California getting crushed in high-speed rail race

The Acela doesn't stop every 12 miles, only major cities

It is a very profitable run and is usually full

I did a very quick google just to see. I don't know crap about this stuff, it was purely curiosity.

I did "is Acela profitable?"

So it looks like it's not even close.

Is the Northeast Corridor really profitable? - Fred Frailey - Trains Magazine - Online Community: Forums and Blogs

But in that Washington Post story, Boardman qualifies his statement in one important respect. To cover the Northeast Corridor’s capital costs, Amtrak still needs a government subsidy, he says. That is correct. How much are capital costs, on average? For the answer to that, go back to that same link and refer to page 4 of the 2009 report titled, “Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan.” There, it estimates the NEC’s annual, normalized capital needs the next 15 years as $368 million for infrastructure and equipment. Last fiscal year’s NEC operating profit of $61 million covers only one-sixth of that capital need.

The Acela operates on a profit of $41 a passenger, the rest of the trains on the NEC lose money.

Amtrak Loses $32 Per Passenger - Business Insider

The NEC corridor, like most US infrastructure, has been sadly neglected. The trains are old and much rail support electronics are ancient. Rails, stations, crossings, bridges, tunnels all need work

The price of a ticket will not make up for 60 years of neglect

What I don't agree with is, that sure, if you take a single area and find it makes a profit but discount the rest of the system that runs a huge deficit then it's not really honest. If updates were done that negative 32$ number would actually be much higher, even if you got more people to use the trains.

I’d love to see more trains, and like most people have thought about how could you make it work, I just never can make it and if anything I see how pointless it would be to have them.


I'd like to see trains get better but this bullet train crap just boggles the mind.
 
Isnt' that how you go thru the Chunnel? I thought you loaded your car on and sat and ate snails all the way back to London.. In the US, if they had Wi-Fi and carhops delivering finger food -- and maybe a plug to run your electric stuff --- that could be neat if there was a view.

Eurostar Train Schedules: Book Tickets & Passes - Rail Europe
Did you see the first Mission Impossible? That's the EruoStar through the Chunnel.
It's a great trip.
 
I did a very quick google just to see. I don't know crap about this stuff, it was purely curiosity.

I did "is Acela profitable?"

So it looks like it's not even close.

Is the Northeast Corridor really profitable? - Fred Frailey - Trains Magazine - Online Community: Forums and Blogs

But in that Washington Post story, Boardman qualifies his statement in one important respect. To cover the Northeast Corridor’s capital costs, Amtrak still needs a government subsidy, he says. That is correct. How much are capital costs, on average? For the answer to that, go back to that same link and refer to page 4 of the 2009 report titled, “Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan.” There, it estimates the NEC’s annual, normalized capital needs the next 15 years as $368 million for infrastructure and equipment. Last fiscal year’s NEC operating profit of $61 million covers only one-sixth of that capital need.

The Acela operates on a profit of $41 a passenger, the rest of the trains on the NEC lose money.

Amtrak Loses $32 Per Passenger - Business Insider

The NEC corridor, like most US infrastructure, has been sadly neglected. The trains are old and much rail support electronics are ancient. Rails, stations, crossings, bridges, tunnels all need work

The price of a ticket will not make up for 60 years of neglect

What I don't agree with is, that sure, if you take a single area and find it makes a profit but discount the rest of the system that runs a huge deficit then it's not really honest. If updates were done that negative 32$ number would actually be much higher, even if you got more people to use the trains.

I’d love to see more trains, and like most people have thought about how could you make it work, I just never can make it and if anything I see how pointless it would be to have them.


I'd like to see trains get better but this bullet train crap just boggles the mind.

As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving. No traffic, no lengthy security searches and the train brings you right to the center of the city and links to mass transit.

You can also work on the train, walk around, eat....have a beer or five

The problem is that AMTRAK has to serve 46 states with passenger service. No way to make money in most of the states
 
Isnt' that how you go thru the Chunnel? I thought you loaded your car on and sat and ate snails all the way back to London.. In the US, if they had Wi-Fi and carhops delivering finger food -- and maybe a plug to run your electric stuff --- that could be neat if there was a view.

Eurostar Train Schedules: Book Tickets & Passes - Rail Europe
Did you see the first Mission Impossible? That's the EruoStar through the Chunnel.
It's a great trip.

I always take trains in England because the driving is so intimidating. Americans need to buy and read a British driver's handbook and not think they know it all. And I've liked doing Hamburg to Amsterdam.. But castles and stuff go by too quickly.. It's always -- I wish "I could have stopped there" experience.

I'd like to do the Chunnel.

And Big Fitz ---- OF COURSE -- Sanford, Florida.. I grew up in Daytona Beach. I KNEW it sounded familiar. Lots of tourists used that when Daytona still was a family place..
 
As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving.



In your opinion.

I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic.
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?
 
As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving.



In your opinion.

I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic.
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?


Do you think you are the only person who has traveled in that heavily traveled area?
 
In your opinion.

I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic.
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?


Do you think you are the only person who has traveled in that heavily traveled area?

why must you always be a dickhead, moto?
 
In your opinion.

I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic.
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?


Do you think you are the only person who has traveled in that heavily traveled area?

That's what passes as your opinion?
 
I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic.
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?


Do you think you are the only person who has traveled in that heavily traveled area?

why must you always be a dickhead, moto?


Who are you talking to, douchebag?
 
I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic.
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?


Do you think you are the only person who has traveled in that heavily traveled area?

That's what passes as your opinion?

Wake up the hampster and get that wheel in your skull moving.
 
Republicans say we can afford to rebuild Iraq, but not this country.

Examples of U.S.-funded projects:

• Health clinics. The United States had planned to build 150 clinics by 2005 at a cost of $88.5 million. Construction took four years longer and cost nearly four times more to complete 133 of the planned clinics.

• Prison. The United States spent $40 million to build a prison for 3,600 inmates north of Baghdad. But the U.S. canceled the project in 2007 because of security problems and poor construction, and the half-built prison probably never will be finished, Bowen said.

• Electricity. Iraq's capacity to generate electricity rose to 6,000 megawatts last year, five years later than U.S. officials had predicted in 2004. The United States has spent $4.9 billion on electricity projects.

Goal: Add capacity to provide an additional 1.1 million cubic meters per day, serving 5.2M people; not cost estimate given
Result: Added capacity to treat 1 million cubic meters per day by Oct. 2009, serving more than 5M people; cost $1.6 billion

Goal: Increase supply to 6,000 megawatts by 2004; no cost estimate given
Result: Supply increased to 6,000 megawatts in 2009; cost $4.9 billion

U.S. SPENDING FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

Year Spent Cumulative total
2003 $1.8 $1.8

2004 $5 $6.8

2005 $9.3 $16.1

2006 $8.8 $24.9

2007 $7 $32

2008 $5.8 $37.8

2009 $6.8 $44.6

Rebuilding Iraq: Slow but steady progress - USATODAY.com

No wonder Republicans think of this as a GREAT SUCCESS.

They love Iraq more than they love America.
 

Forum List

Back
Top