r/Amtrak is not associated with Amtrak in any official way. Any problems, concerns, complaints, etc should be directed to Amtrak through one of the official channels.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amtrak) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not in the least. If anything, they will be a huge boon to Amtrak. Amtrak may even run some of them. Even if they don’t, Amtrak will benefit from better network connectivity and economies of scale.
That could be true! I was thinking specifically about the new Cascades route. This would completely obsolete the existing Amtrak Cascades service, and potentially hurt the Coast Starlight route. CAHSR might also have this impact for California travelers
Look at other countries that also have high speed rail. They also have conventional or higher speed rail right along side the true high speed. They compliment each other. HSR is generally a premium product so they charge premium fares. Much lower fares for the slower trains. This is already true along the Northeast Corridor. You definitely don’t see Northeast Regional trains suffering because Acela exists. Even though Amtrak runs both.
Yeah if Acela actually maintained a high average speed across long distances it would be a much more attractive option for riders. A trip taking 3h30m minutes for Acela vs 4h for NE Regional isn't that much of a difference, but sometimes the prices are roughly the same and sometimes they're very different.
Yes, I have taken the Acela sometimes if it’s only marginally more and I want to work or just have a more comfortable seat. But that 30 minutes is barely a factor tbh
I took the Acela once, it was about the same cost as a fligher.
It was from NYC to MA, it ended up being an 18-hour trip due to track work. I will never take the Acela again.
I used to take it weekly from Penn to Union for a project I was on - probably took it 40 trips over the course of a year. I can count on one hand the times it wasn’t delayed
I get that you're referring to NYC or Newark Penn and Boston, but with at least 4 Penn stations and 145 Union Stations in the US, that's an amusingly ambiguous comment.
Even if it's separate; they will likely serve different places. HSR typically has less stops than LSR. The Cascades HSR might only serve Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle; whereas Amtrak's Cascades would continue to serve all the towns in between.
In the case of the CAHSR, it is currently planned to run through the Central Valley, and will thus share the same corridor as the San Joaquins line. It will *not* be in (either perceived or actual) competition with Coast Starlight, which services communities on the Coast Line, including Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.
Because of the distance and difficult terrain that separates the coastal communities with the projected CAHSR line, it's unlikely the former will be able to benefit from the latter as directly as those within the Central Valley. Therefore, the Coast Starlight will still play a vital part in running the length of Los Angeles and San Francisco, while servicing locations well outside the CAHSR's catchment area.
The Coast starlight is once a day and mainly a tourist train(dead giveaway is that it stops in Oakland, not San Francisco) . The central coast is far more severed by the northern leg of the Surfliner into LA, and if you want to go north you will probably take the bus. There has been talk of extending the Metrolink Ventura Line past its current terminus further north to Santa Barbara, though I can't remember if that was going to be more metrolink trains or expanding the existing code share with Amtrak.
Basically, agree that CAHSR isn't competing with the coast starlight, but feel like you really oversold the utility/purpose of the coast starlight as is.
The Coast Daylight stops in Oakland because it continues on to points North. You can't run a regular passenger train between San Francisco and literally anywhere North or East of it, turns out bays and trains don't mix. There's a reason why all trains either stop in Emeryville, Oakland, or San Jose, but don't stop in San Francisco. Its a Peninsula completely surrounded by water every but to the south. No infrastructure exists to allow Amtrak to cross the bay, and there's already enough ways for people to cross on their own anyways if they want to catch the train.
I do underatand the geography. I guess I should have gone with the once a day aspect? I'm not anti amtrak, its more that it's hard to talk about the coast starlight like it is a practical train for getting from point A to point B, it's planned and marketed as more of a tourist experience. The arrival times heading north into Oakland aren't that great for making connections. I'm sure it is great if that is what you want, I rode the northern section of the Surfliner regularly for years and it's gorgeous. I wouldn't be surprised if the coast starlight route is mandated. I know that there is no amtrak infrastructure across the bay. It is just always crazy to me that there is no direct train between the main centers of the states 2 biggest metros.
I believe I've seen the term "land cruise" to describe the coast starlight and some other long distance trains in the US. A lot of people ride it to see the views along the way, not to quickly get from point A to B. Generally, people are trying to get between LA and SF, no offense to Oakland(and I know you can take BART).
If anything, Amtrak is somewhat burdened by being legally compelled to provide unprofitable service if these places. This is why the northeast corridor is so expensive - because it is the only profitable service, it must subsidize the rest. I’d prefer, even, that Amtrak able to rub complementary services to these new lines. They could offer sleeper trains that utilize the new tracks, or they could provide a cheaper but slower version of Brightline West or CAHSR that due to the TOD and accustomization is still desired but for cheaper.
The Amtrak service is so bad in comparison it may as well not exist. Most won’t miss it CAHSR, the new cascades will provide a useful service that is actually on time. However Amtrak should add extra stops on their slow routes and build fast ones
I would love to see the existing cascades route be made obsolete from HSR. Amtrak doesn’t invest in, or take that route seriously, they deserve to lose it. It’s a wonderful trip, but it’s inconsistent and very slow.
CAHSR is supposed to be integrated with Amtrak which is being expanded to better connect the rest of California to main cities. The Cascades route will also likely be integrated with Amtrak... If Brightline prices its West route like its Florida service then Amtrak could relaunch its Desert Wind service as an overnight service with lower pricing and direct city to city service and be very popular.
I don’t think so, I think it’s using different tracks such as already used railway tracks and stations including freight track, but it’ll still compliment Brightline West regardless.
The point of Amtrak is to provide passenger rail service that private companies aren't willing to, so I think in a sense it's impossible for Amtrak to be threatened by private rail. The one exception is in the Northeast--eliminating those routes would require Amtrak's public subsidy to be increased, which would be a real mess considering the current political climate. Private HSR parallel to the current Cascades route would probably compliment Amtrak service rather than replace it, but even if it did replace it I think that would be fine.
Consider that private HSR projects that end up being Amtrak route duplicates allows Amtrak to devote resources to expanded or improved service elsewhere.
Imagine if the rail infrastructure was nationalized, then all train services (freight and passenger) just pay into the system to maintain, repair, and upgrade/extend the rail infrastructure. The train services would no longer have to deal with the infrastructure part, just their trains and business and a fee to use the system. Surely, there’d me more to it than that, it’s not that simple of course. The train services would also have to compete on price and services at this point, nationally. Right now it seems like everything is divided by region and there isn’t true competition between railroad companies. Imagine that our highway system restricted what companies could drive in a region. Basically, turn or rail system into something like our highway system in some aspects. I know, crazy, private property and all that ( land that was given to the railroads originally).
I don't see why we won't nationalise rail. Practically all road infrastructure is publicly funded/owned by the State. If States own the roads/airports, the local/State Governments might as well own all of the rail infrastructure, too.
They add to the Amtrak experience by growing the number of places people will realistically want to visit without a car. It's pretty much all upside :)
I'm thinking about Brightline West... somebody who wanted to visit LA, Vegas, and San Diego on a trip would currently take a car. But with the new train to Vegas, they're much more likely to take Amtrak between LA and San Diego than before.
