[Opinion] Why Amtrak Isn't A Good Train Network (And Why It Never Will Be)

[Rover]

Amtrak is the United States' only cross-country passenger trail service. And this means that its been tasked with moving people around a country that is otherwise really large. Unfortunately, due to the prominence of cars and planes, ridership of passenger rail in the United States dipped considerably in the 1900s and never really recovered, even as other countries, such as China, rapidly build out a national high speed rail system that far and away surpasses Amtrak's meager routes. So what's going on? Well, the geography of it all certainly doesn't help!

In this episode, we'll cover the geography and history of how Amtrak expanded, its recent ridership trends, and why Amtrak can't replicate the same success found elsewhere and what that means for Amtrak going forward.

 

[Willbridge]

Ever since the History Channel was launched, it has been okay to use visuals that have little to do with the text. I recommend listening to this but not viewing it.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

I don’t get the purpose or point of that video. Seem to be click bait.

 

[Old MM]

Have not watched the video. But for anything to be built, investment in infrastructure has to happen, and this country has transitioned away from that. We don't create or build things. Suits on Wall Street have hollowed out almost every industry. I think it's amazing that Amtrak does as good of a job as it does given the lack of support.

 

[GariYaMoshi]

Have not watched the video. But for anything to be built, investment in infrastructure has to happen, and this country has transitioned away from that. We don't create or build things. Suits on Wall Street have hollowed out almost every industry. I think it's amazing that Amtrak does as good of a job as it does given the lack of support.

Especially given that the rail condition outside of NEC is out of Amtrak's hands.

 

[Rover]

I don’t get the purpose or point of that video. Seem to be click bait.

I enjoyed the images.

 

[Tlcooper44]

While this clickbait-y video is about as well done as Panda Express Chinese food, the title is more or less correct.

I honestly don’t believe we will ever have a half-way decent country spanning rail system (or at least one within my lifetime) - nor is it really worth pursuing.

Having corridors that don’t suck is a much more reasonable and attainable goal.

 

[MARC Rider]

If you want to understand why there isn't passenger rail in some parts of the country, just take a look at Open Railway Map. You can't have train service if there aren't tracks, or if the tracks are laid out so that the rail journey is considerably longer in distance than the highway or air distance. Also, one should consult a good topographic map, and note that some of the places that don't have a lot of rail lines are mountainous or at least very hilly or are deserts or otherwise relatively uninhabited. Railroads are best for transporting large volumes of freight or passengers. Thus, it's reasonable to expect that the rail network is going to mainly connect large population centers, and any remote areas served are an afterthought, or just happen to be in between large opulation centers.

That said, there is a paucity of service in the interior southeast (i.e., Louisville, Nashville, etc.) Also, frequent corridor service, Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland, and maybe Pittsburgh.