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've never ridden Megabus, so don't know how the comfort factor compares to train travel. But, for me, it would be worth the extra $50 to not need a hotel room for that night, and to not have to waste a day on a bus.
Good point, I didn't realize the hours of travel. Train would be a much better option then.
I'm an America in the UK. Train is by far the most luxurious method of travel for regional transport. If I want to go to London from Glasgow, I hop on Virgin Trains, 4.5 hours 180 mph top speed. Dining car, etc.
If it drove it it would take over 8 hours.
I am flying to London tonight unfortunately...its 6pm, flight leaves at 9 I need to leave now to save myself the hell that is security and waiting.
There is nothing socialist or some conspiracy about rail...its a big reason I don't want go back to the U.S., this is unbelievably convenient
I'm an America in the UK. Train is by far the most luxurious method of travel for regional transport. If I want to go to London from Glasgow, I hop on Virgin Trains, 4.5 hours 180 mph top speed. Dining car, etc.
Yes, it's quite luxurious and convenient if you want to go where the train goes. Otherwise, it's quite inconvenient. For example, let's say you live in Kansas City and want to visit your aunt in Rapid City South Dakota. You take the train from KC to Chicago, then from Chicago to Minneapolis. Then rent a car and drive eight hours to Rapid City. That's probably 25 - 30 hours of travel. Meanwhile, a bus or car would have taken maybe 16 hours.
Yes, it's quite luxurious and convenient if you want to go where the train goes. Otherwise, it's quite inconvenient. For example, let's say you live in Kansas City and want to visit your aunt in Rapid City South Dakota. You take the train from KC to Chicago, then from Chicago to Minneapolis. Then rent a car and drive eight hours to Rapid City. That's probably 25 - 30 hours of travel. Meanwhile, a bus or car would have taken maybe 16 hours.
Yes, it's quite luxurious and convenient if you want to go where the train goes. Otherwise, it's quite inconvenient. For example, let's say you live in Kansas City and want to visit your aunt in Rapid City South Dakota. You take the train from KC to Chicago, then from Chicago to Minneapolis. Then rent a car and drive eight hours to Rapid City. That's probably 25 - 30 hours of travel. Meanwhile, a bus or car would have taken maybe 16 hours.
You do understand that passenger rail in fact is meant to provide efficient transportation on high-density, mid-distance corridors? Compare that same trip going from downtown Washington DC to Midtown Manhattan and let's see which mode of transportation is the fastest, most convenient, and efficient. The rails were there way before paved roads and automobiles, and since they still are, it makes sense to use them. And they provide obvious value as is. You just seem to want to not see the point.
FYI, if you do some research, you might find out the Northeast Corridor is a self-sustaining operation. What little public funds are used for infrastructure improvements on those tracks come from the states it runs in, since they, not Amtrak, own most of them. If Amtrak was to be shut down today, some other (likely public) entity would assume operations on that stretch tomorrow.
Rail is by far the cheapest way of moving people and goods around. High speed trains require roadbeds that are capable of handling high speeds.
We did Japan and German a cruel favor when we destroyed their heavy industries during WWII. Since they were left with so little, they had only incentives to rebuild using modern technologies as a part of their industrial renewal. Since we won, we simply kept all our older, more inefficient and wasteful technologies as they were for far too long, and then abandoned them once it seemed too expensive an undertaking to modernize them.
Oil as fuel has nearly lost all its economic advantages in a world that has billions of people who are now in nations that are becoming industrialized for the first time. They too demand a life style that is closer to ours than the way they formerly lived.
With more living people inhabiting the planet now than the number of all humanity who ever lived before us combined- more living than over 100,000 years of our species, oil ain't ever gonna be cheaper than it is right now. 10 years from now, our current prices will seem to be an impossible bargain. 20 years from now, the prices of 10 years in our present future will seem to be a bargain. That is, if the world is still relying on oil.
Most of the currently developed world already knows that fact, and is making moves to limit or slow the ever-growing need for oil as transportation fuel. The stuff is too precious to be squandered by moving cars along for another century.
A semi truck can move 20,000 pounds of freight. A train can easily move 4 times that, with less fuel needed than what a semi burns.
You do understand that passenger rail in fact is meant to provide efficient transportation on high-density, mid-distance corridors?
Exactly. Read my posts.
Quote:
Compare that same trip going from downtown Washington DC to Midtown Manhattan and let's see which mode of transportation is the fastest, most convenient, and efficient. The rails were there way before paved roads and automobiles, and since they still are, it makes sense to use them. And they provide obvious value as is. You just seem to want to not see the point.
No, you just haven't read my posts. I agree if you want to go from downtown Washington DC to Midtown Manhattan the best solution is rail. But millions and millions of people don't want to go from downtown DC to midtown NY. They want to go to and from millions of other places.
Quote:
FYI, if you do some research, you might find out the Northeast Corridor is a self-sustaining operation.
I'm quite aware of that. That's not what the debate is about.
This is true. It's also true that a semi truck can move freight to thousands of places that a train cannot get to.
Which make freight trucks better for local runs and short regional trips. Freight trains are best for long hauls and very large hauls. You can move a lot more cargo with one train than you can with one truck.
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.