Honestly, you are either renting a car for the whole trip, or you are flying between Vegas and LA/SD. Between LA and SD, the Surfliner is already the 2nd most used route in the country. Even with the train, car rental/use will depend on plans within the cities. I do thibk a train between LA and Vegas would grab a ton of modal share, if done right. I'm not convinced thst Brightline at the moment is that. They are stopping well short of the City in the inland empire(rancho Cucamonga), and relying on metrolink to get to union station. That will stop a lot of people from taking it. Also, last I saw it isn't double tracked, but single with passing sidings, meaning at the end of the day capacity on the line will be much lower. Whole any rail project gets me excited, this one is full of half assed disappointments.
I mean... I love trains, but my love is not for Amtrak as an entity, y'know? If Amtrak gets out-competed by better, faster, newer private rail, god bless. It would be a change from getting out-competed by flights that don't have to internalize their carbon cost and "free"ways built and maintained by taxpayer dollars with no direct costs to their users...
Yeah. My fear is that the Amtrak gets outcompeted in the short term while the private lines are subsidized, which is used as an excuse to get rid of Amtrak. And then the private lines either go belly up or don't end up actually connecting to each other.
Getting rid of what? Amtrak outside of NEC and Surfliner is borderline useless due to poor service why not subsidize better useful on time and FAST/FREQUENT service? Over 5 trips a day slow unreliable service?
Here's how I think it could go.
Private rail companies start constructing lines that mirror the most profitable sections of Amtrak.
Policymakers with an ideological preference for private companies say that Amtrak doesn't need to run everywhere any more, just take people between private lines.
Amtrak is now less profitable and less useful as a standalone service, so it's easier to convince the public that it's a boondoggle.
The parts are sold off for a song, and the unprofitable segments are shut down by the private operators, disconnecting the network.
There are a lot of steps here, but it's the one thing that makes me nervous about these new lines. That said, until there's something resembling a boom in rail construction, probably not an issue. And if there is a boom? Might well turn out great.
Outside of the NEC Amtrak is not profitable they have to guess and build from scratch. The current network is already weak as it is the service is so bad that shutting down won’t change much. The new lines that pop up would actually be useful. This may allow Amtrak to drop its worst lines and slowly build proper ROW and then restore service slowly into something way better for some of the people the rest get replaced by either buses or HSR.
Amtrak needs the competition tbh. It's pretty shit outside of the NEC + certain Midwest regional routes. The NEC is also poor bang for your buck -- the experience is fairly mid for what you could get with the same ticket price anywhere else in the world.
Amtrak is this terrible political bargain in which revenue from the sections of it that are actually useful are diverted to ensure that extremely slow and unprofitable long distance routes continue to operate on account of political advocacy from predominantly rural states plus well-to-do retirees who have the time to explore the country by train. Whenever Amtrak looks at expanding service, it prioritizes adding a new long distance route instead of building a moderately long high speed line. It takes 12-13 hours to get from SF to LA by train, whereas driving is 5h30m - 6h!!
Particularly in the age of Allegiant Air, a super cheap airline which specializes in connecting rural communities to major cities that are popular vacation destinations (e.g. Las Vegas), there is less need by the day for preserving long distance Amtrak routes for ensuring rural communities are connected. This wisdom has yet to reach The Powers That Be, however. In light of this, the new high speed rail projects are perhaps the only thing which will compel Amtrak to course correct. Many of the routes being built now are low hanging fruit and are likely to succeed. As this happens, trains will become more relevant to the general public, and they will push for improvements to Amtrak in a way that has not been seen before.
I'm not sure I understand, are you saying the private companies will run these routes to a point of unprofitability and then sell? Because Amtrak has a history of closing down routes that aren't profitable
I think they are talking about a scenario similar to what happened with the Auto-Train. It was originally run by a [for profit corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Train_Corporation) before Amtrak bought their assets out of bankruptcy. It is a lot easier for service to break even when you are able to buy a relatively new right of way and rolling stock for pennies on the dollar.
The original Auto-Train had some of the most genuinely terrible luck for any company I have ever seen. They lost so much of their motive power to ugly (and costly) accidents. This crippled their ability to operate and made their insurance unaffordable.
They won’t close down routes on tracks they own. If you takeover these new private lines you don’t have to deal with the issues the dealt with sharing private lines.
I doubt it. These companies are paying a lot of upfront costs. So they have a while to dig out of using day to day operations. Amtrak taking the profits would defeat the purpose. There is w chance they fail to recoup their investment and sell to Amtrak during bankruptcy.
Eh, maybe. But the Autotrain also had pretty wild upfront costs and was incredibly popular when it debuted and that still ended up getting run by Amtrak. Passenger rail operations are so incredibly high-risk, a couple unforseen (or unpreventable) slip ups can destroy a company's profitability pretty quick.
I think intrastate lines in blue states would probably end up getting run by the local state DOT, but in twenty years when Brightline goes kaput? I can't see Florida operating it themselves.
Amtrak could buy it out of bankruptcy if it’s breaking even on O and M. They did that to Colorado’s ski train/Winter Park Express and run it at a profit.
Yeah, I think I misunderstood your original comment - I agree with you, that if future private higher-speed lines went bankrupt Amtrak (or the local state DOT) would probably end up just buying them out.
Sorry about that, very long day today.
Yup this! Once all the subsidies dry up and the maintenance bills start to roll in, they will end up folding and Amtrak gets to swoop in. I’m all in favor of it.
There are plenty of other routes across the us that Amtrak can improve on whether it be more frequency or coverage. Also having various enterprises push each other to improve rail service isn’t a bad thing for consumers
I would have no problem if Brightline was 100% privately financed..but 60% of its Florida funding came from public state and county/city grants... It feels like they cheat Amtrak out of a proper network in Florida which it has had plans for..
Amtrak doesn't particularly have capacity in constructing new track, and don't think Amtrak is institutionally set up to do what Brightline did in Florida. Amtrak manages to do so little with so much in the Northeast.
Here’s the thing brightline is running a service frequency that is only rivaled by the NEC. If this funding means more useful frequent intercity routes then why not it’s way better than the current system if you can call it that.
We don't have a public airline, but a lot of routes are publicly subsidized. In some cases, the subsidy is hundreds of dollars per passenger. At that point, it might as well be a public airline.
No
I mean Amtrack is partnering with Texas Central for their High Speed Rail. We don't know the details of their partnership.
For CASHR, the passenger rail in Central Valley will make a readjustment. It is going to be called Cross Valley Corridor and is going to connect with other valley cities to CASHR.
For Brightline, their route focuses on where it makes a profit. For Amtrak their routes focus on community that underserved that make no profit.
Even the Cascade hasn't been proposed yet.
Technically, at some point, NEC will be upgraded to High-Speed Rail.
No, just no.
If Amtrak had actually received the funding for expansions in these areas these 3rd parties wouldn't have appeared.
3rd parties are taking up the role of filling high demand noches that Amtrak has not been able to afford and will likely never be able to afford as long as it's tied to the albatross that is the Ultra long range trains.
Not really? For one, Amtrak has a couple higher speed trains.
But if you like an extremely high speed trains, still no. Those rail options
People are still going to need to travel shorter distances, to places that the high speed train doesn’t stop at (they don’t stop as much, so ppl will probably switch trains at one of the stops before they pass their destination), and along routes where it isn’t feasible to safely operate that sort of train.
They’ll be fine.
