What is happening to the SWC route?

[Ryan]

Amtrak isn't supposed to make a profit. It's a public service. It should look to maximize revenues and minimize its costs to taxpayers, but at the end of the day, transporting people doesn't make money. Roads don't make money. Air travel doesn't make money (when you factor in all of the costs of providing it). Rail travel doesn't make money.

Amtrak is a for profit corporation and there are several railroads making a profit on their passenger divisions (some don't even have freight divisions).

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

Trying to insist that it does is pants-on-head-retarded. The folks along the Raton line deserve service and should keep it. The people along the transcon deserve it as well and should get it - just not at the expense of the others.

Why do the very few folks on the Raton pass deserve several hundred million dollars in additional subsidy for rail travel instead of simply Greyhound? Heck, you could probably build a small airport and give EAS service to replace each station for less money.

They pay taxes, just like you and I. There's also the issue of the other 290-something million of us that might like to visit there. Should we be limited to just one mode of transportation, or should we have the freedom to choose how we move about the country?

 

[VentureForth]

Amtrak isn't supposed to make a profit. It's a public service. It should look to maximize revenues and minimize its costs to taxpayers, but at the end of the day, transporting people doesn't make money. Roads don't make money. Air travel doesn't make money (when you factor in all of the costs of providing it). Rail travel doesn't make money.

Amtrak is a for profit corporation and there are several railroads making a profit on their passenger divisions (some don't even have freight divisions).

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

You didn't say it had to provide nationwide service. You said "Rail travel doesn't make money". There are several instances around the world - even national services - that do make profit. Interestingly, they tend to be ones that not directly subsidized by the government - operated as a business using "supply" and "demand" models.

Hardly retarded - which, as the husband of a special education teacher, I find great offense at your use of that word.

 

[Ryan]

It's pretty easy to make money when you only do the profitable stuff.

But that's not Amtrak's charter, which is the topic of conversation here. Amtrak could make money too, if all they served was the NEC and someone else built and maintained the tracks. Fortunately, we've decided as a nation that there are some things worth doing, even if you can't turn a profit doing it.

 

[Paulus]

Amtrak isn't supposed to make a profit. It's a public service. It should look to maximize revenues and minimize its costs to taxpayers, but at the end of the day, transporting people doesn't make money. Roads don't make money. Air travel doesn't make money (when you factor in all of the costs of providing it). Rail travel doesn't make money.

Amtrak is a for profit corporation and there are several railroads making a profit on their passenger divisions (some don't even have freight divisions).

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

Yep, though the split of the operating companies and infrastructure companies in Europe hasn't helped clarify things terribly.

They pay taxes, just like you and I. There's also the issue of the other 290-something million of us that might like to visit there.

So what if they pay taxes? Should we build an HSR line to every podunk little town in the middle of nowhere just because they pay taxes? And quite frankly, there's already an expressed disinterest in visiting there by the other 300 million Americans given the actual station boarding figures.

Should we be limited to just one mode of transportation, or should we have the freedom to choose how we move about the country?

Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.

 

[Railroad Bill]

You didn't say it had to provide nationwide service. You said "Rail travel doesn't make money". There are several instances around the world - even national services - that do make profit. Interestingly, they tend to be ones that not directly subsidized by the government - operated as a business using "supply" and "demand" models.

Hardly retarded - which, as the husband of a special education teacher, I find great offense at your use of that word.

Yes, Ryan--please choose your words more carefully. As a member of our local developmentally disabled housing board, this term is no longer acceptable in polite company. :mellow:

 

[Ryan]

Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.

Good for you. You lobby to elect politicians that would change that mandate. I'll fight fiercely to oppose them. But until that happens, service along the Raton pass route is a part of Amtrak's service. Suggesting that the board be replaced for providing that service is insane.

As a reminder, here's what Congress said about Amtrak's purpose at in 1970:

 

[jis]

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

Yep, though the split of the operating companies and infrastructure companies in Europe hasn't helped clarify things terribly.

Which company(ies) in which nation(s) did you have in mind?

 

[SarahZ]

Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.

I don't have kids, but I happily pay school taxes. I vote for every millage increase. You know why? Because I want our country to be full of educated people, and I believe every child should have a good education. I don't mind "subsidizing" my neighbors' children's education for that very reason.

I could expand that argument to state that I believe everyone should have access to transportation, especially since that means more people will travel, which boosts local economies, and more people will have access to jobs, which has multiple benefits. Additionally, creating rail lines and adding service creates jobs. That is why I vote for pro-train local and state representatives every single time, just like voting "yes" for school millages.

 

[VentureForth]

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

Yep, though the split of the operating companies and infrastructure companies in Europe hasn't helped clarify things terribly.

Which company(ies) in which nation(s) did you have in mind?

I'm not Paulus, but let's look at two text books - the UK and Japan. UK split up and privatised with massive problems, yet Japan managed to privatise in a very healthy manner.

 

[Ryan]

Pretend I know nothing about rail travel in Japan (it shouldn't be hard, I don't know anything about it).

One company pays for everything from the ground up (tracks, rolling stock and operations)? And serves "crowded urban areas and ... other areas of the country"? And still makes a profit?

 

[D.P. Roberts]

I don't think it's fair to compare any two countries geographically - especially comparing "first world" countrues like the UK and Japan to the US. I don't remember the exact numbers, but something like 90% of the country lives on 10% of the land (along the coast) in Japan. In the UK, 60 million people are crammed into an area the size of North Dakota.

