Why Train Travel in the United States Makes No Sense

[MineralMan]

I travel from St. Paul, MN to the Los Angeles, CA area several times a year. My 94-year-old-parents live there, and that means that I never know when I'm going to need to go.

By air, flying the next day after I know I need to go, the trip costs an average of about $500, round-trip, if someone picks me up at LAX. The flight takes 3.5 hours. Add a couple of hours to that to get to the airport and get through security with plenty of time to spare, and I am in LA in less than six hours.

By contrast, I could take Amtrak from St. Paul to Los Angeles. There's a train leaving at 10 AM on most days. A round trip costs about $500, depending on the day of the week. But...and here's the kicker...the minimum time needed on that train is roughly 72 hours, each way. That means that each trip involved six days on the train.

How does that make any sense at all? Typically, when I go to see my parents, I spend four days there. My preferred flight to LAX arrives at about noon, so that's one of those days. The return flight leaves LAX at about 1 PM, which I also count as a day with my parents. So, I'm gone just four days.

If I went by train, the entire trip would take 10 days of my time, with six of those sitting on a train.

Who can do that? Not me. Worse, the train trip costs the same as the trip by air.

This country is too large for train travel between many major cities to make any sense at all. It might work on the East Coast, I suppose, or even within a state, but those are driveable distances, so i would just get in my car.

Is the answer high-speed rail? Not really. My St. Paul to Los Angeles trip would still take too long to make sense.

[True Dough]

1. So, for that reason, are you opposed to the "Green New Deal"?

You think AOC is endorsing a plan that's pie in the sky?

[MineralMan]

4. High Speed Rail is just one aspect of that.

While it might make some sense for short trips between cities in the same region, it makes no sense at all for longer trips. People will not take the train on such trips, regardless of its speed.

I do not conflate one element of any proposal with the entire proposal. Why would you think that?

[True Dough]

33. I didn't think that. I asked a question

and you answered it. It's the way most discussion forums work.

[Adrahil]

53. Well, if the plan is to seriously curtail air travel....

then that plan is going nowhere fast.

OTOH, seriously curtailing air travel would not be necessary with whole conversion to electric cars and the infrastructure to support them (including green electricity production)

[delisen]

90. I would definitely take a high speed train coast to coast and

to many cities in US.

[lkinwi]

104. Agree! I would take high speed rail in a minute.

I take Amtrak now, so high speed would be a dream.

[GWC58]

159. Well sure,

if I had the time and disposable income to do so. I have neither. 😳🥴

[MicaelS]

9. I worked for 17 years as a brakeman / conductor

On freight trains. Believe when I tell you MM is correct. The RRs do not want passenger trains on their tracks. They only take Amtrak because of the payments for trackage rights.

New track costs anywhere from one million to one billion a mile, depending on the location.

Local rail is great. High speed trains are ok only for distances under 400 miles. Cross country? Forget it.

[GoneOffShore]

153. Paris to Marseille - just under 500 miles - 3 hours with two stops

And the trains are packed most of the time. Average speed 167mph

London to Marseille with a change in Paris 775 miles - 5 hrs 47 mins. Would take less if there was no change in Lille. Average speed 129mph.

New York to Chicago - 790 miles. If there was high speed rail traveling at an average of 167mph - time 4 hrs 50 minutes with stops.

[Voltaire2]

157. I've done that trip several times.

It is a great way to travel.

[MicaelS]

170. So what?

You can quote European numbers all day long, and they have no relation to the US. The US is NOT Europe.

You did note my statement about the cost of new track? That is just to start with.

Then you have to take into account the all the endless environmental regulations, local opposition, NIMBY lawsuits, the use or misuse of Eminent Domain, and various other endless lawsuits.

Other of course if you just want to throw out, all the pertinent US and State Constitutions, laws, rules, and regulations, then we can have long distance high speed rail.

Of course then you would be just like Trump in pursuit of his wall.

[GoneOffShore]

182. Touchy - I was merely pointing out the that it's pratical for longer distances than you said.

In addition, new lines are under construction in Europe and China.

Everything you state just means that the US has neither the will nor desire to figure out a way to overcome the obstacles.

And throwing out the Constitution? Really?

[MicaelS]

191. How do you plan to deal with aquiring the land?

Are you going to eminent domain hundreds of miles of land needed for new dedicated rail?

How do you think that would play with people?

I am not engaging in hyperbole.

So how do you plan to aquire the land, deal with all the NIMBYs, environmental and State and local regulations?

If I were King, I would so "do it and screw the consequences". But I am not King.

[GoneOffShore]

199. The right of way exists. No need to declare eminent domain.

Again, there is not the will.

You're being silly.

[MicaelS]

200. What ROW?

Have you read what I wrote? You need DEDICATED rail lines. You cannot mix freight and high speed passenger on the same track.

In many locations buildings have been built right to the edge of the ROW.

I am a former RR professional, I know of what I speak.

[GoneOffShore]

204. It's been managed in Europe and China.

It could be managed in the US.

As said, no will to move forward and too many people with vested interests in NOT doing it.

[apnu]

189. This is a critique of ownership and operations, not engineering.

Rail in America is screwed up and mis-managed. American rail is living in the dark age compared to Europe and Asia. That's because those that own it and manage it have no motivation to improve it.

I also get that America is a big place and running a direct rail line between NYC and LA is ridiculous, but really its Rail ownership and management being obtuse is the problem here.

I personally think the path through this is to improve local rail and connect near by cities (Say Chicago and Milwaukee) Get more people using rail for those kinds of trips and eventually the public will adapt and then start looking at ways to connect regions together. It can happen, but one has to take a long view, almost generational to make it happen.

People in these discussions are always looking for a magic bullet that will fix all the things right now. We are such impatient people.

[MicaelS]

190. You cannot mix high-speed passenger trains...

With freight trains on the same track, UNLESS you are running multiple main lines (minimum 4) as in the Northeast corridor.

High speed passenger rail requires:

Heavier rail.
Different curve geometry.
Elimination of ALL crossings, which mean over/underpasses everywhere.

Do not get me wrong, I would love to see high-speed rail in places like the Texas Triangle, and other places, but it requires all new track, with all the problems that entail.

You are correct that RRs have no incentive to upgrade. They have abandoned thousands of miles of track, because it does not fit their current model of unit trains (no switching and 2 person crews). They ran off the small businesses and towns that they used to serve. Just like airlines have abandoned smaller cities. They do not want, nor will they accept passenger trains on their track without billions in subsidies.

[Hekate]

99. You got that out of MM's post?

[True Dough]

106. Allow me to repeat my response to him (slightly revised for pronoun use)

I asked him a question and he answered it. It's the way most discussion forums work.

[exboyfil]

2. Agree with you

Airline flight is amazingly economical. 30 years ago it was a goal to get a $200 round trip ticket between Iowa and Florida.

Today you still can get the $200 ticket. I also have the need to visit Florida a few times a year to visit my mom. Before her my grandma lived in Florida.

[MANative]

3. Regional train travel makes much more sense than cross country

I live/work in metro NYC but have family in Boston and Maryland. With airport security lines, tarmac delays, etc., it takes about the same amount of time to get to those destinations as it does to fly. Hop on the train at Penn Station or Stamford CT, much less hassle, cost is usually comparable (or less), and, PS, I HATE flying in general. Trains = win! Totally agree with your point about the longer distance trips.

[MineralMan]

7. Within the Central Atlantic Region,

train travel does make sense. But this is a much larger country than that single region. It's a mistake to think that high speed rail will be any kind of solution for longer distance travel. People will fly. Nobody has time to sit on a train for that long.

For the trips you mentioned, I'd get in my car, rather than hop on the train. If high speed rail were available, I might consider that for such a trip, but I generally prefer to go point to point by car. Nobody I know lives or works near the train station, really, so there's a need for transportation on each end of such a trip. In most places transit systems do not go where I want to go.

