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.
Amtrak can be very good if they connect well to local metros. I have used Amtrak many times to get to an international airport. No taxi, no rental car, no airport parking.
From the commuter rail I connect to Amtrak which then takes me to the bus/tram that goes to the airport terminal.
One thing Amtrak should do is increase the number of their autotrains. Many people can't use Amtrak because they need a car when they get off the train.
Instead of putting money into 19th century transportation systems. Wait until we get self driving cars up to speed and have fleets of these vehicles available to take people wherever they want to go. Not saying I would want this to be done but we could probably give away 2 million electric self driving cars for the money Amtrak wants.
19th century transportation systems--you mean cars? Electric and gas cars were invented in the 1870s and 1880s.
Conversely:
Trains that were used in the 19th century (steam-powered locomotives) were phased out of regular use in the US more than 60 years ago.
High-speed trains were first developed in the 1960s-1970s.
Battery-powered trains are only coming into widespread use today.
Hydrogen-powered trains are only coming into use now, too.
A few things that can be done or invested in include:
- Continuing their success with not only the NE routes, but with similar big cities. More trains that are running routes like Charlotte-Atlanta, Chicago-MSP, Chicago-Indy, DC-Richmond, the bigger cities of Texas for instance.
- A reliable and workable Wi-Fi
- Connecting to local routes as Dr. Pibbs stated
- Building more track or having more places that Amtrak or freight can sit and wait at, so Amtrak doesn't have to wait 30 minutes for a small piece of freight to pass by and can instead only wait 5-10 minutes.
The Northeast Corridor is a disaster north of NY Penn. It takes almost 3 hours to get from NY Penn to Westerly RI. The track infrastructure in Westchester and all of Connecticut is pathetic. I had years of needing to be in Philly frequently from east of Providence. I flew. The train is so slow through Connecticut that I couldn’t possibly do a full work day. I also commuted weekly from Hartford to Philly for 3 months. It was a loooong ride with a big delay in New Haven while they swapped out the diesel locomotive for electric. With a saver fare, it was the cheapest and easiest way to get there. DC to NYC is great. The trains go 140 mph much of the way. NYC to Boston needs an enormous investment in infrastructure to get me to use it.
There isn’t enough city pair traffic between the cities you list to justify the investment. The left coast and Northeast Corridor are the only places with that kind of city pair traffic.
What the high cost of living places need is high speed commuter rail to increase the diameter of housing within commuting range and ease the housing crunch. The goal needs to be autonomous, electrified, and individually powered. That allows for high frequency express service from 60+ miles out where ride time is kept to 30 minutes or less.
The Northeast Corridor is a disaster north of NY Penn. It takes almost 3 hours to get from NY Penn to Westerly RI. The track infrastructure in Westchester and all of Connecticut is pathetic. I had years of needing to be in Philly frequently from east of Providence. I flew. The train is so slow through Connecticut that I couldn’t possibly do a full work day. I also commuted weekly from Hartford to Philly for 3 months. It was a loooong ride with a big delay in New Haven while they swapped out the diesel locomotive for electric. With a saver fare, it was the cheapest and easiest way to get there. DC to NYC is great. The trains go 140 mph much of the way. NYC to Boston needs an enormous investment in infrastructure to get me to use it.
There isn’t enough city pair traffic between the cities you list to justify the investment. The left coast and Northeast Corridor are the only places with that kind of city pair traffic.
What the high cost of living places need is high speed commuter rail to increase the diameter of housing within commuting range and ease the housing crunch. The goal needs to be autonomous, electrified, and individually powered. That allows for high frequency express service from 60+ miles out where ride time is kept to 30 minutes or less.
That's what I heard as well, they really need to upgrade the entire Northeast Corridor rail line. I read the Philly papers, and there was talk about a "pie in the sky" idea of drilling new tunnels under Philly for Amtrak's Acela Express, the cost was crazy high, just like the new Hudson River tunnel.
In a perfect world, an elevated HSR line, like the boondoggle in California they are constructing, is what's needed for the Northeast Corridor, redo the entire thing, and only stop in DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Providence and Boston.
There isn’t enough city pair traffic between the cities you list to justify the investment. The left coast and Northeast Corridor are the only places with that kind of city pair traffic.
Two of the country's five largest metropolitan areas, namely Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston, happen to be located in the same state. Two other major ones, San Antonio and Austin, are also in that very same state. I think a route from Dallas to San Antonio, which would include intermediate stops in Austin as well as smaller places like Waco and Temple, would be viable. Probably one from Dallas to Houston as well, though there isn't as much located in between those two places to contribute to additional ridership. Not as sure as Houston to San Antonio, where there's surprisingly little located between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjseliga
In a perfect world, an elevated HSR line, like the boondoggle in California they are constructing, is what's needed for the Northeast Corridor, redo the entire thing, and only stop in DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Providence and Boston.
What I would recommend is making this line include four tracks. Two of them could serve the express trains which would stop only at the cities you've listed. The other could handle those cities plus more local stops such as New Carrollton, Wilmington, Trenton, Newark, New Haven, New London, etc.
That's what I heard as well, they really need to upgrade the entire Northeast Corridor rail line. I read the Philly papers, and there was talk about a "pie in the sky" idea of drilling new tunnels under Philly for Amtrak's Acela Express, the cost was crazy high, just like the new Hudson River tunnel.
In a perfect world, an elevated HSR line, like the boondoggle in California they are constructing, is what's needed for the Northeast Corridor, redo the entire thing, and only stop in DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Providence and Boston.
You have to include Wilmington DE as a stop or how else will the prez ever get home?
"According to Amtrak estimates, there will be an annual economic impact of $87 million, with $2.9 billion needed from one-time capital investments for the service."
"Amtrak reported the reconnection is hoped to lessen traffic regionally, especially on Routes 80 and 380, as well as a "safer and more efficient way to commute to work in New York City." The route, Amtrak says, will provide train service to underserved areas, plus connect colleges and universities along the route with rail, including Penn State Scranton, Marywood University, East Stroudsburg University, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rutgers University-Newark, Columbia University, Fordham University, New York University and St. John's University."
Wow, the train connects to the universities is very ambitious. Don't see that happening. I guess they are proposing light rail for these connects. That's several more millions to make that reality.
Trains only make sense in the Northeast corridor and a few other corridors outside of that. And even then, without a direct connection to the large airports along train routes, with convenient connections, it will never replace short haul air travel. The only one where I've done the rail-airport transit is EWR and it's a pain in the ass. I once flew from the Middle East to NYC with a connection at Dulles Airport. Like I'm going to get off the plane, go through the airport, and go through the ordeal of making my way to Union Station to continue into NYC....no, I hopped on a CRJ to LaGuardia.
It makes sense if I'm traveling point to point e.g. New York to Philly, Seattle to Portland etc. But Any longer than that and it's less expensive and more efficient to fly. And Penn Station in NYC is disgusting....not sure if they have cleaned it up lately.
TBH I say since Amtrak hasn't been able to earn a profit in decades, pull the plug and let it fail. Or privatize it. Or spin off the losers and let the private sector have a go at it.
If they're going to invest in high speed rail, it should be at the same caliber as the TGV or Shinkansen, and be limited to Boston-NYC-Philly-DC, Dallas-Houston/Austin triangle, Chicago-St Louis(?), Vegas-LA-SF, and Portland-Seattle-Vancouver. Make sure the airports are part of that network. Forget everything else. I'm not sitting on a train for 12-14 hours cross country when I can fly that distance in 5.
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.
