M
Mike Jacoubowsky
Guest
> I'm sure cross-country rail could work; it works nicely in most of the
> world. But Amtrak is broken. A broken, artificially supported rail
> system is worse than no rail system, because it prevents a good one
> from taking its place.
Aren't most (if not all) large-scale passenger rail services subsidized?
Perhaps less subsidy (as a percentage of ticket price) than Amtrak, but
nevertheless subsidized. Even before Amtrak it can be argued that passenger
service was subsidized, since the rail lines claimed to have been losing
large amounts of money on it, yet were forced to continue service.
Don't get me wrong; subsidies for transit often make a lot of sense. And
it's not as if the airlines and auto industry aren't heavily subsidized
themselves! If someone believes that gas taxes and airport fees cover all
the expenses, they're quite mistaken.
[In the end, the major difference between Amtrak and the French rail system
is that, assuming they're not on strike, the French rail system is more
reliable, in terms of sticking to its timetable, than anything I've come
across. You can set your watch by their trains. You can depend upon making
your connections. Amtrak?]
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Kerber wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] says...
>> >
>> > I think Congress keeps Amtrak on life support as a favor to the
>> > airlines. With Amtrak gone, the market would open up for a business
>> > that actually worked well and met public expectations for cross-
>> > country travel (which would be another huge nail in the coffin of most
>> > airlines). Many folks would opt out of what air travel has become, if
>> > only there were an alternative faster than driving or taking the
>> > bus.
>>
>> Like the train? It's significantly better than a bus.
>
> That's what I meant. A functioning rail system would be preferable to
> driving or riding the bus.
>
> The bus goes to basically anywhere and leaves every day, sometimes
> several times a day. Amtrak omits huge chunks of the country, leaves
> my city something like twice a week, and costs more than flying coach
> class and taking Greyhound combined. And it's slower than the bus for
> the trips I've checked. The train probably works okay for shortish
> trips in the northeastern USA, but for most of the country it's a
> waste of time and money.
>
> I'm sure cross-country rail could work; it works nicely in most of the
> world. But Amtrak is broken. A broken, artificially supported rail
> system is worse than no rail system, because it prevents a good one
> from taking its place. I believe that Amtrak has been carefully and
> intentionally handicapped so that people will not want to use it.
>
> Chalo
>
> world. But Amtrak is broken. A broken, artificially supported rail
> system is worse than no rail system, because it prevents a good one
> from taking its place.
Aren't most (if not all) large-scale passenger rail services subsidized?
Perhaps less subsidy (as a percentage of ticket price) than Amtrak, but
nevertheless subsidized. Even before Amtrak it can be argued that passenger
service was subsidized, since the rail lines claimed to have been losing
large amounts of money on it, yet were forced to continue service.
Don't get me wrong; subsidies for transit often make a lot of sense. And
it's not as if the airlines and auto industry aren't heavily subsidized
themselves! If someone believes that gas taxes and airport fees cover all
the expenses, they're quite mistaken.
[In the end, the major difference between Amtrak and the French rail system
is that, assuming they're not on strike, the French rail system is more
reliable, in terms of sticking to its timetable, than anything I've come
across. You can set your watch by their trains. You can depend upon making
your connections. Amtrak?]
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Kerber wrote:
>>
>> [email protected] says...
>> >
>> > I think Congress keeps Amtrak on life support as a favor to the
>> > airlines. With Amtrak gone, the market would open up for a business
>> > that actually worked well and met public expectations for cross-
>> > country travel (which would be another huge nail in the coffin of most
>> > airlines). Many folks would opt out of what air travel has become, if
>> > only there were an alternative faster than driving or taking the
>> > bus.
>>
>> Like the train? It's significantly better than a bus.
>
> That's what I meant. A functioning rail system would be preferable to
> driving or riding the bus.
>
> The bus goes to basically anywhere and leaves every day, sometimes
> several times a day. Amtrak omits huge chunks of the country, leaves
> my city something like twice a week, and costs more than flying coach
> class and taking Greyhound combined. And it's slower than the bus for
> the trips I've checked. The train probably works okay for shortish
> trips in the northeastern USA, but for most of the country it's a
> waste of time and money.
>
> I'm sure cross-country rail could work; it works nicely in most of the
> world. But Amtrak is broken. A broken, artificially supported rail
> system is worse than no rail system, because it prevents a good one
> from taking its place. I believe that Amtrak has been carefully and
> intentionally handicapped so that people will not want to use it.
>
> Chalo
>
p.tyiug5vsf3vmig@slacker...
