Trains. What is the fascination?

[Muushka]

In my area of the country, the powers that be are you-know-what bent on getting high speed rails. To the tune of billions of dollars. I don't appreciate my tax dollars going for something that I will never use, and will be of great benefit to business people who travel the route . Raise the price of the tickets, don't tax me! That goes for our ferry system too, but that is a whole other can of worms.

Don't get me wrong. I love trains. In fact, I would probably use them if I had a driver to drop me off and pick me up. Because once I arrive at the area, a cab would be needed. In addition, there is the price. Even if I was driving by myself it would STILL be less expensive to travel by car. That is not even adding in the cab or what ever I would have to use once I got to my destination. Not to mention the inconvenience. I am referring to city to city within my state, when it takes me 2 hours to drive.

I may need to go up north on short notice. So I checked out the train. Oh yeah, I want to take the train.


Depart:
10:56 am, Monday, August 2, 2010

Arrive:
5:08 pm, Monday, August 2, 2010

Duration:
6 hr, 12 min

Amenities
66 Northeast Regional

Depart:
10:00 pm, Monday, August 2, 2010

Arrive:
7:04 am, Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Duration:
9 hr, 4 min

Amenities

* 1 Adult
$166.00

* 1 Reserved Coach Seat


* Subtotal
$166.00


Friday, August 6, 2010


Depart:
10:16 pm, Friday, August 6, 2010

Arrive:
6:55 am, Saturday, August 7, 2010

Duration:
8 hr, 39 min



Depart:
10:55 am, Saturday, August 7, 2010

Arrive:
4:42 pm, Saturday, August 7, 2010

Duration:
5 hr, 47 min

Amenities

* 1 Adult
$166.00

* 1 Reserved Coach Seat


* Subtotal
$166.00

Terms & Conditions
Total
$332.00


That is 15+ hours total to and 14+ hours from to the tune of $332

Oh yeah. I want to take the train. And I really want to pay for everyone's train too.

 

[Acklander]

yeah, I don't understand taking a long train ride, when it's much quicker (and usually cheaper) to fly to get to your destination.
I would think commuter trains are a good thing though, as it's better for the Environment, and the community as a whole. I've always been big on public transportation.

 

[akcire]

OP- Under your originating logic I could cry foul at the idea of publicly funded education (since I have no children) or claim all roads should be tollways to be self supporting. Paying for things you do not use/agree with is part of the democratic process. Trust me when I tell you I see things everyday that I realize I pay for, and derive no benefit. Some of these things run completely contrary to my personal beliefs.

BTW I am neutral on trains. Personally, not a big fan; however I would much rather see the elderly on the train than causing 50 car pile ups, same goes for business people who would be talking/texting. If you don't like it, I suggest you run for public office and try and legislate a change or start a PAC.

 

[Muushka]

yeah, I don't understand taking a long train ride, when it's much quicker (and usually cheaper) to fly to get to your destination.
I would think commuter trains are a good thing though, as it's better for the Environment, and the community as a whole. I've always been big on public transportation.

I'm big on public transportation also, in cities. This area (in NC) is not set up for public transportation. The buses are terrible. When I worked downtown and could ride them for free, it still was not something that was convenient. I would have had to drive to the bus and drive home. And it would have added 2 hours total onto a drive that takes 1 hour total. And I would have had to walk from the bus to the job because they came within 3 or so blocks.

And taking the train is even more ridiculous. I agree, if you live in DC or NYC or Boston, trains are great. My cousin who lives in Boston happily got rid of his car, because the city is set up for mass transit (no pun). In an area such as mine, it just does not work.

 

[Muushka]

OP- Under your originating logic I could cry foul at the idea of publicly funded education (since I have no children) or claim all roads should be tollways to be self supporting. Paying for things you do not use/agree with is part of the democratic process. Trust me when I tell you I see things everyday that I realize I pay for, and derive no benefit. Some of these things run completely contrary to my personal beliefs.

BTW I am neutral on trains. Personally, not a big fan; however I would much rather see the elderly on the train than causing 50 car pile ups, same goes for business people who would be talking/texting. If you don't like it, I suggest you run for public office and try and legislate a change or start a PAC.

