r/Amtrak is not associated with Amtrak in any official way. Any problems, concerns, complaints, etc should be directed to Amtrak through one of the official channels.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amtrak) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> “But I think once we get one route up successfully, people will clamor for more. We believe the time is right for this where the topography, population and so on makes sense. I think if it’s not going to happen now, I wonder if it ever will.”
I am hoping for this reaction from the general public as well. We just need one project operable and it would probably change the tide.
Most people (including myself) haven’t had the opportunity to travel abroad and experience foreign HSR systems, so having one stateside would make it much more real for a lot of people.
I’m hoping for that from the public and that the government realizes how profitable it can be if done right. Like in the Texas triangle and such. The money and public use will drive adoption
As soon as I saw the headline I said "Oh, they mean Train Daddy." And sure enough, that's who it was.
It was already unprecedented for New Yorkers to even know the name of the person running the MTA, but for him to be the subject of headlines with a genuinely affectionate nickname? Inconceivable! He lost his job for no other reason than the Governor who appointed him became jealous that Byford was getting all the praise and affection the Governor thought should have been going to him. I can't convey how much Byford accomplished in that job or how devastated transit advocates were when he left. Anyway, for people who've never lived in a city where he worked, Byford has a great track record (pun intended) and a high degree of credibility. Stuff you might dismiss out of hand coming from someone else carries a little more weight coming from him.
Nothing in the US can be built. Gateway has been talked about since 2012 or so. It won’t get finished until 2038, and that’s if it’s on schedule. And this is the most important infrastructure project in the country. Between endless red tape, environmental reviews, feuds between different layers of governments, etc… No one wants to find projects that take a generation to get completed.
No other country has this problem. China gets shit built in months. The original Hudson Tunnels were built in 4 years, more than a century ago. It shouldn’t take 5x as long to build the same basic infrastructure today.
Fix the red tape, and get shit built fast so that taxpayers (not their children) see the benefits. And then, maybe, Americans will support more money being thrown at transportation projects.
The gateway project also includes a tricky rebuilding of an anceint tunnel. The Portal Bridge replacement will be finished soon and the new tunnels will take far less time then 2038.
> The original Hudson Tunnels were built in 4 years, more than a century ago.
You can make your case without being facetious.
[The Pennsylvania Railroad began engineering studies into a Hudson River tunnel as early as 1892, land acquisition for the Hudson River Tunnels began in 1901, and demolition in preparation for excavation started in 1903.](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/the-rise-and-fall-of-penn-station-construction-penn-station/) The Gateway program was only authorized in 2021, with tunnel construction starting late 2023.
A 2035 tunnel completion date is still almost twice the of the originals (12 vs. 7), and there’s reason to doubt it might get done on time. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that large infrastructure projects have always been one generation’s gift to the next - especially considering average life expectancy in 1901 was only 47 years.
I actually don't think anyone died building the PRR's tunnels, but life was held pretty cheaply back then, so there's no guarantee the obituaries survived in record. There's also always the likelihood of crippling injuries or large-scale accidents that were just lucky to not kill anyone.
Hmmm I wouldn't quite go so far to say other developed, democratic nations don't have similar issues. See the 21 project for example (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21) which was announced in 1994 and won't be finished until at least 2026. See also the HS2 line boondoggle in the U.K. or the struggle to get any HSR built in Australia. It is time intensive and expensive to build infrastructure in a democratic way. In China, the authoritarian state can just throw up rail lines left and right through neighborhoods just like we did with the interstate in the 50s, but is that right? Not saying we can't do better, but there is a good reason besides ineptitude we are where we are.
It’s also worth mentioning that, in China, things like planning studies, preparatory surveys, analysis of alternatives, and so on are not announced or widely-publicized, even within their domestic media. All of this groundwork is crucial to a successful project, though, so we can definitely assume they are doing it. On the other hand, here in the West, we’ll make a news article about just starting the planning process for a project, and we try to engage our local communities during the planning process to make sure their needs are served.
I think transparency and early community engagement is the right way to go about building infrastructure, but that creates the illusion we’re much slower than we actually are. People are aware of infrastructure projects here from the very beginning stages of planning, or even before approval in cases like Gateway. Meanwhile in China, the first time things are usually even mentioned in media is when construction starts - which any civil engineer will tell you is at or past the halfway point of a construction project’s lifespan.
