Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="oltmannd"] [quote user="Sam1"]Why was the NEC infrastructure upgraded?  Was it to support the Acela's 150+ mph speeds, or was it to support higher speeds for the NEC regional trains, and the Acela was just an after thought. If the NEC upgrades were for the Acela, it does not appear that its users are paying the full cost of their ride and, therefore, the taxpayers is worse off.  If, on the other hand, the upgrades were for the regional trains, then it is possible that the Acela is covering its proportional share of the upgrades and, therefore, the taxpayers are better off.[/quote] The electrification was for both.  Much of the track and signal work was for both.  There probably is some increment of track capital and maintenance necessary for 150 mph vs. 125 mph, but I can't imagine it's a very large percentage of the total.   The real question you need to ask is what did taxpayers have to pay for the NH-Boston upgrade vs. what they would have had to pay vs alternatives including "do nothing".  NY-Boston and NY-DC are the two big markets where Amtrak compares their market share to airlines, so presumably,  the capacity Acela, et. al. provides would have to be provided by air service.[/quote] You raise a valid point(s).  However, without access to Amtrak's accounting records and the engineering studies that led to the upgrades, as well as the current maintenance records, one cannot know whether the incremental fares charged for the Acela cover the incremental infrastructure costs to support it. Nor would one know whether the incremental upgrades for better NEC regional train service could have been implement at a significantly lower cost and be covered by a corresponding incremental increase in NEC regional fares.   Maybe you or someone else can answer a question regarding the incremental maintenance requirements for high speed rail.  Several recent articles in the popular press have stated that some of the world's high speed train operators, i.e. China, France, Germany, etc. have slowed down their trains because of excessive power consumption and wear/tear on the equipment. If tis is true it would suggest that the wear/tear of high speed rail is greater than anticipated.   The capacity provided by the Acela, which is used by approximately 30 per cent of the NEC passengers, could have been accommodated on improved regional trains, with improved running times and upgraded business class service, which would have added the panache, as well as enhanced air service.   Amtrak touts its share of the air/train markets between BOS-NYC and NYC-DC. As if there are no other players in the markets! How does it compare to the total market, i.e. air, train, bus, and auto?  Nation wide approximately 88 per cent of all intercity trips, i.e. those greater than 50 miles, are by personal vehicle. Presumably, the number is a bit less in the Northeast, but I wonder by how much?
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag