One, or maybe two or three reasons Amtrak can't make money.

[mostpost]

The way in which some of Amtrak''s routes are set up is very inefficient.
I will just speak of one route which I am quite familiar-the California Zephyr between Chicago and San Francisco. After leaving the Chicago Metro area the Zephyr turns southwest across Illinois with stops in Princeton and Galesburg. It then crosses the Mississippi and makes stops in five small Iowa towns along the southern border of that state before arriving in Omaha, Ne.

The total population of those two Illinois and five Iowa cities is 111,813.

There is a much better route which would serve a much larger population.
Chicago, Il (including Naperville: Rockford, Illinois. Quad Cities (Il & Ia) Iowa City, Iowa: Des Moines, Ia and Omaha.

Rockford, Illinois has a population of 152,871. Already you are serving more people than on the entire southern route. In addition it is only about twenty miles south of Janesville, Wisconsin with a population of 63,000 and about sixty miles south of Madison, Wisconsin with over 236,000 residents.

The Quad Cities are five cities (I know, I know) in Illinois and Iowa with a total population of 381,342.

Iowa City Ia. has a population of 67,862 making it the smallest of the cities on our new California Zephyr route. But it is the home of the University of Iowa and is only twenty miles from Cedar Rapids which is home to 126,000.

The last stop before Omaha is Des Moines with a metro population of 580,000.

So we have a route which serves in excess of 1.6 million potential riders and Amtrak chose one which serves less than 125,000. No wonder they are not making any money.

I believe that a part of the Amtrak franchise was to serve the smaller towns of the country that had no access to airports,but there has got to be a better way to do it.

Why can't Amtrak or some smart person develop a self propelled rail car which contains its own power source and seating for fifty to sixty people. It would have a wash room and vending machines for beverages and snacks. It would be capable of speeds of fifty to sixty miles an hour.

The mission of these rail cars would be to deliver passengers from smaller towns to stations along the main Amtrak routes. For example one such car might begin in Madison, Wisconsin and travel south through Janesville and Beloit before meeting up with the Zephyr in Rockford. In another case, the five towns in southern Iowa that are now on the Zephyr's run could use the cars to meet the Z on its new stop in Des Moines. In each case, they would return to their original starting place with disembarking passengers.

I'm sure that the naysayers here will be all over this plan, talking about how we can't afford this and we can't afford that; but I know that many people love to ride the train but don't do so because the train does not come through their town. I am talking about people who live in Des Moines or the Quad Cities. People who would have to drive many miles and park their car in a strange town in order to do so.

Of course there is also the question of the high prices for a comfortable room or roomette, but that is a subject for a different time.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I found just the spot for you to join. There is no "off-topic", however, so I expect you to return here.

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/46691-how-is-it-decided-where-the-train-stops/

[Actor]

A few years ago I rode Amtrak from Dodge City, KS to Chicago, IL. The train was two hours late at Dodge City. By the time I got to Chicago it was five hours late. Amtrak has a lower priority than freight trains. If they get behind schedule it only gets worse because traffic control will switch Amtrak through last. Amtrak needs top priority if it is to make money.

I've ridden the Chicago - Dodge City route several times. It's cheaper and faster than driving. Cheaper because the cost of gas, at least one hotel room and depreciation adds up to more than the cost of a ticket. Faster because the train just keeps on going (whistle stops are usually about 10 minutes). Driving I have to stop for gas, relief, meals and sleep.

[Actor]

Why can't Amtrak or some smart person develop a self propelled rail car which contains its own power source and seating for fifty to sixty people. It would have a wash room and vending machines for beverages and snacks. It would be capable of speeds of fifty to sixty miles an hour.

The mission of these rail cars would be to deliver passengers from smaller towns to stations along the main Amtrak routes. For example one such car might begin in Madison, Wisconsin and travel south through Janesville and Beloit before meeting up with the Zephyr in Rockford. In another case, the five towns in southern Iowa that are now on the Zephyr's run could use the cars to meet the Z on its new stop in Des Moines. In each case, they would return to their original starting place with disembarking passengers.

