Skier speed trap hell

[BenedictGomez]

For a guy living in northern Jersey to advocate eliminating trains, all those 10+ lines of Jersey Transit trains needs to go! I'm sure the roads of northern Jersey will have no trouble absorbing all those train riders getting into their personal cars!

BTW, the roads are also a "cost center". Better remove them except the ones that survive on tolls.:roll:

NJTRANSIT loses money too, but it has a net positive economic benefit. Conversely, there's no rational defense to many (most) Amtrak lines in America due to the low benefit from these lines. They just flat-out lose money with little economic benefit in return.

That said, my guess is NJTRANSIT could be very profitable were it not run by the government.

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

It take a constant supply of bodies to keep passenger trains profitiable. Offer something people WANT to ride...

https://gobrightline.com/

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/07/569183423/florida-set-to-launch-countrys-first-private-high-speed-train-service

 

[MEtoVTSkier]

It's not practical at all when it's a massive cost center. In all of America, there is only one Amtrak train route that is profitable, and that is Boston to DC (via NYC & Philly). Other than that relatively short route, Amtrak is a major taxpayer-sucking failure. Keep the Boston to DC route, and let the rest of it die would be my recommendation.

I believe they stated that the Amtrack "Auto-Train" is also actual profitable route...

 

[sull1102]

Yeah, the common argument for anti train people is this crap about only the NE Corridor makes a dime, but it is becoming less and less true every year. The Corridor is profitable, depending on how you look at maintence and everything else, but the Downeaster is getting very close to profitable and should cross that line in the next couple years. There's also the Auto Train that makes money and then the private operators like Brightline are making a go of it and could be profitable soon. And of course on the other side of railroading, Warren Buffett runs the show in freight and he knows a thing or two about money.

 

[benski]

I believe they stated that the Amtrack "Auto-Train" is also actual profitable route...

Here is a list. They have 4 profitable routes, and a few more that come close.
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html

 

[Smellytele]

Yeah, the common argument for anti train people is this crap about only the NE Corridor makes a dime, but it is becoming less and less true every year. The Corridor is profitable, depending on how you look at maintence and everything else, but the Downeaster is getting very close to profitable and should cross that line in the next couple years. There's also the Auto Train that makes money and then the private operators like Brightline are making a go of it and could be profitable soon. And of course on the other side of railroading, Warren Buffett runs the show in freight and he knows a thing or two about money.

Downeaster really? they barely covered half their expenses.

Revenue 2014​

Expenses 2014​

Cost recovery 2014​

Profit/lo​

Downeaster

$8,638,103​

$15,700,000​

55.02%​

($7,061,897)​

 

[Hawk]

I'll take my generation over yours any day. But not the greatest generation. My parents and their generation were the hardest working, fearless and most giving generation of all time. They certainly earned the respect of all generations. They were the ones that expanded and created the infrastructure that we are left with. Now we are dealing with the results of population growth. You say that your generation got screw by mine. Who said we owed you anything? That is the sense of entitlement I was speaking about. Your generation needs to stop thinking they are owed and just do something about it.

As for NYC Traffic and public trans. I have no idea of the pains that you people endure as I live north of Boston. My commute in a car is 45 to my desk at 6am in the morning. We still have our sanity for the most part but I am sure that your perspective is much different.

 

[x10003q]

For a guy living in northern Jersey to advocate eliminating trains, all those 10+ lines of Jersey Transit trains needs to go! I'm sure the roads of northern Jersey will have no trouble absorbing all those train riders getting into their personal cars!

BTW, the roads are also a "cost center". Better remove them except the ones that survive on tolls.:roll:

Nobody said anything about eliminating commuter lines in NJ, but you might not understand how NJ trains operate.
The trains in NJ go to and from NYC/Hoboken like spokes on a wheel. The spokes are not connected. Unless you have hours to burn getting from your spoke to the next spoke over, you drive and it takes 15 minutes. Every town in NJ has residential housing and jobs. Even the highly developed trains in NJ cannot accommodate most people. Car registration has been increasing almost every year in the US and will continue to do so.

