plane available to replace the broken one, so your ass is stuck at the gate for a long, long time. I've seen this up front: my wife's business travel generates so many air miles the whole family qualifies for round-trip tickets to Europe every year. I don't have the time for all the horror stories I could lay on you.

|12.19.05 @ 1:30PM|#

Bagge identifies the slow service resulting from poor tracks as one of the reasons for the low demand.

Then he identifies the low demand as a reason to eliminate the service.

Then he identifies calls for funding to improve the track as an idiotic idea.

All he leaves out is that Congress sets Amtrak's budget, and has refused to fund the track improvements that are necessary to provide better service, greater demand, and improved revenues.

|12.19.05 @ 1:46PM|#

Drive Chicago to Carbondale in 4 hours? Maybe at 83MPH with no bathroom breaks!

My road trip estimate is probably a little low. Car travel from Chicago to Carbondale is more like 4.5 to 5 hours (assuming no bad traffic in Chicagoland).

Oh, and I do drive 80 - 85 mph when travelling south on I-57. :-)

|12.19.05 @ 1:52PM|#

"have you actually ever been stranded after missing your connection?"

In point of fact I have, and the airlines have always been nicer to me than I have deserved. Back in college I once missed my flight *and* the flight I was rebooked on due entirely to my own absentmindedness, and the airline actually booked me on a third flight at no cost. Unbelievable.

|12.19.05 @ 2:00PM|#

"Of course trains are subsidized, but then so are cars and trucks."

That is true, but probably not to the same extent as the railways. A lot of the revenues for roads come from taxes on gasoline, which most non-drivers do not pay. So even though it's not a great price system, at least it doesn't tax millions of people who *never* use the roads to let the few who do use them do so a a fraction of the actual cost.

Recall also that rails are not just subsidized on their capital expenses, but on their operating expenses as well. That is, they are subsidized at the margin. Tolls roads (where they do exist) usually add only a few dollars to a trip, whereas if rail tickets weren't subsidized they would likely double or triple in price.

You do have a valid underlying point, though: our roads are also subsidized. We should definitely switch to marginal pricing for roads (preferably through privatization). Maybe then we could get traffic under control.

|12.19.05 @ 2:03PM|#

Smappy, no one likes to hear about good service more than I, but it does beg the question: when were you in college (how long ago?) If I used that as a yardstick I could tell you about customer service on TWA.

It just seems as if the airlines have deteriorated across the board over the past five years. The only exception I have heard about were Song and JetBlue; Northwest, Delta and USAir have falled apart, and I'm sure their "bankruptcies" didn't help.

|12.19.05 @ 2:24PM|#

I've had pretty good service from airlines the past few years, including missing a flight and being booked on a second flight, no charge.

As I've been told by friends that worked the counter for an airline, some of the "fees" are at their discression. So they won't charge someone who is polite to them, but the jerk who yells at them will be paying extra if he misses his flight.

|12.19.05 @ 3:00PM|#

cdunlea,

The undisputed fact is that even factoring in the possibility of ONE airplane not being replaced, that is still only about 50-250 passengers that may have to wait for their trip, instead of hundreds or even thousands trying to find a way of travel if a train ever breaks down or derails. This is why most new investment in mass transit by private companies has been in air travel rather than rail, especially in the new economies of the east. The infrastructure needed for rail is just not cost effective compared to air, and rail systems are simply too inflexible compared to cars, buses, motorcycles or even bicycles.

I really do not think your particular anecdotes are good arguments for rail systems. The market already settled that question.

|12.19.05 @ 3:37PM|#

Francisco, I agree with most of your points, and obviously air travel research/investment will return greater gain, especiallly in the developing east (by which I assume you mean the former Eastern Bloc nations, not Japan or New England).

But I have a hard time believing that there is no future--or at least, can be no future--for an intelligently managed US rail system. There has to be an effecient single-device intercity transit system to supplement the airlines; in the Northeast, if you took away the Acela permanently the overburdened airlines would suffocate under the weight of increased demand. As Bagge points out, rail currently carries a miniscule percentage of intercity travellers (although I'm sure those passengers live mostly in the coastal megacity zones); it's not like the profit margins of the airlines would dramatically increase by adding that many more passengers, but it would further disrupt their operations in certain markets. Because they're currently breaking even at best, the airlines right now have no incentives whatsoever to increase flights, scheduling systems, baggage handling, hiring standards, etc. They certainly wouldn't just pick up the slack because Amtrak got shut down.