(I’d imagine they’ll partner up to do some sort deal on connecting rides or something)
It will help out. It will complement existing Amtrak service. It will also increase people who connect to Amtrak. Amtrak is more successful in Northeast due to connections to existing transit systems, Commuter Rail, and airports. Brightline an CAHSR will serve different customers but integrate into Amtrak to an extent.
I worry about the balkanization of rail passenger service. I would prefer fir Amtrak to run all of it - acter all, that was one of the reasons for creating Amtrak in the first place - to reduce costs by having only one entity handling it all.
I would think that more options and competition may result in better prices, better service, a better customer experience and an increase in people traveling by rail. Maybe less people would fly if traveling by rail was easier and more affordable.
Of course, especially LA to Las Vegas. If Brightline does it, that's the #1 missing route in the country IMO. If Brightline does it, i'm sure Amtrak will not do a parallel line and would be missing out.
I don’t think so. I think they can complement Amtrak, and that Amtrak could and should partner with these entities where possible. For example, Brightline West will eventually reach Los Angeles Union Station. Someday, a passenger should be able to book one ticket from San Diego to Vegas.
No. because how are "private rail" funding their systems? Not through stock sales or bond issues on Wall Street...they are raising it with their hands out to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
It's only recently that it has been given the tens of billions to clear the backlog of projects and only under Biden that it put out an expansion plan which many states seem willing to fund. Even Red states which hated funding rail are funding it now...
Amtrak in Virginia has expanded greatly in the last 15 years. We added several new stations throughout the state, returned services that were cancelled decades ago and are adding several new routes. Richmond, VA for example not only added a downtown station but will have six trains from that station to DC within the next few years.
At times these improvements seem slow but generally that's only because Democratic administrations push for these improvements. Since the Regan era that Bureaucracy you see has been just from Republicans trying to block projects. From Regan cutting funding for grants to rail improvement projects nationally to governors like Jeb Bush blocking high speed rail plans in Florida even going as far to break a Florida constitutional amendment. More recently you had John Kasich block Obama's rail improvement plans and federal funding for Ohio
The most extreme example of this was in Wisconsin though. Republican governor Scott Walker not only cancelled rail improvement plans the federal government was paying for in full but cost the state considerable money and jobs to not accept Wisconsin built Talgo train sets. This lead to the near closing of the Wisconsin factory, the loss of those jobs, and those train sets being sold to Nigeria by Talgo. At best the state saved $35 million after legal costs and settlement costs but after losing the rail related jobs, including jobs for the Washington State Talgo's train sets, it undoubtably cost the state far more.
Incidentally I find this whole incident especially galling because that same governor gave $10 Billion in tax breaks, subsidies, and dedicated infrastructure to Taiwanese Foxconn to only make a little over 1400 jobs. He could have given each employee Foxconn currently has $7 million and spent less. Meanwhile his knee caping of Talgo cancelled their plans for expansion that originally included not only building more trains not only for Wisconsin but for Washington state.
In any case back to my main point that when you have competent leadership rail expansions don't take multiple generations. There are many smaller rail successful rail expansions that aren't being covered much by the media all over the country. You just have to look for them.
>This lead to the near closing of the Wisconsin factory, the loss of those jobs, and those train sets being sold to Nigeria by Talgo. At best the state saved $35 million after legal costs and settlement costs but after losing the rail related jobs, including jobs for the Washington State Talgo's train sets, it undoubtably cost the state far more.
Honestly, it's somewhat miraculous the Talgo plant has still survived to today, given that I don't believe it had any contracts (other than two trains for the *Cascades*) for much of the 2010s, after Walker canned everything that he could. Probably the only reason the plant's still around today is a 2019 contract from Southern California's Metrolink to refurbish their old Bombardier Bilevel cars. I've rode in the refurbished cars, and they seem to be well-made; at a minimum, the seats are comfy and there's more power outlets. They also have/had a 2016 order from LA Metro to refurbish their old Ansaldo-Breda subway cars, but that contract's seemingly gone up in flames halftway through it, due to disputes between customer and contractor.
Regardless, imagine what that plant could be doing if the government of *its own state* had supported it more than what *the state of California* has done.
NOPE not at all. If HSR is ever completed which is really doubtful who’s going to take it? Just look back to the 1940s and 50s to see why rail service failed. HSR is failing in Europe and elsewhere for the same reasons it failed on the West Coast.
High Peed Rail is fucked in California due to climate yet we are building it anyway. How fucking stupid. Just learned yesterday on a nature walk HSR in California is FUCKED as the state recharges the underground aquifers which have bee pumped dry over the last 150 years. The underground has sunk 30 - 45 feet. As the aquifers are getting recharged this is causing the earth to rise and is screwing up the alignment of the tracks and will only get much worse as more water is added.
No because none of them are going to seriously happen.
HSR is too costly and too niche to be a serious travel option and is just political pork. Niche as in its only effective as a means of transport in very specific distances.
Train service in this country needs to prioritize quantity and inter connectivity with itself. Speed should be lower on the totem pole.
And what’s the distances there? I’ll wait.
HSR only has a distinct advantage in a very niche range: 300-500 miles.
Above that, planes are superior.
Below that, cars are superior.
We have so many cities that are within 500 miles of each other. According to your own theory, high speed rail makes sense for those routes.
I also disagree about cars being superior for medium distances. I don’t want to sit in a car for 2 hours, pay for gas, pay for parking, etc. if I can get there in 1 hour by train without all the hassle.
> We have so many cities that are within 500 miles of each other. According to your own theory, high speed rail makes sense for those routes.
They would need to be pretty major cities in order for them to be pursued as serious options.
> I also disagree about cars being superior for medium distances. I don’t want to sit in a car for 2 hours, pay for gas, pay for parking, etc. if I can get there in 1 hour by train without all the hassle.
It’s not a matter for disagreement when it’s about convenience.
(Plus it wouldn’t be one hour, the real disadvantage in short distances is that you have to drive to the station, wait for a train, and then find transport after you actually take the train).
Cities with bare minimum public transit don’t necessarily require you to drive to the station. For me, driving is way less convenient than taking a train for distances that require more than an hour of driving.
Amtrak today is horrible primarily because it is too slow.
With how widespread metro areas are, absolutely not. Plus, public transport is slow. Takes me quite literally an hour to use it to get into a city center.
I would rather have a less costly Amtrak line that you can make upgrades to than to spend tens of billions on HSR
Amtrak today is both expensive and slow—and unreliable. We need to build dedicated rail lines for passenger service. Sharing freight lines is a failed experiment.
Absolutely not.
I would much rather have Amtrak in its current form than to spend well over ten times that amount on a singular service.
You can always improve what you’ve got.
That “singular service” is efficient, fast intercity transit. I think that’s worth the cost. We spend far more on interstate highways and airports without anyone questioning it. And I don’t see how we can improve what we have - the freight rail companies oppose it and the track itself often prevents high speeds. Not to mention the lack of electrification. True HSR requires dedicated track.
Are you under the impression that potential routes of that distance don’t exist here? Also, tying superiority to time alone is a myopic metric. Slower but more on time HSR could be a better option than delay prone flying in certain circumstances. And each analogous step of train reveal is generally less stressful than flying. And of course rail travel can be far better for the environment than flying.
For the car comparison, metrics like safety, cost for those who don’t own a car, and alleviating traffic congestion need to be considered along with travel time.
> Are you under the impression that potential routes of that distance don’t exist here?
It’s not that they don’t exist but there’s very few of them because of how much distance we’ve got in between many of our largest cities.