I'm sure that the naysayers here will be all over this plan, Sorry to be a naysayer but ... :(

The chief problem is that spurs into the smaller towns no longer exist. When the Reagan administration deregulated the railroad companies the companies came and got their rails and left the wooden ties to rot. You could use buses. But the only major bus line left is Greyhound and they serve mostly the major cities. If bus service to small towns could be profitable I doubt they would have abandoned it.

When I was a kid in my home town of 1600 I could catch the bus go anywhere in the country. No more. On my last trip home I tried to find the rail bed. It's no longer there. After 30 years nature has reclaimed it.

I think a better plan for the Chicago - San Francisco route would be an express bullet train. 300 mph and no stops in Denver, Salt Lake City or whatever. It would probably get you there faster than air travel. Ditto for Chicago - LA, Chicago - NY, Chicago - Seattle.

[mostpost]

A few years ago I rode Amtrak from Dodge City, KS to Chicago, IL. The train was two hours late at Dodge City. By the time I got to Chicago it was five hours late. Amtrak has a lower priority than freight trains. If they get behind schedule it only gets worse because traffic control will switch Amtrak through last. Amtrak needs top priority if it is to make money.

I've ridden the Chicago - Dodge City route several times. It's cheaper and faster than driving. Cheaper because the cost of gas, at least one hotel room and depreciation adds up to more than the cost of a ticket. Faster because the train just keeps on going (whistle stops are usually about 10 minutes). Driving I have to stop for gas, relief, meals and sleep.
On time performance is a problem for Amtrak, although I personally have been on time several times when riding Amtrak. The obvious solution is for them to have their own, dedicated tracks, but that is not going to happen in the current political or financial climate.

Why not give Amtrak trains priority? First of all there is usually only one Amtrak train in each direction over a particular track. Secondly, how long does it take an Amtrak train going 70MPH to pass even a mile long. Third, all these freight trains rush to get to a destination only to sit perfectly still for twenty minutes across the crossing that I need to get across. :mad:

A brief, paraphrased story from a railroad magazine I read years ago. Names have been changed.

John Smith was furious. He was traffic manager for Acme railroad. Right now a freight train belonging to Ajax railways was stopped across a railroad intersection and was blocking one of his trains.

Smith called the offending Ajax railways and demanded they move the train. They apologized but explained that the train was broken down and could not be moved. They assured him they were working as fast as they could. Eight hours later the Ajax train was able to move and the Acme train crossed the intersection.

Several days later an Acme train was crossing the same intersection and an Ajax train was waiting to proceed. Despite the fact that the Acme train was in perfect working order, Smith ordered it to stop across the intersection and remain there for eight hours.

The Magazine actually presented this as an example of a railroad manager defending his turf rather than as a childish, petulant gothcha. :bang:

[ArlJim78]

Sorry to be a naysayer but ... :(

The chief problem is that spurs into the smaller towns no longer exist. When the Reagan administration deregulated the railroad companies the companies came and got their rails and left the wooden ties to rot. You could use buses. But the only major bus line left is Greyhound and they serve mostly the major cities. If bus service to small towns could be profitable I doubt they would have abandoned it.

When I was a kid in my home town of 1600 I could catch the bus go anywhere in the country. No more. On my last trip home I tried to find the rail bed. It's no longer there. After 30 years nature has reclaimed it.

I think a better plan for the Chicago - San Francisco route would be an express bullet train. 300 mph and no stops in Denver, Salt Lake City or whatever. It would probably get you there faster than air travel. Ditto for Chicago - LA, Chicago - NY, Chicago - Seattle.
at what cost $500 billion or more perhaps? then you have this fixed hard infrastructure to maintain and the public has to subsidize. it's also not flexible once built. with airfare you just reroute planes to various locations as the market dictates.

I do think it's a shame the bus business isn't around like it used to be. it's probably a better option for low cost travel.