[MANative]

16. You're right that I often do hop in the car, especially to Boston

but there are times when the train works better. Family in Boston lives in close proximity to trains and T-stations, and Uber/Lyft has made it less necessary to have a car all the time. The overall point was in agreement with yours, that long-distance train travel isn't practical. Now, if you're talking about a leisure trip through the Rockies, or the Canadian rail system, it's a whole different chat. That's for fun and nostalgia, and I'm willing to pay in both time and money for those.

[Recursion]

113. And yet it's cheaper to fly from IAD or DCA to JFK than to take the train

That makes zero sense to me.

[crazycatlady]

15. i've always lived in the NYC metro area

And for places like Boston or DC, it is simply easier (and cheaper) for me to drive. Unless it is to make a connection, flying wouldn't cross my mind.

I have no problems with commuter trains like NJ Transit or MetroNorth. I use those all the time (as I'd rather vote for Trump than drive in NYC).

[MANative]

21. Metro-North every damn day

For all its faults, though, I emphatically agree with your last line! I've been working in NYC for 20 years (this week!) and I've only driven in ONE time. Vowed that I'd never do it again.

For me, driving versus taking the train is strictly a matter of what I'm going on that particular trip. Sometimes I just prefer to sit back and let somebody else worry about getting me somewhere.

[Ferrets are Cool]

161. This

[onlyadream]

162. Just wondering

I noticed amtrack from nyc to Baltimore must be booked months in advance or you pay through the nose. Whereas the Bolt bus is much less. Do you find this to be true?

[MANative]

164. I've never taken the Bolt bus, so I can't help on that

My trips are usually planned at least several weeks ahead, too, so I typically get a reasonable price. I go into the BWI station most of the time.

[hedda_foil]

5. The idea is to replace current railroads with high speed technology linking cities.

I doubt if anyone is suggesting taking the train from Minneapolis or Chicago or Boston to California. However, Chicago to St. Louis or San Francisco to LA are doable (given the obvious need for funding) and these kind of linkages would reduce pollution from airplanes considerably without adding substantially to passenger time. It would also add a shitload of well-paying jobs in a modern technology as well as hugely upgrading our awful national infrastructure.

[TeamPooka]

10. but but they want to compare their dream trip around the world and talk about how rail won't help

[MineralMan]

11. Perhaps. Assuming that there is enough traffic between two cities

and that the end point destination is near the terminus of the rail line, I can see that, maybe, if the schedules are compatible with the needs of the users.

But, here's the thing: LA to San Francisco is a 6 hour drive. Chicago to St. Louis drive time is just 4.5 hours or so. Many people being targeted by such HSR lines will choose to drive point-to-point instead. That way, any schedule can be met. Obviously, the target passenger is traveling on business, so schedules are as important as speed of travel. In addition, the end-point is likely nowhere near the train station, meaning that additional time and travel will be required.

In concept HSR looks useful. In practice, however, it may well not be attractive to business travelers for trips that take 6 hours or less by car.

[fwvinson]

65. Chicago to Miami

I think it would make sense from Chicago to Miami. Stops in between: Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Atlanta, Birmingham, Montgomery, Pensacola, Orlando and, hell, all of Florida's West Coast.
Down the East Coast for same reason. The stops would make sense...to me.

[MineralMan]

72. Yeah, maybe.

It would be interesting to see an estimate of demand for that route with those stops. I don't know. I have no idea, really.

[exboyfil]

128. Too long

The stops alone would take the flight time. Of course I fly out of a small airport and into a small airport. Cedar Rapids or Des Moines to Sanford. $200 to $300 roundtrip.

[violetpastille]

24. +1

https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-wake-up-to-the-devastating-impact-flying-has-on-the-environment-70953

If elderly people have elderly parents and live many states apart, train travel is not the way to go.

For people in Portland who have jobs in the Silicon Valley that they need only to be in person at meetings for once a week, why not have a high speed train? There is the need and the desire up and down the West Coast.

[BeyondGeography]

6. East of the Mississippi, different story

But, not to worry, between anti choo-choo Republicans and right-of-way issues from here to the sun and back, we'll be flying from NY to Cincinnati by way of Charlotte and the like for many decades to come.

[GeorgeGist]

8. So it's all about you?

PS I also can't find a $500 round trip tomorrow from MSP to LAX. The cheapest is $787

[MineralMan]

13. Depends on the day and the airline.

I fly Sun Country on that route. I have spent almost $800 RT on some emergency trips. Typically, though it is $500 or less. Again, it depends on the day. Often, I don't have to fly tomorrow. I can usually wait another day. There is also a red-eye flight, which always has seats. That's not my first choice, though.

[MineralMan]

19. It is always about the individual. It is individual people who travel.

My particular travel needs are all about me, yes. Who else would they be about.

But, I wonder who has time to spend 72 hours on a train, sitting in a coach seat? I don't know anyone like that. Do you?

Sadly, I'm still working for a living. I should be retired but George W. Bush stole my retirement funds. If I calculate the money I earned in those six days, the flight is very inexpensive, really.

But, yes, my travel is all about me.

[hlthe2b]

12. True, but if you were not in a hurry, doesn't that include three meals/day for each of those days?

Seriously, I'm asking.....?

[MineralMan]

14. I don't know. I haven't been on a train in years.

But, I'm always in more of a hurry than three days on a train in both directions. Who has six days free? Not me.

[hlthe2b]

31. sure but costwise, if 18 meals are included plus bed, that isn't such a bad price for a long trip

[MineralMan]

34. The price I quoted is for a coach seat on the train.

If you want a sleeping car, the price goes way up. I don't think meals are included in my price point, either. Meals are extra.

[Maru Kitteh]

45. No. Amtrak will sell you food. They do not give you food.

So technically you get more "free" food on the airplane.

[MineralMan]

55. Pretzels?

What I do is pick up a nice sandwich or bento box at the airport to eat on the plane. There used to be food on the plane. Those days are long gone, unless you're flying first class. That sandwich sounds pretty good, really, but I love bento boxes.

[Maru Kitteh]

59. Hence the "technically" lol. Pretzels

still being food and all, you still get more on the plane.

[MineralMan]

73. Sure. Pretzels are food.

You don't get any on the train, unless you're willing to pay. On a 72 hour train ride, that could add up quickly, I'd think.

[wryter2000]

85. Food is free if you have a sleeper

Of course, you wouldn't get a sleeper for a five hour trip or shorter.

One thing, though...you can bring alcohol on a train and consume it. Not on Amtrak busses, though.

[wryter2000]

84. The food is free for people with sleeper cars

And it's good

[wryter2000]

80. I did Oakland to Denver this past summer

Actually, Emeryville to Denver. It was sublime. Food included. Highly recommended.

[hlthe2b]

97. Sounds like a nice trip... I hope you don't mind my asking details....

I've never taken a train for any real distance...Just narrow gauge railway in scenic spots along the Rocky Mountains, really and some commuter travel in the NE.

Was your trip round-trip? Did you have a sleeper car? Was it a package "deal" based on two people? If yes, (and with meals included), about how much was the trip?

Again, feel free not to answer if that is too "nosey", but I have always been curious... And, since there is talk about Amtrak allowing pets to travel, it might be worth considering, given so many airlines now refuse to allow them to fly...

[wryter2000]

102. I did it one way

Too inefficient to go both ways. The trip took 33 hours.

I had a"roomette," which was basically enclosed bunk beds. You'd have to be really good friends to share it. I paid for it with Amtrak miles on a credit card, so I can't really tell you about the cost. My impression is that it's more expensive than flying. The folks at Amtrak could give you the details.