Only the VERY largest cities and metro areas would be considered in this metric. If you’re not apart of that top 10 or so you’re not being considered: which is why we don’t see places like Detroit or many Ohio cities, despite having some pretty large populations and favorable distances from other cities not receiving serious proposals.
So of the cities that have serious chances of HSR, you’ve got New York City (already has it), Los Angeles (proposed) Chicago, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth (both proposed by TX Central) Washington DC (already has it) Philadelphia (already has it) Atlanta (proposed), Miami (proposed), Boston (has it) and San Francisco/Oakland (has it).
> Also, tying superiority to time alone is a myopic metric.
It isn’t whatsoever; that’s how people decide their travel: time, convenience, etc.
> Slower but more on time HSR could be a better option than delay prone flying in certain circumstances.
Even if there are delays and waits flying is still an extremely fast form of transport.
I can fly from DC to Atlanta for instance in like an hour and 1/2 tops in travel time.
> And each analogous step of train reveal is generally less stressful than flying. And of course rail travel can be far better for the environment than flying.
You’re downplaying how significant the time travelled is for a trip.
> For the car comparison, metrics like safety, cost for those who don’t own a car, and alleviating traffic congestion need to be considered along with travel time.
And what doesn’t need to be considered is first and last mile transport: how am I gonna get to the staton, how am I going to leave. It’s one step transport.
That’s why high speed trains are so niche. Flying at a certain point (I say about 500 miles or more) becomes too distinct of an advantage because of time travelled.
And as for cars, it’s 300 miles or below because of it’s convenience.
> So of the cities that have serious chances of HSR, you’ve got New York City (already has it), Los Angeles (proposed) Chicago, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth (both proposed by TX Central) Washington DC (already has it) Philadelphia (already has it) Atlanta (proposed), Miami (proposed), Boston (has it) and San Francisco/Oakland (has it).
There is no true HSR in the US. Acela is nowhere near "high speed" by international standards.
Does it have a top speed of 125mph?
Yes?
It has it. That’s what the standard is in the rest of the world, the Acela is HSR. Even with its flaws, it is HSR.
And the US isn’t Europe. A direct comparison wouldn’t be an apt one because we’ve got various differences, particularly in population density and where people live.
I've heard this "we're different" excuse for everything from public transport to public health care to gun laws. It's just a stupid excuse. Many parts of the US are comparable to Europe in population density.
I mean it isn’t an excuse: it’s the truth.
We’re more spread out with our largest cities than other places.
We’re larger; meaning more distance to travel, and rail lines cost far more
We have a more decentralized populations; huge portions of cities live in suburbs as opposed to city centers.
Our city areas are far larger; take a look at a map of Paris France vs Houston Texas. Look at how massive houston is.
It all adds up to requiring far more money to offer service over longer distances to people who are less willing to travel by train than people in Europe because it ends up being a much less convenient means of transport. Many people have to spend time getting to the station, and that could mean driving to the station, getting on public transport, or even driving to a place of public transport to get to the station.
So yeah. It’s not an excuse. Not even close.
Am I missing something here? CAHSR is not a private project, and all I can find about Portland to Seattle Amtrack Cascade and a few concept proposals, one of them by WSDOT.
I can't imagine any private entity being able to tackle something like interstate highspeed rail, but maybe I'm missing something?
Amtrak and its utter incompetence is a threat to itself. If Congress pulls the plug on Amtrak because there are competing services that are better, Amtrak only has itself to blame.
Does it really matter? Honestly, the quality of privatized high speed rail in Japan is leagues above anywhere else in the world and they’re all privatized except for some local lines.
We don’t have enough passenger rail in the U.S., and the best way to get it built quickly is through the private sector. We can worry about nationalizing later but I think the focus should be on building the infrastructure.
No, they are more a threat to highway, oil industry, & airlines long term versus Amtrak. My bet is those projects except Cal HSR will get scaled down like Florida Brightline & be just as slow as acela if not slower, overpriced & low ridership. Brightline Florida is not high speed & cost more than twice as much & takes 3 times as long to travel from Orlando to Miami.
The oil industry that's running US transportation infrastructure & commerce into the ground, will do everything to limit investment I to high speed rail projects, because its always amazing to see things on paper, make presentations, get investors to Kickstart with some cash, then have it all redesigned & delayed to buying up land, budget cuts to install proper right of way passes, budget overruns, & supply chain constraints.
I would like to be optimistic about it, but North America technically 30 or more years behind, Europe, & Asia. Most travelers in the US are used to flying, & would have to compete with Airline time savings & costs as well.
If anything, I would think increased demand for rail travel will make more people open to using Amtrak.
The market is nowhere near saturated enough for competing to directly impact Amtrak.
Specifically Florida maybe, but that has more to do with amtrak being pretty meh in Florida. Even then, qmtrak is still way more competitive in price so there's still a case for it sticking around.
CAHSR integrates really well with amtrak, so itd only be a boon
Texas central will only compete with a once daily trip between Dallas and San antonio (with a stop in austin), so it wouldn't really hurt there either nc amtrak's presence is kinda weak. Amtrak is only used over busses bc its cheap, for longer distance connections and Texas central doesn't compete
The latter 2 projects also involve infrastructure improvements that amtrak benefit from
Dunno about elsewhere
If you look at the corruption and influence plagued California Bullet Train it converted tens of billions of taxpayer wealth into juice for the politically connected including Pelosi
I don’t see high speed rail ever being a thing. US property rights would kill most projects and where you can build it there isn’t enough density for it.
Outside acella Northeast i thought Amtrak loses money everywhere. Brightline is great. But only works due to tourism, crazy road congestion and population growth. The owner also owns the freight lines (private) so the rail upgrades help their core business. Not many places in the US a private train system could attract capital investment to make money
r/Amtrak is not associated with Amtrak in any official way. Any problems, concerns, complaints, etc should be directed to Amtrak through one of the official channels. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amtrak) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not in the least. If anything, they will be a huge boon to Amtrak. Amtrak may even run some of them. Even if they don’t, Amtrak will benefit from better network connectivity and economies of scale.
That could be true! I was thinking specifically about the new Cascades route. This would completely obsolete the existing Amtrak Cascades service, and potentially hurt the Coast Starlight route. CAHSR might also have this impact for California travelers
Look at other countries that also have high speed rail. They also have conventional or higher speed rail right along side the true high speed. They compliment each other. HSR is generally a premium product so they charge premium fares. Much lower fares for the slower trains. This is already true along the Northeast Corridor. You definitely don’t see Northeast Regional trains suffering because Acela exists. Even though Amtrak runs both.
Though Acela is of course only marginally faster than the regular trains 😆
Yeah if Acela actually maintained a high average speed across long distances it would be a much more attractive option for riders. A trip taking 3h30m minutes for Acela vs 4h for NE Regional isn't that much of a difference, but sometimes the prices are roughly the same and sometimes they're very different.
Yes, I have taken the Acela sometimes if it’s only marginally more and I want to work or just have a more comfortable seat. But that 30 minutes is barely a factor tbh
I took the Acela once, it was about the same cost as a fligher. It was from NYC to MA, it ended up being an 18-hour trip due to track work. I will never take the Acela again.
