Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If folks in the northeast are currently flocking to Amtrak there is no need to spend billions to knock a few minutes off their travel times.
This makes no sense at all. A service from the government is popular, therefore it shouldn't receive more funding for improvements? If Amtrak was a private business, it would be suicide NOT to improve the NE Corridor.
No, that is NOT AT ALL what drives transportation investments!!!!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
This makes no sense at all. A service from the government is popular, therefore it shouldn't receive more funding for improvements? If Amtrak was a private business, it would be suicide NOT to improve the NE Corridor.
What has happened to travel times for airplane travel?
Buses?
Private cars?
Suicide? Someone clearly has NO UNDERSTAND WHATSOVER about how transportation works!
I completely disagree with this. I have a buddy that's a highly paid consultant based out of NYC. Like you he's not really a train guy either, but let me tell you something. His privately held employer gladly foots the steep bill for the high-speed Acela train when he needs to get from NY or NJ into D.C. and vice versa. If companies such as his employer fuel business travel on the Acela and along the NE Corridor, why wouldn't you ensure that it remains a state of the art system? These companies could have plopped him on an airplane shuttle, but there's a reason why they tend to pick Acela instead out there and even you know why that is (Midtown Manhattan to the heart of D.C. instead of TSA and clunky, far flung airport locations + no sitting in traffic, comfort, etc.). The cost to ride those trains are MUCH higher than the Midwest, and yet they are packed and definitely running at a profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
If folks in the northeast are currently flocking to Amtrak there is no need to spend billions to knock a few minutes off their travel times.
Midwest population densities are insufficient to ever generate the kinds of ridership as the east coast can.
The only reason that rail buffs desire a "state of the art" high speed rail system is to fufill their own fantasies.
If folks in the northeast are currently flocking to Amtrak there is no need to spend billions to knock a few minutes off their travel times.
Midwest population densities are insufficient to ever generate the kinds of ridership as the east coast can.
The only reason that rail buffs desire a "state of the art" high speed rail system is to fufill their own fantasies.
I agree that the Midwest doesn't have the population density of say Europe or the Northeast. However, that doesn't preclude a successful passenger rail system in the Midwest. I'm in favor of incrementally increasing speeds and reducing bottlenecks in the system as ridership increases, which seems to be happening with the exception of some states (i.e. Wisconsin and Indiana) who are currently blocking these developments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reppin_the_847
I completely disagree with this. I have a buddy that's a highly paid consultant based out of NYC. Like you he's not really a train guy either, but let me tell you something. His privately held employer gladly foots the steep bill for the high-speed Acela train when he needs to get from NY or NJ into D.C. and vice versa. If companies such as his employer fuel business travel on the Acela and along the NE Corridor, why wouldn't you ensure that it remains a state of the art system? These companies could have plopped him on an airplane shuttle, but there's a reason why they tend to pick Acela instead out there and even you know why that is (Midtown Manhattan to the heart of D.C. instead of TSA and clunky, far flung airport locations + no sitting in traffic, comfort, etc.). The cost to ride those trains are MUCH higher than the Midwest, and yet they are packed and definitely running at a profit.
That's pretty consistent with what I've read about the Acela. The lack of TSA style security, more comfortable accommodations, and the fact that a train can go right into the city center make trains a viable alternative to air travel in the Northeast. This makes me wonder how profitable and successful the system would be if it ran as fast as some of the trains in Europe do.
If we're going for High Speed Rail, I think we should go for the gold, and not half A------ it. I would be extremely pleased with a 300 MPH service. At that speed, you're going:
Chicago -> Milwaukee = 20 minutes.
Chicago -> Indianapolis = 40 minutes.
Chicago -> Cincinnati = 1 hour.
Chicago -> Detroit = 55 minutes.
Chicago -> Minneapolis = 1 hour 20 minutes.
Chicago -> St. Louis = 1 hour.
Chicago -> Cleveland = 1 hour 10 minutes.
I find it interesting... there are plenty of variables that can be adjusted.