It was definitely one of those things where the journey was the point (although I did have business in Denver.) Between Sacramento and Denver, you go over the Sierra then through amazing country to the Rockies. Then you come out to a view of the Great Plains with Denver in the distance like the Emerald City.

I understand its the most beautiful route on Amtrak. If you're thinking about a vacation in SF, you might consider taking the train to Denver on the way home.

[tinrobot]

17. Train travel can be great for trips less than a few hundred miles.

I agree that Minnesota to California is not a route we need, but there are plenty of places where regional rail would be a benefit. The Northeast corridor, routes between big cities in Florida, Texas, and California are some examples.

With shorter routes, you skip things like TSA and airport parking, so the travel time is similar to air.

Unlike planes, trains can also have multiple stops, so people in the middle would have much-needed transportation. LA to SF is easy, but LA to Fresno and Bakersfield to SF is currently difficult. Rail would connect the in-between cities and help them become a bigger part of the economy.

Rail is also much better from an environmental standpoint - high speed trains run on electricity, not jet fuel.

[ewagner]

83. I think the highest and best use of trains/high speed rail

is to mitigate the effects of urban sprawl and the congestion around major population centers.

Suburbs and white flight have created a need for building and maintaining expensive and elaborate highways/interstates to accomodate them....

The cost of high speed rail (and maintenance) has to be less than the cost of the highways and the difficult to estimate cost of congestion and CO2 emissions. If it isn't then I don't think it's practical

[radius777]

151. Agree, HSR would benefit metro areas

greatly by reducing traffic, commute, pollution, etc.

People have mentioned "just driving in" for short distances - these people likely don't live in metro(cities and surrounding 'burbs) areas, where driving has become increasingly impossible, even during off peak hours, even out in the suburbs, etc.

[flotsam]

18. So explain to me why ocean liners exist? N/T

[MineralMan]

20. Well, only a few exist, really. Most travel by ship is on cruise lines.

For them, the destination isn't the important thing. Cruise ships are their own destination, really.

Some people enjoy being on a ship. It's far more costly, though, than getting on a plane to get to a destination.

[Rorey]

47. Speaking of cruises

I have never been tempted, but someone I know books for a high end cruise line and has offered me a killer deal (the friends and family rate) and I'm thinking about it. I just don't know. I don't party and I don't enjoy crowds and I don't know if I could handle being on the ocean for a week. So I probably won't take advantage of her offer.

[MineralMan]

52. I've never been tempted by a cruise, really.

I hear the food is great. But, I'm not sure the rest of it would be that enjoyable for me. Frankly, I'd rather fly to a destination and explore a place than be on a ship. I've never been to any destination where I didn't have a great time exploring what was there, often discovering surprises I didn't anticipate.

A ship is too limited in what it offers for me, really.

[Rorey]

60. Additionally

Someone I know had an opportunity to live in one of the destination cities. She loved it, except for when the cruises docked. She said that the mood of the entire place changed for the period of time that the tourists were there. I realized that I wouldn't get the true experience of going to a wonderful place if I was part of some sort of tour group. I think it would be truly awesome to be able to go live somewhere for a few months and experience the real culture and people.

My dream is to buy a mini RV, like a Sprinter, and just crawl around the continent. It probably won't happen, but it's nice to dream.

[DFW]

146. My wife and I have been on exactly one cruise.

The food was OK, but the trip was fabulous, and I mean anything BUT the ship itself. It was from the inside passage from Vancouver up to Anchorage, and we got off each day after breakfast and explored a new destination in Alaska every day. Hikes, seaplane trips to small bays where bears were plucking salmon out of the stream right in front of us, walks right up to glaciers, loved every day. We were usually so exhausted when we returned to the ship in the evening, it could as well have been a rowboat for all we would have noticed.

[exboyfil]

129. My daughter went on a cruise

With her husband and in laws. She hasn't said much, but my impression is she enjoyed the four days at Universal Studios with her sister more (at least doing things). She grew up with me taking them to museums, zoos, amusement parks, etc. Her husband just likes to relax. Neither my wife nor I have any interest in cruises. We stay at inexpensive motels and go places.

[Rorey]

138. Inexpensive accommodations

I see no reason to spend any more than necessary for a place to sleep and shower. All that matters to me is that it's clean, comfortable and safe. I can live without the extras, and most people don't take advantage of everything they're paying for anyway.

That's why I really like the idea of a little RV, like a conversion van-type thing. I'd like to get something that is as fuel efficient as possible. A few years ago I told my husband that we might think about traveling in an RV. He immediately started searching for a BIG one. I told him I had no interest in driving an entire house around the country. Well, he just bought his big RV a few weeks ago. Sadly for him, he'll probably be the only one in it. (We're in the midst of a divorce.)

[flotsam]

50. So you're saying

that sometimes experiencing the trip itself has value? Hmmm, maybe that has something to do with trains?

[MineralMan]

54. Sure. For people who enjoy that, it's great.

I'm not really such a person. But, that's not what HSR is about, really.

[hack89]

96. There is only one ocean liner in regular service - the Queen Mary 2

that is it.

[flotsam]

107. Depends on how you parse the term

Royal Caribbean's Symphony of the Seas is actually 50 feet longer. As is Harmony of the Seas, Allure of the Seas, and Oasis of the Seas. The QM2 is actually just about tied with the MSC Meraviglia for world's 5th largest. If you're thinking "Liverpool to NYC" is what ocean liner means the port of Miami would dispute you.

[BannonsLiver]

111. They're not provinding A to B transportation

The QM2’s primary role is transatlantics between NYC and Southampton. This is close to the role ocean liners played many years ago.

A round trip from Fort Lauderdale on a Royal Carribean ship to a few islands and then back to FL is not the same thing.

Additionally the QM2’s design is slightly different in that its bow is more built up than a typical cruise ship. This is because it was designed to cross the Atlantic, not the relatively placid waters of the Caribbean.

[hack89]

112. Has nothing to do with size

ocean liners are stronger and faster than cruise ships. They are designed for point to point service that involves transoceanic travel at high speed.

All those other ships are cruise ships - relatively lightly built and slower.

[flotsam]

122. Well there's this:

How fast is the fastest cruise ship in the world?
The Cunard's Transatlantic liner rms Queen Mary 2 weights almost 151,500 tons, with top cruise speed of over 29 knots

The world's second fastest cruise ship is MS Voyager currently sailing under the name Costa Voyager. Costa Voyager cruise ship service speed is 28 kn. But there's a trick - this ship weights "merely" 24,400 tons.

The Royal Caribbean's Allure and Oasis (almost 225,300 tons each) sail with an average speed of 20 knots (23 mph / 37 kph) and can go with a "top speed" of 22,5 kn

Horsepower gives QM2 a slight edge at 90,100 compared to Oasis at 81,000


Yet you still insist that the smaller and much lighter QM2 is the "liner" and the others just "cruise boats"?

[hack89]

130. And there is this

By 2015, the only ship still in service as an ocean liner is the RMS Queen Mary 2 after RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 was retired in 2008

By the first decade of the 21st century, only a few former ocean liners were still in existence, some like SS Norway, were sailing as cruise ships while others, like Queen Mary, were preserved as museums, or laid up at pier side like SS United States. After the retirement of Queen Elizabeth 2 in 2008, the only ocean liner in service was Queen Mary 2, built in 2003–04, used for both point-to-point line voyages and for cruises.

Ocean liners are usually strongly built with a high freeboard to withstand rough seas and adverse conditions encountered in the open ocean. Additionally, they are often designed with thicker hull plating than is found on cruise ships, and have large capacities for fuel, food and other consumables on long voyages.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_liner

[gratuitous]

22. A high speed rail line from St. Paul to Milwaukee, though?

It would cover that distance in an hour and a half.