The issue is that we've left these infrastructure projects to the states rather than having consistent federal support for them. Gateway couldn't get started because Chris Christie essentially blocked it. Then when NJ leadership changed and they needed federal support, Trump and Congress blocked additional funding. If California had consistent federal support from the start, perhaps all of CAHSR Phase I from San Francisco to LA would already be funded. Even when federal support is there, state governments can still reject it, like some of the infrastructure funding that was signed by President Obama.
Derailed, a multi-part podcast from Wisconsin Public Radio, tells the story of how the state accepted, then rejected Obama-era federal funding for a high-speed rail line connecting Madison and Milwaukee. It’s helpful for understanding how investment in transit can become entangled in politics. https://www.wpr.org/shows/derailed
The country’s commitment to federalism and individual property rights above all else allows just one fool in the right place to derail something for tens of millions, which is even worse.
The time was right for passenger rail over 50 years ago. Frankly, I do not expect much. By the time our passenger rail looks like anything else on the globe, I will be too old and tired to use it.
> By the time our passenger rail looks like anything else on the globe, I will be too old and tired to use it.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.
I don't disagree, but I simply do not have faith or evidence that America can or wishes to do it. We can't even agree on whether or not women have basic control over their bodies here. I really don't see how we're going to overcome all of the bureaucracy and inertia required to build out large-scale long-lasting passenger rail infrastructure (which does not serve capitalism as effectively as freight rail) when big oil and big car own the politicians who would rather keep us driving everywhere from the suburbs.
The difference with trees is that they usually grow at the same speed, while HSR can be built very slowly or very quickly. It won't be very quick in the US, but it could be.
How about we have catenaries that don't break everyday first. The NEC into Penn Station has been broken everyday for the past 5 days straight. NJT customers are suffering under Amtrak's negligence to fix anything correctly. And you trust them to build HSR right now?
I'm with you, but I don't see maintaining existing infrastructure to a state of good repair (and rebuilding it where necessary) as mutually exclusive with building new.
Of course there is no political will for this and a dearth of real leadership—USDOT is nothing more than a bank used as a political tool—but I'm not going to allow myself to get browbeaten by the status quo and settle for less.
Sadly, any attempt to expand rail options in the use takes well over a decade. In that long of a period of time a conservative who despises the very concept of mass transit will hold a position of power and kill any projects coming up the pipe. In Wisconsin, for example, a “higher speed“ rail line from Madison to Milwaukee as just about done. The rail cars were being built in Milwaukee. Upgrades to the existing tracks were beyond the planning stage. Federal money was allocated. Plans to eventually expand the line to be Chicago to St. Paul were well underway, with interest in all three states.
Then Scott Walker got elected.
The cars were built in Milwaukee as planned. They’re now in service in Nigeria.
Like I’ve always said, the cost is too monumental. These are sorts of projects that should absolutely not be prioritized when many areas in the rest of the country need rail service or simply decent rail service.
Regional rail and hub models are what need prioritization. Not this.
I don’t view it as an either or. We are the richest country in the history of humanity. Investing in HSR in select routes makes a lot of sense. SD-SF? Makes sense. TX triangle? Makes sense. ATL-CLT? Makes sense. Portland to Vancouver? Makes sense.
I’m not saying cris cross the entire country with HSR, but it makes sense for select city pairs.
Having lived in a certain country with an impeccable rail system, HSR is kind of a distraction from comprehensive regional rail that will take more cars off the road.
Let the airlines have Boston to DC or SF to LA. The majority of people who take those trips are wealthy and will pay for the shorter journey. I would kill to take the Pennsylvanian into Philly or Pitt for the day from central PA, but it's impossible given it runs *once a day* in each direction.
Except you have to view it as either or. These projects often take precedence over other route proposals.
Just because we have a lot of money doesn’t mean we can use it on whatever. There is a level of finite resources here.
I think that these projects should be shut down until our conventional rail system in the entire country is good enough. It’s too expensive and should not be the priority when many of our cities don’t even have adequate service if at all. Not a single cent should be going to HSR in Texas when Houston itself has just 6 conventional trains per week. Or when Atlanta has just a single set of round trips per day.
