Group Wants Atlanta-Savannah Passenger Rail Line (Jersey: vehicles, commuters, best)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I don't see this plan as moving anymore cargo between Atlanta and Savannah which is the primary important use of the rail connection. So, for moving people, is it worth the tens of billions it would probably cost? Just so more Atlantans can spend a weekend in Savannah because they couldn't be bothered with the TSA?

Mathman, I know you are just playing devil's advocate, but I wouldn't discount the importance of the "hassle factor" in travel.

In situations where market competition exists travel providers are highly aware that this influences travel choices. Air lines, for instance, compete ferociously with claims of a few inches of additional leg room, baggage charges, fares, on time landings and departures, friendlier service, etc. Those competing for auto travelers likewise fight for every point of market share.

In this part of the world, of course, we only subsidize auto and air travel so passenger rail isn't part of the mix. In places where it is, however, many travelers find it to be a preferred option. There are a lot of trips I don't make because of the hassle factor, whereas I'd be much more likely to go if I didn't have to battle my way through HJIAA and spend a bunch of money for the privilege of being packed in like a sardine and handed a package of dry crackers.

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by munna21977

you are so much anti-rail. by the way do you think in USA even one passenger rail line makes sense to you??? you have to oppose rail no matter it makes sense or not.

In fairness, I don't see that in him. I think he just wants to get it right if we do get rail.

Can't say that about a couple others in this thread, however...

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I would note that Japan has been in the economic doldrums for quite some time. And we should be worried if California will beat us to HSR? So...what happens when they do?

I've heard estimates of $68 billion for the California train and that's for a scaled down LA-SF route. Georgia has been struggling to find the money to deepen Savannah's harbor and you want an Atlanta-Savannah HSR line? Seems like the only justification is to give Atlantans an alternative way to get to the beach.

But isn't that for the high-speed route? That would involve construction and right-of-way acquisition for the entire route. Yes, that will cost a lot. But the LA-SF route connects two major metro areas, not one, thus increasing its justification.

Like I said, what I'm thinking for the ATL-Savannah route is to use existing, regular tracks that run trains about 70-80 mph or so. That would be phenomenally cheaper than going high-speed. I agree that building a high-speed Atlanta-Savannah route, and no other route, would be a bad idea.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Mathman, I know you are just playing devil's advocate, but I wouldn't discount the importance of the "hassle factor" in travel.

In situations where market competition exists travel providers are highly aware that this influences travel choices. Air lines, for instance, compete ferociously with claims of a few inches of additional leg room, baggage charges, fares, on time landings and departures, friendlier service, etc. Those competing for auto travelers likewise fight for every point of market share.

In this part of the world, of course, we only subsidize auto and air travel so passenger rail isn't part of the mix. In places where it is, however, many travelers find it to be a preferred option. There are a lot of trips I don't make because of the hassle factor, whereas I'd be much more likely to go if I didn't have to battle my way through HJIAA and spend a bunch of money for the privilege of being packed in like a sardine and handed a package of dry crackers.

So we should spend billions and billions of dollars to create a HSR train to Savannah? I think we should address the issues as they are now rather than create another of questionable value. And even if granting your point, I don't think it's a good idea to add yet another mode of transport in need of subsidies. I don't see the pay back for this. It might be easier to convince the airlines to give a little more leg room and provide something better than dry crackers than to install an entirely new form of transport.

I would add that my flight to Houston had two bags of peanuts, a soft drink in a cup, and two bags of chips. On European trains, I got nothing, and the rule of thumb is, NEVER BUY ON THE TRAIN. They jack the prices way up.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

But isn't that for the high-speed route? That would involve construction and right-of-way acquisition for the entire route. Yes, that will cost a lot. But the LA-SF route connects two major metro areas, not one, thus increasing its justification.

Like I said, what I'm thinking for the ATL-Savannah route is to use existing, regular tracks that run trains about 70-80 mph or so. That would be phenomenally cheaper than going high-speed. I agree that building a high-speed Atlanta-Savannah route, and no other route, would be a bad idea.

If they want to revive the old Nancy Hanks line...fine...give it a shot. Maybe with the improved tracks it can shave time off the 6 hour trip. But if the ridership isn't there...let it go.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

So we should spend billions and billions of dollars to create a HSR train to Savannah?

Uh, no. Whose idea is that?

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

If they want to revive the old Nancy Hanks line...fine...give it a shot. Maybe with the improved tracks it can shave time off the 6 hour trip. But if the ridership isn't there...let it go.

This.

Ridership isn't there. No reason to invest in something that will lose money and not serve a high priority need.

If anything, try a commuter rail system that might serve a real need to the city. A "nice to have" luxury train to Savannah is ridiculous given the other areas of need in the state.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

If anything, try a commuter rail system that might serve a real need to the city. A "nice to have" luxury train to Savannah is ridiculous given the other areas of need in the state.

I personally wouldn't make any of these trains "luxury" class, just comfortable seating arrangements like you see on passenger rail elsewhere.

And as I've said before, Savannah may not be the prime route to start with. If I were reestablishing passenger rail I'd start with destinations in the 150 mile range. That would get you to places like Birmingham, Chattanooga, Athens, Knoxville, Huntsville, Greenville in under two hours.

If it turns out to be successful it wouldn't be a big deal to stretch your routes a little further and bring Charlotte, Nashville and Columbia into the system.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by arjay57

I personally wouldn't make any of these trains "luxury" class, just comfortable seating arrangements like you see on passenger rail elsewhere.

And as I've said before, Savannah may not be the prime route to start with. If I were reestablishing passenger rail I'd start with destinations in the 150 mile range. That would get you to places like Birmingham, Chattanooga, Athens, Knoxville, Huntsville, Greenville in under two hours.

If it turns out to be successful it wouldn't be a big deal to stretch your routes a little further and bring Charlotte, Nashville and Columbia into the system.

You misunderstood my point. A train to Savannah when there is not an overwhelming need or demand makes it a luxury in the sense that it is a "nice to have" and not a "need to have" for regional transportation.

[arjay57]

Okay.