Yet, it would be unwise to say that people dont travel amtrak for other reasons; such as health or fear of flying. However, there are always good ol' GreyHound and best of all a nice road trip down an interstate. The basic idea is that a car provides greater speed than amtrak; while greyhound provides greater savings than amtrak. Thus the way I see it - one of these two options should fit the needs of 99% of amtrak long distance travelers. However, it is quite obvious that neither of these options (exspecially the bus) equals the leisure and luxury of an Amtrak trip. However, I state once again that the government has no obligation to make your travel overly relaxing. And if you really want to relax on a train- then take the American Orient express.

quote:

---

Originally posted by polarbearucla:
I think what has become clear through the John Kerry thread is that long distnace routes make little sense in terms of money and time.

---

I don't recall any such conclusion posted there. One trip for one person was used as an example. You can't extrapolate that into all trips for everybody.

quote:

---

Amtrak may or may not cost more than a flight but will surely take a lot longer,

---

So? Time isn't everything.

quote:

---

and as someone pointed out delays are measured in hours not minutes.

---

That is not an inherent deficiency of rail travel, but rather the result of inadequate capital investment in infrastructure quality and capacity.

quote:

---

Thus if Amtrak's long distance routes don't serve business they must serve the leisure crowd - ie perosnal trips where travel time is not a major factor.

---

You are making a common assumption that trips break down into only two categories, business (related to one's profession) and pleasure. There is a third category called personal business. This covers things like attending family events (weddings, funerals), students shuttling between home and school (which I did a lot in the '70s by the Coast Starlight), and all sorts of other personal matters that are as diverse as the people traveling. A large chunk (30%-40%, I forget the exact number) of Amtrak long-distance customers travel on personal business.

quote:

---

While I totally agree that travel by train is a great vacation within itself, I'm not sure that it should be on the Federal government's tab. I dont see the federal government running AmCruise or any other luxury cruise ship.

---

In all modes of travel, Amtrak included, leisure travel constitutes about a third of all travel business. Amtrak is actually pretty consistent with other modes in that regard. As for cruise ships, (which are 100% leisure travel) the government does fund the ports, waterways, security via the coast guard, customs, etc, which those cruise ships require. The government also funds the aviation infrastructure, including air traffic control, so tourists can spend a few days lounging at resorts on Maui. (You seriously don't think they're flying to Hawaii on business do you?) And the government supports the highways for the leisure traveler's motor homes.

quote:

---

I dont see the federal government running AmCruise or any other luxury cruise ship.

---

You're right, Government doesn't run the ships. Nor does the government fly the planes or drive the cars. Government supplies the infrastructure so these things can function. With the long-distanced trains, the situation is reversed. Private companies supply the infrastructure, the traffic control, security, etc, with virtually NO government money. Just because, in this one case, the setup is different doesn't mean no government money should be involved anywhere.

quote:

---

I dont think very many people would argue that the goverment should sponsor cruises.

---

As mentioned above, the government does sponsor cruises, just not directly.

However, implicit in your comments is the idea that leisure travel is somehow less legitimate than business travel. There are several problems with this. Tourism is a huge part of the national economy, if not the largest. The government helps support tourism in many ways, such as transportation infrastructure (as already noted) and state and national park systems, and many states pay for advertising to promote tourism. Government pays for all sorts of tourist activities.

In the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the only industry that was directly attacked was the travel industry, specifically the airlines. Travel was really the only segment of the economy that was directly affected, and the tourism industry was especially hard hit. (Business travelers could compensate with teleconferencing and that sort of thing, but tourists can't do that.) The loss of tourism business dragged down the entire national economy for a over year afterwards. It hurt restaurants, retail, hotels, and on down the line. Tourism is indeed economically vital.

So even if your assertion is correct, that almost all long distance train travelers are tourists, why should that be a problem? Tourism is an essential part of the economy, and Amtrak supports tourism. I think that's great!

It might also be noted that Amtrak goes to many popular tourist destinations with little or no air service. Glenwood Springs and Winter Park in Colorado come immediately to mind.

quote:

---

Yet, it would be unwise to say that people dont travel amtrak for other reasons; such as health or fear of flying. However, there are always good ol' GreyHound and best of all a nice road trip down an interstate.

