Originally Posted By davewasbaloo But for comparison, in France you can just hop on the TGV and be 500 miles away from your destination in 2.5 hours.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo What I hated as a kid is we tried to take Amtrak to Disneyland once from the San Juaquin Valley. It took longer than driving. The train was slow, then we had to get out at Bakersfield and take a bus through grapevine, then we got on a train to Union Station and then a bus to Anaheim. Not cool.
Originally Posted By Mr X Amtrak totally sucks. It's hard to argue that fact (even if you're a train buff). HOURS late is not cool, no matter how you slice it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy In order for high speed rail to succeed, government is going to have to subsidize costs to the same extent as air travel and highways. Without government subsidies for airports and roads, rail would be a lot more competitive alternative.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "And yes GOPers - let's also build the proverbial "sin city" train to Las Vegas - another densely populated metro area separated by a vast flat desert. The idea that the hub for all of this would sit practically on DLs doorstep just makes it all the sweeter." I'd be all for that. Assuming it happens, does anyone know if Las Vegas is equipped to handle a large influx of rail traffic coming from Southern California? Would they need to be included in the budget process as it relates to a larger station/depot? As for cross country high speed, georgraphy is going to play a large part in how fast the trains could go. The Rockies dissect the country, for example. Since I rarely, if ever, travel for business, if I could get from California to the East Coast via train in two days for a reasonable price I know I'd do that every time.
Originally Posted By Labuda "High speed rail should be constructed on medium distance corridors (150-500 miles or so) like San Francisco to LA or the Houston/Dallas/San Antonio "T-Bone."" Indeed you are correct, I think. I would LOVE having a high-speed rail system available, and I'm certain I'm not the only resident of that "t-bone" who'd love how that lessened road traffic. ESPECIALLY on the SA-Austin-Dallas trek - having to drive the NAFTA highway for travel between these cities is a big pain in the rear end.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<China is roughly the same size, but almost all of their population and arable land is in an area about 1/4 the size of the US.>> <But as SpokkerJones points out, there are a number of medium distance corridors where it makes good sense. No one is advocating HSR for the entire country.> What trekerruss said. The rocky mountain west, still fairly low population and vast in size, would have to wait for any high-speed system. So would the plains states (Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas) - relatively low population, huge area. But a CA network (eventually up to Seattle and out to Vegas and Phoenix perhaps), a NE corridor (I would argue, eventually down to Fla., though boy would the airlines howl at that one), a midwest/great lakes network, and a Texas network perhaps eventually branching to Atlanta... all that makes sense to me.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I regularly use Amtrak to travel into Boston. It's a lot less stressful than driving. On the northeast corridor, I can get about 110 mph on the regular Amtrak service. The Acela runs around 120 mph -- not much difference. Still, they charge 2 to 3 times as muhc for an Acela ticket. When you compare the cost of an Amtrak ticket between Boston and Washington, DC and the cost of an airline ticket between the same two cities, you often pay twice as much to ride the rails. Why on earth does train travel need to be so expensive? If we would stop subsidizing air travel, or provide similar subsidies for rail, we would see train travel become a competitive alternative for U.S. travelers.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss It doesn't help that there is no alternative to Amtrak. If there were other rail carriers, prices would probably fall.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ The whole notion that competition breeds price competition is inherently flawed. You would probably pay more just to accommodate the marketing expenses involved with competing brands. Does anyone really believe you are getting the best deal for car insurance when you see your TV screen plastered with millions of dollars in advertising each day?
Originally Posted By trekkeruss But surely airfares would be more if there weren't carriers like Southwest, yes? If there were no competition for travelers dollars, why are the fare wars?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << If there were no competition for travelers dollars, why are the fare wars? >> How many airlines have been in and out of bankruptcy in the past decade? It seems to me that the business model for airlines sort of defeats itself if competition somehow pushes fares to a point that the companies can't afford to fly the planes anymore.
Originally Posted By DAR How often do the trains run? Can you go at anytime or do you have to adhere to a schedule? I'm fine with adhering to an airplane schedule but if I'm taking a little time to take my trip I'd rather drive and set my own time table.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss DAR, it seems to me like you're looking for reasons to not like trains, or at least not HSR projects. How can you ask how often the trains run when they haven't even been built? And if and when they get built, you make it sound like you'd be some sort of prisoner, not being able to get on or off, or see what you want. Have you ever even been on a train? Amtrak aside, train travel in countries that have rely heavily on it works very well. Read X's post about all the different kinds of trains in Japan. That country has plenty of choices, and they all run ON TIME. Trains there arrive and leave on schedule, meaning within a seconds of the posted time...ALWAYS. What they've got going on there is very liberating compared to air travel, and can be a lot more relaxing than traveling by car.
Originally Posted By DAR If they have them I'm fine with them. But I like riding in a car when I can because then I can set my own schedule. And if they were to have a light rail train in the city of Milwaukee it would be kind of useless. You can get anywhere in the city in twenty minutes. Though you have your days when it snows a ton so that obviously slows things down. Also I don't take the bus to work the park and ride is too far from my house. I hope on the freeway ten minutes later I'm walking in the door at work.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss No one is taking away your car, DAR. You don't have to ride the bus, or the train, or even a plane. It's not like I don't know where you are coming from. I drive all over the place. I don't ride public buses normally, nor do I frequent trains. But in the past I have relied on public transportation, using the Washington D.C. Metro rail system. Were there some hassles doing it? Sure, but there would have been hassles trying to drive and park my car in downtown D.C. I'm glad to have the trains available, even if I personally don't use it that much.
Originally Posted By DAR If I lived in DC, Chicago, LA, NY I'd have no hesistation in taking public transportation. In Milwaukee I have no need to take it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If they have them I'm fine with them. But I like riding in a car when I can because then I can set my own schedule*** You've mentioned that you live in Wisconsin. Lovely state, nice people. But also as you well know, sparely populated which means you probably don't have to deal with traffic related headaches all that much (perhaps you do in Milwaukee, I haven't been around those parts in a long while). In any case, it's rather a false equivalency that you are claiming that driving alone allows you to "set" your schedule considering all the traffic nightmares and headaches you find in more congested areas of the country. Anyone's driving schedule is subject to the whims of the open road, a matter that is much better handled by a well conceived train system (NOT Amtrak lol). And along those same lines of debate, you also have to acknowledge that driving is one of the most dangerous modes of transportation as well. Imagine how much less dangerous your drive would be if many of the yahoos plying the highways today were to be hopping on a train instead (not to mention, in countries where driving is strictly optional most poorer folks don't bother to buy a car at all since they don't need to...which means less mechanical problems found on the roads and generally safer cars all around you).
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones If the car works best for you, then you use it. I'm all for freedom of choice and I try to shy away from other transit advocates who really do want to see the car eliminated. However, I rode Metrolink to Downtown LA today to see some museums and stuff and the train there and the train back were packed with people. This in car crazy LA. This on a weekend. This with limited schedules. This with old diesel commuter trains. Clearly the demand is there. The potential is there. With faster service (110 MPH minimum), electrification (faster acceleration, quieter trains), and more robust schedules, something like the LOSSAN Corridor, for example, could give the Northeast Corridor a run for its money in terms of ridership.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And Spokker, LA has a climate where those electric trains could be solar powered, being even more environmentally friendly.
