Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The train will not replace the fact that Americans prefer to move by auto.

---

Hello again, tom:

Yeah... When cars first came out, people shouted, "get a horse".

I admit, I'm a train guy. Oh, I like to drive too. I've covered this whole country end to end lots of times.. The interstate is smoooooth, and those little stops along the way with fast food joints, and the same hotels, are convenient... But, let's face it. They're ugly as hell. Freeways are ugly as hell. Driving on them is boring as hell.

When I came to NY a couple years ago, my train traveled through the most beautiful parts of our country. There was no smog. There was no traffic.. There was no ugly highway. There were no cops lurking around the next bend... There was only the window of my private stateroom, where the only interruption was being summoned to the dining car, where I partook in particularly good meals and great conversation. They had BIG windows in the dining car too. Oh, did I mention the wine and cheese tasting?

excon

Like I said.. trains like that benefit the few. If you told me that money was going to be invested in light rail in high population centers at least there is some logic to the expense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Like I said ..trains like that benefit the few.

---

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh.. I wasn't alone.

excon

Ok ,how many were on the train ? The highways between NY and Seattle carry more auto passengers per minute than was in your whole train. Intercontinental rail is not a practical alternative to the mobility needs of American.
The article I linked however made a valid point about freight rail.

I wouldn't mind traveling by train on occasion, but there hasn't been a passenger train here in oh, 30 years? Why should there be, we can fly to Dallas in 45 minutes for 50 bucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ok ,how many were on the train ? The highways between NY and Seattle carry more auto passengers per minute than was in your whole train.

---

Hello again, tom:

Look, I don't know ANYTHING about this stuff. But, I can add. You MIGHT be right in absolute terms, but highways are lots more expensive to maintain that ONE set of tracks. You also MIGHT be wrong.

On these one set of tracks, why can't there be 5 eastbound trains and 5 westbound? What about 10 each way? How about 20 or 30 in each direction? I'll betcha there's a number where the trains can carry MORE passengers per minute, in more comfort and safety than all the east/west bound freeway traffic..

Look, the airline industry today, is like the greyhound bus of my youth. You took it because there was NO alternative. It stunk. It was overcrowded. It was slow. It stopped everywhere. It was revolting.

The bullet train industry could be what the airlines were at one time - a PLEASURE to travel on, and cost effective too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The train will not replace the fact that Americans prefer to move by auto. The bullet train will be populated by the few ,not the many . Therefore it is subsidy money misplaced .

---

Money is not misplaced Tom just because you don't want to use the service. In any case who in their right mind undertakes long distance driving when a fast reliable economical service is available. Hike your gas prices to world parity and you will change your mind.

Really ? And how often do you cross your continent by rail ?

For me to get to the Amtrack route (the Northeast corridor being the only part of our government provided system that come close to profitable... lets say I want a round tripper to and from Washington DC normal commuter hrs. ) ;I have to commute into downtown NYC early in the morning to make the 7 AM train ;pay local rail rates to get there ;coordinate my time to get there ,and go through whatever security has been concocted at Penn station... wait for my train to depart (this now has been close to 2 hrs ) pay a price of $160 round tripper and get there almost 3 hrs later. OR . I can leave my home in NYC suburbia ;get on the highways and arrive in DC at essentially the same time frame. (round trip gas is at most $60)... even at so called world prices it's cheaper and less of an inconvenience.

Now if for some God aweful reason I had to regularly commute that then of course I'd take the train . But that would be a huge exception to the rule. Most people don't regularly commute that route and distance.
A bullet train would traverse the route quicker no doubt (although I question the speeds it would be allowed to travel in densely populated areas ) .But the benefits would be for the few.

I'd rather spend the money if given a choice on infrastructure like electric charging stations ,hydrogen or natural gas fill ups . You can trust me on this . The United States will never become a nation that is overly dependent on commuter rail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Really ? And how often do you cross your continent by rail ?

---

Tried it once and never made it, Rail journeys unfortunately aren't always practical as you point out, although there is a nice XPT intercity runs almost past my door and now I have concessions cheap too. In my youth I frequently travelled by long distance rail, different days, now the air fare is cheaper than fuel for intercontinental travel, but that could be turned around if there were high speed trains at reasonable prices. What will make it happen is climate change and the emphasis on carbon reduction

I have used long distance rail in Britain and China and found them very good,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tried it once and never made it, Rail journies unfortunately arn't always practical as you point out, although there is a nice XPT intercity runs almost past my door and now I have concessions cheap too. In my youth I frequently travelled by long distance rail, different days, now the air fare is cheaper than fuel for intercontinental travel, but that could be turned around if there were high speed trains at reasonable prices. What will make it happen is climate change and the emphasis on carbon reduction

I have used long distance rail in Britain and China and found them very good,

---

Problem is Britain is fairly small in size given the population (we have more than a few states bigger than Britain). Same with any part of Europe. Its easy to put a self sustaining rail system where population density is high... and there really isn't much distance or land mass to deal with. Italy as an example I am familiar with. Its roughly the size of Pennsylvania with 5 times the population... without even taking into consideration the fairly high portion of uninhabital space due to the nature of the terrain of Italy. So that really drives up the population density vs land mass to serve.

Can't comment on China... never been there. But rail would appear to be convenient, IF the two places you were traveling between were actually served... but what if they aren't?

Then you take the bus, or fly, no I recognise that we have to be practical but we should also look to the future. What is observable is that our roads become more and more clogged with traffic and much of this traffic could use rail if rail were more efficient

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Then you take the bus, or fly, no I recognise that we have to be practical but we should also look to the future. What is observable is that our roads become more and more clogged with traffic and much of this traffic could use rail if rail were more efficient

---

But that's not pratical... you would have to be able to get everywhere from anywhere by rail... and that would take more miles of rail than exist miles of roads and insufficient ridership in most of those places to maintain those rails.

You can do that in a postage stamp of a country... but not anyplace that actually has any real space.