---

Greyhound is horrible for a trip much over 200 miles. Private auto is better, but not suitable for all trips, especially long-hauls across the deserts, or for the elderly.

quote:

---

The basic idea is that a car provides greater speed than amtrak;

---

Not if you factor in lodgings en route. If you do that Amtrak is both cheaper and faster. I calculated that our trip from Emeryville to Denver in 2000 cost my wife and I just 32 cents per mile on the California Zephyr. That's 16 cents per person per mile. Total time, including delays was about 35 hours each way. It would have taken three days to drive that in blistering heat. No thanks.

quote:

---

while greyhound provides greater savings than amtrak.

---

You get what you pay for.

quote:

---

Thus the way I see it - one of these two options should fit the needs of 99% of amtrak long distance travelers.

---

Unless you back that up with some hard empirical data, it amounts to nothing more than a pet theory.

quote:

---

I state once again that the government has no obligation to make your travel overly relaxing.

---

The government has no obligation to provide roadside rest areas either. But at those certain moments I'll bet you're sure glad they do! Remember, the "government" is you and me, so I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent to make my life a little easier.

quote:

---

And if you really want to relax on a train- then take the American Orient express.

---

Problem is, AOE doesn't provide regularly scheduled service to over 500 cities from coast to coast. Nor do I have the $3000+ necessary to travel by train and see a few parks on AOE's limited schedule. I take Amtrak long-distance trains because I need to get somewhere, and because, for my needs, it is cost effective and convenient. And with that statement, there goes your entire theory. Amtrak long-distance trains work for me as basic transportation, as it does for many of the people I meet on the trains.

quote:

---

Now that being said - Amtrak serves many purposes in the NE US and down here in So. Cal - the service is fine and is *almost* as quick as car a way less stressful.

---

It serves many other places as well. Long distance trains are all I have access to, and I use them because they meet my needs.

------------------
Sing to the tune of Humoresque:
Passengers will please refrain,
From flushing toilets while the train,
Is standing in the station,
I love you.

The Del Monte Club Car

Amtrak can never improve its efficiency until it is properly funded. I would like to see what a properly funded Amtrak would look like. I imagine that a more efficient Amtrak would encourage new riders. A more efficient Amtrak is one that is user friendly to all potential riders regardless of the state that they come from. What is really not fair is that the east and west coasts get the very best of Amtrak while the middle of the country is treated as a step child. If you make it easier to catch a train, more people will ride.

For what its worth,

Like it or not, there is only one place in which if intercity rail service did not exist, severe economic impact would occur - and that is within the Northeast Corridor.

By right, this is a regional operation, and in some kind of unattainable perfect world, it would be funded without any burden whatever to taxpayers residing in, say, Wyoming. But, like the Walgreen TV ads state, we do not live in a perfect world, and the track record of multi-state regional authorities garnering funding at regional level is to say the least disappointing.

The "framers' of RPSA '70 knew that the only reasonable and practical way that the Corridor would get funding was at Federal level, and to obtain such funding, the "goodies have to be passed out' in the form of a train here, a job there, a procurement here, a consultancy there. It aint pretty, but it is simply how it's done, folks!!!

Fortunately, and this should be of great interest to the large West Coast constituency of this board, the framers provided a means to accomodate any local jurisdiction that chose to fund intercity trains, and that of course is the "Section 403-B" provision of the Act. California has made notable use of this provision, as have, albeit to a lesser extent, the two other West Coast states.

And in response to Uncle Buck, eliminating the sunset limited in some ways would make sense, punctuality, loss per passenger.
but in many more ways it would not make sense, loss of service to large cities, pensacola, houston, el paso, and tucson as well as connections in new orleans, san antonio, jacksonville, and LA.
Loss to many other small towns. SOmthing definetly needs to be done( destroying UP j/k), but elimination is not the answer.

Mr Norman has it right. The NEC needs the votes of the West Coast and flyover country states. So, we will have a national grid for some time to come.

Of course, with all the expertise of railfans in the NEC, maybe they DO have enough knowledge, skills, and business acument to run their own railroad

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikesmith:
Mr Toy:
I only have one point of contention with your post. You stated that the AOE would cost $3000+. YOu are mistaking if you think your wife would allow you to travel via the AOE without her....What you meant to state was that it would cost $6,000+.

---

Well put, Capltd29: I would pogo stick at your side should it come to that. You certainly have a way with words and look forward to hearing more of your thoughts in the future.

We are surrounded by conservatives on this board, Capltd29. They certainly do have a way of pushing one's buttons, especially now that they are having to deal with the fact that George W. Bush, like his father, will not be re-elected.

