Want airline food? Take Amtrak • Hacker News Board

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#121

Post by jcranmer » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:09 AM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #107

op00to wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does the US subsidize air travel via FAA, airport subsidies, etc? What about road subsidies? It’s like somehow rail has to be profitable on its own, but not bus or air.

> How much does the US subsidize air travel via FAA, airport subsidies, etc? My plane ticket receipt contains fees for half a dozen various government costs, including airport fees and a general US transportation tax. The FAA is pretty trivial, having a budget of just under $10B out of total American spending on domestic air travel of more than $800B. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/miss... ht…

Most of the costs of building and expanding airports are not borne by the airlines themselves but by the public via federal, state, and local governments. Admittedly, most of the cost of railroad infrastructure is not maintained by Amtrak itself, but the Class I railroads are profitable enough to take on major projects like rebuilding their routes to double-stack container clearances themselves.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#122

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:15 AM UTC

tspike wrote: post #66

scyclow wrote: post #61

I took the Empire Builder a couple weeks ago, and the Lakeshore Limited + California Zephyr last year. As much as I enjoyed the trips, I have to admit that they longer lines are incredibly impractical. Amtrak is operating at a huge loss per passenger ($32 on average)[1], and the prices aren't even that much cheaper than flying. It's viable for people with more time than money, but most of the passengers are just weir…

I don't disagree with your comment, but the thing that often gets lost in these discussions is that at least for the Empire Builder, people generally aren't using it to go from Chicago to Portland or Seattle. Sure, a flight from Chicago to Seattle would be much faster and cheaper. But what about getting from Minot to Whitefish? Or Spokane to Wenatchee? I personally use it 2-3 times a week to go between Bingen and Por…

[deleted]

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#123

Post by forapurpose » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:17 AM UTC

pocketstar wrote: post #36

dvtrn wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?

I understand the root issues is Amtrack unions. Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers. I dont know what the ratio is for airlines but it must be lower. This video does a pretty good explonation i think: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

> Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers

I've been on Amtrak trains and have seen nothing like that number of employees. My impression is that 1 in 40 or 80 might be closer.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#124

Post by pzone » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:18 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #121

jessriedel wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How much does the US subsidize air travel via FAA, airport subsidies, etc? My plane ticket receipt contains fees for half a dozen various government costs, including airport fees and a general US transportation tax. The FAA is pretty trivial, having a budget of just under $10B out of total American spending on domestic air travel of more than $800B. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/miss... ht…

Most of the costs of building and expanding airports are not borne by the airlines themselves but by the public via federal, state, and local governments. Admittedly, most of the cost of railroad infrastructure is not maintained by Amtrak itself, but the Class I railroads are profitable enough to take on major projects like rebuilding their routes to double-stack container clearances themselves.

Expanding airports isn't done for free. Airports charge fees to airlines for use of their runways, and they lease the commercial space inside. Any subsidies that go on here are second order - certainly not $32 per passenger.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#125

Post by seanmcdirmid » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:18 AM UTC

scyclow wrote: post #79

rdl wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bus? (Sometimes operated by Amtrak, even)

Technically yes, but if I had to take a bus for 20+ hours I'd want to shoot myself.

I did it for 4 days (cross country for $49!) as a 16 year old. It is definitely an adventure.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#126

Post by pzone » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:26 AM UTC

riffic wrote: post #68

rdl wrote: post #67

Taxpayers (and freight customers) shouldn't be subsidizing a novelty form of transportation for rail fans. If there's a subset of people who want this service, they should pay sufficient fares to cover the cost of service. Amtrak isn't doing that.

You're correct - taxpayers should be subsidizing an improved form of rail transit instead (see china, europe, japan.)

Taxpayers should barely subsidize trains, if at all. If they're not profitable it's a very strong sign they shouldn't be run in the first place. (Or prices should be increased.)

America is very different from Europe and Japan. Japan's population is concentrated in a single megalopolis. Europe is denser than America as well, 700 million people in roughly the same area. Another reason sprawling rail networks aren't a great idea in the US is that our geography is cleaved down the middle by a 1000 mile swath that is sparsely populated, and bordered by a massive mountain range.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#127

Post by jcranmer » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:27 AM UTC

enos wrote: post #30

ng12 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google say it takes 31h to drive between the two -- any idea why the Amtrak takes twice that time?

American rail is built for cargo, so there are no sections as fast as a freeway. Also there are several sections that are particularly slow. The track through the Rockies is the original 1869 route, with original curvy single track and original tunnels. Speed there is around 20mph. Sometimes you come close to I-70, where cars are going 60-80mph. The Sierras also have slow sections. That said, those were my favorite p…

The nominal max speed of Amtrak trains is about 79mph [1]. When I was traveling up I-57 in IL (speed limit 70mph), the Amtrak train was going almost identically in speed.

Most of the class I railroad track was built to handle high speed (by early 20th century standards) traffic, so trains can generally reach 70-90mph (although not so much in suburban or mountainous areas) with little modification. The difficulty is that there's no economic reason to push freight trains to high speed, and mixing higher-speed passenger and low-speed freight creates scheduling conflicts, so passenger speed tends not to hit its top speeds.

[1] On freight track, that is. The NEC, which is all passenger traffic and all-electric, has higher nominal speed: even the "slow" NE regionals will hit 100mph on the empty track in MD.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#128

Post by jcranmer » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

pzone wrote: post #124

jcranmer wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the costs of building and expanding airports are not borne by the airlines themselves but by the public via federal, state, and local governments. Admittedly, most of the cost of railroad infrastructure is not maintained by Amtrak itself, but the Class I railroads are profitable enough to take on major projects like rebuilding their routes to double-stack container clearances themselves.

Expanding airports isn't done for free. Airports charge fees to airlines for use of their runways, and they lease the commercial space inside. Any subsidies that go on here are second order - certainly not $32 per passenger.

Note that airlines don't reap the benefits of airport commercial revenue, and I expect most large airports make an operating profit, but I don't believe that many airports make a profit when capital costs are accounted for.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#129

Post by dag11 » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

crmd wrote: post #11

I have a strange love for the Acela Express' cheeseburger. If I wasn't sitting in a meeting right now I would go to Penn Station now and take a ride to Newark for that burger.

Maybe it's a specific brand you can buy? The normal cafe car pizza is, for example, the very same DiGiorno microwave pizza I lazily ate throughout high school. So that too is comfort food to me, garbage as it is.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#130

Post by Bucephalus355 » Sat, Apr 21, 2018, 2:48 AM UTC

scyclow wrote: post #61

I took the Empire Builder a couple weeks ago, and the Lakeshore Limited + California Zephyr last year. As much as I enjoyed the trips, I have to admit that they longer lines are incredibly impractical. Amtrak is operating at a huge loss per passenger ($32 on average)[1], and the prices aren't even that much cheaper than flying. It's viable for people with more time than money, but most of the passengers are just weir…

Huge loss? They cover 94% of their operating costs. The federal government only provides the remaining 6%.

What if a specific National Park, arguably of equal value to the Amtrak lines, generated 94% of its own money?