If that's the case--and right now I think it is--reliance on cars, buses, bicycles and skateboards and anything else that uses our surface roads to get from points A to B won't be a viable solution. First, nobody really wants to spend the night driving from, say, Boston to NYC; second, everyone else will clog the same roads with traffic jams; and third, where the hell do you park the thing when you get there? If you think parking's expensive now, wait till society relies on Kinney Parking to keep business travel running! You'll wish you bought that airline ticket after all.

Maybe the solution isn't Amtrak or some other federal porkchop, but a regionalized one instead. After all, nobody takes the train to Chicago from Boston on business, but they will (and do) take it to NY, Philly, DC and Baltimore, and probably would take it to a few other places as well (Buffalo, which has lousy airline service, comes to mind. Speaking of which, have you ever priced an air ticket to Buffalo? Costs more than going to Vegas and back). Again, why should people in Wyoming pay to subsidize passenger rail on the East Coast?

The bottom line is, I don't think the market has rejected intercity rail--just the current godawaful incarnation of it.

Warren|12.19.05 @ 3:43PM|#

Francisco,
True enough, but it's also true that rail provides the best dollar/ton-mile over any other overland shipping method. Which brings up something my father brought to my attention. The federal highway system is a subsidy to the trucking industry. Railroads must build and maintain their own track. If not for the interstate network more cargo would ship by rail, which would fund more and better maintained rail lines, which would deliver cargo to more destinations faster. The price of everything would fall.

|12.19.05 @ 4:05PM|#

How did I KNOW that joe would show up to defend Amtrak? Well, kinda the same way I just KNEW the sun was going to rise in East and set in the West.

Amtrak is a gov't-funded boondoggle that gobble's way too much money? Obviously all it needs is MORE taxpayer money... Of course, this is the same argument provided by many city planners for why mass transit boondoggle X is absolutely VITAL to city/town/village/neighborhood Y.

|12.19.05 @ 4:37PM|#

Well, rob, I'd rather spend my tax dollars on a light rail scheme than on another Big Dig. You need one or the other around here, and it's cheaper to build rails over existing state-owned railroad beds than digging tunnels under harbors. Besides, we already have the stations.

|12.19.05 @ 4:47PM|#

Again, why should people in Wyoming pay to subsidize passenger rail on the East Coast?

It's even worse than that. Not only does Wyoming, without any service of its own, subsidize the East Coast, but the East Coast subsidizes Montana, where nobody uses the service.

How did I KNOW that joe would show up to defend Amtrak?

Are you upset that he brought up a valid point re: investment in the infrastructure? He criticized Congress, which is entirely responsible for Amtrak's structure. I'm not sure how that counts as a "defense" of Amtrak.

this is the same argument provided by many city planners for why mass transit boondoggle X is absolutely VITAL to city/town/village/neighborhood Y.

Such boondoggles are promoted by *politicians*, not planners. Believe it or not, planners are trained to determine the actual transit *needs* of an area. Unfortunately, they work for politicians who have bacon to procure.

|12.19.05 @ 5:11PM|#

One particular aspect of rail transportation over air is the ability of rail to drop you off at your actual destination, as opposed to a large airport sometimes nearly 30 miles away!

funny how in many cities once you arrive at the airport, you are essentially stranded until you get onto a train that can take you into the city!

if i fly to paris, i'm at cdg and a good 1/2 hour away from my destination. if i take the train, i'm walking to my hotel. same in chicago. st. louis, munich, rome, wherever.

|12.19.05 @ 5:32PM|#

> I'm certain the 2/3 subsidy is, if anything, understated

It is. Keep in mind that's just the *operating* subsidy. It doesn't include capital costs like new railcars or track.

|12.19.05 @ 7:00PM|#

"Are you upset that he brought up a valid point re: investment in the infrastructure? I'm not sure how that counts as a "defense" of Amtrak." - Rhywun

Nope. I'm not upset at all. Merely noting that some things are as predictable as sunrise and sunset. But it counts as a defense of Amtrak because he thinks it's fixable if only more money is thrown at it. That's bollocks, of course, but it still counts as an attempt at defending on of the most indefensible expenditures of tax dollars in history.