Of course you'd like to see more investment in CA: You live there.

I live in New Mexico. I think shoring up the Southwest Chief would be a good idea. Have you ever even climbed aboard the Southwest Chief, my friend? Could you sleep at night knowing you were instrumental in its demise?

I wish you would explain to me what you mean by "sound investment?" I don't have a clue what you mean by that combination of words.

I know you boys out in California have your heart set on high speed rail. Do you call that a sound investment and if so, why?

Let me tell you what I consider a sound investment:

Off the top of my head, I think the long hauls cost the taxpayer a few hundred million dollars. Now then, what do we get for that money? I know what I get: I get to Chicago and Los Angeles for practically nothing whenever I please.

What do you get for that investment? Maybe *you* get nothing now, but someday, in the future, you get the option of turning those routes into something really awesome. It might be high speed rail, it might be maglev, who knows?

Boy, if you let those routes slip through your fingers, you may never get them back again. Those freight lines might just decide not to let you have them again for passenger rail. And why should they? In the world of business, you don't have to be a nice guy.

From what I understand, Amtrak is a bit of a thorn in the side of the freight companies. Life would be so much easier for them if those passenger trains weren't in the way all the time. Furthermore, the liability of having to rent out lines that transport humans is somewhat of a nuisance.

I assume you are a young man. I am getting on in years. It's your world and you have to decide if you want to plan for the short term or the long term. Right now you've got a railroad network that crisscrosses the United States. Why give it up for the price of a few intelligent weapons?

I do apologize if I offended your political sensibilities. As it stands, Congress likes Amtrak. If they didn't it would have died long ago.

I agree that in a way, it really doesn't matter who is elected President. It's like Tolstoy said in War and Peace, if Napoleon didn't exist, we would have created him.

The extraordinary thing about our times is that we the people did not create George Bush. He, for all practical purposes lost the election.

Along these lines, the people, as represented by Congress, really do want a national railroad. If the President was actually exercising some leadership, he would recognize this and support the will of the people.

All this will change in November.

Ok let me answer each one of your concerns:

a) about me going to hell - Aren't I allowed to have a productive discussion about the merit of our rail system without personal insults? The reason I bring up this question and state my view is that, eventhough I know its unpopular, I think it is something that needs to be discussed and whether I'm right or wrong its not like I personally control amtrak; the bottom line is no one is being affected by this discussion - so lets keep it civel.

b) About Amtrak being a vital interest in National Secuirty. As I've argued many months ago, Amtrak in itself is a security issue. Trains are high risk targets and have little or no security as of now. On the subject of being means of effectively transporting people in times of disaster - Amtrak has very limited passanger capacity as is. Also even if Amtrak's LD routes were cut, and more emphasis was put on local routes, one would still be able to evacuate from a city under attack (you could still leave boston and get your self to northern virginia on the Metroliner).

c) About me not enjoying a trip on Amtrak - Yes I have enjoyed a trip, however I believe the purpose of a rail network is not for enjoyment but rather for the purpose of transporting people in an efficent and timely matter. Do you know how much time/money/polluiton could be saved if anyone at Amtrak decided to build a railline from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? I think a lot more people in LA would utilize this than any LD train out of union station.

And to respond to Chucky:

I think everyone is jaded in their desire to have a train that serves their needs. If Amtrak served no ones needs than no one would want Amtrak. Now, you question what a sound investment is - to me it is one that has any shot at one day becoming profitable. To me, Amtrak in its current form has no way of becoming profitable and cutting LD routes and focusing on more heavily traveled areas makes much more sense. Now, I'm sure that someone is going to point out that not every government agency needs to make a profit (and believe me, i sure hope that medicare and medicaid arent set up to make a profit). But if i remember correctly Amtrak was set up in the hope that one day it would become profitable and could be sold off - maybe i'm wrong and if so please correct me. However, the current form of Amtrak has no hope of being profitable.

I see where you are coming from, but if your interest is in applying funds to where they are most needed, you won't really gain much by killing the long distance services. Corridor services are capital intensive. The NEC alone sucks up 74% of Amtrak's subsidies. The 16 long distance trains combined require only 18%.

1. Amtrak might not be competitive to air for LA-Chicago. But how about Fullerton, CA to Naperville, IL? How about Flagstaff, AZ to Kansas City, MO? It is the non-endpoints that Amtrak serves on LD trains that really help make it useful.

