The high speed rail proposal for NY, CT, and MA. Residents, do you support it?

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

They should consider expanding the auto train network. Otherwise, you have to rent a car on the other end in most cities. That will definitely cost more than just driving the 3-4 hours to get there.

That would work also, but hauling cars really slows the loading process. Maybe make some trains auto haulers but some trains not.

 

[Buzz Rules]

They should consider expanding the auto train network. Otherwise, you have to rent a car on the other end in most cities. That will definitely cost more than just driving the 3-4 hours to get there.

Most people just use Ubers to drop them off at the train station.

 

[Lumpy1106]

As long as they don't do it like the CAHSR in California. I could give you dozens of examples of what is wrong with this project, but I'll just stick with one - Money. The project is $100 BILLION over budget so far. They don't have approved bonds for this amount, but if they did, the $3.1 BILLION that the Feds just gave this project would not even cover the INTEREST on the bond for the cost overrun. It's no exaggeration - this thing is never going to be built, at least not LA to SF. They might finish the piece they are building now, Bakersfield to Fresno, but there is virtually no demand for this segment on its own, and we know this because there is already an AMTRAK line on this route and it is not exactly standing room only on the train. So no, it will not magically start paying for itself to finish the rest - it's going to lose money from the very start.

So yeah, study up and learn from this boondoggle. Otherwise, sure - love trains, build it.

 

[mjkacmom]

They should consider expanding the auto train network. Otherwise, you have to rent a car on the other end in most cities. That will definitely cost more than just driving the 3-4 hours to get there.

At least in the northeast, most cities you’d take a train to has good public transportation. The last time we drove to Boston we parked the car and didn’t use it at all (we had a wedding to get to an hour north of Boston so driving was just easier, but having a car in Boston, Philly, NYC, DC is a needless expense).

 

[Skippy918]

At least in the northeast, most cities you’d take a train to has good public transportation. The last time we drove to Boston we parked the car and didn’t use it at all (we had a wedding to get to an hour north of Boston so driving was just easier, but having a car in Boston, Philly, NYC, DC is a needless expense).

I was thinking other cities like Dallas, or Houston.

 

[Skippy918]

Most people just use Ubers to drop them off at the train station.

I’m referring to visiting other cities. Most cities, outside the northeast, you need a car to get around. Not sure how many Amtrak stations have rentals nearby. It’d be nice to have your car with you if you want to say take a train from San Antonio to Dallas.

 

[scrump]

I lived in Asia and Europe and found their high speed rail systems to be fantastic. I would love that over here, but not sure how much necessary infrastructure we have in place to support the successful launch, ongoing maintenance and ridership over the long run, but generally speaking I would totally support it.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

A lot of people talk about Europe and their systems but having done a train trip back in May through multiple countries it's really not as great as some make it out to be. Yes it was nice to travel by train but majority of the places we were visiting were either small walkable destinations or a small part of the city or one that had extensive public transit (London is the bulk of that). Even then we still ran into issues. Ghent, Belgium is very walkable if in the heart of the city but this year they redesigned (and are still doing construction work at least back in May) on their transit system. You no longer can go straight from the main train station to the heart of the city, you have to do a transfer. They did that to ease traffic within the heart of the city. The hotel we stayed at in the heart of the city was telling us it's really had a negative impact for tourists due to necessity of the transfers and has now become quite confusing (which I agree with the signage too of the stations). It doesn't mean we didn't find parts to be very convenient but it's just not without flaws or cons to it.


I don't view Europe's system to be replicated here in the U.S. Public transit in the U.S. needs to be improved on but that doesn't mean magically these places are accessible if that happens. We are a very large spread out country that was never designed with passenger trains to service all the various cities.

Mostly I see the rail designed in the link really good for someone trying to catch flights but less about tourism aid. My stepfather-in-law lived in New Bedford flying out of Providence most of the time so that line would be good but otherwise it's not helpful to take to visit New Bedford without the necessity of a car once there.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Most people just use Ubers to drop them off at the train station.

That's fine if you've only got a couple of things to do or you're just visiting someone. But if you're sightseeing, that can get very expensive. And again, the distances people would take high speed rail to travel compete with driving, as much or more than they do flying.

 

[QueenIsabella]

The more I think about this, the worse it sounds. The website is full of cheery platitudes--good jobs! Easy commutes! Green energy (through the trains being electric--is that really green? Where's the electricity coming from? Are electric trains a realistic possibility?).

There's no serious discussion of any down side, but more importantly, no discussion on how the relatively recent Acela trains are doing, and why they aren't good enough. Did they come in on-time and on-budget? Do they perform as proposed? Have the ridership that was expected? If yes, why upgrade? If not, why not? How do we avoid repeating any mistakes with Acela?

 

[mjkacmom]

The more I think about this, the worse it sounds. The website is full of cheery platitudes--good jobs! Easy commutes! Green energy (through the trains being electric--is that really green? Where's the electricity coming from? Are electric trains a realistic possibility?).

There's no serious discussion of any down side, but more importantly, no discussion on how the relatively recent Acela trains are doing, and why they aren't good enough. Did they come in on-time and on-budget? Do they perform as proposed? Have the ridership that was expected? If yes, why upgrade? If not, why not? How do we avoid repeating any mistakes with Acela?