I don't know anyone who's stumping for high speed rail to supplant air travel for several thousand mile trips. But Seattle to Portland? Portland to San Francisco? San Francisco to Los Angeles? Los Angeles to San Diego, Las Vegas, or Phoenix. All of those stages on high speed rail would be faster than the flight time, plus the two hours before and one hour afterward required to "guarantee" passenger safety.

Building dedicated high speed rail stages wouldn't impact the railroads who prefer to haul freight. A system of interconnected rail stages to supplement the established air corridors could be profitable, more efficient, and less impactful on the environment.

[MineralMan]

25. That's a 5 hour drive, max.

There is some business travel between those two cities, but perhaps not enough to support that HSR line.

Seattle to Portland is just a three hour drive.
Portland to San Francisco is a lot longer, though - over 10 hours.
Los Angeles to San Diego? - 2.5 hours

Drivers leave when they want and arrive when they want. That's why people choose to drive.

[gratuitous]

35. Have you driven Portland to Seattle?

That takes three hours of drive time in a world that doesn't presently exist. I-5 between Portland and Olympia is tolerable, but north of that and you're in a slow rolling parking lot. High speed rail could do it in an hour. Locate the stations in a central city area, and buses and light rail can take you anywhere in the city in another hour.

Run three or four trains a day in each direction (with plenty of time each day to schedule more once the idea proves itself), and the jets currently flying between those cities would be deserted. I could walk out my front door in Portland at 11 a.m. and make the Mariners 1 p.m. game with time to spare taking nothing but public transportation ($5 on Tri-Met for a day ticket) and high speed rail. No hassles with parking. No worries about a traffic jam on I-5. No arriving two hours early to be sure you get through TSA.

I'd put that in the "Yes, please" column.

[MineralMan]

38. Not for many years.

[Garrett78]

86. Unless you leave before the sun comes up, as my wife and I did when we lived north of Seattle.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Chicago To StL

The rain from Chicago stops in Joliet. From there on I-55 it's probably only 4 hours
I live well south of Chicago so it always made sense for me to drive to customers there.
But, they put in new high speed there that goes Springfield to StL at around 135 mph, and most of the path from around Pontiac to Springfield it averages around 90.
I can see someone in Chicago doing rail. It would only take 3.5-4 hours to get all the way there.

[MineralMan]

49. My wife and I took the train from Chicago to Bloomington-Normal

a few years ago. It was a nice trip, actually. I enjoyed it. That was the last time I was on a train, though, except for the light rail here in the Twin Cities.

On other trips, we've rented a car at O'Hare and driven to Bloomington-Normal and back. I enjoyed those trips more, frankly. We've also flown between those two cities. I'd just as soon drive, really. In fact, one of our driving trips happened because that leg of our flight was canceled.

[ProfessorGAC]

94. On That Drive, You Drove Just Passed Our Town!

On the train, you went right through the middle of it!!!

[MineralMan]

168. I thought it was interesting what parts of towns the train

went through, mostly. Typically, you get to see the back side of a city and its industrial areas. That makes sense, of course, given the reasons trains visited most places.

When my wife and I bought our home in St. Paul, MN, the realtor neglected to tell us that there was a four-track section of railroad two blocks away. Fortunately, only about four trains a day use that route, but I was quite surprised the first time I heard a freight train go by. I'm used to it now, of course.

[ProfessorGAC]

175. We're A Small Town

About 6000 people, perhaps 8k in the township
The tracks are about the half way point north to south and the river splits in in half E/W.
I'm a good 9 blocks from the tracks, but when I'm walking puppy at 5 am the freight goes through blasting the horn!
Pretty glad I don't live on Railroad Street!

[MineralMan]

177. They finally banned the train from using its horn

at the grade crossing near my home. That quieted things down some. I'm just glad we didn't buy our house on the street that is next to the tracks. There is a couple of miles of track that goes right behind the houses. I'm sure you could get used to it, but it's way loud there. We walk our dogs on that street sometimes about the time one of the four daily freight trains go past. They hate when that happens.

Fortunately, most of the freight is dry stuff on that route, which lets me breathe a sigh of relief.

[KitSileya]

194. I have friends in small rail towns in Oregon

and I cannot fathom the logic behind the American railway system at all. Having to toot the horn as you go through towns is insane - especially as many trains travel at night. And the lines going right through the town, with no fencing the tracks in, so everyone has access to the tracks everywhere? And passenger trains being second class to freight trains? It just boggles the mind for someone who lives in Europe.

They should lay down a high speed rail from San Diego to Seattle, stopping in LA, SF, and Portland. Most of the route is flat as a pancake if you use the Willamette Valley, and there should be enough space.

[MineralMan]

195. Here in St. Paul, MN, the RR right-of-way is a highway for

wild animals. Everything from turkeys, raccoons, and deer to coyotes and black bears use it. The people in my neighborhood who live next to the tracks see them all pass through and visit their yards. The tracks go right through the city and down near the Mississippi River. There's unrestricted access to the right-of-way at many places in town, and people walk there, too, as a shortcut through the city.

It's really interesting. The tracks that pass near my place are Southern Pacific tracks, and those are the only trains that use it. It is a secondary route to Chicago that spends a lot of time meandering through Wisconsin on its way.

I keep a Southern Pacific phone number handy for times when the crossing arms at a nearby crossing get stuck down, which happens pretty often. They send a repair crew right out. I got the number from a guy working on the signal one time when it was out of order. He said to call anytime and someone would get right over there to fix it.

The four-track section is there to serve the old 3M facility in St. Paul. There are warehouses and sidings there, and 3M still does its rail shipments from that facility.

[tritsofme]

148. Not sure if you have travelled there over many years

But isn’t it incredible how they have fixed up downtown Normal? Let alone the ISU campus! Almost unrecognizable over the course of a decade.

[MineralMan]

167. I haven't been to Normal for quite a long time. My wife's

parents lived there, but moved to the Twin Cities in 2003. We also moved here in 2004. Haven't been to Normal since they moved.

[tritsofme]

188. I hadn't been there since around the same time until this past year.

Driving back from St. Louis we decided to make a quick stop.

Bloomington is largely the same, but the transformation at Normal and Illinois State was really incredible. You’ll have to check it out if you’re ever passing through.

Always loved that area...evenly divided between Cubs and Cards fans!

[brooklynite]

23. Rail service doesn't mean from every city to every other city.

The east coast is dense enough to be practical for high speed rail. Current HSR trains in China operate at up to 236 MPH. That would allow you to serve the NYC-Chicago market in about 4 hours.

[MineralMan]

27. OK. My question is whether there is enough traffic

between two points to make such HSR routes practical. I'm not sure. And some of that traffic will continue to fly, for many reasons. NYC to Chicago is a good example. While some might ride on an HSR on that route, many business travelers will choose to fly, due to scheduling.

It's very complicated, really. Each route will need to be carefully analyzed.

[brooklynite]

40. COnsider that a flight NYC-CHI is about 2 hours...

Now add 1 hour of airport processing and waiting time and 45 min-1 hour for airport access to the CBD and it's pretty much a wash.

[Thew]

117. Stopping at every town is my issue as well

I'd love to use rail to visit family in LA from Portland - but it's 26+ hours; when I can drive it in a third of that (I haven't flown in years, but would assume it's a fraction). I'd love high-speed that would travel between larger cities and then shorter routes to smaller cities and towns. I'd make great use of an express that went from San Diego to Seattle, only stopping at the major cities.

Portland to Seattle is a great ride and can be faster than driving

[LongtimeAZDem]

26. That's fine until Peak Oil actually hits

After that, air travel will quickly become cost prohibitive, as will a lot of long distance auto trips.

Efficient high speed rail, with short-range electric or hydrogen rentals at destinations, will be the only alternative to the isolation of population centers.