[mostpost]

Sorry to be a naysayer but ... :(

The chief problem is that spurs into the smaller towns no longer exist. When the Reagan administration deregulated the railroad companies the companies came and got their rails and left the wooden ties to rot. You could use buses. But the only major bus line left is Greyhound and they serve mostly the major cities. If bus service to small towns could be profitable I doubt they would have abandoned it.

When I was a kid in my home town of 1600 I could catch the bus go anywhere in the country. No more. On my last trip home I tried to find the rail bed. It's no longer there. After 30 years nature has reclaimed it.

I think a better plan for the Chicago - San Francisco route would be an express bullet train. 300 mph and no stops in Denver, Salt Lake City or whatever. It would probably get you there faster than air travel. Ditto for Chicago - LA, Chicago - NY, Chicago - Seattle.

Even as I was writing my proposal I was thinking "do those tracks still exist?"
So, yes, that is a deal killer.

Amtrak does contract with Trailways to provide service between its stations and nearby towns. i.e Amtrak in Tucson to Phoenix, but those are usually larger towns. Except for Burlington, the Iowa towns I mentioned in the OP seldom have more than five passengers.

But there are other problems with the Amtrak schedules. Many families from the Chicago area go to Orlando for vacations-Disney World, Epcot, Universal etc. But, to go to Orlando from Chicago by train, you have to go to New York, or Washington or Philadelphia and transfer to another train. Layovers range from four to ten hours. You also cannot go direct from Chicago to Atlanta.

Why is there not a line from Chicago through Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta and on to Orlando. Surely there would be sufficient patronage. There must be trackage between such large cities.

I agree with you on the high speed or bullet trains. They are the future, but too many in this country can't see the future. :bang:

[Tom]

High speed trains have a very limited use.
We do not travel or live like Europe.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... They are the future, but too many in this country can't see the future. :bang:

I'm not passing judgment on your belief here, but what makes you believe that point to point mass transit by train is the future?

It seems to me that if anything, it is the present, and the present isn't terribly interested in it. I'm holding out hope that the future has ideas that people are actually firmly behind.

[Robert Goren]

For it is worth, the best train rails are in farming areas. Trains still move most of the grain in rural America. The small town where I grew up has a pop of 35 or so, but a lot of corn leave there by rail and a lot more passes through there. I don't why Amtrak uses the route it does, but it may be as simple as the route has the safest rails in the area.

[anotherCAfan]

mostpost, Amtrak is going to travel on the big freight rail lines because those are already maintained at a high standard. I don't know jack about Iowa rails, but if your route is not well-maintained track, it would be prohibitively expensive.

FWIW, Amtrak used to have a Chicago/Janesville service that was basically a post office mail train. There are plans for Amtrak to institute a Chicago/Quad Cities and a Chicago/Dubuque route -- the latter already has a Wikipedia page.


A few years ago I rode Amtrak from Dodge City, KS to Chicago, IL. The train was two hours late at Dodge City. By the time I got to Chicago it was five hours late. Amtrak has a lower priority than freight trains. If they get behind schedule it only gets worse because traffic control will switch Amtrak through last. Amtrak needs top priority if it is to make money.

I've ridden the Chicago - Dodge City route several times. It's cheaper and faster than driving. Cheaper because the cost of gas, at least one hotel room and depreciation adds up to more than the cost of a ticket. Faster because the train just keeps on going (whistle stops are usually about 10 minutes). Driving I have to stop for gas, relief, meals and sleep.
For what it's worth, west of Newton (the Wichita stop), the track is basically mothballed so Amtrak has to go slower. Amtrak used to run 90 mph through southwest Kansas; now it runs 60 mph because the freight rail company has basically abandoned the line.

It's still faster than driving because the stretch of track from Newton to Chicago is busy and better-maintained.

[Valuist]

There is only one use I could see for high speed trains in the US. A Los Angeles-Las Vegas train, built from casino money. Maybe one for San Fran-Vegas. Taxpayer money should NEVER, EVER go for high speed rail.

[tbwinner]

Taxpayer money should NEVER, EVER go for high speed rail.

Just curious -- why?