"Such boondoggles are promoted by *politicians*, not planners. Believe it or not, planners are trained to determine the actual transit *needs* of an area. Unfortunately, they work for politicians who have bacon to procure." - Rhywun

Odd how the answer is always the same boondoggle, and that self-avowed liberal city planners like joe always agree with the politicians. I'd say its as much collusion as it is simply politicians getting their way as "the bosses."

"Well, rob, I'd rather spend my tax dollars on a light rail scheme than on another Big Dig. You need one or the other around here, and it's cheaper to build rails over existing state-owned railroad beds than digging tunnels under harbors. Besides, we already have the stations." - cdlunea

That may be a valid counter-argument for that particular instance, I just don't have a cost-benefit analysis comparing light rail to the Big Dig handy. (Maybe you could link to one, since it's your assertion.) But hey, if you think it's the way to go, vote for the politician that wants light rail. At the very least, it'll keep joe and his family housed, fed and clothed, so there IS an upside to the whole deal...

|12.19.05 @ 7:26PM|#

But it counts as a defense of Amtrak because he thinks it's fixable if only more money is thrown at it.

Well, it's as valid a viewpoint as the vapid characterizations of train riders as hippies offered by Bagge, even if it's wrong. I get the sense that many people around here live in a fantasy world where freeways are going to solve all our transportation needs, and watching Amtrak die will be a happy day for them.

|12.19.05 @ 9:47PM|#

That may be a valid counter-argument for that particular instance, I just don't have a cost-benefit analysis comparing light rail to the Big Dig handy. (Maybe you could link to one, since it's your assertion.)

I'd be delighted to. Here's a story from the Globe regarding the $479 million Greenbush line project to connect the commuter rich South Shore to downtown Boston:
here

And here's the latest on the $14.6 BILLION Big Dig:
here

By my math, we could buy 30 ENTIRELY SEPARATE RAIL SYSTEMS for what it cost to build a tunnel under downtown Boston.

|12.20.05 @ 12:40AM|#

While the Big Dig was certainly costly, it does rectify one of the most egregious examples of mid-century highway planning--when no neighborhood was safe from destruction in the name of "progress"-- and so I would look for better examples of wasteful highway spending. I hear there's a couple outrageously expensive bridges in Alaska on the drawing board.

|12.20.05 @ 1:53AM|#

cdunlea - Cool. Would "30 ENTIRELY SEPARATE RAIL SYSTEMS" solve the problem better than the Big Dig? If so, I'll agree that it's a better solution. You really haven't given me enough information to do that, tho. You're just comparing the costs, but not the potential comparative benefits of Big Dig vs. light rail systems.

"Well, it's as valid a viewpoint as the vapid characterizations of train riders as hippies offered by Bagge, even if it's wrong. I get the sense that many people around here live in a fantasy world where freeways are going to solve all our transportation needs, and watching Amtrak die will be a happy day for them." - Rhywun

Actually, having ridden Amtrak from Minneapolis to Brookhaven, Mississippi, I can say that Bagge's characterizations seem fairly accurate to me. Anecdotal evidence is just that, and it matches my anecdotes. For me, it'll be bittersweet if Amtrak ever dies... I enjoy the company of characters and not having to do the driving on occasion, but I don't think Bagge characterized all the passengers as hippies... I could only find one in the strip.

But I get the sense that there are a couple of people around here who live in a fantasy world where Amtrak is a competitive, reasonable answer to our transportation needs, and that if Amtrak were to die it would affect transportation in this country in an appreciable manner. Well, it might free up a billion dollars for some sensible mode of transport, if you consider that "appreciable." I know I do.

See also, light rail...

|12.20.05 @ 8:59AM|#

Actually, having ridden Amtrak from Minneapolis to Brookhaven, Mississippi, I can say that Bagge's characterizations seem fairly accurate to me.

Well, it's not surprising, given that train travel has been relegated to the fringes in the US - especially in less-dense areas of the country where the car reigns supreme. Yet I've ridden it many times between NYC and Buffalo, and it was full of "normal" people.