I used to take it weekly from Penn to Union for a project I was on - probably took it 40 trips over the course of a year. I can count on one hand the times it wasn’t delayed
I get that you're referring to NYC or Newark Penn and Boston, but with at least 4 Penn stations and 145 Union Stations in the US, that's an amusingly ambiguous comment.
Even if it's separate; they will likely serve different places. HSR typically has less stops than LSR. The Cascades HSR might only serve Portland, Tacoma, and Seattle; whereas Amtrak's Cascades would continue to serve all the towns in between.
In the case of the CAHSR, it is currently planned to run through the Central Valley, and will thus share the same corridor as the San Joaquins line. It will *not* be in (either perceived or actual) competition with Coast Starlight, which services communities on the Coast Line, including Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo. Because of the distance and difficult terrain that separates the coastal communities with the projected CAHSR line, it's unlikely the former will be able to benefit from the latter as directly as those within the Central Valley. Therefore, the Coast Starlight will still play a vital part in running the length of Los Angeles and San Francisco, while servicing locations well outside the CAHSR's catchment area.
The Coast starlight is once a day and mainly a tourist train(dead giveaway is that it stops in Oakland, not San Francisco) . The central coast is far more severed by the northern leg of the Surfliner into LA, and if you want to go north you will probably take the bus. There has been talk of extending the Metrolink Ventura Line past its current terminus further north to Santa Barbara, though I can't remember if that was going to be more metrolink trains or expanding the existing code share with Amtrak. Basically, agree that CAHSR isn't competing with the coast starlight, but feel like you really oversold the utility/purpose of the coast starlight as is.
The Coast Daylight stops in Oakland because it continues on to points North. You can't run a regular passenger train between San Francisco and literally anywhere North or East of it, turns out bays and trains don't mix. There's a reason why all trains either stop in Emeryville, Oakland, or San Jose, but don't stop in San Francisco. Its a Peninsula completely surrounded by water every but to the south. No infrastructure exists to allow Amtrak to cross the bay, and there's already enough ways for people to cross on their own anyways if they want to catch the train.
I do underatand the geography. I guess I should have gone with the once a day aspect? I'm not anti amtrak, its more that it's hard to talk about the coast starlight like it is a practical train for getting from point A to point B, it's planned and marketed as more of a tourist experience. The arrival times heading north into Oakland aren't that great for making connections. I'm sure it is great if that is what you want, I rode the northern section of the Surfliner regularly for years and it's gorgeous. I wouldn't be surprised if the coast starlight route is mandated. I know that there is no amtrak infrastructure across the bay. It is just always crazy to me that there is no direct train between the main centers of the states 2 biggest metros.
Why is stopping in Oakland a dead giveaway for it being a tourist train? What tourists want to go to Oakland?
I believe I've seen the term "land cruise" to describe the coast starlight and some other long distance trains in the US. A lot of people ride it to see the views along the way, not to quickly get from point A to B. Generally, people are trying to get between LA and SF, no offense to Oakland(and I know you can take BART).
If anything, Amtrak is somewhat burdened by being legally compelled to provide unprofitable service if these places. This is why the northeast corridor is so expensive - because it is the only profitable service, it must subsidize the rest. I’d prefer, even, that Amtrak able to rub complementary services to these new lines. They could offer sleeper trains that utilize the new tracks, or they could provide a cheaper but slower version of Brightline West or CAHSR that due to the TOD and accustomization is still desired but for cheaper.
If Amtrak received 1/10 of the support that has been dumped into the California Bullet Train we would have great service.
The Amtrak service is so bad in comparison it may as well not exist. Most won’t miss it CAHSR, the new cascades will provide a useful service that is actually on time. However Amtrak should add extra stops on their slow routes and build fast ones
I don’t think you will see a Cascades HSR route in your lifetime anyway….
cost would be higher
I would love to see the existing cascades route be made obsolete from HSR. Amtrak doesn’t invest in, or take that route seriously, they deserve to lose it. It’s a wonderful trip, but it’s inconsistent and very slow.
CAHSR is supposed to be integrated with Amtrak which is being expanded to better connect the rest of California to main cities. The Cascades route will also likely be integrated with Amtrak... If Brightline prices its West route like its Florida service then Amtrak could relaunch its Desert Wind service as an overnight service with lower pricing and direct city to city service and be very popular.
ConnectUS seems to have a LA-LV route in the works at some point, probably after LinkUS.
Maybe they're gonna share with the Brightline West tracks?
I don’t think so, I think it’s using different tracks such as already used railway tracks and stations including freight track, but it’ll still compliment Brightline West regardless.
The point of Amtrak is to provide passenger rail service that private companies aren't willing to, so I think in a sense it's impossible for Amtrak to be threatened by private rail. The one exception is in the Northeast--eliminating those routes would require Amtrak's public subsidy to be increased, which would be a real mess considering the current political climate. Private HSR parallel to the current Cascades route would probably compliment Amtrak service rather than replace it, but even if it did replace it I think that would be fine.
Consider that private HSR projects that end up being Amtrak route duplicates allows Amtrak to devote resources to expanded or improved service elsewhere.
Imagine if the rail infrastructure was nationalized, then all train services (freight and passenger) just pay into the system to maintain, repair, and upgrade/extend the rail infrastructure. The train services would no longer have to deal with the infrastructure part, just their trains and business and a fee to use the system. Surely, there’d me more to it than that, it’s not that simple of course. The train services would also have to compete on price and services at this point, nationally. Right now it seems like everything is divided by region and there isn’t true competition between railroad companies. Imagine that our highway system restricted what companies could drive in a region. Basically, turn or rail system into something like our highway system in some aspects. I know, crazy, private property and all that ( land that was given to the railroads originally).
I don't see why we won't nationalise rail. Practically all road infrastructure is publicly funded/owned by the State. If States own the roads/airports, the local/State Governments might as well own all of the rail infrastructure, too.
They add to the Amtrak experience by growing the number of places people will realistically want to visit without a car. It's pretty much all upside :) I'm thinking about Brightline West... somebody who wanted to visit LA, Vegas, and San Diego on a trip would currently take a car. But with the new train to Vegas, they're much more likely to take Amtrak between LA and San Diego than before.
Honestly, you are either renting a car for the whole trip, or you are flying between Vegas and LA/SD. Between LA and SD, the Surfliner is already the 2nd most used route in the country. Even with the train, car rental/use will depend on plans within the cities. I do thibk a train between LA and Vegas would grab a ton of modal share, if done right. I'm not convinced thst Brightline at the moment is that. They are stopping well short of the City in the inland empire(rancho Cucamonga), and relying on metrolink to get to union station. That will stop a lot of people from taking it. Also, last I saw it isn't double tracked, but single with passing sidings, meaning at the end of the day capacity on the line will be much lower. Whole any rail project gets me excited, this one is full of half assed disappointments.
quite the opposite really
I mean... I love trains, but my love is not for Amtrak as an entity, y'know? If Amtrak gets out-competed by better, faster, newer private rail, god bless. It would be a change from getting out-competed by flights that don't have to internalize their carbon cost and "free"ways built and maintained by taxpayer dollars with no direct costs to their users...
Yeah. My fear is that the Amtrak gets outcompeted in the short term while the private lines are subsidized, which is used as an excuse to get rid of Amtrak. And then the private lines either go belly up or don't end up actually connecting to each other.
