High Speed Rail Study (Denver, Colorado Springs: insurance, condos, houses)

[J double R]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

That was before the plane and car. Why would anyone want to take a train from Colorado Springs to Orlando when you can take a plane in a fraction of the time?

Simple. If we had focused on rail travel and continued to streamline the systems with the resources we've wasted on road and air travel, the rail system would be MUCH better these days, but the technology just hasn't been researched as fast as it would have been.

The amount of time spent flying is a fraction in itself of the time spent preparing for the flight.. add in check-in, boarding, flight preparation, arrival, the high probability of lost luggage, and you have something comparable.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Because, like so many brainwashed Americans, you don't understand the tradeoff. Air travel became feasible as a mode of middle-class transportation because Americans were willing to trade speed for fuel-inefficiency. That was an OK tradeoff when fuel was cheap. Now, despite massive direct and indirect government subsidies, the American airline industry is going bankrupt. It faces the insurmountable problem that if it charges enough to make a profit, it can't attract enough passengers; if it charges little enough to attract enough passengers, it can't make a profit.

The tradeoff with the automobile was convenience versus fuel inefficiency--plus a massive taxpayer-supported infrastructure. Again, that sort of made sense (but not really) when fuel was cheap and the infrastructure was new. Now, fuel is no longer cheap, the infrastructure is old, crumbling, and nearly impossible to maintain--and these problems will only get worse.

Rail, on the other hand, is much cheaper to build and maintain (compared to roads), is several times more fuel efficient, and can use fuel sources that air--in particular--can not. Moreover, it uses technology that is well-tested and can be deployed right now, not some pie-in-the-sky technology that may take years or decades to develop.

As I posted earlier, you act like you may have a choice in the future. You may not--it may be take a train or don't go at all.

The other reason is purely aesthetic, and one that few automobile/airline brainwashed Americans get: The journey is as important and enjoyable as the destination. So what if it takes awhile to get there--getting there is half (or more) of the fun.

Yep, the trip is half the enjoyment, that's why I drove to AZ in March, wanted to see the country and not spend a full day piddling around with airports, security, rental car crap. Instead, I spent a full day seeing the beauty of the West. If we had good train service, I'd have used it.

Short version: Airline Deregulation has been a disaster. Soon enough we'll be eating the health care and pension costs of the airline industry, as those idiotic low fares and years of red ink come home to roost.

Long version of Airline Deregulation Rant - post any comments on airline dereg to the airline dereg thread, not to this rail thread. Thanks.

Engineers, economists, accountants and doctors should run the country, not lobbyists bribing congressmen.

[Josseppie]

We shall see, but to be honost I would be willing to spend 800 bucks for a round trip ticket on a plane from Pueblo to Orlando then 100 on a train and get there in less time with more comfort.

That being said I don't think it will come to that, but time will tell!

[treedonkey]

People can extol the virtues of rail travel all they want they want, but the fact is that Americans are NOWHERE NEAR ready give up car or air travel and replace it with trains. I too would be willing to pay $800 or more to fly anywhere in the US instead of having to take a train for 5 days to get there and back. besides, the train would end up even more, unless you're willing to sleep sitting up in your seat for four nights.

[katzenfreund]

I'll take a train ride over a plane/car ride any day...I love seeing the countryside... not having to worry about traffic and not sitting cramped like a sardine in a plane. I'd trade in my car any day for a good rail and bus system. Before we moved to the US, we didn't own a car, used public transportation only and saved a LOT of money. No car to pay for, no car insurance, license, tags gas, tires... it was a bargain to pay for train tickets compared to the cost of owning a car.
My husband who was born and raised in Maryland didn't miss a car for a minute because there was no need for it.
A 5 day train trip sounds like fun to me , guess I am in the minority...

[treedonkey]

Originally Posted by katzenfreund

A 5 day train trip sounds like fun to me , guess I am in the minority...

No, really in the minority on that... a five day train ride does sound like fun, given that you can have a little cabin to sleep in and have some privacy.