I didn’t realize there were issues with Acela, I know many who love it. I don’t know much about high speed trains elsewhere, but I think Acela gets you there about 30 minutes faster (nyc - Boston). People I know who use it don’t pay extra just because it’s faster, it’s nicer.

 

[DanceDisney23]

I didn’t realize there were issues with Acela, I know many who love it. I don’t know much about high speed trains elsewhere, but I think Acela gets you there about 30 minutes faster (nyc - Boston). People I know who use it don’t pay extra just because it’s faster, it’s nicer.

The Acela is hands down the best way to travel between Boston and NYC. Whenever I have to go to NYC for work, I’ll take the train. Airfare is half the price of the train sometimes, but there is something to be said about getting off in Manhattan and walking to your hotel (or taking the subway). Let alone the more comfortable seats and WiFi that works, plus the scenery along the coast.

 

[mjkacmom]

The Acela is hands down the best way to travel between Boston and NYC. Whenever I have to go to NYC for work, I’ll take the train. Airfare is half the price of the train sometimes, but there is something to be said about getting off in Manhattan and walking to your hotel (or taking the subway). Let alone the more comfortable seats and WiFi that works, plus the scenery along the coast.

I hear it’s great (you can still get off a regular train and walk in manhattan) but I think of it more as an express train since it’s not super fast like the talked about 4 hour trip between nyc and Chicago. Acela is still 3 1/2 hours from nyc to Boston. Without traffic (ha ha, my daughter is halfway home to NJ from the cape right now fighting hard) it’s under 4 hours, to Chicago it would be at least 10 (actually the same daughter drove from Chicago to here in June, she doesn’t mind).

 

[QueenIsabella]

I didn’t realize there were issues with Acela, I know many who love it. I don’t know much about high speed trains elsewhere, but I think Acela gets you there about 30 minutes faster (nyc - Boston). People I know who use it don’t pay extra just because it’s faster, it’s nicer.

I don't know if there are issues with Acela or not. I'm just wondering why the need to upgrade. If Acela works--great! (I LOVE trains!). Why not look at expanding it to Albany/Montreal, or west to Chicago, instead of upgrading the relatively recent upgrade? I would definitely prefer travelling by train, NYC/Boston, to driving. It wouldn't even be a close call.

 

[Buzz Rules]

I don't know if there are issues with Acela or not. I'm just wondering why the need to upgrade. If Acela works--great! (I LOVE trains!). Why not look at expanding it to Albany/Montreal, or west to Chicago, instead of upgrading the relatively recent upgrade? I would definitely prefer travelling by train, NYC/Boston, to driving. It wouldn't even be a close call.

I heard that most states want high speed modern trains but someone has to make the first real move and then other stations would be connected after.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I heard that most states want high speed modern trains but someone has to make the first real move and then other stations would be connected after.

That's my point--I thought that's what Acela WAS! If it's not a wonderful example of how high-speed rail can work--why not? What went wrong? Are the problems fixable? Too densely populated, tracks need upgrading, was it on budget and on time? It's easy enough to look back 20 years or so and see how Acela evolved (and what might need to change). If it's all great--let's consider other areas/destinations.

 

[pinkxray]

I live in CT and just saw this on a local Facebook site. As a person who lives in a town that would have to deal with the construction of this, not a fan. Would have to see more info to really have an opinion. We have had the state working on a road by our house for around 3 years. Not confident this will be done in a timely manner without destroying an area of our town for years.

 

[mjkacmom]

That's my point--I thought that's what Acela WAS! If it's not a wonderful example of how high-speed rail can work--why not? What went wrong? Are the problems fixable? Too densely populated, tracks need upgrading, was it on budget and on time? It's easy enough to look back 20 years or so and see how Acela evolved (and what might need to change). If it's all great--let's consider other areas/destinations.

I don’t think it’s considered high speed rail, just a bit faster than regular.

 

[QueenIsabella]

I don’t think it’s considered high speed rail, just a bit faster than regular.

Actually, it is: here's the link to wikipedia (if you're bored!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela . It did say that it only improved the section from Boston-NY by half an hour (3.5 versus 4 hours).

I did some reading there--while I grew up in the area, and still have connections there, it's been close to 40 years since I lived in Southeast Connecticut, so I confess, I haven't kept up with the train news. The article talks about how Acela can't really reach optimum speeds for a few reason (population density and design of existing tracks, mostly). I don't know how a new train system would get around those.

 

[theMoreDisneytheBetter]

I will be traveling from NY/NJ-Boston this summer and actually decided to fly instead of take the train. Why? A couple of factors:

Cost - it was more than $100 cheaper to fly than take the train, even factoring in the cost to get out to Newark. I booked pretty far in advance and was still shocked at the difference in price.
Travel time - even factoring in time to get to the airport, it’s faster to fly than it is to take the train, even before delays. Security is pretty quick using TSA pre-check, and hanging out in the lounge at Newark is infinitely preferred to the 7th circle of h-e-double-hockeys-sticks that is Penn Station.
Delays - when Amtrak works it is fine, but especially this summer delays have been BRUTAL, especially through NJ. Granted, NJT is worse but anything that messes up the tunnel (thank you Gov Christie) negatively impacts Amtrak as well.