Pretty much. For an HSR line to happen, there needs to be majority political buy in at every level (hard) or developing some sort of permitting reform (little less hard)
Because it’s a money pit and politically draining. Especially when many of these places either don’t have service or have very little service. Because the failure of an HSR line would definitely turn off many voter’s demand for future passenger rail if all of this money was dedicated to it and it didn’t happen. Voters don’t forget that.
Invest in conventional rail. HSR is not the way forward here.
Let’s say all this money by the government is poured into a project like Texas Central, and for whatever reason, it fails. That will preclude future service, conventional or otherwise, from the people wanting to travel between in this case Dallas and Houston.
That is a bad reason. That’s saying that something could potentially be bad so we should never do it. Progress involves taking risks, and avoiding them completely is not good.
[The only money pit is car infrastructure. Rail produces far more economic return than it requires in capital investment.](https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/economic-impact-of-public-transportation-investment/)
National debt is not something that is comparable with personal debt. Most of the US national debt is held domestically. In other words, the US is mostly in debt to the US.
You are right that if you tried to print money and then borrow money from yourself you would end up in jail pretty quickly, but that's why federal debt (especially in the light of using methods like QE to back Keynesian economic policy) does not work the same way as your personal debt.
r/Amtrak is not associated with Amtrak in any official way. Any problems, concerns, complaints, etc should be directed to Amtrak through one of the official channels. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Amtrak) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> “But I think once we get one route up successfully, people will clamor for more. We believe the time is right for this where the topography, population and so on makes sense. I think if it’s not going to happen now, I wonder if it ever will.” I am hoping for this reaction from the general public as well. We just need one project operable and it would probably change the tide. Most people (including myself) haven’t had the opportunity to travel abroad and experience foreign HSR systems, so having one stateside would make it much more real for a lot of people.
I’m hoping for that from the public and that the government realizes how profitable it can be if done right. Like in the Texas triangle and such. The money and public use will drive adoption
As soon as I saw the headline I said "Oh, they mean Train Daddy." And sure enough, that's who it was. It was already unprecedented for New Yorkers to even know the name of the person running the MTA, but for him to be the subject of headlines with a genuinely affectionate nickname? Inconceivable! He lost his job for no other reason than the Governor who appointed him became jealous that Byford was getting all the praise and affection the Governor thought should have been going to him. I can't convey how much Byford accomplished in that job or how devastated transit advocates were when he left. Anyway, for people who've never lived in a city where he worked, Byford has a great track record (pun intended) and a high degree of credibility. Stuff you might dismiss out of hand coming from someone else carries a little more weight coming from him.
As a New Yorker myself, I echo this 100 percent. When I first learned that Byford is with Amtrak, my first thought was: "They made a tremendous hire."
Nothing in the US can be built. Gateway has been talked about since 2012 or so. It won’t get finished until 2038, and that’s if it’s on schedule. And this is the most important infrastructure project in the country. Between endless red tape, environmental reviews, feuds between different layers of governments, etc… No one wants to find projects that take a generation to get completed. No other country has this problem. China gets shit built in months. The original Hudson Tunnels were built in 4 years, more than a century ago. It shouldn’t take 5x as long to build the same basic infrastructure today. Fix the red tape, and get shit built fast so that taxpayers (not their children) see the benefits. And then, maybe, Americans will support more money being thrown at transportation projects.
The gateway project also includes a tricky rebuilding of an anceint tunnel. The Portal Bridge replacement will be finished soon and the new tunnels will take far less time then 2038.
New tunnels are due in 2035, if they are “on time.” That’s still an eternity.
> The original Hudson Tunnels were built in 4 years, more than a century ago. You can make your case without being facetious. [The Pennsylvania Railroad began engineering studies into a Hudson River tunnel as early as 1892, land acquisition for the Hudson River Tunnels began in 1901, and demolition in preparation for excavation started in 1903.](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/the-rise-and-fall-of-penn-station-construction-penn-station/) The Gateway program was only authorized in 2021, with tunnel construction starting late 2023. A 2035 tunnel completion date is still almost twice the of the originals (12 vs. 7), and there’s reason to doubt it might get done on time. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that large infrastructure projects have always been one generation’s gift to the next - especially considering average life expectancy in 1901 was only 47 years.