The ONLY thing from the Stimulus program I was looking forward to was investment into high speed rail. 4 years later NO progress has been made on this and I'm sure the money is long gone. I don't think such travel should be subsidized to the point where the line would be losing money, but initial investment funded by taxpayers would be okay by me, because it is TRUE infrastructure, not a bogus spending project.

I live about 25 north of Des Moines, IA, and before that lived in Chicago. The 6 hour drive back makes it cumbersome to get back and flights out of Des Moines aren't always easy to come by in terms of price for a weekend back. Train service doesn't exist (except as how Mostpost described it, through the southern way) and Greyhound apparently left this market to the regional carrier which is absolutely awful (from what I hear). There was talk about a high-speed rail line from Des Moines to Chicago (and Omaha) and I think there could be a real use for it.

[Red Knave]

... what makes you believe that point to point mass transit by train is the future?
The future's not what it used to be. I'm still waiting for my personal jet-pack. And my flying car.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... And my flying car.

I'll sell you one cheap. Sick of trying to pass emissions every year.

http://singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DARPA-flying-car-300x294.jpg

[Red Knave]

I'll sell you one cheap. Sick of trying to pass emissions every year.

http://singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/DARPA-flying-car-300x294.jpg

Awesome! The Dukes are Back!

[Robert Goren]

The future's not what it used to be. I'm still waiting for my personal jet-pack. And my flying car. I have waiting since I saw it in Popular Mechanics in the 1950s.

[Valuist]

Just curious -- why?



Because it would never get enough use to justify its high cost.

[Tom]

If high speed rail was wanted, it would be built be the private sector, assuming Obama doesn't bleed them dry first.

It is not wanted by enough people to justify the cost, even if mostie feels he is entitled to have it.

[Robert Goren]

If high speed rail was wanted, it would be built be the private sector, assuming Obama doesn't bleed them dry first.

It is not wanted by enough people to justify the cost, even if mostie feels he is entitled to have it.The private sector doesn't build anything anymore.

[Tom]

You been asleep the last 20 years?

[JustRalph]

I think a better plan for the Chicago - San Francisco route would be an express bullet train. 300 mph and no stops in Denver, Salt Lake City or whatever. It would probably get you there faster than air travel. Ditto for Chicago - LA, Chicago - NY, Chicago - Seattle.

You're kidding right? This last paragraph was a joke, right?

[Actor]

I think a better plan for the Chicago - San Francisco route would be an express bullet train. 300 mph and no stops in Denver, Salt Lake City or whatever. It would probably get you there faster than air travel. Ditto for Chicago - LA, Chicago - NY, Chicago - Seattle.

You're kidding right? This last paragraph was a joke, right?What makes you think it's a joke?

[anotherCAfan]

There is only one use I could see for high speed trains in the US. A Los Angeles-Las Vegas train, built from casino money. Maybe one for San Fran-Vegas. Taxpayer money should NEVER, EVER go for high speed rail.
I support Amtrak, I agree with JustRalph/Tom infinitely more than mostpost, and I agree with your statement. (how's that for a weird opinion?)

High speed rail is not financially feasible. We can upgrade existing roads, rails, etc. for a fraction of the cost.

[Tom]

The lure of high speed rails is that it opens up many new avenues for money to be siphoned off and re-distributed to political cronies or pay off campaign favors.

Nothing is ever for the good of the country or the good of the people.
Politicians are thieves. End of story.

[JustRalph]

What makes you think it's a joke?

550 mph versus 300 mph? Btw, we have no tracks in the U.S. rated for anywhere near that speed. Compare on time arrivals for airplanes and trains. Think weather? Tracks covered in snow etc. You really think a train woud be faster? Over time the airplane would be ten times more reliable and much faster including TSA bullshit. It's not even close

More Amtrak

http://gawker.com/5931559/amtrak-incapable-of-making-worlds-easiest-profit

[rastajenk]

It would take a dictator to ram through a plan like that over the objections of politicians and their controlling interests in (the rail equivalent of) fly-over country, saying, "What? You're going to build a RR through our state and not put a stop in Denver (or Omaha, Salt Lake, Reno, etc.)? No friggin' way!" But hey, maybe we'll get there someday.

