U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2021, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Queens, New York
312 posts, read 103,237 times
Reputation: 853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
Cities don't generally move around much.
And one can add new rail lines to popular routes, if rail systems are properly supported. It's not like we're unnable to build more, if the funding is added. Which is why Amtrak is asking for more funding.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2021, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Austin
30,781 posts, read 18,488,722 times
Reputation: 8901
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
Cities don't generally move around much.
Yes, but people do. And it would cost trillions of dollars and decades of time to service people all over this country.

Quote:
Why tear your hair out over money-losing trains, and not money-losing roads or money-losing airlines? Trains are a proven cost-effective, comfortable and clean transportation method that is worth investing in. They're successful all over the world.
Trains are only cost-effective when they service large concentrations of people and are heavily subsidized.

You can't compare the effectiveness of a train from Paris to Berlin which has been in place for 100 years with a train from Dallas to Valdosta where you have to spend billions on land and infrastructure. There are no new cost-effective trains.

If a train route has to start from scratch it will never be cost-effective. Ticket prices on a new route would be thousands of dollars if the train had to bear all of the costs.

Trains are a 20th-century solution. The future is small driverless busses that can go where people want to go and can adapt to population changes.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
11,638 posts, read 10,635,256 times
Reputation: 26161
I love taking Amtrak!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 04:39 PM
 
122 posts, read 87,367 times
Reputation: 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
"Amtrak Wants $75 Billion To Create More Money-Losing Routes"

Therein lies the problem. $75 billion is not nearly enough. If they got $750 billion or maybe a trillion dollars they wouldn't lose money every year.
Yep, not sure why everyone seems to think the interstate system is making money ?? Where did that come from lol... Anyway I think we should spend more on rail after visiting japan even the slow lines where great plus i would use High speed over a airplane any day lol
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 04:58 PM
 
3,754 posts, read 2,759,065 times
Reputation: 2999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Yes, but people do. And it would cost trillions of dollars and decades of time to service people all over this country.



Trains are only cost-effective when they service large concentrations of people and are heavily subsidized.

You can't compare the effectiveness of a train from Paris to Berlin which has been in place for 100 years with a train from Dallas to Valdosta where you have to spend billions on land and infrastructure. There are no new cost-effective trains.

If a train route has to start from scratch it will never be cost-effective. Ticket prices on a new route would be thousands of dollars if the train had to bear all of the costs.

Trains are a 20th-century solution. The future is small driverless busses that can go where people want to go and can adapt to population changes.
A HSR route from Chicago to St. Louis isn't much difference in distance or density than the TGV line from Paris to Lyon. The trope that we don't have the density to support regional rail as a country is not true.


The future of transit has to account for the need to reduce energy usage in the face of global climate change. Even electric buses aren't competitive.


Regarding population change, it has largely been rural to urban in America. If anything, population change is making trains a better solution than ever.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 05:45 PM
 
Location: Columbia, South Carolina
9,863 posts, read 5,925,510 times
Reputation: 11696
The government builds roads for cars on the taxpayer's dime and subsidizes the airline industry and no one bats an eye. Yet Amtrak wants more money and everyone goes bat cr*p crazy. SMH I thought 9/11 proved thiss country needed more ways to travel around the country. And we need to get on the high speed rail train, too. We don't have to build it all in the next 10, 20 years. We don't have to build it all in my lifetime. But we need to start somewhere.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Queens, New York
312 posts, read 103,237 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
The government builds roads for cars on the taxpayer's dime and subsidizes the airline industry and no one bats an eye. Yet Amtrak wants more money and everyone goes bat cr*p crazy. SMH I thought 9/11 proved thiss country needed more ways to travel around the country. And we need to get on the high speed rail train, too. We don't have to build it all in the next 10, 20 years. We don't have to build it all in my lifetime. But we need to start somewhere.
Agreed. Fast, reliable train travel is a good thing for the country.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 06:08 PM
 
106 posts, read 21,328 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by graceC View Post
I don't know about that. My experience with Amtrak was subpar (I've taken the regular and the Acela from DC to NY a few times). Aside from being able to bring your carry on/baggage without worry about weight and size limit, I can't think of other winning points for Amtrak. Even the Acela was shaky and noisy.

The same DC to NY route could've been had for $69 or so (before pandemic) via multiple airlines and you're there in around 1 hour. The cheapest fare for the same route would have been $49 per person one way via Northeast Corridor - and only if you booked it way, way, (as in 3 months minimum) in advance to get a decent schedule.

No thanks.
Nobody forces you to take the Acela, but Amtrak has a larger market share between NY/DC and I think NY/Boston than all airlines combined. That shows what other people think about it.

If I want to go to Washington, I trek to LaGuardia, fly, and then trek back into central DC. Or I just walk from my office to Penn Station, take the Acela, and then walk to anywhere in central DC. The timing is about the same, and on the Acela, I can get work done the whole time, unlike flying. And the seat pitch on the Acela is enormous; I like the 2x1 seating in first class on the Acela, with no neighbor if I'm in a single seat (unlike 2x2 in first class on a plane, and 3x3 in coach on a plane).

I'm Platinum on American Airlines but I take Amtrak in the Northeast; it's just more efficient.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 06:10 PM
 
106 posts, read 21,328 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
Yes, but people do. And it would cost trillions of dollars and decades of time to service people all over this country.



Trains are only cost-effective when they service large concentrations of people and are heavily subsidized.

You can't compare the effectiveness of a train from Paris to Berlin which has been in place for 100 years with a train from Dallas to Valdosta where you have to spend billions on land and infrastructure. There are no new cost-effective trains.

If a train route has to start from scratch it will never be cost-effective. Ticket prices on a new route would be thousands of dollars if the train had to bear all of the costs.

Trains are a 20th-century solution. The future is small driverless busses that can go where people want to go and can adapt to population changes.
You may wish to actually know something about the Paris-Berlin route.

Paris-Strasburg is largely new, built in the 1990s from scratch. And much of the rest of the route is also new, built in the 1990s, from scratch. Europe is still building brand-new high-speed lines, from scratch.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2021, 07:04 PM
 
86 posts, read 42,406 times
Reputation: 510
Before the pandemic my husband and I wanted to take a trip from Washington to Los Angeles. Amtrak was only $120 total for both of us and being the adventurous travelers we are we too a shot.

It was hands down the most amazing experience we've had. Not only did we get amazing views of the west coast (all hidden or off the highway path) we both got to relax instead of worrying about safe driving routes, paying for hotels, or getting cranky at the airport. Super easy and for a little more you get a private room and meals the while way.

Now we're hooked and have booked our San Francisco to Chicago trip. Will head out to the Midwest then shoot down south on our return trip. The scenery and ability to just lay back and relax is perfect and honestly you couldn't find a better way to explore the country.

Many Americans have this weird hatred for the rail systems the entire world seems to get behind. It doesn't mean you have to give up the cars or airplanes, each having their own problems as well. Personally I hate cars, never driven or owned one my whole life and talked my husband out of owning one. So far it's never stopped us from traveling or living where we want. But that's in part to having multiple options for travel like rail or multicity trail systems.

The biggest advantage will be the small towns hanging on by a thread inbetween these greater distance stops. They could absolutely benefit and in the future even regrow if we invest in the rails that can bring interest and tourism. Eventually these stops could provide affordable sizable housing to many people wanting out of large cities.

But of course first you have to bite the bullet and provide the funding to Amtrak and possibly allow more private rail systems in the future. But once you do you open up so many opportunities.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Travel

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top