2. While some of the discussions that came out early in Amtrak's existence (and even later in the Warrington years) discussed Amtrak as if it were to be a profit-making business. I see no reason that Amtrak should be profitable; that does not mean it should have a license to waste money.
I see Amtrak more in line with, say, a police or fire department or other service: it does not need to be a "profitable" venture in the business sense of the word.

3. Unlike other posters I do occasionally ride Greyhound, but more as a gap-filler where Amtrak does not have service.

No. 2: Pres. G.W. Bush is no better or worse than any other administration concerning the status of Amtrak -- plus the country has had to spend precious tax dollars on national security the past four years to make up for its loss during the Clinton debacle.

No. 3: We need our long distance trains. It's an American tradition and the best people mover there is.

No. 4: The government may not be the best and most economical umbrella over administration of train travel.

No. 5: Instead of cutbacks and trimming amenities, the passenger rail system needs to go full out to please customers and promote its obvious virtues.

I could go on, but I'm tired after a long flight on Southwest Airlines from Oregon to Florida.

I think this is a crazy argument. It is not about conservative or liberal, it is really about wanting to take all of the available rail funds and spend them on the two coasts while eliminating everything in between. Remember, the people in between are also paying tax dollars too. This is the root of the problem. When you ask for pork you must give pork.

Maybe Amtrak and the nation would be better served by making this less of a "pork" issue and making a true national transportation/energy plan. This plan would have to include rail as well as air and roads.

My two cents worth.

Brian

quote:

---

Originally posted by polarbearucla:
However, with jetblue, southwest, song, etc.... having very low priced fairs across the country it seems that trains are going to have a hard time competing. If I were to take a train from Chicago to LA it would take days, a plane would tak hours.

---

I don't think trains have ever had an easy time competing with airlines. In fact, I don't know if Amtrak has ever tried to directly compete with airlines on the endpoints, like Chicago to LA, as MP pointed out. Rather, Amtrak competes elsewhere on the LD routes. Trains magazine has had articles before to this effect, for example it appears that the single Amtrak train in Montana (the Empire Builder) is very popular among residents moving about within the state. You're right, Amtrak cannot compete Chicago to LA, and this is true when the competitors are JetBlue, Southwest, Song, as well as United, American, US Air... you name it. It's not like the appearance of low-cost airlines have suddenly thrown Amtrak into disarray.

quote:

---

Originally posted by polarbearucla:
Now, you question what a sound investment is - to me it is one that has any shot at one day becoming profitable. To me, Amtrak in its current form has no way of becoming profitable and cutting LD routes and focusing on more heavily traveled areas makes much more sense. Now, I'm sure that someone is going to point out that not every government agency needs to make a profit (and believe me, i sure hope that medicare and medicaid arent set up to make a profit). But if i remember correctly Amtrak was set up in the hope that one day it would become profitable and could be sold off - maybe i'm wrong and if so please correct me. However, the current form of Amtrak has no hope of being profitable.

---

Okay, I'm not going to sit here and say that not every government agency has to make a profit, because that's certainly not true. I don't expect every government agency to make a profit. So why, exactly, do you expect Amtrak to make a profit? Yes, Amtrak was indeed set up with the hope that passenger trains could become profitable - but that was more than thirty years ago, and I thought that by now we had pretty much eliminated that illusion. I know this has been said many times before, but no passenger rail corporation in the world makes a profit that covers operating costs as well as capital investment. Additionally, why expect Amtrak to make a profit when none of the other modes of transportation in the United States make a profit? We spend almost $35 billion to maintain highways every year. Somehow I don't think the DOT is making money on that. We spend $15 billion on airline bailout packages and maintaining the air traffic control system - we're not making money on that. I even heard an estimate somewhere - I don't remember where - that all of the airlines' financial losses over the past few years could have the potential to wipe out all of the airlines' profits ever since their inception. You're just like those many Congress people that don't study or care about the issue and are under the illusion that Amtrak should make money while no one else in the transportation industry does.

Anyway, the last thing I would like to point out is that, like Mr. Norman alluded to earlier, the national system is quite protected for the time being. You realize that the Northeastern states have paid very little towards their cherished Corridor - most of the NEC funding has come from Amtrak, meaning the federal government, meaning taxpayers across the nation. And I don't believe that the Midwest and western representatives will be willing to pour money into Amtrak to pay for a Northeastern and Californian rail system. So, realistically, as long as the NEC is popular, the national system is quite protected, because you can be sure that the Northeastern states don't want to start paying for the corridor themselves, like California has done.