On a more general note, I'm always amused that folks with a "progressive" outlook are so stuck in the past. :p

[Ocala Mike]

On a more general note, I'm always amused that folks with a "progressive" outlook are so stuck in the past. :p


Similarly, I'm always amused that folks with a "conservative" outlook hate the idea of investing in infrastructure, including what passes for rail transport, in this country. By the way, the main reason there is no Amtrak route Chicago-FL is, as someone surmised above, the fact that the private sector railroads abandoned or downgraded much of the rail lines over which Amtrak would have to run.

[Ocala Mike]

And here's a local editorial on the subject of Chicago-Iowa improved service, an issue raised by mostpost to start this thread:

http://qctimes.com/news/local/clock-is-ticking-on-passenger-rail-service-in-iowa/article_7bee48c0-516b-11e2-a0cc-001a4bcf887a.html?comment_form=true

[Actor]

550 mph versus 300 mph?It's a matter of total travel time for the customer. Not just time of departure at one station/airport and time of arrival at another. It's the time from your doorstep to your relative's doorstep at your destination. The proposition that total travel time for high speed rail is less than total travel time for air is promoted by proponents of high speed rail. I realize that's controversial and I should have used the word "possibly" rather than "probably" in my post.
Btw, we have no tracks in the U.S. rated for anywhere near that speed.Right. It would require new tracks be built or existing tracks upgraded.
Compare on time arrivals for airplanes and trains. Think weather? Tracks covered in snow etc. You really think a train woud be faster? Over time the airplane would be ten times more reliable and much faster including TSA bullshit. It's not even closeThese are the points where the bullet could go head-to-head with the airlines.

On time arrivals. The advantage is a track devoted to a single entity, not shared with competitors. The main cause of late departure/arrival is that you have to wait your turn.
Weather. How do existing bullet trains handle it. Would it be economically feasible to enclose the track in a weatherproof tube?
Reliability. It's not a given that the bullet train could not be made as reliable as the airplane.

Of course Bullet Train management would have to have their act together to pull this off. That's a good reason to keep the government and Amtrak out of it. If the whole thing cannot be funded by the private sector then forget it. It's really all academic. I don't see this ever really happening. And with that I've shot down my own post. :bang:

One study was done showing the best route for a bullet train, based on where demand for high speed transit is highest, was along the east coast, Boston to Miami. Unfortunately, existing right-of-way has so many twists and turns that a 300 mph ride would subject passengers to a roller coaster ride with lots of high g force turns, unsuitable for passengers with heart conditions or who are pregnant. Acquiring new right of way in that highly populated part of the country would be prohibitively expensive and politically unpopular.

[Tom]

Similarly, I'm always amused that folks with a "conservative" outlook hate the idea of investing in infrastructure, including what passes for rail transport, in this country. By the way, the main reason there is no Amtrak route Chicago-FL is, as someone surmised above, the fact that the private sector railroads abandoned or downgraded much of the rail lines over which Amtrak would have to run.

This conservative is 100% behind wise infrastructure spending.
Roads, bridges, the electrical grid - things that are truly necessities, things that benefit the most people. Amtrak, high speed rails, don't cut the mustard.

Our electrical grid and computer system take top priority. We can do without a train to nowhere, but we depend on power and software.

The difference is, I think, conservative understand that we cannot afford to keep spending on every whim and billing our children.

[Robert Goren]

This conservative is 100% behind wise infrastructure spending.
Roads, bridges, the electrical grid - things that are truly necessities, things that benefit the most people. Amtrak, high speed rails, don't cut the mustard.

Our electrical grid and computer system take top priority. We can do without a train to nowhere, but we depend on power and software.You are right, our electrical grid is mess. Our internet service is way behind some countries. While fixing the electrical grid is going put a lot people to work. We need to be sure that companies hired to do it don't use illegals to do it. I think the internet is also a place where the companies might try to use foreign labor. They keep claiming there not enough help here, but who of us doesn't know at least one computer programer and/or tech who isn't looking for a job. Like you I am not sold on high speed rails. Maybe that because I am from a rural area where everybody has car.

