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.
I travel 100% for work, and I have traveled that way for years. Rail is not competitive with air. I need to be in Denver one week, Miami the next week, and then back in New England the week after that. Sometimes this is day-by-day.
It is not physically achievable to build a rail network that permits national travel for the people who are actually using the national travel infrastructure.
It is also not financially viable to build a rail network that is anywhere near self-sustaining. It will cost trillions to build, and it will lose billions per year in operating losses. Our current passenger rail system is the best possible illustration of this. It is hardly used by business travelers (dominant really only between city pairs NYC-WAS, most Bostonians drive or fly to NYC), and it reports massive taxpayer-funded yearly losses.
What is achievable is a very expensive way to allow vacationeers to travel by rail, but that is what we have now with Amtrak.
Our air-and-road national travel infrastructure developed over many decades, and it fits with our diffuse geographic society.
I travel 100% for work, and I have traveled that way for years. Rail is not competitive with air. I need to be in Denver one week, Miami the next week, and then back in New England the week after that. Sometimes this is day-by-day.
Both rail and air travel not only co-exist but thrive in Europe. It has more to do with being sensible, or more choices, than competition between them.
One can spend almost couple of hours to travel to/from London and Paris airports and through the waiting time plus the flight, or one can choose to travel from central London to central Paris on Eurostar with greater comfort. I've opted for the latter, every time. And trains aren't as easily affected by weather conditions either. Heck, even Air France was into investing in the Eurostar system.
Why can't the same be done, between Dallas and Houston, for example? It was rather amusing to drop my cousin at Houston Hobby airport (she was traveling via Dallas to Chicago), and drive past DFW airport before her flight landed. And it takes about four hours of drive time. An old fashioned high speed rail could do that in two.
Both rail and air travel not only co-exist but thrive in Europe. It has more to do with being sensible, or more choices, than competition between them.
One can spend almost couple of hours to travel to/from London and Paris airports and through the waiting time plus the flight, or one can choose to travel from central London to central Paris on Eurostar with greater comfort. .
Rail works fine for some situations, not so well for others. Travel between London and Paris is fine if you live near a rail station in one and need to go to a rail station in the other. But for millions of other people, that doesn't fit.
And you can also spend a couple of hours traveling to/from London and Paris train stations just like airports.
Actual air time is half of the rail time between London and Paris. So your fastest mode might be the one you live closest to or is closer to your destination.
I travel 100% for work, and I have traveled that way for years. Rail is not competitive with air. I need to be in Denver one week, Miami the next week, and then back in New England the week after that. Sometimes this is day-by-day.
It is not physically achievable to build a rail network that permits national travel for the people who are actually using the national travel infrastructure.
It is also not financially viable to build a rail network that is anywhere near self-sustaining. It will cost trillions to build, and it will lose billions per year in operating losses. Our current passenger rail system is the best possible illustration of this. It is hardly used by business travelers (dominant really only between city pairs NYC-WAS, most Bostonians drive or fly to NYC), and it reports massive taxpayer-funded yearly losses.
What is achievable is a very expensive way to allow vacationeers to travel by rail, but that is what we have now with Amtrak.
Our air-and-road national travel infrastructure developed over many decades, and it fits with our diffuse geographic society.
Correct.
One big expense is acquiring land. So building rail from scratch is cost prohibitive anywhere in the world. Running a train on land acquired (or given away) 100 years ago ignores that huge infrastructure cost.
Europe, if placed within the united states, would stretch from Texas to New York. Not the entire country, I get it, but sizeable.
And Europe's model has been a success. You can't say it hasn't. Sure you may still need a plane from NYC to San Fran. . .but options between Miami and NYC are possible. There is more economic power between Montreal and Washington DC than most countries. To say that such a thing just can't happen, is a little short sighted.
1 - Car users need to pay their fair share. If gasoline also included the amount to keep roads going, carbon clean up, accidents,etc than we would close in on the Europe rate per gallon which would drive railroad travel.
2 - If we had a railroad system, cities would make use of it. new development/etc. New jobs. New areas. Different types of commute.
3- you can't compare today with airlines and project the future of rail. Amtrack? seriously? If we can't hit the Japan/Europe rates (Amtrack Acela is like average 55mph) than your right the game is lost. If trains can clock in at Average 100+ speeds with drop offs in Cities centers. . .you better bet business will take notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender
I travel 100% for work, and I have traveled that way for years. Rail is not competitive with air. I need to be in Denver one week, Miami the next week, and then back in New England the week after that. Sometimes this is day-by-day.
It is not physically achievable to build a rail network that permits national travel for the people who are actually using the national travel infrastructure.
It is also not financially viable to build a rail network that is anywhere near self-sustaining. It will cost trillions to build, and it will lose billions per year in operating losses. Our current passenger rail system is the best possible illustration of this. It is hardly used by business travelers (dominant really only between city pairs NYC-WAS, most Bostonians drive or fly to NYC), and it reports massive taxpayer-funded yearly losses.
What is achievable is a very expensive way to allow vacationeers to travel by rail, but that is what we have now with Amtrak.
Our air-and-road national travel infrastructure developed over many decades, and it fits with our diffuse geographic society.
Rail works fine for some situations, not so well for others. Travel between London and Paris is fine if you live near a rail station in one and need to go to a rail station in the other. But for millions of other people, that doesn't fit.
That was my point. It works better than air travel in some cases, and in others it may not. As I quoted from my own experiences, and preferences, I would rather take a train from central Dallas to central Houston, as I do between London and Paris, than fly. A lot more time would be wasted, not to mention hassles, on air travel. In fact, I end up driving to Houston because I don't want to deal with the hassles of dealing with air travel, and not much time saved. OTOH, I would NEVER drive if I had the choice of a high speed rail covering the distance in couple of hours.
Quote:
And you can also spend a couple of hours traveling to/from London and Paris train stations just like airports.
That will be rare. If you're far from a railway station, chances are, you're far from the airport too. But, these urban areas have superb connectivity. That being said, it is always easier to design railway infrastructure closer to the populace. When in London, for example, I've much better, cheaper and faster access to the railway stations than to Heathrow (20-30 minute ride on Heathrow-Paddington Express). The same is true during my travels to New York City too. In fact, from where I live in Dallas area, getting to Union Station takes about the same time as getting to either DFW airport or Lovefield airport. In fact, I could take DART (light rail service) to Union Station, and avoid driving altogether.
Quote:
Actual air time is half of the rail time between London and Paris. So your fastest mode might be the one you live closest to or is closer to your destination.
Actual air time doesn't matter when you end up overspending it in the processes. That was the point I made with my experience of beating a flight with driving home from Houston. The flight may have been in the air for a fraction of the time, but you can't just walk into to the plane, be seated, the flight takes off and you reach your destination. In trains, I have done that.
Give me more choices, and I'm a far happier person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Boston to DC is 440 miles and takes six to eight hours... not high speed by any definition.
If anything, that would demonstrate the impotency of our infrastructure. The Japanese have been on top of it since the 1950s.
Boston to DC is 440 miles and takes six to eight hours... not high speed by any definition.
The Current line is so old and hasn't been upgraded it takes 8hrs....the New plan has that down to 3hrs...
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.