Air travel is terrible for the environment. So are cars. Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world. We need rail travel to continuenow ifwestill want a viable system decades from now.

 

[Paulus]

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

Yep, though the split of the operating companies and infrastructure companies in Europe hasn't helped clarify things terribly.

Which company(ies) in which nation(s) did you have in mind?

SNCF and RFF for instance (especially when you get into weirdness like SNCF paying tolls to RFF to pay SNCF to maintain the tracks which SNCF may do at a loss).

 

[Paulus]

As a reminder, here's what Congress said about Amtrak's purpose at in 1970:

The Raton Pass is the exact opposite of modern and efficient

 

[jis]

All-in, infrastructure, rolling stock and operations, and providing nationwide service?

Yep, though the split of the operating companies and infrastructure companies in Europe hasn't helped clarify things terribly.

Which company(ies) in which nation(s) did you have in mind?

SNCF and RFF for instance (especially when you get into weirdness like SNCF paying tolls to RFF to pay SNCF to maintain the tracks which SNCF may do at a loss).

Are you counting the huge subsidies that SNCF gets from the various departments for running the TER services?

 

[henryj]

Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.

Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.

 

[henryj]

Freedom to choose how we move about the country does not entail the rest of the country massively subsidizing your travel.

I don't have kids, but I happily pay school taxes. I vote for every millage increase.

I don't happily pay ANY taxes. LOL. Pay mine if you like to do it so much.

 

[Ryan]

That's fine - go ahead and stop using any government services and you can stop paying.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.

Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.

Thank you for confirming my long standing suspicion that Texas is indeed a third world country.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.

Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.

Thank you for confirming my long standing suspicion that Texas is indeed a third world country.

What with the high taxes, the mob and the crooked politicians I thought New Jersey was a third world place!

 

[neroden]

Like I said, I got no problem with serving Raton Pass, but the resources necessary to keep it open (what was it, $500 million?) could be much better spent on providing rail service in *so* many other places. The Lackawanna Cutoff comes to mind, locally, since the full cost is supposed to be in the same ballpark. Scranton-Wilkes Barre has 560K population, and that's without considering people driving from further out. The Raton route has no population worth mentioning.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.

Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.

Thank you for confirming my long standing suspicion that Texas is indeed a third world country.

What with the high taxes, the mob and the crooked politicians I thought New Jersey was a third world place!

Ever heard the Randy Newman song 'I Love LA'? I wrote a take off called 'I Hate NJ'

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.

Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.

Okay, that's what I get for typing on my phone as I'm getting onto a train...

Driving in this country is becoming increasingly unpopular (or decreasingly popular).

Many other countries that are industrializing (like China and India) are also putting cars on the roads in huge numbers. However, they're also experiencing all the problems that go with that - some places in China have traffic jams that last for days.

But again, I think every country is a unique political, geographic entity, with its own transportation issues. In the US, it has often been said that we have "a love affair with the car." But there are many signs that this love affair is at an end. For one thing, teenagers aren't getting licenses at the rates they used to:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131217-four-theories-why-teens-drive-less-today/

If current teens aren't driving like they used to, and don't own cars, they're going to need alternate forms of transportation to go longer distances. As much as people seem to prefer flying over trains, almost no one wants to see a new airport get built near them, or to see more air traffic into their airports. Rail travel can expand relatively easily to fill this need.

 

[henryj]

Cars are also becoming decreasingly unpopular, both in the US and around the world.

Did you mean 'increasingly'? Or did you mean to say they are becoming more popular. Personally, I think it is the latter, particularly in the so called third world where people are finally able to afford a car. Apparently you ain't from around here.

Driving in this country is becoming increasingly unpopular (or decreasingly popular).

If current teens aren't driving like they used to, and don't own cars, they're going to need alternate forms of transportation to go longer distances. As much as people seem to prefer flying over trains, almost no one wants to see a new airport get built near them, or to see more air traffic into their airports. Rail travel can expand relatively easily to fill this need.

Like I said Roberts, it all depends on where you are. Here in Katy, Tx I see driver's Ed cars every day all over the place. So I would say teens are getting their licenses just like they always have. Driving is just as popular here as always. Maybe where you are it's different. But here in Texas people drive everywhere or they fly SWA. We have very few trains and public transportation is lightly used, usually for commuting or by the poor who can't afford a car. I just don't see any of these' trends' you seem to be talking about. Also, you should read the comments posted about the article you gave us the link too. LOL.

 

[neroden]

Katy, the town named after the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("M-K-T") railroad. Sigh.

Anyway, the drop in drivers' licenses, drop in Vehicle Miles Travelled, aging of the population with drivers' licenses, and drop in car ownership are all real nationwide trends.

I haven't seen a state or local breakdown of those numbers. Maybe they're still car-crazy in Katy, but if they are, it means that the trend is even *stronger* elsewhere.

 

[henryj]

Katy, the town named after the Missouri-Kansas-Texas ("M-K-T") railroad. Sigh.

Anyway, the drop in drivers' licenses, drop in Vehicle Miles Travelled, aging of the population with drivers' licenses, and drop in car ownership are all real nationwide trends.

I haven't seen a state or local breakdown of those numbers. Maybe they're still car-crazy in Katy, but if they are, it means that the trend is even *stronger* elsewhere.

Neroden, your in New York. That's a totally different world. The only reason for a drop in teen drivers is they can't get a job and don't have the money for a car and the insurance. Here in Texas there are plenty of jobs and money for cars. This railfan type dream that all this means more demand for trains is just hallucinating.