You and I won't see it, but it's what my daughter's kids will face.

[mobeau69]

28. Correct, if speed to arrive is the only concern.

But for many the journey is the reward, to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labor.

There's nothing like rail travel to see the backyard of America.

[MineralMan]

29. Leisure travel, I think, is not the goal for HSR, frankly.

[mobeau69]

43. To many, like me, it would be a welcome benefit none-the-less.

I don't think it's an either-or question.

[flotsam]

56. Canada would disagree

Make sure you check out the destinations tab and "Adventure Routes".

https://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific

[MineralMan]

57. Wouldn't work for me. Destinations are my thing, not the journey.

I do like a nice long road trip, of course, but I also like stopping here and there along the way, often to see something I didn't know existed before I was on the road.

Sitting in a train doesn't get it for me at all, though. I've done that. Didn't enjoy it.

[flotsam]

62. Oh

Well if it's not your thing I guess we might as well banish passenger rail...

[MineralMan]

63. I didn't suggest that in any way.

I suggested that High Speed Rail is not going to replace other forms of travel. Anyhow, I described my own reasons to travel these days.

You're more than welcome to right the train if you like doing that.

[brooklynite]

48. I would dispute "many"

In my opinion, 90-95% of travelers are traveling to get somewhere and will choose either the fastest or most economical.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

141. Two stories here. Actually, three.

The first is that in 1983 I took The City of New Orleans from Chicago to McComb, MS to visit my sister who was living then in Hattiesburg. My son was five months old, and it was a wonderful adventure. I booked a roomette, and while I no longer remember many details, I do recall that at some point I was joined by two or three young men, perhaps 5 or 7 years old, who proudly told me their father was an employee of the railroad. Maybe a Pullman Porter, I honestly don't recall. What I do recall is how embarrassed their mother was at their forwardness, and how I tried to reassure her that all was okay. Sometimes I think about those kids, and wonder where they are now.

The other story is this: I used to work as a ticket agent at National Airport in Washington DC. One day, sometime in the mid 1970s, I checked in a young man -- to be honest he was a bit grubby, something of a hippie -- who was traveling to (I think) Providence and he has THREE GUITARS with him. The caps are deliberate. I was a bit horrified at the number of instruments he had. So I wrote up the excess baggage charges, made him pay me, and oh, by the way, he still had to carry his guitars to the gate to be checked there because I was not about to send them down our baggage chutes at the counter because, trust me, those chutes often destroyed much sturdier luggage than a guitar case.

When the kid walked away (and he really seemed like a kid to me) another agent came over to me and said, "Let me see that excess baggage thing." The kid had paid with a credit card, and so his name was there on the receipt. Arlo Guthrie. I had totally not recognized him, and if I had, I would not have charged him the excess baggage rate, I promise.

Third story. Somewhat in my defense, another time I had a young couple traveling to Philadelphia, and they had an obscene amount of luggage. I was writing up the excess luggage thing when they mentioned they were in the Peace Corps and were on their way to some third world country where they needed to bring along a whole lot of stuff. I immediately voided the excess baggage charge, explained to them that my best friend and co-worker was a former Peace Corps Volunteer, which is why I wasn't going to charge them. And told them to please tell the next airline agent that they were in the Peace Corps and to hope for the best.

So I wasn't always a complete jerk.

[MLAA]

30. High speed where it makes sense, I don't recall proposals saying it was all or nothing 😉

[JustAnotherGen]

32. High speed rail would work

In the I-95 Corridor. I don't doubt that LA, DC Metro, Atlanta, Houston have their traffic issues -

But if we could connect Boston to Philly to NYC to DC . . .


Our airports could breath, our commutes would be better.


Today - twice a week - I drive 10 miles to a train station, take a 45 minute train ride, connect at Newark over to Secaucus, and take a bus to work.

It's 30/40 minutes longer than driving. However - it lowers my carbon footprint and gives relief to I-78 and I-95. The five miles each way I am on I-95 each day - the plates are NJ, NY, VA, Mass, CT, PA.

What we are doing now - isn't working.

[WeekiWater]

36. I think in some areas high-speed rail could be a viable option.

While I would be all for tax incentives it would primarily a state issue.

I have seen some promising figures for a high speed rail from Orlando to Miami to Tampa.

In most places it would make little sense.

[Croney]

37. Amtrak from Boston to NYC or DC is fast, cheap, and comfortable.

And not having to drive in NY = priceless.

However, we and the dog are leaving Saturday on a 10-day road trip, driving from Boston to Ft. Myers, FL with a stop in Myrtle Beach. In February.

So... Do as I say, not as I do. 🙂

[MineralMan]

74. Sounds like a good road trip...especially in February!

[MH1]

132. Acela is great (Philly to Boston)

I absolutely would not fly if I can take Acela.

[smirkymonkey]

205. Amtrak in the northeast corridor is great!

Especially Acela. I have taken the train from Boston to NYC and even as far as Baltimore/DC and I love it. I hate flying and the train is so much more pleasant. More room, free wi-fi, you can plug in your computer and your cell phone, there is a cafe car and a larger BR than a plane. Also, you go right from city center to city center so you don't have to commute to and from an airport (except for a short Uber or taxi ride).

I also take the Amtrak Downeaster up to Maine to visit my sister which is very convenient as well. I am a huge fan.

One of the things I loved about Europe was being able to travel by train everywhere. You get to see the countryside and it's so relaxing.

[Croney]

206. Yes! All this, plus you feel like you're living history as the sights go whizzing by.

https://m.

[smirkymonkey]

207. :)

[Bigredhunk]

39. -

I'd imagine it would be very popular around here (Eastern IA). If you were able to take a high-speed train from Dubuque or Davenport to Chicago, I think there would be demand (Cubs games, shopping).

[DanTex]

42. From MN to CA, with current infrastructure, of course it doesn't make sense.

If we had a high-speed rail network, and the trip was between, say, LA and SF, or Dallas and Houston, or New York and Boston, or Chicago and St Louis, etc., then it makes a lot of sense.

Actual state of the art high-speed trains (as opposed to Acela, which is a joke) would travel at speeds of 200+. 200mph would make even New York to Chicago (a little under 800 miles) feasible by rail. Given the choice between say a 5 hour train ride city center to city center, versus an hour and a half flight plus getting to and form airports and going through security, a lot of people would be inclined to chose the former.

The 2000 or so miles from St Paul to LA will probably always be a flight, but that's not exactly one of the most heavily traveled routes in the country.

[MineralMan]

75. Lots of flights making that trip every day.

BTW, the rail trip includes a stop in Portland, OR. Kind of out of the way, really. There's no direct route, between Minnesota and LA. You go to Portland, and then from there to Los Angeles.

I'll fly.

[DanTex]

91. I'm sure there are, but like I said, it's not a heavily traveled route, comparatively speaking.

Your argument is tantamount to claiming that "train travel in Europe doesn't work" because travelling from Lisbon to Berlin is much more convenient by air.

And it is much more convenient by air.

And yet, train travel in Europe is great, and train travel in the US could likewise be great if we had the infrastructure for it.

[DFW]

150. The Europeans figured it out long ago.

Maybe the high taxes on fuel encouraged it, but common sense did, too.

Trips that used to take 5 hours 30 years ago (Düsseldorf-Stuttgart, e.g.) now take 2½ hours, and Stuttgart's airport is way the hell out of town. I haven't flown that route in decades. Same for Düsseldorf to Paris. I only fly that route these days to connect with flights to Russia, the Black Sea or North America. Where the Düsseldorf airport is close to me, the main airports in Paris are at least an hour from most anywhere in town. I can get a train from Düsseldorf to Paris now and be in the city center in less than 4 hours. No security check, no delayed (or lost!) baggage. Berlin's regional airport is within the city limits, but so far north, that getting anywhere else in the city makes it more convenient for us to take the train to get there. We usually stay at Potsdamer Platz, and when we get off at Berlin Hbf, there is a frequent commuter train that takes us practically to the hotel door in 2 minutes flat.