[Tom]

Well, when you fail to enforce your borders, and you go to Mexico to advertise for food stamps, you pretty much have no choice to hire illegals.
Dems want them here to vote illegally for them, they better be prepared to hire them illegally as well.

American had a choice, and they chose Obama.......if it now cost them their jobs, sucks to be them. No sympathy. Whoever will do it cheaper, I say hire them. We have made out bed, time to lie in it.
go cry somewhere else - you Obama voters brought this on yourselves. Live with it.

[Actor]

Well, when you fail to enforce your borders, and you go to Mexico to advertise for food stamps, you pretty much have no choice to hire illegals.
Dems want them here to vote illegally for them, they better be prepared to hire them illegally as well.

American had a choice, and they chose Obama.......if it now cost them their jobs, sucks to be them. No sympathy. Whoever will do it cheaper, I say hire them. We have made out bed, time to lie in it.
go cry somewhere else - you Obama voters brought this on yourselves. Live with it.
Godwin's Law -- "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

PA corollary to Godwin's Law -- "As a PA thread grows longer, the probability of Tom bringing up Obama approaches 1." In other words, given enough time, in any PA discussion--regardless of topic or scope--Tom inevitably brings up Obama. :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Well, when you fail to enforce your borders, and you go to Mexico to advertise for food stamps, you pretty much have no choice to hire illegals.
Dems want them here to vote illegally for them, they better be prepared to hire them illegally as well.

American had a choice, and they chose Obama.......if it now cost them their jobs, sucks to be them. No sympathy. Whoever will do it cheaper, I say hire them. We have made out bed, time to lie in it.
go cry somewhere else - you Obama voters brought this on yourselves. Live with it.Like it has been any different under any of the republican presidents. Even Reagan gave them amnesty and left the borders wide open for more to come. Romney talked tough in a couple of early primaries and the changed his tune as soon as he got to Forida where he need the Hispanic vote. Obama actually deported more illegals than GWB did in his first term. Don't give that stuff that Reps are any better than dems on this. Because, in spite of their talk, they aren't. They are actually worse. You should have heard the hue cry from the GOP delegation here when the INS raided a meat plant here a few years ago. You thought they were liberals from CA. All the splitting up families crap, etc, when what they were really upset about was one of their big donor now had to hire American workers at a decent wage. The NE GOP AG and GOP Governor sided with illegals when a city passed an ordinance barring them from renting in the city and it was taken to court. I could go on and on.

[Tom]

You boys can't face reality?
Bobby brought it up, I replied truthfully.

[Tom]

Like it has been any different under any of the republican presidents. Even Reagan gave them amnesty and left the borders wide open for more to come.

Once again, you are clueless.
Reagan made a good faith deal with a liar - Kennedy.
Blame the one who lied through his teeth - Ted Kennedy - enemy of America.

[elysiantraveller]

The problem with a lot of tech infrastructure is its outdated before it even is completed. My semi-retired father got involved with some of the last stimulus batch. He was head-hunted by a company to oversee the installation of a bunch of government fiber being installed in Ohio in some smaller towns. Pay was tremendous and he was back doing stuff he did in the 80's so he took it.

It all sounds good installing fiber right? Well the problem was that Verizon and ATT already had fiber in the ground in those locations so it was redundant. Those are companies that actually have to maintain service to the area whereas after the government $$ runs out the contractor is done. My Dad joked that as quickly is they were laying the grid Verizon (Where he retired from) was going through updating all their fiber in the area rendering the stuff he was paid to do obsolete literally months after it was laid.

Moral of the story? A lot of "infrastructure" is better left to the private sector because they have a long term investment in it whereas government simply can't compete. Better to stick to roads, bridges, etc. etc.

[Tom]

As long as our military and nation defense depend on computers, we need to make sure the system is the best there is.

[rastajenk]

Yeah, I don't know where anyone gets the idea that conservatives are against investing in infrastructure. We merely want intelligent investment, not useless union payback projects to tar the same road year after year.