But, I feel that those travel times at 300 MPH are definitely nothing to disregard. 7 hours to drive to Minny? Or 1 hour and 20 minutes? Factor in the hassles that are currently associated with air travel (wait times, baggage claim, cramped seating, inability to use various electronic devices, etc) and taking a train like that seems like a pretty good deal.
Flying is cool and all, but there's so much of the country that you don't get to see, and if you do see it, it's from 35,000 feet up. That's one of the reasons why I like driving to new places. I get to see different things. Combine being on the ground with fast travel times, and it's a winner in my book. (Side note: I want to take the train from Chicago to Seattle, or somewhere else on the west coast... really get to see the vastness of the country, and all the changes in topography. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate being able to see more of the country while traveling.)
Last year I took a trip to Las Vegas. It was February. We flew from Indy. On the return trip, we were sitting around waiting to board the plane. After an hour of sitting, we were informed that the flight was cancelled due to "lack of crew". The flight was scheduled to go to O'Hare, then transfer to another plane headed for Indy. The problem was the threat of an ice storm coming into Chicago the next day, potentially canceling our flight for a second time. We were given hotel vouchers for the night, but were told that if the flight to Chicago was cancelled the next day, we would not be provided with another voucher. Basically, the airline screwed up, and if their mistake lead to us not being able to get to our destination the next day, we got screwed.
I told the airline people that it wasn't necessary to go to Chicago... we just needed to go to Indianapolis. They said they couldn't change the flight plan like that. We would have to fly to Chicago. Long story short, the airline screwed up (again) the next day and we managed to get a flight from Las Vegas to JFK in New York, then a connection BACK to Indianapolis.
This is where I think HSR can also come into play. If these high speed trains have direct connections to airports, situations like the one I described could be avoided. Instead of spending 5 hours in a hotel waiting for the next morning's flight, we could have spent 5 hours on a HST (300 MPH) and gotten as far as Kansas City, and then take a flight from there to Indy.
If a flight is going to be cancelled in Chicago to go to Minneapolis due to rain, or storms, or fog, or whatever, you could still hop on a train that would be able to get you there just as quick, if not quicker than a regular flight and all the extra time associated with flying. Or a flight to New York is cancelled in Chicago, due to any number of factors, someone could hop on the train and ride it down to somewhere else, say Indianapolis, that isn't having the same problems. From there they could pick up a flight out to New York.
I don't see HSR being a direct competitor to the airlines. I see it as another possible mode of transit. I also see it as something that can work with the airline industry to help move people better, more efficiently.
Because really. Vegas to New York just to turn around and go back to Indy. That's silly.
And, FYI, a 300 MPH train could go from Vegas to Indy in just over 6 hours.
If there is such strong demand for HSR in the northeast corridor a prudent business would attempt to determine how to maximize profit. If that allowed them to raise prices and bank some of that to bootstrap efforts to expand service that seems like a logical path to pursue. If the incremental expansion was not working they'd scale back those plans to expand.
What the editorial from the Trib objects to is the kind of nutty "let's scrap the incremental improvements we've just done and sign up for BILLIONS in new improvements to buy a 15 MPH increase in speeds". That is the kind of fantasy that out-of touch bueracratic baloney artists routinely advocate. Those "improvement" would again have to be SCRAPED to get closer to the completely LUDICROUS suggestions of A2DAC's. That sort of pie-in-the-sky "pull a speed from a hat" thinking is as silly as my comment about why regular car commuters are tooling around in McLarens --- HELLO this state can't pay the healthcare providers that provide services to those on Medicare! Our pension plans are BILLIONS underfunded. Our Nation has TENS OF TRILLIONS in debts and the hole keeps getting dug DEEPER...
Another thing I think would enable the Midwest's rail corridor to be more effective would be to have convenient rental car & Zipcar stations lined up right next to the major city stops. This eliminates the issue of there not being convenient commuter rail & bus transit in all of the Midwest cities with the exception of Chicago. It also makes the service more comparable to the airlines in the sense that it is simple to then transfer from the long distance mode of transportation (train or plane) to a rental vehicle of some sort.
