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'm in the Northeast Corridor. I look at lightly used service like the Vermonter, Ethan Allen, and the DownEaster and wonder why it exists. What's needed is high-ish speed rail in the corridor. The infrastructure in Connecticut and on to NY Penn is horrible. Boston to NY Penn should be two hours so nobody would dream of driving or flying. NY Penn to DC is much better but even that needs a very big investment.
There are limited places in the United States with that kind of population density. California, obviously. Elsewhere, rail should be commuter rail, not long haul rail.
There are limited places in the United States with that kind of population density. California, obviously. Elsewhere, rail should be commuter rail, not long haul rail.
This is pretty much the standard issue take on intercity rail in this country.
Northeast and California, but it "doesn't make sense" elsewhere because of "density" or some such reason.
Of course, the Great Lakes region is more populous than both the northeast and California mega-regions, and was historically a global center of intercity rail. That always seems to get overlooked.
Nowadays when Chicago only has a handful of departures to the closest major metro, people just shrug and say, "yeah, that sounds about right."
This is pretty much the standard issue take on intercity rail in this country.
Northeast and California, but it "doesn't make sense" elsewhere because of "density" or some such reason.
Of course, the Great Lakes region is more populous than both the northeast and California mega-regions, and was historically a global center of intercity rail. That always seems to get overlooked.
Nowadays when Chicago only has a handful of departures to the closest major metro, people just shrug and say, "yeah, that sounds about right."
Its both sad and embarrassing.
Uhh, I don't think that's correct. The northeast is almost definitely more populous than the Great Lakes region, and even within that, there's overlap between the northeast and Great Lakes (Niagara/Buffalo/Erie are all Great Lakes).
Chicago does have major use of Amtrak (it's biggest, if not second biggest hub for Amtrak outside of DC), it's just not as connected to other major cities as the northeast corridor or west coast in general is. That said, I read somewhere a hyperloop between Chicago and New York is in the works.
There are limited places in the United States with that kind of population density. California, obviously. Elsewhere, rail should be commuter rail, not long haul rail.
...said no one who ever used or relied on long distance passenger rail. Amtrak should expand long distance service, not cut it back. The current system is designed to fail.
...said no one who ever used or relied on long distance passenger rail. Amtrak should expand long distance service, not cut it back. The current system is designed to fail.
I agree. I live in East Tennessee and the nearest place to catch Amtrak is Atlanta which is about 150 miles away. It is useless to me, even though two of the countries biggest interstates run through East Tennessee (40 and 75) we are not worthy of Amtrak. Even Nashville gets short changed. Most Americans are like me and have no access to it. As far as I am concerned it is useless. If we are to have a passenger rail system in this country it should be more comprehensive in its coverage area than it is. Tax payers subsidize it but it only serves the northeast and the urban west coast in any useful manner. Fix it or get rid of it.
The Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago is apparently on the hit list. Too bad, what a great train that I took as a kid a few times, and then again as an adult. But nostalgia won't solve Amtrak's problems. So I see both sides. However, taking away these long distance trains may leave many rural areas out in the cold.
It’s unfortunate.
We made our decision to go heavily with cars and interstates decades ago so that’s hurdle #1.
Vast expanses of land make it harder for us to become anything remotely like Japan.
Compared to that, our current system looks like a nostalgic steam train. It is shameful in a way.
I do support moving towards more mass transit as much as possible.
Roads are congested and in horrible shape in too many places. Drivers are distracted and apparently have better things to do behind the wheel other than....drive.
People don’t respect the most basic of driving laws like speed limits, turn signal use, proper lane changes, etc. Anything we can do to get people off the roads, I’m all for.
It’s unfortunate.
We made our decision to go heavily with cars and interstates decades ago so that’s hurdle #1.
Vast expanses of land make it harder for us to become anything remotely like Japan.
Compared to that, our current system looks like a nostalgic steam train. It is shameful in a way.
I do support moving towards more mass transit as much as possible.
Roads are congested and in horrible shape in too many places. Drivers are distracted and apparently have better things to do behind the wheel other than....drive.
People don’t respect the most basic of driving laws like speed limits, turn signal use, proper lane changes, etc. Anything we can do to get people off the roads, I’m all for.
I just wish I had an alternative to driving or flying. I hate flying....I can do it but I do t like it. I do enjoy a road trip every now and then but there should be an alternative. Most western nations have an adequate rail system. We do not. Germany has a good highway system/ car culture AND an adequate rail system. It is possible to have both. Many Americans would use trains for dull commutes or long trips if the trains services enough areas to be useful. They constantly say we don’t like trains but most of us DONT even have access to them.
The "problem" with most trains is they go from City Center to City Center. Most travelers don't start "in the city" or want to end "in the city".
Like most things in transit, we have the Last mile problem. You take the train, then you need to travel 1-2 hours "away" from the train station (at least) to get to where you really want to go. So you wind up renting a car. Car Rental (if they are available) in the city are more costly.
As most airport are outside the city some, Its just move convenient to fly and get a car (also on long distance it many hours shorter).
On Short Inter Urban trips, if you are going suburb to suburb location its often faster/easier/cheaper to drive.
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.