[Tom]

Hint: Soyldar was NOT a worthwhile project by an stretch of the imagination. Pure Obama payback. He should do time for it.

[Robert Goren]

Once again, you are clueless.
Reagan made a good faith deal with a liar - Kennedy.
Blame the one who lied through his teeth - Ted Kennedy - enemy of America.So Reagan was out smarted Teddy. I thought conservatives thought Reagan too smart to be trick by a liberal. Teddy was not brighest bulb in the room (at least among liberals)and If he out smarted Reagan then Reagan must not have been all that the conservatives think was. You had to dumber than a post to be outsmarted by Teddy. Everybody knows that, or least all the liberal know it.

[Tom]

Bobby, you are pathetic.
Seriously, if you buy that BS, you are one sick puppy.
But you do see why now why we think liberals are less important than pond scum. Because they are.

Reagan should have known fro the fact that that sniveling coward let a young die drown to save his pathetic Kennedy ass.

[Robert Goren]

Bobby, you are pathetic.
Seriously, if you buy that BS, you are one sick puppy.
But you do see why now why we think liberals are less important than pond scum. Because they are.

Reagan should have known fro the fact that that sniveling coward let a young die drown to save his pathetic Kennedy ass. Yes He should have, but like most GOP presidents, he was too dumb to know it. Not that it matters, The GOP has never done anything but talk about deporting illegals. That includes both Bushes and Reagan and the all of the GOP leaders in congress.

[Tom]

Yes He should have, but like most GOP presidents, he was too dumb to know it. Not that it matters, The GOP has never done anything but talk about deporting illegals. That includes both Bushes and Reagan and the all of the GOP leaders in congress.

At least they have not purposely let them come flowing in, like Teddy and the dems did. You never seem to know who what side is what, do you?

[badcompany]

The problem with a lot of tech infrastructure is its outdated before it even is completed. My semi-retired father got involved with some of the last stimulus batch. He was head-hunted by a company to oversee the installation of a bunch of government fiber being installed in Ohio in some smaller towns. Pay was tremendous and he was back doing stuff he did in the 80's so he took it.

It all sounds good installing fiber right? Well the problem was that Verizon and ATT already had fiber in the ground in those locations so it was redundant. Those are companies that actually have to maintain service to the area whereas after the government $$ runs out the contractor is done. My Dad joked that as quickly is they were laying the grid Verizon (Where he retired from) was going through updating all their fiber in the area rendering the stuff he was paid to do obsolete literally months after it was laid.

Moral of the story? A lot of "infrastructure" is better left to the private sector because they have a long term investment in it whereas government simply can't compete. Better to stick to roads, bridges, etc. etc.

Hey!Hey!Hey!!

None of these real world examples. This is Liberal Fantasy Land where the Government is an efficient allocator of resources.:lol:

btw,

I have Verizon Fios. It's awesome.

[Actor]

A few years back my cousin told me of his intention to take Amtrak from Omaha to Wichita. He was apparently under the impression that Amtrak had a direct line between the two cities. When I told him that such a trip would involve going through Chicago and then back to Newton KS, and that Newton was the closest stop to Wichita he didn't believe me. I think Newton is about 50 miles north of Wichita. When he tried to buy his ticket he found out I was right.

A few years ago I called Enterprise Car Rental in Dodge City KS to see about renting a car. They will bring the car to the station but Amtrak reaches Dodge City around 5:30 a.m. and he did not seem enthusiastic about renting me a car.

[Ocala Mike]

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/17182813-537/growing-number-of-intercity-travelers-boarding-the-train.html

[Robert Goren]

At least they have not purposely let them come flowing in, like Teddy and the dems did. You never seem to know who what side is what, do you?Where you from from 2001 to 2008? GWB open the doors wide and said "come on in" . At least that what his actions said. And they came in record numbers.

[Robert Goren]

http://posttrib.suntimes.com/17182813-537/growing-number-of-intercity-travelers-boarding-the-train.htmlIf the trains are full and they are still losing money, maybe they should try raising their prices. That what everybody else does when their business is booming. Business 101 business good, raise prices, business bad, cut prices.