I don't have children either . It is just frustrating.

 

[RitaE]

hmm - I know that they're trying to get one between Chicago and St. Louis.

What is the fascination - it's Illinois. Somebody wants to make money off of it.


But to be honest my son was doing the Amtrak thing from Central Illinois to Chicago from his school and those Amtrak trains are frequently delayed for 4 to 5 hours. Its frustrating.

 

[bettymae1121]

High speed rail can be very useful in some parts of the US. The NE (including routes from NYC and Boston to DC) Chicago to Minneapolis, Indianapolis and St. Louis, and north/south in CA (plus LA to Las Vegas). There might be other routes that could be useful as well. I doubt we'd want coast-to-coast bullet trains but in select areas with high amounts of traffic between large metro areas, it could actually be faster to take the train rather than fly, or would be a wash. Slow-poke Amtrak trains can often beat flights from NYC to DC, if you factor in driving from downtown to the airport, parking, checkin time, flight time, possible delays, then ground transporation from your arrival airport to downtown again. Those that take the train just board in New York Penn and arrive at Washington Union, right in downtown DC. If you create true high speed rail (Acela is NOT high speed in the European or Japanesse tradition of high speed rail...) then the train would certainly be faster.

In additon to the convienance factor, there would be thousands of jobs added and millions of dollars of money going into local economies while it's being built, and jobs would continue to run the trains themselves and for maintence of the train cars, train engine, and track.

Now, rail doesn't make sense in all places, if they are proposing something silly like a high speed train between two low population areas, then it's a stupid idea. But in some areas I think it could be just what we need.

 

[Muushka]

OK, I have had a tiny change of heart. I can imagine if someone without a car, who lives on a bus route and needs to get to another city within this state, would use the train. I agree, we do need trains. Air would be out of the question (airport here is out in the country pratically). So I am glad that our existing trains are here for those who need them.

I guess I am just perplexed as to the billions of dollars that are going to be spent with our deficit being in such a shambles. Sorry for the rant.

 

[Ava]

I love the train. We take it from NYC to Baltimore several times a year to visit my family & I much prefer it to driving. The train (regional, with all the stops) gets us there in 2 & 1/2 to 2 & 3/4 hours; driving can easily take 4 hours if there's traffic.

I agree that a lot of the US is not set up in such a way that public transportation would be convenient, but it can work in the suburbs if there is demand. NJ Transit runs buses all over northern NJ (where a lot of people commute into NYC for work) - I've used the bus to visit friends in NJ who live in your average residential suburban area - town is about a 15-minute drive from their house but the bus goes into the residential areas, with stops every 5 blocks or so.

Disclaimer: I live in NYC and am sort of a public transportation junkie. I hate driving.

 

[nunzia]

I love trains and take AMTRAK when I can..long distance from NM to LA is about 130.00 RT if you buy early enough.. cheaper than driving, and so much easier to just sit, read a book and have a glass of wine instead of dealing with traffic. Yes, I've been on trains with delays..some ridiculous..but for the past several years all my trips have been on time if not early. As far as energy useage, trains leave the smallest carbon footprint compared to other forms or transportation. On the other hand, planes can be quicker...of course you have to get to the airport 2 hours early, then take off your shoes, shuffle along the path, shove your belongings in the x ray thing, get wanded or viewed nearly naked, oops..can't have that water, shampoo..etc...get on the plane smooshed in a ridiculously small space, heaven forbid if you have to go to the bathroom, pray you actually get off the tarmac and that an engine or landing gear doesn't fall off in flight, then off you go, trundle to baggage claim, etc etc...I'd rather take a train if possible. Oh yea..I don't fly much (at all if I can help it) and yet, I have supported building airports and runways and bailing out our airlines to the tune of billions of dollara..not fair I say So..same thing. Other countries have a far far better train system then we do..it's really a disgrace.