I'm not saying Amtrak doesn't need to die; I think it does. But feeding ridiculous stereotypes of train riders as wackos is hardly a useful way to address the matter.

|12.20.05 @ 10:46AM|#

Warren,

Indeed freight is shipped cheaper by rail than by trucks. However, the issue here is passenger rail systems, not freight. There is no doubt in my mind that rail is one of the most profitable choices for bulk freight overland.

cdunlea,

I have no problem with a rail system for passenger use as long as it is not subsidized. Subsidizing something means someone NOT using it is paying so others can enjoy it, something I find particularly unfair and unjustified. If private investors do not see profit in an "intelligently-managed" rail system, it means there is not enough people wanting to use it (i.e. no market for it), and that should be the end of it. If some nostalgics want to use a rail system, let them install one of their own at their own expense.

|12.20.05 @ 10:50AM|#

All he leaves out is that Congress sets Amtrak's budget, and has refused to fund the track improvements that are necessary to provide better service, greater demand, and improved revenues.

This is a big hassle for most of Amtrak's mileage. Where Amtrak owns the track, they do an OK job of keeping the track in better shape. Where Amtrak bullies their way onto freight trackage, the freight railroads and Amtrak play a game of staredown for the capital to improve the trackage. Most of that is Amtrak's fault (and Congress') for paying for the imporvements in the past, now the railroads will always wait in line for their welfare. And as long as Amtrak is going to force the railroads to give them trackage rights it will never change, it will get worse as railroad competition decreases.

|12.20.05 @ 11:54AM|#

"I'm not saying Amtrak doesn't need to die; I think it does. But feeding ridiculous stereotypes of train riders as wackos is hardly a useful way to address the matter." - Rhywun

I didn't mean to include you in my "couple of folks" comment. It was mostly directed at joe... Of course, I think that no matter whether its on a train, at a sports stadium, rock concert, etc, you're always going to have some characters in the crowd. You just can't get a numerically large number of people together without there being some truly odd folks there.

Those folks stick out more than the others, and are easier to caricature, which is probably why they're in Bagge's cartoon. Just like the boring normal folks on my train trip stick in my mind (pleasantly, I admit) more than the people who sat & slept quietly for the whole ride.

"the railroads will always wait in line for their welfare." - Russ 2000

That sound you just heard? Oh, that's just Ayn Rand, spinning in her grave again. Heh...

"I have no problem with a rail system for passenger use as long as it is not subsidized." - Francisco Torres

Exactly!

|12.20.05 @ 12:40PM|#

"The infrastructure needed for rail is just not cost effective compared to air" Is that why every major airport in the country is built with $billions of public funds?

"How did I KNOW that joe would show up to defend Amtrak?" Didn't do that.

"Obviously all it needs is MORE taxpayer money." Didn't say that.

"Of course, this is the same argument provided by many city planners for why mass transit boondoggle X is absolutely VITAL to city/town/village/neighborhood Y." Never done that.

"Odd how the answer is always the same boondoggle, and that self-avowed liberal city planners like joe always agree with the politicians." No, we don't do that.

"But I get the sense that there are a couple of people around here who live in a fantasy world where Amtrak is a competitive, reasonable answer to our transportation needs"

You get a lot of ideas about what "a couple of people" think. It's a common symptom of "liberal in your head disease."

Come back when you can actually address what I wrote.

|12.20.05 @ 12:43PM|#

"I have no problem with a rail system for passenger use as long as it is not subsidized." - Francisco Torres

Exactly!

I'm fine with that too. As long as we don't let the Libertopian disdain for ideologically unacceptable forms of transportation cause us to forget that the favored forms are subsidized too (i.e. automobile, airplane).

|12.20.05 @ 12:46PM|#

[Hm... italic quoting problem up there. "Exactly!" should have been in italics too.]

|12.20.05 @ 2:10PM|#

"Come back when you can actually address what I wrote." - joe

Ok, let's start with this statement:

"'Obviously all it needs is MORE taxpayer money.' Didn't say that." - joe

So you didn't say that that throwing more tax dollars at Amtrak would provide better service, greater demand, and improved revenues?

Because that's exactly what it SEEMED you meant when you wrote "All he leaves out is that Congress sets Amtrak's budget, and has refused to fund the track improvements that are necessary to provide better service, greater demand, and improved revenues." - Comment by: joe at December 19, 2005 01:30 PM

I'm sure that was actually just "the liberal in my head" posting that from your computer with your alias.

Or this:

"'Of course, this is the same argument provided by many city planners for why mass transit boondoggle X is absolutely VITAL to city/town/village/neighborhood Y.'" Never done that." - joe

C'mon joe, give me an example of light rail that you don't like. I'm just confused into thinking you are one of mass transit's most vocal supporters on HNR... Must be that darn liberal in my head again!