[Ocala Mike]

Robert, passenger rail transportation ceased to be a viable "business" when the private sector bailed on it more than 40 years ago, resulting in the formation of Amtrak. It is heavily subsidized in just about every country on the planet.

[Ocala Mike]

A few years back my cousin told me of his intention to take Amtrak from Omaha to Wichita. He was apparently under the impression that Amtrak had a direct line between the two cities.



Actor, I could be wrong but I think that even in the "golden age" of passenger rail in this country, Omaha to Wichita would have involved two different railroads and a change of trains in Kansas City; probably a 10-12 hour trip at least.

[Robert Goren]

Robert, passenger rail transportation ceased to be a viable "business" when the private sector bailed on it more than 40 years ago, resulting in the formation of Amtrak. It is heavily subsidized in just about every country on the planet.Railroads were always heavily subsidized and still are whether passenger trains or freight trains. Stop pretending like it only Amtrak and just started 40 years ago.

[Actor]

Actor, I could be wrong but I think that even in the "golden age" of passenger rail in this country, Omaha to Wichita would have involved two different railroads and a change of trains in Kansas City; probably a 10-12 hour trip at least.And could still have involved a trip to Chicago. The point is that my cousin thought there was a direct line between the two. There isn't and and may never have been.

[Actor]

Railroads were always heavily subsidized... Right. The two companies that built the first transcontinental railroad were given a right-of-way that was a mile wide, which they were free to sell to the highest bidder. They did sell most of it. More of a bribe than a subsidy.

[Tom]

At one time, we needed the railroads.
That time has passed.

[Actor]

At one time, we needed the railroads.
That time has passed.If you mean passenger service then you are correct. The number of passengers carried by Amtrak is minimal compared to airlines, buses and private autos. And there is not hue and cry for Amtrak to expand.

But I think we still need freight. Most of the stuff coming in from Asia moves eastward by rail. The alternative is trucking and I don't think the trucking industry has the capacity. Plus the interstates are starting to crumble. And trains are more efficient than trucks. If you believe that commercial that one of the rail companies puts on TV the miles per gallon per ton of freight is enormous. And a small crew operates a mile long train. Moving the same freight by truck would take 50 to 100 drivers.

[Robert Goren]

At one time, we needed the railroads.
That time has passed.that is not true. We probably don't need Amtrak, but we still need them to move grain and until we get all power plants converted to Natural Gas move coal.

[Tom]

As Actor said, passenger trains.
Unless you have a niche market, like the East Coast corridor, where volume would justify it.

[The Judge]

San Francisco does not have a train that comes from anywhere other than a commuter train that runs back and forth from San Jose Ca. a distance of about 60 miles. All other trains stop in Oakland/Emeryville you bus into and out of San Francisco. Totally crazy.

[anotherCAfan]

San Francisco does not have a train that comes from anywhere other than a commuter train that runs back and forth from San Jose Ca. a distance of about 60 miles. All other trains stop in Oakland/Emeryville you bus into and out of San Francisco. Totally crazy.
If you are coming from points north (such as Sacramento), it is cheaper and more practical to take a bus or BART from Oakland/Emeryville to San Francisco.

If you are coming from San Jose, take the very-popular train up the peninsula (look out the window at the sad remains of Bay Meadows).


+++++


An interesting note with freight railroads, is that they get indirect government support too just like other modes of transportation. For example, in San Bernardino there is a railroad bridge being built to bridge one set of extremely busy tracks over another set of extremely busy tracks. I believe it is partially to totally publicly funded, but it improves the movement of goods, the quality of life for people in Colton, and hopefully helps get a few trucks off the already-at-critical-mass freeways.

Truckers have been lobbying for years for the extension of a freeway about five miles west of Santa Anita. I am in favor of this freeway proposal to benefit the commuters of Los Angeles.

[Ocala Mike]

Here is another viewpoint from the "green" side:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/03/15/u-s-poised-for-passenger-rail-boom/