 

[fakereadhed]

We are getting a train in the middle if nowhere next to a highway, that goes to a nearby college town. Everyone getting on the train will have to drive there(it's 20 min from us)and park, wait for the train, board the train, ride the train, find other public transport to work, and reverse the process. Meanwhile, you could just continue on your way in your car for 20 more minutes and the cost of gas! Much quicker, more convenient, and less expensive. Why are our tax dollars paying for this nonsense? Because some city dwelling suits decided it was green. They have no idea about suburban Midwest lifestyles, nor do they seem to care.

 

[bettymae1121]

OK, I have had a tiny change of heart. I can imagine if someone without a car, who lives on a bus route and needs to get to another city within this state, would use the train. I agree, we do need trains. Air would be out of the question (airport here is out in the country pratically). So I am glad that our existing trains are here for those who need them.

I guess I am just perplexed as to the billions of dollars that are going to be spent with our deficit being in such a shambles. Sorry for the rant.

We were in debt up to our eyeballs after WWII when we built the interstate system, so it's not like it's unprecidented. That doesn't mean we go into this willy-nilly but infrastructure of all kinds (aging power grid, new green tech industries, replace/repair bridges and tunnels, expansion/remodel of airport terminals and runways, the list is endless!) is just a great way to stimulate growth in this country. It's all stuff we need anyway, and at some point we'll need to deal with it. So why not now, when we need the jobs? Plus there is the "if we build it they will come" benifit. The more up-to-date we make the infrastructure in this country, the more competative we are with other industrialized nations. As long as we do it in a smart way, investment like this is a win-win for everyone.

 

[Acklander]

I guess I am just perplexed as to the billions of dollars that are going to be spent with our deficit being in such a shambles. Sorry for the rant.

yeah, but if billions are going to be spent, I'd rather spend it here in the US where we get some benefit out of it, as well as putting lots of American people to work. It makes more sense than some of the other billions we've been spending.

 

[adkkev]

Passenger trains are "slow" and delayed now because Amtrak uses private freight train tracks, and those freight trains have priority. Any why is that? Because companies tore up track when rail traffic declined. And why did rail traffic decline? Cheap gasoline. But now that's changing.

Poor planning and management etc., has allowed Amtrak to fall far behind in modernization efforts. That is changing now, especially since ridership is growing.

Now if I want to go from Albany NY to Washington DC ... by train, it'll take about 7 hours with a change of trains at Penn Station. By air ... get to the airport 1 or more hours ahead of time, actual flying time varies because there are some direct flights and some that require a change of planes, or choice of airport. Non-stop flights to DC are expensive from Albany, unless I wish to fly SW to Baltimore. But then from Baltimore I need to arrange for transportation from BWI to DC. And on it goes. So when you add it all up, the 7 hours by train isn't so bad, and it's certainly a lot less stressful than driving or flying.

Or if I want to go from Albany to NYC ... in 2 1/2 hours I'm in Manhattan, without having to worry about parking my car or getting from/to the three major airports.

And if there were high speed rail, the trips would be even faster.

So while it may not seem to make sense where you live right now, it does make sense where I live.

 

[bumbershoot]

Having high speed rail would mean that the passenger trains wouldn't have to share the rails with the freight trains. Which would mean taht the passenger trains wouldn't get stopped so often. As it is now, as far as I know across the US, freight has priority over passenger, because freight owns the rails. So if a freight train needs to get through, the passengers will have to wait.

If there were more rails for passengers, more trains could be put into service, it would get faster, and what you see in scheduling could get better.


I personally have LOVED taking the train when I've taken it. Well, actually there was one nightmare time from Seattle to San Jose, but that's b/c I was 7 months pregnant, extremely uncomfortable, having heartburn galore, I was just miserable in my skin and the train didn't make it better or worse. Sleep in my tiny roomette was nearly impossible. On the way home the HA room was empty, and my dad and I (he's better with such negotiations) got them to let me take it, so I didn't have to walk down the hall every hour, banging into the corridor walls with my belly, to go to the tiny bathroom (b/c the HA rooms have bathrooms in them), and it was MUCH better for me. Thank you Amtrak for letting me in an empty room like that!

But the train to and from BC is just awesome.