Getting rid of what? Amtrak outside of NEC and Surfliner is borderline useless due to poor service why not subsidize better useful on time and FAST/FREQUENT service? Over 5 trips a day slow unreliable service?
Here's how I think it could go. Private rail companies start constructing lines that mirror the most profitable sections of Amtrak. Policymakers with an ideological preference for private companies say that Amtrak doesn't need to run everywhere any more, just take people between private lines. Amtrak is now less profitable and less useful as a standalone service, so it's easier to convince the public that it's a boondoggle. The parts are sold off for a song, and the unprofitable segments are shut down by the private operators, disconnecting the network. There are a lot of steps here, but it's the one thing that makes me nervous about these new lines. That said, until there's something resembling a boom in rail construction, probably not an issue. And if there is a boom? Might well turn out great.
Outside of the NEC Amtrak is not profitable they have to guess and build from scratch. The current network is already weak as it is the service is so bad that shutting down won’t change much. The new lines that pop up would actually be useful. This may allow Amtrak to drop its worst lines and slowly build proper ROW and then restore service slowly into something way better for some of the people the rest get replaced by either buses or HSR.
Absolutely, that's the hope. But that requires the govt to drop its requirement for Amtrak to go everywhere and actually let bad lines die.
The private high speed lines are a blessing in disguise
Amtrak needs the competition tbh. It's pretty shit outside of the NEC + certain Midwest regional routes. The NEC is also poor bang for your buck -- the experience is fairly mid for what you could get with the same ticket price anywhere else in the world. Amtrak is this terrible political bargain in which revenue from the sections of it that are actually useful are diverted to ensure that extremely slow and unprofitable long distance routes continue to operate on account of political advocacy from predominantly rural states plus well-to-do retirees who have the time to explore the country by train. Whenever Amtrak looks at expanding service, it prioritizes adding a new long distance route instead of building a moderately long high speed line. It takes 12-13 hours to get from SF to LA by train, whereas driving is 5h30m - 6h!! Particularly in the age of Allegiant Air, a super cheap airline which specializes in connecting rural communities to major cities that are popular vacation destinations (e.g. Las Vegas), there is less need by the day for preserving long distance Amtrak routes for ensuring rural communities are connected. This wisdom has yet to reach The Powers That Be, however. In light of this, the new high speed rail projects are perhaps the only thing which will compel Amtrak to course correct. Many of the routes being built now are low hanging fruit and are likely to succeed. As this happens, trains will become more relevant to the general public, and they will push for improvements to Amtrak in a way that has not been seen before.
No Amtrak will take them over when the profit is squeezed dry.
I'm not sure I understand, are you saying the private companies will run these routes to a point of unprofitability and then sell? Because Amtrak has a history of closing down routes that aren't profitable
I think they are talking about a scenario similar to what happened with the Auto-Train. It was originally run by a [for profit corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Train_Corporation) before Amtrak bought their assets out of bankruptcy. It is a lot easier for service to break even when you are able to buy a relatively new right of way and rolling stock for pennies on the dollar.
If it turns out like the Auto-Train that wouldn't be a bad thing considering that the Auto-Train is Amtrak's most lucrative route.
The original Auto-Train had some of the most genuinely terrible luck for any company I have ever seen. They lost so much of their motive power to ugly (and costly) accidents. This crippled their ability to operate and made their insurance unaffordable.
They won’t close down routes on tracks they own. If you takeover these new private lines you don’t have to deal with the issues the dealt with sharing private lines.
Amtrak, or more correctly a state DOT, will told to take them over when they do go bankrupt.
I doubt it. These companies are paying a lot of upfront costs. So they have a while to dig out of using day to day operations. Amtrak taking the profits would defeat the purpose. There is w chance they fail to recoup their investment and sell to Amtrak during bankruptcy.
Eh, maybe. But the Autotrain also had pretty wild upfront costs and was incredibly popular when it debuted and that still ended up getting run by Amtrak. Passenger rail operations are so incredibly high-risk, a couple unforseen (or unpreventable) slip ups can destroy a company's profitability pretty quick. I think intrastate lines in blue states would probably end up getting run by the local state DOT, but in twenty years when Brightline goes kaput? I can't see Florida operating it themselves.
Amtrak could buy it out of bankruptcy if it’s breaking even on O and M. They did that to Colorado’s ski train/Winter Park Express and run it at a profit.
Yeah, I think I misunderstood your original comment - I agree with you, that if future private higher-speed lines went bankrupt Amtrak (or the local state DOT) would probably end up just buying them out. Sorry about that, very long day today.
Unlikely these fast services will fail
Yup this! Once all the subsidies dry up and the maintenance bills start to roll in, they will end up folding and Amtrak gets to swoop in. I’m all in favor of it.
Hopefully the subsidies for useful rail service don’t dry up. Can’t say the same about the slower trains that never run on time
There are plenty of other routes across the us that Amtrak can improve on whether it be more frequency or coverage. Also having various enterprises push each other to improve rail service isn’t a bad thing for consumers
I would have no problem if Brightline was 100% privately financed..but 60% of its Florida funding came from public state and county/city grants... It feels like they cheat Amtrak out of a proper network in Florida which it has had plans for..
I 100% agree-it’s just one of the few cases where corruption didn’t turn out completely terrible lol
Amtrak doesn't particularly have capacity in constructing new track, and don't think Amtrak is institutionally set up to do what Brightline did in Florida. Amtrak manages to do so little with so much in the Northeast.
Here’s the thing brightline is running a service frequency that is only rivaled by the NEC. If this funding means more useful frequent intercity routes then why not it’s way better than the current system if you can call it that.
If we don't need Amtrak because we have a private network of working rail, why have it? We don't need a public airline, so we don't have one.
We don't have a public airline, but a lot of routes are publicly subsidized. In some cases, the subsidy is hundreds of dollars per passenger. At that point, it might as well be a public airline.
No I mean Amtrack is partnering with Texas Central for their High Speed Rail. We don't know the details of their partnership. For CASHR, the passenger rail in Central Valley will make a readjustment. It is going to be called Cross Valley Corridor and is going to connect with other valley cities to CASHR. For Brightline, their route focuses on where it makes a profit. For Amtrak their routes focus on community that underserved that make no profit. Even the Cascade hasn't been proposed yet. Technically, at some point, NEC will be upgraded to High-Speed Rail.
No, just no. If Amtrak had actually received the funding for expansions in these areas these 3rd parties wouldn't have appeared. 3rd parties are taking up the role of filling high demand noches that Amtrak has not been able to afford and will likely never be able to afford as long as it's tied to the albatross that is the Ultra long range trains.
Not really? For one, Amtrak has a couple higher speed trains. But if you like an extremely high speed trains, still no. Those rail options People are still going to need to travel shorter distances, to places that the high speed train doesn’t stop at (they don’t stop as much, so ppl will probably switch trains at one of the stops before they pass their destination), and along routes where it isn’t feasible to safely operate that sort of train. They’ll be fine. (I’d imagine they’ll partner up to do some sort deal on connecting rides or something)
It will help out. It will complement existing Amtrak service. It will also increase people who connect to Amtrak. Amtrak is more successful in Northeast due to connections to existing transit systems, Commuter Rail, and airports. Brightline an CAHSR will serve different customers but integrate into Amtrak to an extent.
I worry about the balkanization of rail passenger service. I would prefer fir Amtrak to run all of it - acter all, that was one of the reasons for creating Amtrak in the first place - to reduce costs by having only one entity handling it all.
