Support US Rail! (military, companies, dollar, financial)

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Spade

Rail that is regional is fine. Rail that is national is not. I'd rather fly than take a train across the country and I love rail. That's only if I'm in a hurry. If I want to chill, I'll take the train across the country. But most in America will not.

Tell that to the 800+ folks who typically come through here on the Empire Builder every day! Yeah, it pales in comparison to air traffic, but it's enough to run a train.

[Stockholmaren]

I agree with some of the posters that national train system may not work as well in the US since it's much more sparesely populated than Europe and Japan. However, I believe it would work well along the East Coast. The current system is not reliable nor fast, but a train will be so much faster than driving. If you have a train going at 160 mph as most high-speed trains in Europe, that would be hard to beat with a car, especially with all the traffic involved.
For example, at that speed it would take less than 1.5 hours from Boston to NYC, something that usually takes about 4 hours to drive.

[boiseguy]

I think that american cities need to support light rail and commuter trains vs more freeways and sprawl... sprawl is costly, messy, and a nightmare for later generations

[Willys]

I'm all for it. A Dallas/Austin/San Antone/Houston corridor would be great. I'd be glad to take an overnite to LA or to DC. Houston to NOLA would do wonder to rebuild that city. I have been on the Amtrak Portland to Eugene in Oregon and was a excellent ride.

I've also been on trains in Europe, including a Thalys that derailed. Amtrak rides just as well even if not as fast. Planes have become nothing more than a 'Greyhound' without wheels.

[Marodi]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

Tell that to the 800+ folks who typically come through here on the Empire Builder every day! Yeah, it pales in comparison to air traffic, but it's enough to run a train.

And yet the government has to pay to keep amtrak running because of lack of profit. The only thing that's profitable are heavily populated regional lines. Anything that goes any distance isn't worth the time. I did a train ride. The train was 2 hours late, had numerous stops on the way, etc because they are secondary to freight trains. I'm a fan of trains (Model railroading and railfanning) but it sucked balls and I know why amtrak has the problems it does.

[Greatday]

Urban rail projects are fine - there is one planned between LA and Las Vegas

But, cross country rail, in the US, will not, IMHO, be viable.

[GregW]

Regional passenger trains (350 miles) are a great idea if you use separate tracks from the freights. Cross country not so much. For example the distance from San Francisco to NYC is about the same as from Paris to way east of Moscow. The USA is huge. I rode a motorcycle from San Francisco to NYC once and remember just how big this country is.

In addition to regional passenger rail I would set up regional freight distribution hubs for containerized cargo and try to eliminate the very wasteful and annoying interstate trucking industry. It takes a hundred trucks to carry the same amount of cargo from LA to St Louis as one freight train at a far higher cost in money, highway congestion and accidents. I guess the trucking industry has just as big a lobby as the airlines (guess which modes of transport use the most oil per ton mile?).

I also agree that taking an airplane from Boston the Albuquerque is an annoyance but cost so much less (government subsides in action) than driving and staying in motels that there is no real comparison.

[TriMT7]

There is no political or citizen will to implement high speed rail. Here in Florida the people voted for a highspeed monorail project that would connect the major metro areas with a couple of stops along the way. Governor Bush lobbied against it, and eventually people voted to take the plans off the table for good.

Meanwhile, our roads are clogging with more and more people, and it takes 7 hours from Miami to Tallahassee. People are too short-sighted to do anything as important as improving infrastructure and "planning for the future"! Too busy worrying about their property taxes and lobbying for less and less tax burden so they can buy a tacky designer bag.

In the end, we'll get what we deserve.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Stockholmaren

I agree with some of the posters that national train system may not work as well in the US since it's much more sparesely populated than Europe and Japan. However, I believe it would work well along the East Coast. The current system is not reliable nor fast, but a train will be so much faster than driving. If you have a train going at 160 mph as most high-speed trains in Europe, that would be hard to beat with a car, especially with all the traffic involved.
For example, at that speed it would take less than 1.5 hours from Boston to NYC, something that usually takes about 4 hours to drive.

Last year we had occasion to go to Kalamazoo, MI and decided to take Amtrak. We took the Empire Builder to Chicago, then the (can't rememebr the name) to Kalamazoo. We had great connections in Chicago, just enough time to enjoy a Chicago hot dog at Union Station between trains. Total trip St Paul to Kalamazoo was less than one hour more than driving. It was winter, and it was relaxing not to have to drive. The price was 30% of what it would've cost us to fly there. Rail really does make sense at the regional level. Long distance/cross country runs are very popular, but not for those for whom time is of the essence.

[stlsteved]

The thing is won't ever work in this country while we have closed minded dinosaurs running the show who would rather sink 300 billion dollars into another country's infrastructure that we broke in the first place instead of fixing up our own.

I have no hope for our future at this rate.