Group Wants Atlanta-Savannah Passenger Rail Line (law, statistics, land)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

If the stops are few enough in number, it really wouldn't be much faster to Jacksonville by plane, if at all. Longer distances are where air travel starts to shine.

Exactly. I don't think trains can compete over longer distances (unless there was some sort of bullet train that's never going to happen here). But for trips within the 200-250 mile range they could be a viable alternative.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

That's leaving a lot out.

With a train, you could literally show up fifteen minutes before departure. No baggage checking, and no security line waits. And the risk of a delay, particularly a long delay, drops significantly with a train.

To some degree you're right, but you assume the status quo will last forever.

If trains are able to achieve the kind of success that many of you assume, then I would expect security to get tighter and the need to arrive earlier becoming more necessary, especially with baggage.

This is actually the same calculation that I use when I go to Charlotte. I could fly there at corporate expense, but then I would have to drive to the airport and park, get there 60 min before departure, sit on the 45 min flight, and then pick up a rental car or catch a cab. It works out better to drive the nearly 4 hour drive where I can come and go on my own timetable.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by munna21977

Lonely road | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbd/6211501320/#/photos/bbd/6211501320/lightbox/ - broken link)

By your logic there should not be any road also.

Roads work differently than rail. There is no "station" on a road. Roads are better than tracks as you can stop anywhere along the route. Besides, towns can live without passenger rail. And there are a lot of them

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But without roads? Any town would die.

[munna21977]

you mean to say you have to arrive 60 minutes earlier to catch Acela Express between New York to Washington DC???

Originally Posted by neil0311

To some degree you're right, but you assume the status quo will last forever.

If trains are able to achieve the kind of success that many of you assume, then I would expect security to get tighter and the need to arrive earlier becoming more necessary, especially with baggage.

This is actually the same calculation that I use when I go to Charlotte. I could fly there at corporate expense, but then I would have to drive to the airport and park, get there 60 min before departure, sit on the 45 min flight, and then pick up a rental car or catch a cab. It works out better to drive the nearly 4 hour drive where I can come and go on my own timetable.

[munna21977]

List of busiest Amtrak stations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These towns are surviving much better then those whose list you provided to me.

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Roads work differently than rail. There is no "station" on a road. Roads are better than tracks as you can stop anywhere along it route. Besides, towns can live without passenger rail. And there are a lot of them

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But without roads? Any town would die.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

You're missing my point. How much of that photo is NOT a rail station or platform?

Here is another shot of the station.

huntingdon pa - Google Maps

It runs beside the town of Huntingdon PA, but it's not a focal point of development.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by munna21977

List of busiest Amtrak stations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These towns are surviving much better then those whose list you provided to me.

It's not because of Amtrak I assure you. Amtrak service is probably driven by the market size to begin with and any town along the connecting routes just luck out. Huntingdon for instance has service because the train is going from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.

Las Vegas doesn't have service but then again...Detroit does. I doubt there is a correlation between economic resilience and recovery and Amtrak service.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by neil0311

To some degree you're right, but you assume the status quo will last forever.

If trains are able to achieve the kind of success that many of you assume, then I would expect security to get tighter and the need to arrive earlier becoming more necessary, especially with baggage.

This is actually the same calculation that I use when I go to Charlotte. I could fly there at corporate expense, but then I would have to drive to the airport and park, get there 60 min before departure, sit on the 45 min flight, and then pick up a rental car or catch a cab. It works out better to drive the nearly 4 hour drive where I can come and go on my own timetable.

Aye, but security is only one variable. And unless we have a 9/11 with trains, I don't expect the security to become anywhere near as much of a hassle as at airports.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Here is another shot of the station.

huntingdon pa - Google Maps

It runs beside the town of Huntingdon PA, but it's not a focal point of development.

Exit the street view and zoom out from that town. Way out.

That town is in the middle of nowhere.

Why are you comparing that to Savannah?

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Roads work differently than rail. There is no "station" on a road. Roads are better than tracks as you can stop anywhere along the route. Besides, towns can live without passenger rail. And there are a lot of them

List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But without roads? Any town would die.

Then stay in your car! Geez, how hard is this? Some people like to ride trains, others like to drive! What is wrong with allowing people to make the choice?

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Then stay in your car! Geez, how hard is this? Some people like to ride trains, others like to drive! What is wrong with allowing people to make the choice?

I think it has been made very clear on here that given costs to the taxpayers being equal, no one has a problem with rail transportation. However, it is not simply a matter of choice as you keep trying to frame it. It is a matter of fiscal responsibility and there is only one line in the country that comes close to breaking even or turns a profit. Rail bleeds money everywhere else and this line would likely cost taxpayers $40-50 per trip to subsidize. THAT is the real issue. Rather than spending all of your time spinning the debate, focus on that problem and come up with an innovative solution because this thread is 200+ posts in and the pro-rail argument amounts to "but it is cool and gives me a choice." Is that it? Your choice is worth $40-50 per rider?