Train travel makes LOTS of sense in North America for lots of routes--IF the tracks are built, the maintenance is kept up, and the trains are modern. NY airports are not convenient to downtown. Chicago's O'Hare is way the hell outside of town. So is LAX, although I realize L.A. has plenty of regional airports you can fly into from some places, of which Dallas is one.

If the East Coast would modernize its tracks, DC to NYC could be a 2 hour trip, as could NYC to Boston. DC down to Richmond and on to Charlotte would be a lot quicker, too. I don't think I have flown between DC and NYC in 25 years. Even the 3 hour trip is preferable to using the NY airports. In 2008, I was in a train from NYC down to Washington, and heard a voice behind me that sounded just like Bill Clinton. The reason, it turned out, was because it WAS Bill Clinton (yes, he did recognize me!). Even he knows the fastest way to get into town.

Sure, flying makes sense if you are on a schedule, and the train would take a day or more in each direction. Same for Europe. I have appointments in Spain next Tuesday, and I will fly down there in the morning and be back home by 11 PM. Otherwise, it takes 18 hours each way (at least) to get to Barcelona by train, and that's assuming you can schedule in the Talgo from Geneva, and that is time I don't have. But for medium hauls? Hi-speed trains are THE way to go. Just build less bombers and border walls, and we could even afford it.

[theboss]

108. The only problem with the Dallas-Houston trip is that once I get to Dallas, I still need a car

For business travel, this is not a huge deal but for personal travel, I'm not sure the 2 hours or so I save makes relying on Uber worthwhile.

It's pretty far down on the list, but I've never understand why anyone who want to travel to LA without a car? Though Uber does change things some.

[DFW]

147. After the traffic during my last trip to L.A.

I don't know why anyone would want to travel there WITH a car. A helicopter, maybe?

[JustAnotherGen]

137. When I used to travel to dc a lot

For work?

So much easier training it from Newark to DC.

The flight and security and wait and everything - just wasn't worth flying.

[Kaleva]

165. Non stop train service from Chicago to NY would never happen

So a high speed train would not make the trip at an average speed of 200+mph. It'd be much lower then that.

[DanTex]

178. Beijing - Shanghai is a comparable distance, and currently is 4.5 hours by train.

That train makes two intermediate stops, I believe. There is a 6 hour train that makes more stops. I would imagine that a NYC-Chicago line would have similar kinds of service -- an express with just a few stops, and a slower train that makes more stops.

I'm not sure I agree that non-stop NYC-Chicago would never happen. That would depend on demand, but if there is enough, I don't see why there couldn't be maybe one or two non-stops per day that maybe shave half an hour off the travel time. If the railways and the trains are already built, it's just a matter of scheduling. I can see an early morning and early evening afternoon non-stop filling up with business passengers (maybe just one stop in Pittsburgh or Cleveland say). A New Yorker like myself could have a full afternoon of meetings in Chicago, and get home comfortably for bed, travelling downtown to downtown without dealing with any airports.

At 4.5 hours, the trip is easily competitive with flying, and is probably faster downtown-to-downtown, since a flight is 2.5 hours gate-to-gate. Even at 6 hours, I can imagine plenty of people opting for train instead.

[brush]

44. Yep, and high-speed rail would lessen the time but not the price.

It would still be a good idea though for faster rail travel on the well established east coast rail routes—Boston to NY to Phil to Del, Baltimore, DC.

[backscatter712]

46. It's because we're not investing in the infrastructure.

Amtrak barely works at all.

Routes are few and far between when compared to European or other first-world train systems, the trains have to share the tracks with freight rail, there are frequent delays, there's almost no high-speed rail at all. And yep, because there's no investment, that makes what is available more expensive.

If the federal and state governments actually invested in nation-wide high-speed passenger rail, it could make individual tickets dirt cheap, and it would be a hell of a lot more environmentally friendly than wasting countless millions of gallons of fuel on airline flights.

[MineralMan]

78. Well, that's part of the problem.

The initial investment is going to be daunting, to say the least.

You're right, of course. HSR requires dedicated routes. As you point out, AMTRAK rides on freight lines. It's no fun getting shunted to a siding for a couple of hours while you wait for a freight train to show up and go by.

Coming up with funding for a real HSR network in this country is probably a non-starter, really. There was a route planned between the Twin Cities and Chicago, but the cost killed it off. Nobody wanted to spend the money. Meanwhile dozens of flights serve that route each day. It's going to be a very hard sell, I think.

[GulfCoast66]

93. I respectfully disagree. Comparison to Europe or China don't work.

Because of our much lower population density. Germany has a great system but so might Texas if it had 80 million residents.

China an the US are roughly the same size but their population is 4x ours. Plus no good road system.

Regional high speed works in a few areas and should be encouraged.

But a nation wide high speed system would be severely underused and cost a fortune per passenger.

[backscatter712]

100. We used to have lots of rail.

When the West was settled a hundred years ago, we had passenger rail everywhere.

We can have it if we want to, and it's a hell of a lot more efficient than air travel.

The problem is that we don't want to spend the money. The trains don't go where we want to go, when we want to go, so most people don't bother with them, which means everyone concludes nobody wants trains.

Funny thing is that if we add some 21st century technology and call them Hyperloops, now there's more interest.

It very well may actually come down to a marketing problem. That and the established big-money corporate players (namely the airlines, auto manufacturers, and oil companies) don't want the competition, so they lobby it to oblivion.

[theboss]

109. It also went away for a reason.

And it's not more efficient than air travel - except in a few very specific areas. I'm in Houston. Traveling to anywhere but Dallas or San Antonio by train would be an insane idea.

[GulfCoast66]

127. Of course we had lots of rail. Before air travel and interstates

Even in Europe most halfway long trips are normally taken by air on one of their affordable short haul airlines.

Last year I went from northern Italy to Germany. A quick one hour flight for around 120 Euro versus a 8 hour total trip by rail at double the costs.

Traveling within France, Germany or any of the small countries by rail makes lots of sense. Going other places and air becomes more attractive. And that is with their amazingly high population density.

[Adrahil]

51. I admit I would like a route from Indy to Chicago.

It's be nice to go from city center to city center. But for long distances, air is the way to go.

[MineralMan]

61. Many years ago, I took a trip from Syracuse, NY to Indianapolis

on the train. So, I've been on that route from Chicago to Indianapolis. Interesting.

[Midnightwalk]

58. i think wording in op is too strong

Reading the thread I understand what you mean. Trains are not a good option for a lot of the country because of distance. The prices on those routes are also high but I can't prove that but where travel time is equivalent I've found train fares to be close to airfare.

I'd say that's my experience in Europe as well. For work I often took trains when the overall travel time was faster which was often going between cities in Germany. Frankfurt to Hamburg was about break even so I took a train for comfort. I took planes between other cities and other countries because of time and price just like i would here

I see in other replies you acknowledge trains make sense in regions like the east coast. When i travel I'm usually in a city and getting around is often less convenient by car. I've noticed it's a lot less convenient to get a rental car even in major stations so that's another factor in deciding.

If your only tool is a hammer you should consider getting more tools.

Just my two cents.

[Demsrule86]

64. It made sense to connect Pittsburgh to Cincinnati the train that Kasich derailed in terms of

jobs and helps the environment. Also, the roads most are horrendous in most places.

[MineralMan]

70. How many passengers a day do you think that train would

carry? I have no idea. It looks like a five hour drive to me. What's the cost of air travel between those two cities?