Five days spent sleeping in your seat and pacing and pacing back and forth down the aisles, however, does not sound like much fun.

And have you ever checked the schedule or prices for Amtrak lately?

To go from Denver to San Fran (Emeryville) and back will take about 32 hours EACH WAY and will cost:
$194 for Coach Seats (per person)
Plus
$316 for a roommette
or
$825 for a bedroom

I can fly there for about $150 per person... even if air prices double, it will still cost less to fly than to go on the train. Oh, and taking the BUS would be $400 per person and take 3 days one-way!!!

So, for a trip like this, the choice is pretty obvious unless you're airplane-phobic or such a train lover that you don't mind paying double to take 6x as long.

Here's my preference, in order (round trip from Denver to SF):
1) Plane: Cost $150 RT; Duration: 2.5 hours each way (flight time only... it takes me about 6 hours in real time)
2) Car: Cost $500 RT (not including food or lodging on the road); Duration: 26 hours each way (without stopping, except for gas)
3) Train: Cost $600 (with a roomette, not including food); Duration: 34 hours each way (adding extra time to get to and from the train at either end)

[katzenfreund]

I recently took a 6 hour trainride for the same price it would have cost me to fly and I had a lot more fun and didn't miss the airport hassles one bit. A friend of mine recently took a trip from the East Coast to the West Coast and had a blast, the price she quoted sounded reasonable and included all the meals. I am sure taking a train in this country is not always the most economical or fastest way, but often it is comparable.

By the way, I would chose the train trip you listed above over the car any day. 26 hours of driving without stopping? I'd be totally stressed out and paying just an extra $100 and 8 more hours would be worth it to me... but to each their own... just expressing my opinion

[treedonkey]

Originally Posted by katzenfreund

I recently took a 6 hour trainride for the same price it would have cost me to fly and I had a lot more fun and didn't miss the airport hassles one bit. A friend of mine recently took a trip from the East Coast to the West Coast and had a blast, the price she quoted sounded reasonable and included all the meals. I am sure taking a train in this country is not always the most economical or fastest way, but often it is comparable.

By the way, I would chose the train trip you listed above over the car any day. 26 hours of driving without stopping? I'd be totally stressed out and paying just an extra $100 and 8 more hours would be worth it to me... but to each their own... just expressing my opinion

Certainly, if your train ride is only six hours, AND if it happens to get you where you want to go (or certainly if you're just taking a train-cation), then it is almost definitely a good alternative to flying... which is why that train probably had other passengers on it besides you.

And even in the case of the longer trip, I could certainly see taking the train over driving, as long as your willing to give up your ability to stop, not stop, meander as you please, and to carry as much junk as you can pack in there for no extra charge...

I'd still prefer the flexibility (and perhaps a slight savings) of driving if I want to see countryside along the way, otherwise, flying is a no-brainer for me.

Have we gotten off-topic? Perhaps. But the point is that, like it or not, most people will continue to fly or drive over taking the train as long as they have the choice. Even if our rail system could vastly improve, it's hard to match, much less beat, the convenience we enjoy now. I agree that building high-speed rails to every conceivable locale is the ideal, far-sighted solution, but there just isn't enough marketable interest to generate the sort of cash it would take to even undertake phase one of something like that.

So, yes, it will likely take a complete collapse of our current transit infrastructure to force any real change.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by treedonkey

So, yes, it will likely take a complete collapse of our current transit infrastructure to force any real change.

And that is what is happening--most people just can't see it yet.

[treedonkey]

This just in, for whatever it's worth...
Rail study riding on high hopes

Highlighting a few lines:
"With the end of the high-speed rail study in sight and anticipated sometime this year, it looks as though rail travel might be the way of the future along interstates 25 and 70."

"For the project to be deemed feasible, its benefits must outweigh the cost of operations... Of the latest scenarios, the Fort Collins to Pueblo and Eagle County to DIA lines would be profitable."