The countries that have put money into their rail systems can be so cool! I hear Canada's rail system is incredible. DH has taken the train in England and Korea, and he'll be taking one from Germany all the way through London (ugh he gets to go in the Chunnel lucky duck) soon. When countries actually make rail happen, it's good. But that just hasn't really happened here.

I would LOVE to take the train down to so cal, then take a train across the bottom of the country to get to WDW. I would GLADLY spend the time doing that (and just have hubby fly out and meet us) and it would be such a great time with my son! But...it doesn't exist though I swear there are rails there, but I can't get the route to work. I wish it WOULD exist. I'd love to help make that happen.

 

[lovesmurfs]

Passenger trains are "slow" and delayed now because Amtrak uses private freight train tracks, and those freight trains have priority. Any why is that? Because companies tore up track when rail traffic declined. And why did rail traffic decline? Cheap gasoline. But now that's changing.

Poor planning and management etc., has allowed Amtrak to fall far behind in modernization efforts. That is changing now, especially since ridership is growing.

I think that trains failed to keep up because they forgot their core competency. They thought they were in the railroad business (hence the buildup of freight trains) rather than the transportation business. Now they're trying to play catch up in a world that's left them behind.

 

[Ava]

Other countries have a far far better train system then we do..it's really a disgrace.

The whole of Europe has an amazing train system. The summer after I graduated from college I spent about 6 weeks traveling all over Europe. Started in London, from there took the Eurostar through the Chunnel into Paris, then took trains all the way across Europe. We made a loop so our last stop on the Continent was Brussels. From there we were able to take the Eurostar back over to London for our flight home.

The Eurostar between London & the continent was a seperate ticket, but all of our other train travel on was covered by a Eurail pass. If I remember correctly it was good for 15 trips within a 2-month period. It was about $800, which if you average it out comes to ~$53/trip. We definitely could not have flown that cheaply. (And you could not pay me enough to try driving on those tiny streets in European cities )

 

[Colleen27]

We love the train from Detroit to Chicago - relatively inexpensive (usually under $50pp round trip) and doesn't take much longer than driving, and we save the costs of parking while we're there. But for long trips, no way. To get to Disney, for example, we have a choice between a 2.5hr flight at about $200pp r/t, a 24 hr drive at about $150pp including food and stopping for the night midway, or 40 hours on the train (actually 2 trains with a bus transfer between them) at around $450pp r/t.

 

[Muushka]

We are getting a train in the middle if nowhere next to a highway, that goes to a nearby college town. Everyone getting on the train will have to drive there(it's 20 min from us)and park, wait for the train, board the train, ride the train, find other public transport to work, and reverse the process. Meanwhile, you could just continue on your way in your car for 20 more minutes and the cost of gas! Much quicker, more convenient, and less expensive. Why are our tax dollars paying for this nonsense? Because some city dwelling suits decided it was green. They have no idea about suburban Midwest lifestyles, nor do they seem to care.

You understand my rant!

We were in debt up to our eyeballs after WWII when we built the interstate system, so it's not like it's unprecidented. That doesn't mean we go into this willy-nilly but infrastructure of all kinds (aging power grid, new green tech industries, replace/repair bridges and tunnels, expansion/remodel of airport terminals and runways, the list is endless!) is just a great way to stimulate growth in this country. It's all stuff we need anyway, and at some point we'll need to deal with it. So why not now, when we need the jobs? Plus there is the "if we build it they will come" benifit. The more up-to-date we make the infrastructure in this country, the more competative we are with other industrialized nations. As long as we do it in a smart way, investment like this is a win-win for everyone.

Why not now? Because I know for a fact that if the government is involved in the building of it, it will not be money well spent. It will be full of waste, payoffs, contracts given to those who do not deserve them but get them because of certain affiliations. Because we don't have the money now. The United States needs to get back to producing things and selling them, not creating busy work.

Am I the only person worried about the financial future of this country?

 

[Acklander]

You understand my rant!



Because we don't have the money now. The United States needs to get back to producing things and selling them, not creating busy work.

Am I the only person worried about the financial future of this country?

But the government doesn't "create and produce" things to sell. And for the most part all the "create and produce" jobs have been shipped overseas. When you shop do you try to buy american or buy cheap? You can't have it both ways.