Checking, it looks like all of the flights are one-stop flights, rather than non-stop. 4-5 hours and costing between $230 and $350 round trip. That's not very attractive, really, and it would seem to indicate that there isn't a lot of demand for non-stop flights, which makes me wonder what the demand would be for an HSR route.

I understand the desire to build HSR lines between some cities. But, I'd want to have more information on what the ridership would be and the costs, both to build the line and to take that train. How many trains a day would run that route? What times of day? Most such travel would be for business, I assume. But, I'm not seeing the demand for that route as very high, given the lack of non-stop flights between those two markets.

There are so many parts to the equation, really.

[theboss]

110. I grew up outside Pittsburgh. I've been in Cincinnati once in my life

I think the only use that line would get is the two times a year the Steelers play the Bengals.

Pittsburgh to Cleveland would make some sense as those two cities have always had some economic ties that have been growing in recent years. That's probably also the shortest distance between large cities that is not filled completely with population.

I still feel at the end of the day, high speed rail would be a highly subsidized tourist attraction for suburban families. Take a 300 mph train to go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a hell of a Saturday for a divorced dad and his 13 year old twins, you know.

[Demsrule86]

208. We will never know. You are confusing long term trail with commuter rails which is what Cincy to

Pittsburgh would have been. And in areas like Youngstown, Warren etc having a fast train that gives access to areas with more jobs, it would have worked great. And I personally have found flying to suck these days. And with all the hidden fees, it costs more than one expects. I think having an alternative to flying is not a bad thing...especially for short flights.

[Hortensis]

66. Eliminating one option because it doesn't serve all purposes makes no sense.

It's worth noting that trains in many nations are now either running on renewable energy or about to, while air travel is one of our biggest environmental problems and the goals of projected solutions at this point are only to make it less so.

Btw, looks like next week would be a nice time for another visit to California, weatherwise.

[flotsam]

67. Mileage St Paul to Los Angeles is 1930 miles

With 200 mph high speed rail that's more like 10 hours than 3 days. I would say your original construct is flawed.

[jalan48]

68. Carbon Footprint of travel from Minneapolis to LA

Travel by plane for one person between the two cities results in .73 metric tons of co2 released into the atmosphere.
Travel by train for one person between the two cities results in .06 metric tons of co2 released into the atmosphere.

It's about more than personal convenience, times are changing and the privileges we've enjoyed as Americans will be changing for future generations of travelers.

https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

[Major Nikon]

155. Not that simple to compare those two things

It doesn’t take into consideration the total required to build and maintain all the infrastructure.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17260-train-can-be-worse-for-climate-than-plane/

[jalan48]

156. Good info. I think the idea would be to build mass, train transit between major population areas.

From the article.

“New rail systems should serve as links to other transit modes, as is often the case in Europe and Japan,” he says. “We should avoid building rail systems that are disconnected from major population areas and require car trips and parking to access.”

I agree,it won't work to build and maintain lines through sparsely populated areas, just to accommodate the few passengers that might live in that area. There will still be airplanes and some cars but the idea is to look for ways to eliminate their usage as much as possible and to move as many people as possible without the need for everyone to own a car. At this point we need to find ways to use less carbon for transit. Electric vehicles would be great but who will be able to afford them 50 years from now when our ecological system has collapsed? That's why Republicans and their fossil fuel owners scream so much about climate change being a hoax, to admit it's true would mean demanding that we start today working on a new method of transportation for humans. We're currently living in fantasy land about the future.

[caraher]

69. The fact that one very long trip takes too long is a poor reason to denounce trains

It totally makes sense, especially given our third class rail infrastructure, to reject train travel over a huge distance like St. Paul to LA. But trips of a few hundred miles could be far more convenient, less expensive, and far less damaging to climate when taken by train compared to flying or driving. That is the real sweet spot - not the intercontinental journeys.

Passenger rail in most of the US relies on Amtrak trains playing second fiddle to freight on tracks neither controlled by the passenger service nor designed and maintained for high speed. There is no engineering reason for this; it's simply a twisted transportation policy that subsidizes air transport and roads but neglects rail.

For an example of how trains could become much more appealing, when I lived in the Indianapolis area I frequently traveled to the Detroit area or Chicago. These were trips of 200-300 miles and took 3-5 hours to drive one-way. To fly to either the flight itself was generally under an hour, but when you add in arriving at the airport two hours ahead of the flight the total time would be more like 3 hours either way. A moderately high-speed train could make that same trip in just about 3 hours. And even though the Midwest has a lower density of population centers than the eastern corridor, there are many pairs of fairly significant cities withing a few hundred miles of one another. From Indy it's a similar distance to Cincinnati or St. Louis.

Finally, trains on well-maintained tracks should be the most energy-efficient means of motorized travel, just from a physics perspective. Steel wheels on steel rails have a vastly lower coefficient of rolling resistance than anything on a roadway, a small ratio of frontal area to volume means the cost of overcoming air resistance per passenger is low, and unlike airplanes, they need not spend half their energy staying in the air. (For a primer see David JC MacKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" )



Finally, air travel is spectacularly bad in terms of climate impact; ejecting CO2 high in the atmosphere is markedly worse than ground-level emissions because A special characteristic of aircraft emissions is that most of them are produced at cruising altitudes high in the atmosphere. The David Suzuki Foundation web page notes, "Scientific studies have shown that these high-altitude emissions have a more harmful climate impact because they trigger a series of chemical reactions and atmospheric effects that have a net warming effect. The IPCC, for example, has estimated that the climate impact of aircraft is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone."



So go ahead and fly to LA, but don't oppose upgrades to rail that will encourage a shift from planes to trains for medium-distance travel.

[Sancho]

160. Good post...and you need a heart!

[KPN]

71. Talking today, I would agree generally; though passenger rail is both justifiable and viable even

today within certain regions and between some relatively close population centers.

At the same time, I would argue that we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath-water. It seems shortsighted to declare passenger rail transport infeasible for the future -- even the relatively close future (i.e., next 10-30 years), especially today when we are faced with the world changing challenges of global warming. In that light, it seems folly to not be looking at every possible energy-efficient alternative to our current transportation modes. Who knows? Rail could well become a more significant and more efficient player in the future. Heck, our individual perception of time-costs associated with different transportation modes could change making travel by rail more attractive for many.

[beachbum bob]

76. we take a train every few months to Chicago from downstate, the only way to go...but then thats

from my perspective of traffic and parking I don't have to deal with

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

77. Just because you are not interested in going by train, does not mean

train travel makes no sense. It makes a lot of sense for a lot of people.

Several years ago I traveled from New Mexico to Portland, OR, by train. Fantastic trip. I booked a roomette, which does include meals, and figured that considering I got two nights accommodation on board, as well as my meals, it didn't cost any more than flying would have. Plus, I spent time with interesting people, and arrived incredibly refreshed, not completely stressed out by being cramped in an airplane for however long.

The real issue, aside from an honest need for high speed trains along certain routes, is both lack of frequency and the essential impossibility of traveling between certain city pairs by train. I ought to be able to take a train from here to Denver without going to Los Angeles or Chicago, which is the only way to get there from here. And too many cities, especially in the upper midwest, have completely lost all train service, thanks to Congress, which cuts funding to Amtrak every chance they get. There should not be only one train a day leaving Minneapolis heading to the West Coast. There ought to be at least three or four, over somewhat different routes. In your case, you have to take the Empire Builder to Seattle or Portland, then the Coast Starlight to Los Angeles. There ought to be a train that instead goes to Denver, then Los Angeles. Or Denver, then San Francisco.