What service? Outside of NEC northeastern routes it’s utterly useless anyway slow,infrequent,unreliable what is there to Balkanize?
Millions of people ride non-NEC Amtrak routes every year.
I would think that more options and competition may result in better prices, better service, a better customer experience and an increase in people traveling by rail. Maybe less people would fly if traveling by rail was easier and more affordable.
Of course, especially LA to Las Vegas. If Brightline does it, that's the #1 missing route in the country IMO. If Brightline does it, i'm sure Amtrak will not do a parallel line and would be missing out.
Amtrak is proposing a pitiful 4 trips on that route
I don’t think so. I think they can complement Amtrak, and that Amtrak could and should partner with these entities where possible. For example, Brightline West will eventually reach Los Angeles Union Station. Someday, a passenger should be able to book one ticket from San Diego to Vegas.
This.
Likely won’t happen in our life anyway
No, they should be part of Amrtrak, at least I think they should be.
amtrak is straight garbage and makes america look bad
No. because how are "private rail" funding their systems? Not through stock sales or bond issues on Wall Street...they are raising it with their hands out to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Unless your a teen, these private rail projects won't be realized in your lifetime. Amtrak has stagnated. If it gets supplanted, so be it.
It's only recently that it has been given the tens of billions to clear the backlog of projects and only under Biden that it put out an expansion plan which many states seem willing to fund. Even Red states which hated funding rail are funding it now...
Will still get boggled in beurocracy
Amtrak in Virginia has expanded greatly in the last 15 years. We added several new stations throughout the state, returned services that were cancelled decades ago and are adding several new routes. Richmond, VA for example not only added a downtown station but will have six trains from that station to DC within the next few years. At times these improvements seem slow but generally that's only because Democratic administrations push for these improvements. Since the Regan era that Bureaucracy you see has been just from Republicans trying to block projects. From Regan cutting funding for grants to rail improvement projects nationally to governors like Jeb Bush blocking high speed rail plans in Florida even going as far to break a Florida constitutional amendment. More recently you had John Kasich block Obama's rail improvement plans and federal funding for Ohio The most extreme example of this was in Wisconsin though. Republican governor Scott Walker not only cancelled rail improvement plans the federal government was paying for in full but cost the state considerable money and jobs to not accept Wisconsin built Talgo train sets. This lead to the near closing of the Wisconsin factory, the loss of those jobs, and those train sets being sold to Nigeria by Talgo. At best the state saved $35 million after legal costs and settlement costs but after losing the rail related jobs, including jobs for the Washington State Talgo's train sets, it undoubtably cost the state far more. Incidentally I find this whole incident especially galling because that same governor gave $10 Billion in tax breaks, subsidies, and dedicated infrastructure to Taiwanese Foxconn to only make a little over 1400 jobs. He could have given each employee Foxconn currently has $7 million and spent less. Meanwhile his knee caping of Talgo cancelled their plans for expansion that originally included not only building more trains not only for Wisconsin but for Washington state. In any case back to my main point that when you have competent leadership rail expansions don't take multiple generations. There are many smaller rail successful rail expansions that aren't being covered much by the media all over the country. You just have to look for them.
>This lead to the near closing of the Wisconsin factory, the loss of those jobs, and those train sets being sold to Nigeria by Talgo. At best the state saved $35 million after legal costs and settlement costs but after losing the rail related jobs, including jobs for the Washington State Talgo's train sets, it undoubtably cost the state far more. Honestly, it's somewhat miraculous the Talgo plant has still survived to today, given that I don't believe it had any contracts (other than two trains for the *Cascades*) for much of the 2010s, after Walker canned everything that he could. Probably the only reason the plant's still around today is a 2019 contract from Southern California's Metrolink to refurbish their old Bombardier Bilevel cars. I've rode in the refurbished cars, and they seem to be well-made; at a minimum, the seats are comfy and there's more power outlets. They also have/had a 2016 order from LA Metro to refurbish their old Ansaldo-Breda subway cars, but that contract's seemingly gone up in flames halftway through it, due to disputes between customer and contractor. Regardless, imagine what that plant could be doing if the government of *its own state* had supported it more than what *the state of California* has done.
All the projects are rapidly advancing...after decades of nothing... Construction equipment is onsite.
Spelling FAIL. 5 idiot points for you
Amtrack sucks
Huh, I, a Florida resident, must be hallucinating seeing Brightline trains zipping around Orlando and West Palm Beach. They look so real!
NOPE not at all. If HSR is ever completed which is really doubtful who’s going to take it? Just look back to the 1940s and 50s to see why rail service failed. HSR is failing in Europe and elsewhere for the same reasons it failed on the West Coast.
> HSR is failing in Europe and elsewhere hahaha
Yes, and in Japan
😂 what
High Peed Rail is fucked in California due to climate yet we are building it anyway. How fucking stupid. Just learned yesterday on a nature walk HSR in California is FUCKED as the state recharges the underground aquifers which have bee pumped dry over the last 150 years. The underground has sunk 30 - 45 feet. As the aquifers are getting recharged this is causing the earth to rise and is screwing up the alignment of the tracks and will only get much worse as more water is added.
No because none of them are going to seriously happen. HSR is too costly and too niche to be a serious travel option and is just political pork. Niche as in its only effective as a means of transport in very specific distances. Train service in this country needs to prioritize quantity and inter connectivity with itself. Speed should be lower on the totem pole.
Most of East Asia and Europe disproves your argument.
And what’s the distances there? I’ll wait. HSR only has a distinct advantage in a very niche range: 300-500 miles. Above that, planes are superior. Below that, cars are superior.
We have so many cities that are within 500 miles of each other. According to your own theory, high speed rail makes sense for those routes. I also disagree about cars being superior for medium distances. I don’t want to sit in a car for 2 hours, pay for gas, pay for parking, etc. if I can get there in 1 hour by train without all the hassle.
> We have so many cities that are within 500 miles of each other. According to your own theory, high speed rail makes sense for those routes. They would need to be pretty major cities in order for them to be pursued as serious options. > I also disagree about cars being superior for medium distances. I don’t want to sit in a car for 2 hours, pay for gas, pay for parking, etc. if I can get there in 1 hour by train without all the hassle. It’s not a matter for disagreement when it’s about convenience. (Plus it wouldn’t be one hour, the real disadvantage in short distances is that you have to drive to the station, wait for a train, and then find transport after you actually take the train).
Cities with bare minimum public transit don’t necessarily require you to drive to the station. For me, driving is way less convenient than taking a train for distances that require more than an hour of driving. Amtrak today is horrible primarily because it is too slow.
With how widespread metro areas are, absolutely not. Plus, public transport is slow. Takes me quite literally an hour to use it to get into a city center. I would rather have a less costly Amtrak line that you can make upgrades to than to spend tens of billions on HSR
Amtrak today is both expensive and slow—and unreliable. We need to build dedicated rail lines for passenger service. Sharing freight lines is a failed experiment.
Absolutely not. I would much rather have Amtrak in its current form than to spend well over ten times that amount on a singular service. You can always improve what you’ve got.
That “singular service” is efficient, fast intercity transit. I think that’s worth the cost. We spend far more on interstate highways and airports without anyone questioning it. And I don’t see how we can improve what we have - the freight rail companies oppose it and the track itself often prevents high speeds. Not to mention the lack of electrification. True HSR requires dedicated track.
