[Aloha]

Show me another nation /of our geographical size/ with active well used long distance passenger rail outside of a few highly dense corridors - a hint, it doesn't exist - people will nearly always choose speed. There are very few passenger rail systems with higher than 90% farebox recovery - and none in a country of our geographical size.

That said, I'm in favor of keeping amtrak for strategic reasons (a trained pool of operating talent for national emergencies).

[CamTin]

What kind of emergencies? Ones where we suddenly have to run a lot of passenger trains?

[Aloha]

Ones where for a variety of reasons airspace is closed - WWII would not have been possible for us without railroads - the railroads moves huge numbers of men and materiel cross country faster than aircraft could - railroads also use much less fuel to do it than nearly any method of transport. While I cant think of a tactical situation where we couldn't airlift troops inside the continental US - the skills pool is worthwhile to keep for the 500 million a year is costs the country (a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the rest of the federal government).

[CamTin]

WWII wasn't possible without the railroads because the interstate highways hadn't been built yet. They are now, and as a result our rail network has become useless for personnel and troop transport. Sure, we can press our amazing freight network into service for logistics, but there's no reason to prop up Amtrak to keep those skills and infrastructure around, since the freight carriers show no signs of being in danger of extinction anytime soon.

But that's freight. If there's really a situation where we need to move vast numbers of /people/ around the country, the few dozen passenger consists that Amtrak owns or leases are just not gonna do the job. It would need to be the highways (probably pressing transit and school buses into service) or nothing.

It's possible that the NE corridor services could be helpful in an emergency, but for the vast majority of the country, the idea that Amtrak could be pressed into service as anything other than a minor sideline during a major evacuation or emergency is a just a weird fantasy.

[tsotha]

On the west coast Amtrak is more of an amusement park ride than a practical transportation option. If you want to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles the Amtrak trip planner has you on two trains and two buses before you arrive after nine hours. If you want to take a train the whole way there's only one each day and it takes 12 hours (as compared to about 6.5 driving).

It's kind of a joke. We should either get serious about a rail system or kill Amtrak altogether.

[orbifold]

Well a high speed rail like the TGV going ~300-350km/h would cut that down to roughly 2.5 hours, admittedly that is still higher than going by air, but a lot better than 12 hours.

[tsotha]

Flying isn't any faster than 2.5 hours once you figure in the extra time at the airport.

In any event I would be happy to take a conventional train if took less than about eight hours. I don't like flying and the drive is grueling, particularly in traffic.

The problem is AFAIK Amtrak doesn't own any track on the west coast. It's all single track, routing is optimized for freight, and passenger trains have a lower priority than freight trains.