"'Odd how the answer is always the same boondoggle, and that self-avowed liberal city planners like joe always agree with the politicians.' No, we don't do that."

I have yet to meet a city planner who isn't in favor of mass transit, all the way from the farthest suburbs to the densest part of the population center. You could be the exception.

You did say in a previous post that "a monorail doesn't make any sense outside of a major urban core." On the other hand, you have in the past seemed to also be of the opinion that people should primarily only live in dense urban areas, and that suburbs and sprawl are generally a BAD IDEA... At least I think that was you. Then again, it might have been that darned "liberal in my head again."

But wait, you've also posted in a prvious thread that "rail projects are usually built in anticipation of, or in the hope of promoting, future development," which kind of gives away the game in so much as it is an open admission that light rail is a gamble at best.

One last question... How's mass transit working for all of those folks who have come to rely on it to get to and from work in New York this week?

|12.20.05 @ 4:39PM|#

The market decided that passenger rail was a loser 50 years ago. It makes sense in the NE corridor, to be sure, but anything beyond that is a boondoggle. There is the inherent advantage of flexibility and redundancy in automobile and air travel that makes those more efficient as large-scale transportation systems, subsidized or not.

|12.20.05 @ 4:55PM|#

rob,

I don't get the Rand line. Has she written about railroads being against corporte welfare? They may have been in her day, but they ain't that way now.

|12.20.05 @ 5:06PM|#

rob,

Never mind, I googled and found what you were talking about. I've never read any Rand. (at least joe can't honestly call me a randroid.)

|12.20.05 @ 5:17PM|#

Russ 2000,

Atlas Shrugged has got quite a bit about railroads in it. Specifically, the one that Dagny Taggert operates with wunderkind efficiency. Hence, the thought of a railroad waiting on gov't handouts surely would surely send Ayn Rand to spinning in her grave.

(It's never funny if you have to explain it, and this wasn't very funny to begin with, sadly...)

|12.20.05 @ 6:19PM|#

rob,

I'm not about to call railroads welfare queens, they have enough capital investment to make in trackage where they don't share space with Amtrak. But where they do share space they would benefit by making their own capital investments - sure Amtrak would also benefit but not nearly as much because Amtrak is fairly insignificant. If Amtrak disappeared tomorrow, some of that trackage would be earmarked for capital improvement the next day - if there was no other "concerened party". In some cases Amtrak's not the problem, railroads do have issues at grade crossings which they have to cover themselves even though nearly all the benefit is to the autombile traffic that crosses the tracks.

Railroads aren't nearly the beggars that most of the airline industry is, but they still play the game from time to time.

|12.20.05 @ 8:03PM|#

But wait, you've also posted in a prvious thread that "rail projects are usually built in anticipation of, or in the hope of promoting, future development," which kind of gives away the game in so much as it is an open admission that light rail is a gamble at best.

Historically, that is exactly what happened when private companies ran the show - until the end of WWII when the American government pulled out all the stops in encouraging the American Dream. And by the way, you might notice that most of today's "light rail" projects are actually replacements of streetcar or commuter rail systems that were torn apart decades earlier in the mad rush to put all vehicles on rubber tires. With many cities growing again after several decades of decline, and the realization that adding more and more lanes of freeway does not solve the traffic problem, it's not much of a surprise that cities are turning to "light rail". *Some* of the systems are definitely politically motivated (like the one in northern San Diego county), and some are built in hopes of future development (the River Line in souther New Jersey), but I believe most are built to fill a need (for example in Buffalo, Portland, and others).

The market decided that passenger rail was a loser 50 years ago.

Ha ha ha.... I guess the federal programs to encourage low-interest mortgages for suburban houses had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

One last question... How's mass transit working for all of those folks who have come to rely on it to get to and from work in New York this week?

Many people walked. Or rode a bicycle. Or took the PATH (a train run by New Jersey that runs from Midtown through New Jersey and back to the World Trade Center). Or took a taxi. Or a private car service. Or rode Long Island Rail Road or Metro North railroad. We have a lot of options in the big city :)

|12.21.05 @ 5:31PM|#

"Many people walked." - Rhywun

Yeah, I bet they did. That's one significant advantage to chauferring yourself: you won't go on strike when you're trying to get somewhere.