submitter: Amtrak gets a boost as Obama finds one more way to rail the country

Yeah, what a cock - he really does want to turn Murrica into Europe, with all their gay trains and stuff.

Amtrak has been lingering near death for decades. Other than people in the northeast who use commuter trains, I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

Nabb1: I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

Freight?

Fear_and_Loathing: Nabb1: I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

Freight?

Completely different story. I wouldn't call that "rail travel" in the sense of passenger usage, and Amtrak isn't in the freight business. Commercial freight rail transport is still alive and well.

Nabb1: Commercial freight rail transport is still alive and well.

True, but they share the rails that are maintained by Amtrak.

Fear_and_Loathing: maintained by Amtrak.

Okay, "maintained" might be the wrong word. Lol.

Fear_and_Loathing: Nabb1: Commercial freight rail transport is still alive and well.

True, but they share the rails that are maintained by Amtrak.

That may be true, but the article says that roughly half of the money is headed for the northeast corridor between Boston and Washington, and it seems much of this money is aimed at boosting the passenger transport end of the business. I have no problem with helping to boost existing rail line infrastructure. I just don't know how much we need to prop up Amtrak's passenger service. This debate has been raging for years, anyway.

Nabb1: That may be true, but the article says that roughly half of the money is headed for the northeast corridor between Boston and Washington, and it seems much of this money is aimed at boosting the passenger transport end of the business. I have no problem with helping to boost existing rail line infrastructure. I just don't know how much we need to prop up Amtrak's passenger service. This debate has been raging for years, anyway.

If you're talking about taking the family on vacation from Denver to DisneyWorld, you're dead-on. However, these are commuter lines that are alive and well as far as passenger census goes. They're just getting raggedy, is all.

Personally, I'd like to see Amtrak's non-commuter passenger lines reduced to one transcontinental luxury line (LA to NYC or San Fran to DC), something like the Orient Express.

Keep in mind, however, that Kris Kristofferson wrote "Me and Bobby McGee" while sitting at the Amtrak station here in Thibodaux. :)

Nabb1: That may be true, but the article says that roughly half of the money is headed for the northeast corridor between Boston and Washington

Agreed, I live along that line and it is a sink hole. When they electrified it, they based their fares on commuter flights, and we see how that worked out for them.

"We are as fast, We are as fast, suck my schedule! We are as fast!" In the end not so much and lousy service. On a side note Amtrak is also killing the marine industry because they can't keep a schedule and they are illegally keeping the drawbridges closed when they should be open by law.

I am not happy about Amtrak, then again, It really can't be allowed to fail.

NeauxFear: Keep in mind, however, that Kris Kristofferson wrote "Me and Bobby McGee" while sitting at the Amtrak station here in Thibodaux. :)

Did he write it while parked in a Delorean? :)

M&BMcG - 1969
Amtrak - 1971

About time. One of the reasons rail travel isn't popular other than NE commuters is because Amtrak doesn't own the rails. That means if Norfolk-Southern has a two mile long freight going at ten mph, then the Amtrak train gets shunted aside for an hour because the freight represents a profit to the owner of the rails.

Good.

I've been saying for years that I'd love to see rail travel make a resurgence here in the USA.
If you haven't tried it, it really IS the way to travel (unless you're in a hurry, obviously).

We need to modernize the infrastructure the trains run on and make them more efficient. First of all, you guys may not know this, but Amtrak always gets shoved aside for freight trains, since those companies own the tracks. Thus, their ability to operate profitably suffers. If we moved to a mag lev system, and they had their own tracks to run on, perfect!

First of all, it wouldn't take 48 hours to go from Chicago to LA, and second, the prices could stay competitive with airlines. I can pay the same for coach to go Dulles to LA, but it takes three days and I'm stuck in a coach seat for three days instead of five hours. Second, it's cheaper to run trains than fly or ship things through the Panama Canal. Third, the more options we give for mass transit, the better on the environment and for the country as a whole- airlines would have a bona fide competitor outside their sphere of influence.

But just throwing more money to Amtrak as-is? Nah. Bad idea.

eddyatwork: About time. One of the reasons rail travel isn't popular other than NE commuters is because Amtrak doesn't own the rails. That means if Norfolk-Southern has a two mile long freight going at ten mph, then the Amtrak train gets shunted aside for an hour because the freight represents a profit to the owner of the rails.

*shakes fist

DarthBrooks: Did he write it while parked in a Delorean? :)

M&BMcG - 1969
Amtrak - 1971

Hehehe, Anmtrak's infrastructure didn't appear out of thin air, ya know. I think it was an NO&O (New Orleans and Opelousas) station in '69, before it became an Amtrak station. NO&O built it, anyway.

Besides, Amtrak couldn't get up to 88mph while going downhill even if it was raining butter.

ragekage: If we moved to a mag lev system, and they had their own tracks to run on, perfect!

This would be expensive as hell but would revolutionize rail in the US.