Both parties are rabid and upset these days. Most particularly the right. Take a minute and listen to Rush or Laura Ingram. They spend more time name calling and making fun of the left than dealing with substantive issues.

Getting back to Amtrak, I actually agree with you on something you said, Polarbearucla and I quote, "I believe the purpose of a rail network is not for enjoyment but rather for the purpose of transporting people in an efficent and timely matter."

Good point. As a person who has never had the means to afford a sleeper, I see Amtrak exactly in that light (except I do rather enjoy the ride, if the truth be told.)

Unlike yourself and others on this board, I'm actually pretty happy with Amtrak. I wish they had a bit more money so they could properly maintain the cars, but on the whole I think they do a good job.

Also, I am really not in very much of a hurry to get anywhere. My employer understands this so if it takes 24 hours to get to Chicago instead of two, who cares? I certainly don't.

As has been carefully pointed out here, a train is not a plane. It fills up, it empties out, it fills up again. For a $300 rail pass I can visit three different cities, one after the other, in a span of 15 days or so. Try doing that on a plane, even a low cost airline.

Right now the airlines are having sales. The low cost airlines are doing their best to drive the old guard out of business. When they finally do, don't necessarily count on prices being as low as they are now.

I suspect if I were your public sector employer, I wouldn't mind you taking the train for long distance business trips. Chicago, New York, Seattle--who cares?

[This message has been edited by zephyr (edited 07-22-2004).]

The only reason I bring up the subject of my employer is that when I request vacation time, I usually request a lot of it.

And sure, it takes a while to get where I'm going, but you know something: A train trip is one of the very few times in my life when I really have a chance to reflect and think about the meaning of life.

Thanks for clearing that up. I took your original post to mean you did a lot of long distance business travel by train. And it seemed to me your boss was overly eager to have you hit the rails.

That reminded my of my prior life working for a Federal agency. A common trick of some supervisors (not me) to get a problem employee (aka deadwood you couldn't fire) out of your hair was to send them on a lot of "business trips." You know, attending those critical week-long meetings on how to fill out a new form. Using Amtrak would have been a creative enhancement to this gambit.

Quote Mr Chucky: "A train trip is one of the very few times in my life when I really have a chance to reflect and think about the meaning of life."

Wow, is that a "Zen" thing? Does the thinking go better with Bud or Merlot? (I'm looking for an alternative to Pale Ale since they don't seem to stock it anymore). Is there a book in the works, like "Zen and the Art of Amschlepping"?

I agree not all goverment creations are supposed to make money, but fire stations, police stations, and public hospital all serve vital jobs in society. ( saving someones life is much more importent then giving someone a relaxing train trip)

While airlines do receive financial aid from the gov, they possess the ability to turn a profit, while amtrak will NEVER EVER TURN A PROFIT. Amtrak lacks the ridership to be able to make money. You might say that many people do use amtrak, well if thats the case and it still cannot make money then it is obvious the amtrak is a waste of money that could be spent policing the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by polarbearucla:
The freight side of railroads do just fine and bargain airlines such as Southwest and JetBlue do fine (both with very good profits and still providing very good customer service)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by littletrain:
While airlines do receive financial aid from the gov, they possess the ability to turn a profit, while amtrak will NEVER EVER TURN A PROFIT. Amtrak lacks the ridership to be able to make money.

---

Airlines, like the Amtrak NEC, CAN make enough money to cover their direct operating costs. HOWEVER, neither airlines nor Amtrak earn back the cost of capital and maintenance. Amtrak does not make enough money to catch up on NEC deferred maintenance, and airlines DO NOT make enough money to build and maintain the underlying infrastructure of the air system (airports and air traffic control). Of course JetBlue and Southwest do just fine, with considerable investment from the federal government in the infrastructure. So, responding to littletrain, I would argue that airlines do NOT possess the ability to turn a profit.

You can stop ranting about the fact that Amtrak will never turn a profit: Amtrak admitted that long ago so it's a non-issue. Tell us something we don't know.

Go ahead and privatize California and the NEC if you like. The British tried something like that and they went bankrupt. They also started having spectacular train wrecks and now are in the process of re-nationalizing their railroads.

So then, tell us why you would like to see the end of our national railroad? For your information, most of those public services you mentioned are paid for out of local property taxes. Most of the stuff your federal taxes go for (you do pay taxes don't you?) go to things you probably will never collect or enjoy (like social security or corporate welfare).

