> I just looked up flights between Syracuse and Chicago
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made (which was why the mention that the train is slower now was even mentioned): a gross miscalculation of general politically relevant public opinion for long distance rail service.
Even so, if you actually want to understand the indisputable utilization of some of these routes, search say only a week out rather than a month and the differential might be more like $120 for a train ticket and $600 for plane ticket. And compare peak to off peak times where plane tickets will sky rocket but rail differentials are far more modest. Those "affordable" fares also have an $80 differential between basic economy and economy, the privilege to even bring a carry-on bag let alone checked baggage. Getting to and from the station is often cheaper than the airport.
> So who actually cares
And here's the thing, many of these routes do sell out or come close to doing so on a daily basis. With a few notable exceptions, they're not running light trains around. In the case of the aforementioned train averaging about 500 pax in each direction. It's not my job to convince you that the majority of these 500 passengers are not train geeks. Yes it is hard for me to comprehend that is the first thing someone would think critically, as if the majority of those using Greyhound and the Chinatown line are "bus geeks".
It's not like I'm saying axing some of these routes is a not a reasonable enough opinion, but my initial reply was pointing out the ridiculous premises.
> Please, look at any graph of government spending over the past century and then try to tell me with a straight face that the "reduce government spending crowd" has any pull at all.
To keep this on topic, compare a system map and timetable of Amtrak today vs 30 years ago.
> My claim here is that you can make up the shortfall by eliminating all the useless routes
And ignoring the $10 billion of outlay for new trainsets and the $16 billion dollar Gateway for starters (these are just for the NEC).
> This has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made (which was why the mention that the train is slower now was even mentioned): a gross miscalculation of general politically relevant public opinion for long distance rail service.
Your point didn't come across very clearly. I'm sorry about that; I also get frustrated when my points don't come across clearly. But I'm operating in good faith here.
I don't understand the relevance of the point that the Syracuse to Chicago train is slower than it was 100 years ago. You can fly from Syracuse to Chicago in 2 hours. No train is going to compete with that--maybe a maglev or hyperloop, but not a train. So if the train service between Syracuse and Chicago is going to compete with air service, it's going to have to compete some other way.
> And here's the thing, many of these routes do sell out or come close to doing so on a daily basis. With a few notable exceptions, they're not running light trains around. In the case of the aforementioned train averaging about 500 pax in each direction.
That's great. If those passengers are willing to pay ticket prices that cover the full long term costs of maintaining their share of the infrastructure they're using, then you could have an economically viable privately operated passenger train service. If not, then the ticket prices are artificially low and should be raised. If raising the ticket prices makes the ridership disappear, then it doesn't have economic sense to run a passenger train route.
> It's not my job to convince you that the majority of these 500 passengers are not train geeks. Yes it is hard for me to comprehend that is the first thing someone would think critically, as if the majority of those using Greyhound and the Chinatown line are "bus geeks".
No, you're right. You've convinced me that the widespread public support for Amtrak doesn't come from people naively romanticizing passenger rail, but rather a coalition of people effectively freeloading off the American taxpayer. As a result I am now even more opposed to Amtrak.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the point being made (which was why the mention that the train is slower now was even mentioned): a gross miscalculation of general politically relevant public opinion for long distance rail service.
Even so, if you actually want to understand the indisputable utilization of some of these routes, search say only a week out rather than a month and the differential might be more like $120 for a train ticket and $600 for plane ticket. And compare peak to off peak times where plane tickets will sky rocket but rail differentials are far more modest. Those "affordable" fares also have an $80 differential between basic economy and economy, the privilege to even bring a carry-on bag let alone checked baggage. Getting to and from the station is often cheaper than the airport.
> So who actually cares
And here's the thing, many of these routes do sell out or come close to doing so on a daily basis. With a few notable exceptions, they're not running light trains around. In the case of the aforementioned train averaging about 500 pax in each direction. It's not my job to convince you that the majority of these 500 passengers are not train geeks. Yes it is hard for me to comprehend that is the first thing someone would think critically, as if the majority of those using Greyhound and the Chinatown line are "bus geeks".
It's not like I'm saying axing some of these routes is a not a reasonable enough opinion, but my initial reply was pointing out the ridiculous premises.
> Please, look at any graph of government spending over the past century and then try to tell me with a straight face that the "reduce government spending crowd" has any pull at all.
To keep this on topic, compare a system map and timetable of Amtrak today vs 30 years ago.
> My claim here is that you can make up the shortfall by eliminating all the useless routes
And ignoring the $10 billion of outlay for new trainsets and the $16 billion dollar Gateway for starters (these are just for the NEC).