Amtrak exploring Atlanta to Nashville Route (Savannah, Macon: school, to live, cabin)

[ATLTJL]

I totally agree that generally speaking, the more rail, the better. Lack of rail transit could be the single largest handicap this country faces compared to much of Europe and Asia.

However, I feel rail this slow is relatively worthless. It may even be counterproductive, and make people feel rail is a terrible transportation mode. What we need is a vast network of high speed rail. Trains that travel the equivalent of 38 miles per hour, why even bother? Unless tickets are $5, who is going to take that? Why is it so slow? Even if it has 10 stops, an average of 5 minutes at each stop, which is more than you need, should only add 50 minutes to a trip. That would still make it a lot faster than 6.5 hours. I just don't get why it is so ludicrously slow.

I've wanted to take the Crescent Line to New Orleans before. I just don't have 12 or 13 hours to get there. And I've never heard of anybody else doing it either.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Atlwarrior

I wonder how scenic the route will be. I remember as a kid taking the Amtrak from Denmark, SC to NYC. I would definitely take this train to Nashville.

Philly to NYC is pretty ugly on Amtrak.

Most of these trains go through bad parts of cities.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

If I can side-step the overall pro-train/anti-train subsidy issue at a national level for a second, this is actually a strategic victory for our state and city and this shouldn't be lost.

This has also quietly been pushed by the state, even under Republican control.


The route will be lightly subsidized and they aren't going to build new tracks or make it high speed.

What they want is to make it apart of the existing network and existing quality of service, in case there is a large nationwide investment into passenger rail in the future, it will position Atlanta as the natural southern hub that it is.

With a connection to Nashville, it will actually be a potential connection to Chicago (hub of the Midwest) . That way we have passenger rail going towards both the Northeast and the large population centers of the Midwest.


This is one, at the local and state level, that is worth supporting, in case there ever was a large national investment.

Ie. Even if your against a large national investment, this is pennies (figuratively speaking) to strategically support in case there is a huge national investment decades in the future.

As for car vs. Train vs. Flying... Long-term its a red-herring demand will grow so much over 20, 30, 40 years that future investment in competing modes isn't really a waste. If we don't do rail, we'd eventually be supporting a 4 lane (per direction) rural interstate in the long-run. Splitting investment would likely be more economical, than actually building that.

I won't go as far to say this would be worth making HSR to Nashville immediately, I'm just saying it's a good strategic investment to solidfy as a route for the state in the long run at a fairly low cost.

You are saying that Atlanta to Chicago connection like its a good thing.

Rail is totally noncompetitive with flying at those distances. High speed rail works from 250-500 miles. Low speed rail doesn't work except inside cities and its questionable sometimes there.

Nashville to Atlanta is probably a big loser requiring a big subsidy. Atlanta to Charlotte might work with the larger population in Charlotte and in Greensboro and Raleigh-Durham.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

I totally agree that generally speaking, the more rail, the better. Lack of rail transit could be the single largest handicap this country faces compared to much of Europe and Asia.

However, I feel rail this slow is relatively worthless. It may even be counterproductive, and make people feel rail is a terrible transportation mode. What we need is a vast network of high speed rail. Trains that travel the equivalent of 38 miles per hour, why even bother? Unless tickets are $5, who is going to take that? Why is it so slow? Even if it has 10 stops, an average of 5 minutes at each stop, which is more than you need, should only add 50 minutes to a trip. That would still make it a lot faster than 6.5 hours. I just don't get why it is so ludicrously slow.

I've wanted to take the Crescent Line to New Orleans before. I just don't have 12 or 13 hours to get there. And I've never heard of anybody else doing it either.

Megabus takes 4:55 to 5:15 to get from Atlanta to Nashville for an average speed of 47-50 mph. Only 10mph faster than the train, and that's with only one intermediate stop at Chattanooga.

Originally Posted by bu2

Philly to NYC is pretty ugly on Amtrak.

Most of these trains go through bad parts of cities.

Really? You're going to use 95 miles worth of megalopolis to answer a question about this route? This route would be the most scenic in the entire Southeast! In terms of the Southeast, only Amtrak's Cardinal compares, but it cuts through West Virginia so it's not really "Southeast."

Originally Posted by bu2

You are saying that Atlanta to Chicago connection like its a good thing.

Rail is totally noncompetitive with flying at those distances. High speed rail works from 250-500 miles. Low speed rail doesn't work except inside cities and its questionable sometimes there.

Nashville to Atlanta is probably a big loser requiring a big subsidy. Atlanta to Charlotte might work with the larger population in Charlotte and in Greensboro and Raleigh-Durham.

*sigh* again, that's only if you're looking strictly at endpoint-endpoint. The greatest strength of a train is its intermediate destinations. The Article mentioned Murfreesboro and Tullahoma as stops as well as Chattanooga. Georgia would also likely get one or two intermediate stops depending on the route (I'd vote Dalton and Rome if on the NS, Dalton and Cartersville if on CSX)

[Beretta]

This thread is about Amtrak exploring Atlanta to Nashville route. Please keep posts on topic. Thanks!

[arjay57]

It would sure be nice if we could actually build a few of these projects instead of just talking about them for the next 40-50 years.

[ATLTJL]

Precisely. Megabus goes 10 mph faster than Amtrak would.

So a mode that requires exponentially less investment, zero subsidies, and is cheaper to ride is faster.

You just totally proved the point a train at the proposed speed is pretty much useless.

[MattCW]

10mph is hardly "faster" except mathematically. Zero subsidies? How about the massive highway infrastructure. This route is worth it, Atlanta needs more rail service. Period!

[ATLTJL]

10 mph is only faster "mathematically?'

Well, I guess that's pretty convenient since mathematics are what we use to measure such things.

So let's do a little math. At this interval we are speaking of, 10 mph equates to a bit less than what, 20 percent or so? And by pure time, Megabus is roughly 1.5 hours faster. Or 3 hours round trip. Make the journey 4 times in a year, and that's 12 hours.

Good old math to the rescue!

The subsidies to road infrastructure are irrelevant. Those are sunk costs that are exactly the same regardless of whether Megabus runs.

This proposed route uses track that's already there. If the only thing taxpayers had to subsidize is the additional wear and tear to those tracks, then we'd be having an apples to apples conversation. But we will subsidize a lot more than that.

It's a moot point, though, because I believe we should subsidize rail. Heavily. But only when it equates to a superior, or at least competitive, travel mode to driving or flying. For what we are getting, we may as well subsidize a go kart track to Nashville and throw some karts on it. They'd probably be faster.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by markjames68

I like the idea of taking the train to Nashville. Should be popular.

And it would be -- on a few weekends during the summer months, and (maybe) on a few occasions in the winter when driving was too risky; the rest of the year it would run nearly empty.

Care to guess who would pay for a "service" very few would opt to use on a regular basis?