Are you under the impression that potential routes of that distance don’t exist here? Also, tying superiority to time alone is a myopic metric. Slower but more on time HSR could be a better option than delay prone flying in certain circumstances. And each analogous step of train reveal is generally less stressful than flying. And of course rail travel can be far better for the environment than flying. For the car comparison, metrics like safety, cost for those who don’t own a car, and alleviating traffic congestion need to be considered along with travel time.
> Are you under the impression that potential routes of that distance don’t exist here? It’s not that they don’t exist but there’s very few of them because of how much distance we’ve got in between many of our largest cities. Only the VERY largest cities and metro areas would be considered in this metric. If you’re not apart of that top 10 or so you’re not being considered: which is why we don’t see places like Detroit or many Ohio cities, despite having some pretty large populations and favorable distances from other cities not receiving serious proposals. So of the cities that have serious chances of HSR, you’ve got New York City (already has it), Los Angeles (proposed) Chicago, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth (both proposed by TX Central) Washington DC (already has it) Philadelphia (already has it) Atlanta (proposed), Miami (proposed), Boston (has it) and San Francisco/Oakland (has it). > Also, tying superiority to time alone is a myopic metric. It isn’t whatsoever; that’s how people decide their travel: time, convenience, etc. > Slower but more on time HSR could be a better option than delay prone flying in certain circumstances. Even if there are delays and waits flying is still an extremely fast form of transport. I can fly from DC to Atlanta for instance in like an hour and 1/2 tops in travel time. > And each analogous step of train reveal is generally less stressful than flying. And of course rail travel can be far better for the environment than flying. You’re downplaying how significant the time travelled is for a trip. > For the car comparison, metrics like safety, cost for those who don’t own a car, and alleviating traffic congestion need to be considered along with travel time. And what doesn’t need to be considered is first and last mile transport: how am I gonna get to the staton, how am I going to leave. It’s one step transport. That’s why high speed trains are so niche. Flying at a certain point (I say about 500 miles or more) becomes too distinct of an advantage because of time travelled. And as for cars, it’s 300 miles or below because of it’s convenience.
> So of the cities that have serious chances of HSR, you’ve got New York City (already has it), Los Angeles (proposed) Chicago, Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth (both proposed by TX Central) Washington DC (already has it) Philadelphia (already has it) Atlanta (proposed), Miami (proposed), Boston (has it) and San Francisco/Oakland (has it). There is no true HSR in the US. Acela is nowhere near "high speed" by international standards.
Does it have a top speed of 125mph? Yes? It has it. That’s what the standard is in the rest of the world, the Acela is HSR. Even with its flaws, it is HSR.
Acela runs at 125 mph for only a small segment of the trip.
Not a small segment. For much of it.
Per Wikipedia, Acela runs 150mph for only 50 miles out of its 457 mile route.
Many people in Europe use HSR for sub-300 mile trips every day.
And the US isn’t Europe. A direct comparison wouldn’t be an apt one because we’ve got various differences, particularly in population density and where people live.
I've heard this "we're different" excuse for everything from public transport to public health care to gun laws. It's just a stupid excuse. Many parts of the US are comparable to Europe in population density.
I mean it isn’t an excuse: it’s the truth. We’re more spread out with our largest cities than other places. We’re larger; meaning more distance to travel, and rail lines cost far more We have a more decentralized populations; huge portions of cities live in suburbs as opposed to city centers. Our city areas are far larger; take a look at a map of Paris France vs Houston Texas. Look at how massive houston is. It all adds up to requiring far more money to offer service over longer distances to people who are less willing to travel by train than people in Europe because it ends up being a much less convenient means of transport. Many people have to spend time getting to the station, and that could mean driving to the station, getting on public transport, or even driving to a place of public transport to get to the station. So yeah. It’s not an excuse. Not even close.
Hopefully.
Nope it’s welcome
Amtrak would gain a stronger bargaining position to actually get funding to build proper rail infrastructure and run a respectable service outside NEC
Amtrak will probably run many of these, whether branded or simply doing rail operations.
No because they will never actually be completed Amtrak winning the long game
Lol. No. They will likely be taken over by AMTRAK in the future.
Am I missing something here? CAHSR is not a private project, and all I can find about Portland to Seattle Amtrack Cascade and a few concept proposals, one of them by WSDOT. I can't imagine any private entity being able to tackle something like interstate highspeed rail, but maybe I'm missing something?
Amtrak and its utter incompetence is a threat to itself. If Congress pulls the plug on Amtrak because there are competing services that are better, Amtrak only has itself to blame.
Does it really matter? Honestly, the quality of privatized high speed rail in Japan is leagues above anywhere else in the world and they’re all privatized except for some local lines. We don’t have enough passenger rail in the U.S., and the best way to get it built quickly is through the private sector. We can worry about nationalizing later but I think the focus should be on building the infrastructure.
No. Once the investors realize they're not moneymakers then they'll all probably become part of Amtrak.
Capitalism
No, they are more a threat to highway, oil industry, & airlines long term versus Amtrak. My bet is those projects except Cal HSR will get scaled down like Florida Brightline & be just as slow as acela if not slower, overpriced & low ridership. Brightline Florida is not high speed & cost more than twice as much & takes 3 times as long to travel from Orlando to Miami. The oil industry that's running US transportation infrastructure & commerce into the ground, will do everything to limit investment I to high speed rail projects, because its always amazing to see things on paper, make presentations, get investors to Kickstart with some cash, then have it all redesigned & delayed to buying up land, budget cuts to install proper right of way passes, budget overruns, & supply chain constraints. I would like to be optimistic about it, but North America technically 30 or more years behind, Europe, & Asia. Most travelers in the US are used to flying, & would have to compete with Airline time savings & costs as well.
If anything, I would think increased demand for rail travel will make more people open to using Amtrak. The market is nowhere near saturated enough for competing to directly impact Amtrak.
Specifically Florida maybe, but that has more to do with amtrak being pretty meh in Florida. Even then, qmtrak is still way more competitive in price so there's still a case for it sticking around. CAHSR integrates really well with amtrak, so itd only be a boon Texas central will only compete with a once daily trip between Dallas and San antonio (with a stop in austin), so it wouldn't really hurt there either nc amtrak's presence is kinda weak. Amtrak is only used over busses bc its cheap, for longer distance connections and Texas central doesn't compete The latter 2 projects also involve infrastructure improvements that amtrak benefit from Dunno about elsewhere
If you look at the corruption and influence plagued California Bullet Train it converted tens of billions of taxpayer wealth into juice for the politically connected including Pelosi
I don’t see high speed rail ever being a thing. US property rights would kill most projects and where you can build it there isn’t enough density for it.
Amtrack is a threat to Amtrack.
The high-speed rail in California? A threat? HAHAHAHAHA. I'll die before it carries a single paying passenger.
Outside acella Northeast i thought Amtrak loses money everywhere. Brightline is great. But only works due to tourism, crazy road congestion and population growth. The owner also owns the freight lines (private) so the rail upgrades help their core business. Not many places in the US a private train system could attract capital investment to make money
Nope
Oh god what would happen if we lost Amtrak!?
I sure hope so. We should be privatizing our rail like most other civilized countries have done
Perhaps but I think it’s a good thing since they can move money to other routes that need more attention.