People think of cross country travel which is commercially unrealistic for even a maglev system. It is possible but why would I want to spend 20 hours plus on a train when a plane could do it in 4? The real strength of rail is mid-length trips (200-500 miles) like LA to Vegas or NYC to DC. Much faster than a car, about the same as an airplane, but more comfortable.

eddyatwork: ragekage: If we moved to a mag lev system, and they had their own tracks to run on, perfect!

This would be expensive as hell but would revolutionize rail in the US.

People think of cross country travel which is commercially unrealistic for even a maglev system. It is possible but why would I want to spend 20 hours plus on a train when a plane could do it in 4? The real strength of rail is mid-length trips (200-500 miles) like LA to Vegas or NYC to DC. Much faster than a car, about the same as an airplane, but more comfortable.

Oh, yeah. Cross country would never be fast than in a plane, just more relaxing.

Ahead, to the 19th century we go.

you misspelled "rally," submittroll.

When I get old and don't care about getting there as efficiently and cheaply as possible, I might take a cross country train ride. Until then, it's too expensive, too slow, and too boring for my tastes.

I wouldn't mind doing a rocky mountains trek, though. Fly to Calgary, train to Vancouver... that would be quite nice.

Tr0mBoNe: When I get old and don't care about getting there as efficiently and cheaply as possible, I might take a cross country train ride. Until then, it's too expensive, too slow, and too boring for my tastes.

I wouldn't mind doing a rocky mountains trek, though. Fly to Calgary, train to Vancouver... that would be quite nice.

I did the Rocky Mountains on Amtrak back in, like, '96 or so. It really is beautiful, it's the reason I want to be able to do it again. Omaha to Salt Lake City, then down through Sacramento to LA. If I could, I'd do that again, head up the Pacific coast, then back across through Washington, Montana, etc.

ZAZ: Ahead, to the 19th century we go.

You know how I get to work every single day? Train. All my bosses who live an hour or more drive from downtown? Train. How is this 19th century?

Nabb1: Amtrak has been lingering near death for decades. Other than people in the northeast who use commuter trains, I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

Because flying is faster and only a little more expensive. It's BS. I want a cheap train system so I don't have to fly. I don't mind if it takes an extra hour or even two.

Canadian Canuck: I want a cheap train system so I don't have to fly. I don't mind if it takes an extra hour or even two.

Ditto. I don't know what a commuter train's on-time percentage or average delay is, but it simply can't be any worse than air travel today.

Obama sucks so far... Same old shiat, different guy.

Canadian Canuck: Nabb1: Amtrak has been lingering near death for decades. Other than people in the northeast who use commuter trains, I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

Because flying is faster and only a little more expensive. It's BS. I want a cheap train system so I don't have to fly. I don't mind if it takes an extra hour or even two.

In Canada, train is more expensive and it takes longer. I can fly from Halifax to Vancouver for about $700 face value ticket. VIA rail will get me in to Vancouver 7 days from now for about $1000. Let's say I wanted a bedroom for that 6 day trek across this great land... well that'll be another $600, buddy.

I want a cheap train system as well but it's not for a country of our size..

lsc78: I'm a retard.

You sure are.

ZAZ: Ahead, to the 19th century we go.

More like the 21st century. It was a disastrous mistake to dismantle our rail system in the early 20th century, and we've been paying for it for decades. The reason no one rides trains in the US isn't because train can't work but because train has been forced not to work.

A large part of this was the power of the auto industry in the 1920s to 1940s in influencing policy. Obviously the auto industry hasn't been "keeping down" rail for quite a while now, inertia does a good enough job of that, but certainly it was Ford and GM and various others who pressured the government to sell most of its rail lines.

I am a travel agent in the Boston area. The Acela train takes you from downtown boston to downtown NYC in 4 hours. The flight is only an hour, but you have to arrive an hour early at the airport, deal with security, baggage etc. and then arrive in La Guardia which is a cab ride into the city. If there is heavy traffic, it can take a while. Alot of my clients like the train too, because you can work the whole ride on your laptop.

lsc78: Obama sucks so far... Same old shiat, different guy.

IN what farking sense does your statement work, given this article?

I ride on the Northeast Corridor every single day, along with a large number of other people.

I took the family to DC on the train from Florida 3 years ago. I could have rented a NICE vehicle, gotten there faster while eating nicer food, using nicer bathrooms, and saved a ton of money.

I would take a train as long as I didn't have to go through Kentucky. That place sucks ass...and their basketball team sucks ass.

Tr0mBoNe: In Canada, train is more expensive and it takes longer. I can fly from Halifax to Vancouver for about $700 face value ticket. VIA rail will get me in to Vancouver 7 days from now for about $1000. Let's say I wanted a bedroom for that 6 day trek across this great land... well that'll be another $600, buddy.

I want a cheap train system as well but it's not for a country of our size..

Of course it doesn't make sense if you are traveling across the entire continent. What about shorter trips, such as Halifax-Montreal or Montreal-Toronto?

lsc78: "Obama sucks so far... Same old shiat, different guy."

Seems like you're just oblivious. He's lifted stem cell funding restrictions, decriminalized marijuana, heavily funded renewable energy, appointed nobel prize winning scientists to his science and energy advisory positions and funded development of more efficient electric car batteries as part of the stimulus.