The amount of money that the feds give to Amtrak pretty much amounts to pissing in the ocean. One week's money spent in Iraq would solve all of Amtrak's fiscal problems.

The only reason the Republicans even discuss Amtrak is to distract people like you from thinking about substantive issues, like the war in Iraq and the fact that most people in this country don't have medical insurance.

It's hard to put a price on certain things: Like Amtrak, our National Parks or the peace of mind that comes knowing when we turn 62 years old we can collect on the money we have invested in social security.

When these things have been eliminated, one by one, I think that even you, littletrain, will miss them.

1) Re Dems vs. Republicans: the only large cutbacks to Amtrak's route network were carried out in 1980 (Jimmy Carter) and 1995 (Bill Clinton). 'nuff said?

2) More than half the capital funding for Amtrak's NEC comes from the Federal Transit Administration and the states, through grants to transit agencies. So I really don't think anyone can claim "the rest of the country" pays for the NEC. Just BTW, it's also where 60% of Amtrak's riders are.

3) Fewer than 20% of Amtrak riders board or alight at the intermediate stations mentioned in an earlier post. That means:

* 60% of Amtrak's riders start or end trips on the NEC
* 20% more ride between points where there is modal competation
* Only the last 20% ride between points where Amtrak may be the only show in town

That's, roundly, 4 million out of 20 million people.

There's also the small matter that, if LD trains are discontinued, Amtrak immediately saves much of the approx. $100 million annually it now pays to the freight railroads for use of their tracks.

1) Yes, I KNOW that the large cutbacks occured under the reign of Democrats. I've said before that Democrats tend to be more friendly to Amtrak - those two are exceptions. Strong exceptions, to be sure, but exceptions nonetheless.

2) Okay, so where does Federal Transit Adminstration funding come from? The taxpayers. And which states are you referring to? As I recall, much of the capital improvement funding for the NEC came when Congress (and therefore the taxpayers) appropriated more than $2 billion early in the 1990s for that specific purpose. I could be mistaken, but I don't recall states kicking in nearly as much as Congress did. And who's paying for the NEC now? Amtrak, under Mr. Gunn, is slowly paying for a few capital improvements on the NEC year-by-year - with money appropriated by Congress and distributed by the US DOT. I know that 60% of Amtrak's riders are in the NEC, and I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't pay for it - what I am saying is that Midwestern and western Congress-people aren't going to continue sending money to Amtrak if all they're going to use it for is a Northeastern rail system.

3) Okay, so 20% of Amtrak's total riders get on or off at places where there are no other options. I could just sit here and say, then, that for those 4 million people, Amtrak means a GREAT deal to them. That is true. But note that the whole discussion here is about a national system - so let's ignore those NEC riders (60%) and concentrate on those passengers who purely use the long-distance routes (in other words, the national system). The other 40%. So, based on rresor's posted percentages, that means that fully half (50%) of all long-distance riders are people who have no other option than Amtrak. My whole point in my earlier post was that Amtrak does not compete with airlines on long-distance endpoints. Where Amtrak competes is at the intermediate stations. And so this data seems to prove my very point, that Amtrak does not rely on endpoint riders as HALF of all LD riders use intermediate stations.

Finally, I would just like to point out that, looking at the grand total of United States' transportation spending, $100 million per year is peanuts compared to what the highways and airways get. What exactly is your alternative suggestion for that $100 million? Shifting it to highway and airway development? You know, $100 million is so small compared to total highway and airway spending that adding it to one of their pots won't really make much of a difference at all. Pretty much the same story even with the Amtrak NEC - investing another $100 million will help, but in the grand scheme of things it won't really make much of a difference. It will maybe pay for part of an interlocking reconstruction - that's about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheBriz09:
...What exactly is your alternative suggestion for that $100 million? Shifting it to highway and airway development?

---

That reminds me of something. Generally speaking, it costs at least $25 million per mile to build a four lane freeway, and that doesn't include design and land acquisition costs, just construction. I think that of Amtrak's $1.8 billion request, only $300 million is for the long distance trains. If those trains, which serve hundreds of cities, were eliminated and the money transferred to highways it would only build 12 miles of freeway, at most. I don't think that would be a very good trade-off.

So Any way you cut it, the long distance trains are giving us a pretty good deal for the money.

Wheres the fun in a short Train Ride?