 

[benski]

NJTRANSIT loses money too, but it has a net positive economic benefit. Conversely, there's no rational defense to many (most) Amtrak lines in America due to the low benefit from these lines. They just flat-out lose money with little economic benefit in return.

That said, my guess is NJTRANSIT could be very profitable were it not run by the government.

So you want a monopoly? I could understand relying more on contracts but complete privatization would probably be a terrible idea. There would be little accountability, and the government would never want them to cut every service thats not profitable forcing people onto inefficient roads. Supposedly, they could add a few more trains for very little, if NJ Transit and the LIRR put there Penn station operations under one operator since using Penn station as a terminus, is very inefficient.

 

[cdskier]

Nobody said anything about eliminating commuter lines in NJ, but you might not understand how NJ trains operate.
The trains in NJ go to and from NYC/Hoboken like spokes on a wheel. The spokes are not connected. Unless you have hours to burn getting from your spoke to the next spoke over, you drive and it takes 15 minutes. Every town in NJ has residential housing and jobs. Even the highly developed trains in NJ cannot accommodate most people. Car registration has been increasing almost every year in the US and will continue to do so.

Right. The train is useful if you work in NYC, Newark, or Hoboken/Jersey City. However like you stated there are jobs in nearly every town in NJ.

So the trains are pretty useless for someone that lives in say North Jersey on one train line and works in Central Jersey on a separate train line (or in a town that isn't on a train line at all). To get from the town where I live to where I work would require 3 trains and take nearly 2 hours (and would still leave me almost 10 miles from my actual office). Driving takes me 45 minutes door to door.

 

[benski]

Right. The train is useful if you work in NYC, Newark, or Hoboken/Jersey City. However like you stated there are jobs in nearly every town in NJ.

So the trains are pretty useless for someone that lives in say North Jersey on one train line and works in Central Jersey on a separate train line (or in a town that isn't on a train line at all). To get from the town where I live to where I work would require 3 trains and take nearly 2 hours (and would still leave me almost 10 miles from my actual office). Driving takes me 45 minutes door to door.

Though you don't ride the trains, it helps a lot with traffic. It only takes about 3 NJ transit trains per hour to carry the same number of people one expressway lane typically does in an hour.

 

[cdskier]

Though you don't ride the trains, it helps a lot with traffic. It only takes about 3 NJ transit trains per hour to carry the same number of people one expressway lane typically does in an hour.

No doubt and I would never advocate eliminating them. They do serve a definite purpose and benefit. I'm just pointing out that they can never replace cars even in highly populated areas like NJ, never mind in really rural locations.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Here is a list. They have 4 profitable routes, and a few more that come close.
http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2014/11/amtrak-routes-by-2014-cost-recovery.html

It's actually 3, because 2 or those trains are really the same route. Still, that's 2 more than I was aware of, so I imagine the DC commuter trains have recently become profitable; not shocking given how much money, people, and jobs have poured into the DC area during the last decade.

I actually don't have a problem with a line incurring a small loss, like the Washington - Norfolk route, because the net economic benefit to the region can surely justify that as having value. But there is no reasonable justification for a route like the Southwest Chief, going through a bunch of minor towns & cities and losing $62,000,000 per year.

 

[Jully]

I actually don't have a problem with a line incurring a small loss, like the Washington - Norfolk route, because the net economic benefit to the region can surely justify that as having value. But there is no reasonable justification for a route like the Southwest Chief, going through a bunch of minor towns & cities and losing $62,000,000 per year.

Agree with this completely. As far as I can tell, the cross country Amtrak trains are essentially gimmicks. They cost as much as plane tickets, aren't particularly nice, and are NEVER on time for any practical use (like 6+ hour delays).

Nobody said anything about eliminating commuter lines in NJ, but you might not understand how NJ trains operate.
The trains in NJ go to and from NYC/Hoboken like spokes on a wheel. The spokes are not connected. Unless you have hours to burn getting from your spoke to the next spoke over, you drive and it takes 15 minutes. Every town in NJ has residential housing and jobs. Even the highly developed trains in NJ cannot accommodate most people. Car registration has been increasing almost every year in the US and will continue to do so.

Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas (profitably, or at least at zero loss if run right, IMO). The wheel and spoke works for what it is supposed to accomplish. That said, cars or some sort of private-ish transportation will always be necessary as long as we are living in a suburban/urban model or even more rural (which certainly isn't changing anytime in the next 2 centuries). Ride sharing I think will decrease car ownership (note the decrease NOT replace) in very dense suburban areas in coming years, but that is just my opinion and I have zero data to back that up at this time.

I don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars in this country.

I also just think that ski trains can also be run profitably and benefit those who ski and live in cities. The Rutland thing does not count. :flag:

 

[spring_mountain_high]

long distance trains would have to exist like a land cruise to be profitable...a greyhound bus on rails offering cheap fares is not profitable, and we have to decide if it's worth subsidizing it to basically provide a service to the towns along the way

there are some amazing routes in existence that can exist as an experience in their own right...the california zephyr from chicago to california is one of the top ten train rides in the world

 

[Smellytele]

long distance trains would have to exist like a land cruise to be profitable...a greyhound bus on rails offering cheap fares is not profitable, and we have to decide if it's worth subsidizing it to basically provide a service to the towns along the way

there are some amazing routes in existence that can exist as an experience in their own right...the california zephyr from chicago to california is one of the top ten train rides in the world

Just because they are amazing doesn't mean they should be subsidized by tax payers.

 

[BenedictGomez]

there are some amazing routes in existence that can exist as an experience in their own right...the california zephyr from chicago to california is one of the top ten train rides in the world

And to think, every year we only need to flush $63,000,000 down the toilet from taxpayer's paychecks to make it happen.

 

[abc]

I appreciate all the back pedaling!

Seems we went from "trains are impractical" and "train will never replace cars".... To:

"Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas "
"not meant to eliminate commuter TRAINS"
"don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars"

The funnest part is, those who think trains are impractical because they don't go where they need to go are the same people who don't want train route expansions.

I'm a software guys who's been in this profession for over 20 years. I was lucky enough to be a young engineer when the internet exploded. Back then 90% of the managers didn't want anything to do with the "internedz" because there's no traffic on it! Not saying trains will be the next internet. But that same look under their nose mentality just sound so familiar...actually, IDENTICAL!

I can totally understand where benski and the like come from. It may strikes you old geezer as naive or misguided. Sure, there maybe some element of that. But there's also courage and refreshment too. The world is constantly changing. Things don't stay the same forever. What used to work may no longer do. And what didn't used to work may start to work in a modified form.

Take a deep breath and think slowly whether those fresh (or even re-cycled) idea has any merit before blowing it off. It's a good habit to get into.

 

[Jully]

I appreciate all the back pedaling!

Seems we went from "trains are impractical" and "train will never replace cars".... To:

"Trains serve a great purpose that can be expanded upon in most metro areas "
"not meant to eliminate commuter TRAINS"
"don't think anyone in this thread was suggesting that trains and purely 'mass' forms of transit would ever completely replace cars"

The funnest part is, those who think trains are impractical because they don't go where they need to go are the same people who don't want train route expansions.

I agree there's been some back pedaling (I'd like to call it consensus building...), but not sure why you threw my quote in there. I said nothing along the lines of eliminating mass transit options with the exception of Amtrak lines that lose $60,000,000 a year.

A common complaint of those using caution against the expansion of mass transit is that 'trains won't replace cars and are impractical.' All I was pointing out is that that is not a valid argument as no one is advocating that rural Maine should eliminate all roads and cars to be replaced with a system of cable cars and commuter rail.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Dont put me in any "back-peddling" crowd either, there's no reason to back-peddle when the economics of commuter trains has repeatedly & demonstrably failed in this nation on most routes. Some of that failure is admittedly due to government incompetence, but it's failure nonetheless.

Not to mention, the emergence of self-driving cars is going to be another negative against train commuting, and a huge one at that.

Hell, if we're going to flush literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars down the toilet literally every year, I'd rather they close these inefficient train routes & spend that money on newer technology instead. Trains sure as hell arent, "the next internet", but maybe something like that hyperloop will be.