That's a huge change, and it's exactly what I voted for.

Don't be fooled, todays O talking poin,t according to the standard schedule of sound bites, is 'food safety'.

He'll read something off the teleprompter later

Partisan: Canadian Canuck: I want a cheap train system so I don't have to fly. I don't mind if it takes an extra hour or even two.

Ditto. I don't know what a commuter train's on-time percentage or average delay is, but it simply can't be any worse than air travel today.

Yes, yes it can. I occasionally take the train between DC and Richmond, VA. A very straightforward trip with only a handful of stops in between. On average, it is an hour late and occasionally two hours.

Meanwhile, I've flown maybe 20 times in the last year, with only one serious delay. I don't know what causes Amtrak to suck, but it most certainly does.

Amtrak has been receiving subsidies for decades. This is nothing new.

Nabb1: h for decades. Other than people in the northeast who use commuter trains, I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

I would, if it were more like Europe. I loved going from Dusseldorf to Paris in a few hours AND without the check-in hassles and crowding of flying. Yeah, fast trains are very nice ways to travel.

Fear_and_Loathing: "We are as fast, We are as fast, suck my schedule! We are as fast!" In the end not so much and lousy service. On a side note Amtrak is also killing the marine industry because they can't keep a schedule and they are illegally keeping the drawbridges closed when they should be open by law.

The reason they are delayed is because of lack of money to fix stuff. Article states that the Acela can go 150mph, but only on 18 miles of track. I think that number might be a little on the low side, but it still shows that crap needs to be fixed. Not only are there places that the max is 80mph, but there are spots where it drops to 35mph. If they have money to update the track, and also repair all of the failing concrete ties, all of a sudden it become a very attractive alternative to do Boston-NYC, NYC-DC via rail instead of flying or driving. If you cut funding, it just gets crappier, thus making people not ride, thus losing more money, thus getting crappier.

Increasing rail travel benefits everyone... even if you still drive, get enough people on the train, and voila... traffic gets cut.

can't get signed without the demo, but can't get the demo without the money from getting signed... HELLO EXACTLY!

freelance layabout: Meanwhile, I've flown maybe 20 times in the last year, with only one serious delay. I don't know what causes Amtrak to suck, but it most certainly does.

Funny, I can't remember the last on-time flight I took. Then again I mostly fly in and out of Atlanta, Dulles and Laguardia.

What causes the train delays? I know most of my air delays are weather in completely different parts of the country and runway congestion.

Two Dogs Farking: gay trains

Thanks for that mental image.

netcentric: Don't be fooled, todays O talking poin,t according to the standard schedule of sound bites, is 'food safety'.

He'll read something off the teleprompter later


That's what you're going with?...OMG Obama uses a teleprompter?
um...ok....

Before you bad-mouth train travel, take a trip on a train. It's a great way to get across country, I take the train from Boston to Minneapolis a couple times a year and enjoy it very much. My cell phone and wireless internet work the entire way, I can get a lot of work done, and the good meals in the dining car don't cost anymore than your local family restaurant. Try it, you'll like it.



(new window)

WOW A SUBSIDY! THAT SHOULD INCREASE DEMAND! Nice thinking Obama. Let's spend money into something else consumers don't want while we're at it

HowlingFrog
Good.

I've been saying for years that I'd love to see rail travel make a resurgence here in the USA.



THIS.
I love the rails and I am in total agreement with them getting more funds. IMHO resurrecting rail travel and transport all over the country would be a great idea for a variety of reasons.

Zamboro: decriminalized marijuana,

When did this happen? Drugs abuse is for retards but the war on drugs is doubly retarded. I'd gain a measure of respect if he managed to end the war on drugs.

Amtrak is fail on rails and must be dismantled.

NotSubby: Nabb1: h for decades. Other than people in the northeast who use commuter trains, I really don't know anyone that uses rail travel regularly anymore.

I would, if it were more like Europe. I loved going from Dusseldorf to Paris in a few hours AND without the check-in hassles and crowding of flying. Yeah, fast trains are very nice ways to travel.

Europe is densely populated. Unless we get 3 billion people in this country, there's no reason for a huge system of rails.

Yeah, mid-distance inter-city routes... say linking all the cities on the West Coast, various cities in the Midwest...etc.

I'm a big fan of the Hiawatha Line - a commuter line that links Milwaukee to Chicago, which I think is state subsidized by Ill and WI. Cheap, comfortable/clean and frequent. Waiting for the trains, you have free wi-fi in their waiting lounges, plenty of food service, and no bullshiat TSA to go through.

That's the way to go.

Two Dogs Farking: Yeah, what a cock - he really does want to turn Murrica into Europe, with all their gay trains and stuff.

Unless the proposal includes giving passenger trains the same priority level for using the tracks as freight trains, it's worthless.

I'd LOVE to see high-speed rail here in the U.S. Love it.

But, Amtrak, with its current access level to our tracks, is still slower than driving.

What I want to know is how we ended up handing over national infrastructure to private corporations. How the fark did this happen?