If one accepts your "city center to city center" idea then there is no need for ZipCar. If there is a need for such non-rail transportation than you are back at the same issues of airports. Btw what happens when a terrorist blows up a HSR train??? Hello TSA delays, goodbye time advantage...
Keep mentioning how there is no security check and soon a nut job will take out a train loaded with connection DC types. Doesn't half the northeast senators take Amtrak??? Nightmare scenario....
Quote:
Originally Posted by reppin_the_847
Another thing I think would enable the Midwest's rail corridor to be more effective would be to have convenient rental car & Zipcar stations lined up right next to the major city stops. This eliminates the issue of there not being convenient commuter rail & bus transit in all of the Midwest cities with the exception of Chicago. It also makes the service more comparable to the airlines in the sense that it is simple to then transfer from the long distance mode of transportation (train or plane) to a rental vehicle of some sort.
If there is such strong demand for HSR in the northeast corridor a prudent business would attempt to determine how to maximize profit. If that allowed them to raise prices and bank some of that to bootstrap efforts to expand service that seems like a logical path to pursue. If the incremental expansion was not working they'd scale back those plans to expand.
Well that is, of course assuming that the government is conducive to a business stepping in and running passenger rail in the Northeast. From what I've read, it seems some of the problem with the Northeast rail network has to do with NIMBY that prevents routes from being run in the most efficient ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
What the editorial from the Trib objects to is the kind of nutty "let's scrap the incremental improvements we've just done and sign up for BILLIONS in new improvements to buy a 15 MPH increase in speeds". That is the kind of fantasy that out-of touch bueracratic baloney artists routinely advocate. Those "improvement" would again have to be SCRAPED to get closer to the completely LUDICROUS suggestions of A2DAC's. That sort of pie-in-the-sky "pull a speed from a hat" thinking is as silly as my comment about why regular car commuters are tooling around in McLarens --- HELLO this state can't pay the healthcare providers that provide services to those on Medicare! Our pension plans are BILLIONS underfunded. Our Nation has TENS OF TRILLIONS in debts and the hole keeps getting dug DEEPER...
That's true but we do seem willing to spend billions on wars and infrastructure for other countries. It would be nice if we could instead make worthwhile investments back home.
Also, I don't see why they would need to scrap the older tracks to lay down faster ones. In Europe they typically have trains that run at different speeds over the same route (think Acela vs. Northeast regional in the U.S.). Why not lay down the higher speed tracks next to the lower speed tracks if needed? You could always run freight on the slower tracks if nothing else...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
If one accepts your "city center to city center" idea then there is no need for ZipCar.
You don't need to accept it or not accept it for it to be true. Train stations can be and are routinely located in urban areas. Case in point: Penn Station is in midtown Manhattan. When is the last time you've seen an airport in midtown Manhattan?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
Btw what happens when a terrorist blows up a HSR train??? Hello TSA delays, goodbye time advantage...
What would be the advantage of putting a bomb on a HSR train as opposed to any other crowded place like a building or a public event? So if a terrorist puts a bomb in a crowded building, are we going to have TSA agents scan us before we go into every building in the United States?
A plane can be hijacked and used as a very lethal weapon (9/11). Obviously a train is a lot harder to use for that purpose (it can only run on a track) and you can't exactly hijack a train and try to take it to another country. That isn't to say there is no possibility of terrorists inflicting damage with a train, it's just much less of a threat. Also, if we were using an electric powered train, the transit employees could power down the track and force the train to stop if there was a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chet everett
Keep mentioning how there is no security check and soon a nut job will take out a train loaded with connection DC types. Doesn't half the northeast senators take Amtrak??? Nightmare scenario....
Again, I'm not sure what the advantage of taking them out on a train is as opposed to any other public place. Gabrielle Giffords was gunned down in a supermarket but I have yet to see the TSA at my local Kroger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that is NOT AT ALL what drives transportation investments!!!!'
That isn't to say there is no possibility of terrorists inflicting damage with a train, it's just much less of a threat. Also, if we were using an electric powered train, the transit employees could power down the track and force the train to stop if there was a problem. 