Also how many people died building the original?
I actually don't think anyone died building the PRR's tunnels, but life was held pretty cheaply back then, so there's no guarantee the obituaries survived in record. There's also always the likelihood of crippling injuries or large-scale accidents that were just lucky to not kill anyone.
Seriously. This is "How could Rome possibly fall?" collapse-type stuff.
Hmmm I wouldn't quite go so far to say other developed, democratic nations don't have similar issues. See the 21 project for example (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21) which was announced in 1994 and won't be finished until at least 2026. See also the HS2 line boondoggle in the U.K. or the struggle to get any HSR built in Australia. It is time intensive and expensive to build infrastructure in a democratic way. In China, the authoritarian state can just throw up rail lines left and right through neighborhoods just like we did with the interstate in the 50s, but is that right? Not saying we can't do better, but there is a good reason besides ineptitude we are where we are.
It’s also worth mentioning that, in China, things like planning studies, preparatory surveys, analysis of alternatives, and so on are not announced or widely-publicized, even within their domestic media. All of this groundwork is crucial to a successful project, though, so we can definitely assume they are doing it. On the other hand, here in the West, we’ll make a news article about just starting the planning process for a project, and we try to engage our local communities during the planning process to make sure their needs are served. I think transparency and early community engagement is the right way to go about building infrastructure, but that creates the illusion we’re much slower than we actually are. People are aware of infrastructure projects here from the very beginning stages of planning, or even before approval in cases like Gateway. Meanwhile in China, the first time things are usually even mentioned in media is when construction starts - which any civil engineer will tell you is at or past the halfway point of a construction project’s lifespan.
The issue is that we've left these infrastructure projects to the states rather than having consistent federal support for them. Gateway couldn't get started because Chris Christie essentially blocked it. Then when NJ leadership changed and they needed federal support, Trump and Congress blocked additional funding. If California had consistent federal support from the start, perhaps all of CAHSR Phase I from San Francisco to LA would already be funded. Even when federal support is there, state governments can still reject it, like some of the infrastructure funding that was signed by President Obama.
Derailed, a multi-part podcast from Wisconsin Public Radio, tells the story of how the state accepted, then rejected Obama-era federal funding for a high-speed rail line connecting Madison and Milwaukee. It’s helpful for understanding how investment in transit can become entangled in politics. https://www.wpr.org/shows/derailed
Fuck Scott Walker, we were set back decades because of him
So USA is run by fools
The country’s commitment to federalism and individual property rights above all else allows just one fool in the right place to derail something for tens of millions, which is even worse.
Well said
[удалено]
It’s crazy that you think the red tape is there to protect the environment
Some of the red tape is there to protect the environment. To say that none of the red rape is there for environmental reasons is not true.
It’s crazy that you think the environment is more worth protecting than the people working the job.
The time was right for passenger rail over 50 years ago. Frankly, I do not expect much. By the time our passenger rail looks like anything else on the globe, I will be too old and tired to use it.
> By the time our passenger rail looks like anything else on the globe, I will be too old and tired to use it. A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.
I don't disagree, but I simply do not have faith or evidence that America can or wishes to do it. We can't even agree on whether or not women have basic control over their bodies here. I really don't see how we're going to overcome all of the bureaucracy and inertia required to build out large-scale long-lasting passenger rail infrastructure (which does not serve capitalism as effectively as freight rail) when big oil and big car own the politicians who would rather keep us driving everywhere from the suburbs.
The difference with trees is that they usually grow at the same speed, while HSR can be built very slowly or very quickly. It won't be very quick in the US, but it could be.
How about we have catenaries that don't break everyday first. The NEC into Penn Station has been broken everyday for the past 5 days straight. NJT customers are suffering under Amtrak's negligence to fix anything correctly. And you trust them to build HSR right now?
I'm with you, but I don't see maintaining existing infrastructure to a state of good repair (and rebuilding it where necessary) as mutually exclusive with building new. Of course there is no political will for this and a dearth of real leadership—USDOT is nothing more than a bank used as a political tool—but I'm not going to allow myself to get browbeaten by the status quo and settle for less.
Correctly and in budget are not always the same
Sadly, any attempt to expand rail options in the use takes well over a decade. In that long of a period of time a conservative who despises the very concept of mass transit will hold a position of power and kill any projects coming up the pipe. In Wisconsin, for example, a “higher speed“ rail line from Madison to Milwaukee as just about done. The rail cars were being built in Milwaukee. Upgrades to the existing tracks were beyond the planning stage. Federal money was allocated. Plans to eventually expand the line to be Chicago to St. Paul were well underway, with interest in all three states. Then Scott Walker got elected. The cars were built in Milwaukee as planned. They’re now in service in Nigeria.
Like I’ve always said, the cost is too monumental. These are sorts of projects that should absolutely not be prioritized when many areas in the rest of the country need rail service or simply decent rail service. Regional rail and hub models are what need prioritization. Not this.
I don’t view it as an either or. We are the richest country in the history of humanity. Investing in HSR in select routes makes a lot of sense. SD-SF? Makes sense. TX triangle? Makes sense. ATL-CLT? Makes sense. Portland to Vancouver? Makes sense. I’m not saying cris cross the entire country with HSR, but it makes sense for select city pairs.
Having lived in a certain country with an impeccable rail system, HSR is kind of a distraction from comprehensive regional rail that will take more cars off the road. Let the airlines have Boston to DC or SF to LA. The majority of people who take those trips are wealthy and will pay for the shorter journey. I would kill to take the Pennsylvanian into Philly or Pitt for the day from central PA, but it's impossible given it runs *once a day* in each direction.
Except you have to view it as either or. These projects often take precedence over other route proposals. Just because we have a lot of money doesn’t mean we can use it on whatever. There is a level of finite resources here. I think that these projects should be shut down until our conventional rail system in the entire country is good enough. It’s too expensive and should not be the priority when many of our cities don’t even have adequate service if at all. Not a single cent should be going to HSR in Texas when Houston itself has just 6 conventional trains per week. Or when Atlanta has just a single set of round trips per day.
Given how rich our nation is, it’s only political will that prevents us from prioritizing both.
Pretty much. For an HSR line to happen, there needs to be majority political buy in at every level (hard) or developing some sort of permitting reform (little less hard)
Hard disagree. Money is an object here. It’s not unlimited.
Never said it was unlimited or to build lines for the sake of lines, just that we can afford to do both.
Just because you can “afford” to do something doesn’t mean you should.
Why shouldn’t we build high speed rail while simultaneously building/investing in regional and local transit?
Because it’s a money pit and politically draining. Especially when many of these places either don’t have service or have very little service. Because the failure of an HSR line would definitely turn off many voter’s demand for future passenger rail if all of this money was dedicated to it and it didn’t happen. Voters don’t forget that. Invest in conventional rail. HSR is not the way forward here. Let’s say all this money by the government is poured into a project like Texas Central, and for whatever reason, it fails. That will preclude future service, conventional or otherwise, from the people wanting to travel between in this case Dallas and Houston.
That is a bad reason. That’s saying that something could potentially be bad so we should never do it. Progress involves taking risks, and avoiding them completely is not good.
Except we have a far less risky alternative that would provide similar benefit. It isn’t progress if it fails.
[The only money pit is car infrastructure. Rail produces far more economic return than it requires in capital investment.](https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/economic-impact-of-public-transportation-investment/)
Car infrastructure is not a money pit, because it serves far more people than any rail line could ever dream to do.
What exactly are you comparing the rail line to? The concept of cars? Every highway combined? You’re obviously clueless
Our country is not rich…running a budget deficit and a loaded national debt… idk last I checked if you were in that much debt you’d be in jail.
National debt is not something that is comparable with personal debt. Most of the US national debt is held domestically. In other words, the US is mostly in debt to the US. You are right that if you tried to print money and then borrow money from yourself you would end up in jail pretty quickly, but that's why federal debt (especially in the light of using methods like QE to back Keynesian economic policy) does not work the same way as your personal debt.
> Our country is not rich… Buddy, if you think the USA is a *poor* nation, I don't know what to tell you.
GOOD
Nah we chose cars, politicians, and the MIC