In May I'm taking the train to Kansas City. I'll leave from Lamy, NM, about fifteen miles south of me. I live in Santa Fe. I've booked a roomette, round trip. I'll arrive about 7 am or so at Union Station, which is perhaps a mile from the hotel I'll be staying in. I'm going to one of my science fiction things. Were I to fly, I'd have to rent a car and drive from KCI, which is a good 45 minutes north of downtown Kansas City, so there's that cost, plus no doubt the hotel charges something obscene for parking, which is all too often the case these days. As it is, I drive from here to the Kansas City area two or three times most years, and I'll be driving there in July to visit family over the 4th and attend a different s-f thing in Lawrence, KS. Again, flying makes no sense for me on that trip. I mainly drive because I want to have my car with me. But the May trip I won't be leaving the hotel for all practical purposes.

I am seriously thinking about taking a very long train ride around this country. Another train journey I want to take is the trans-Siberian railway from Vladivostok to Moscow.

So just because for you taking the train makes no sense, doesn't mean train travel makes no sense for everyone. You are also travelling between two city pairs that have pretty good service. Ever since deregulation a lot of cities no longer have commercial air service. Utica NY and Terre Haute IN are two that come immediately to mind. But there are a lot of others out there that used to be served by the old regional airlines, but no one flies to anymore. Too bad.

What we need is good air service to more cities, and good train service, likewise to more cities. People deserve the choice.

[wryter2000]

79. It may not work from St. Paul to LA

But high speed rail makes all kinds of sense for SF to LA. It would take longer, but not too long to be practical. Frankly, I'm happy to spend extra time to avoid SFO. More so LAX. The extra time and stress dealing with airports is worth a few more hours. I understand high speed rail is already working between Boston, New York, and DC.

[Afromania]

81. Just off the top of my head(opinion).

The answer isn't high speed rail right now, but we won't have unlimited fuel forever. If push ever comes to shove I get the feeling that freight and stuff will get dibs. We should probably get cracking on high speed rail before that time comes. It might not be the answer we want but it will probably be an answer.

[jcgoldie]

82. My wife and I take the train to Chicago once or twice a year

We live about 20 mi north of STL, can catch Amtrak right in our town. It is cheap about $50 one way... takes 4-4.5 hrs to get to Chicago... quite a bit faster than a car and way cheaper than a plane. We don't need a car in the city anyway can take the El. The train is perfect for this type of trip (oh and you can even take a small cooler of beer with you and don't have to worry about driving!)

We already have our Amtrak tickets for June when we're headed up to see the Dead shows at Wrigley!

[Blue_Tires]

87. It makes a hell of a lot of sense on the East Coast

[delisen]

88. Is your car environmentally friendly or a climate destroying pollution spewer?

I would love to travel by high speed train.

We don't have any in the US so I don't think comparing Amtrak to modern air travel makes sense.

[MineralMan]

89. I doubt if this country will invest in high speed rail, frankly.

The cost is what will keep it from happening.

As for my car, it's relatively economical and is driven only about 5000 miles per year.

Both my wife and I work out of our home, so we don't commute. That's our largest contribution to the environment.

What do you drive?

[delisen]

123. Good for you! I drive a 2005 sedan and mostly keep my mileage

at under 7000 miles per year. As I live in an urban area with public transportation and trying to be bike-friendly it is easier for me than for some living in rural areas.

I am not a fan of modern air travel and mostly stopped after high security measures began-so often demeaning and disrespectful of people. Airlines are also now often disrespectful of their passengers.

I would be happy if there were far fewer airplanes crowding the skies-too much noise pollution- and fewer cars. When the city in which I live began rail service several decades ago, the suburban countries refused to buy in to it.Today they are clamoring to join because they now experience hideous commute time, gridlock, and many wasted hours sitting in traffic which comes at a severe cost to family life and enjoyment.

[MineralMan]

124. I'm fine with air travel, actually.

I don't find the security stuff onerous, and I still get where I'm going fast.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

142. Good for you.

But I bought a car in September and have already put over 7,000 miles on it.

I likewise despise the TSA. I was an airline employee before any security crap whatsoever, and I know why we got security in the first place (hijackings to Cuba) and know how effective the original security was and how totally bullshit the current system is.

My other secret is that when I do fly I book a first class ticket. I don't fly very often, but I've gotten the bypass thing, whatever it is called. Keep in mind the last time I flew was nearly two years ago, but it was first class and I didn't have to go through normal security.

If I ever get very rich I will travel only by private jet. As if that will ever happen.

[pwb]

92. Did you know our locomotives burn diesel fuel to drive electric generators to move the wheels.?

As opposed to electricity alone powering bullet trains and most modern trains. 19th century technology verses 21st century technology. Even today when a train pulls into a underground station it switches to electricity.
Yes it takes fuel to make electricity but the electric trains are still much cleaner around the countryside.
So Electric powered trains make sense to me anywhere.

[Hekate]

95. Wow, DUers. 94 replies and only 4 Recs. Let me amend that with the 5th Rec. I had a sick Mom, too

[pwb]

121. There is usually a reason for that.

We have 19th century rails and locomotives. Progressives like modern.

[Polybius]

187. How do you Rec a thread?

I only see buttons for Thread info, Bookmark this thread, and Trash this thread.

[Hekate]

192. Go back to the Original Post, and look at the bottom left below it. An icon that says DU Rec...

...appears there, with a box above it. If you tap or click DU Rec, that icon should light up yellow and the number in the box above will advance by one. If you decide maybe you didn't like the OP or the thread after all, tap the same box again and the yellow highlight will go off and the number above will back up by one. (Other than that, there is no "Unrec" function.) If you tap the box with the numbers in it, it will open to a page revealing all the people who Recommended this post.

Enjoy!

[Hekate]

98. Mom & Dad went from So Cal to live in Salt Lake City. He died a year or so later, but she lived on

...in all her increasingly bad health for another decade. For most of that time she got an awful lot out of life as a very active member of the Unitarian Church.

But -- when there was an emergency, her 4 children lived in Massachussetts, Santa Barbara, San Clemente, and Oregon. This is a very big country that spans an entire continent.

If I had a buck for every self-righteous DUer that has declared they never have and never will support air travel for (reasons) and that those of us who do are self-indulgent selfish beasts whose carbon footprint is destroying the planet -- well, I'd be able to buy myself some self-indulgent cappuccinos every day for life.

After one particularly horrible experience where it was my turn to get pulled from line and let the TSA people practice on a live person, I investigated train schedules. It was to laugh out loud. From Santa Barbara I could chug out to Sacramento, get off the train, and spend the night. No other options. Then the next day I could get on another train and chug out to Salt Lake City.

So that was it -- a flght of a few hours (plus several hours for TSA crap at the airport), or two entire days and a night. Trains do not work in a medical or family emergency.

I am all for modernizing our railroads. They can use my taxes for this vital infrastructure -- especially for commuters, to get cars off the roads. But seriously: airplanes will still be needed.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

143. This is an important issue. Aging parents who live far from children.

I have one son. I currently live in Santa Fe, NM, he currently lives in Fairfax, VA, where he is in a PhD program in astronomy. I have already made it very clear to him that when he's done with school and has a job, I will probably relocate to be much nearer to him. It is my not very secret hope that he winds up much closer to me, but in any event, I don't want to be hundreds or thousands of miles from him.

But your essential point that there simply isn't decent rail service in most of the country still holds. I honestly have never seen DUers declaring they never have and never will support air travel, but the OP has said that train travel in the US makes no sense, and he's completely wrong about that. He himself may never choose to take a train, but that's vastly different from train travel making no sense. I say that what we need is more train service to more cities, between more city pairs, with greater frequency. That's the real solution, not cutting and cutting and cutting.

[Hekate]

154. I've ridden Amtrak from Santa Barbara to San Diego a number of times & enjoyed it...

Enjoyed it a lot. I loathe the freeway traffic past Ventura, and the train allows me to bypass Los Angeles altogether. But that is a North-South coastal corridor -- heading to the interior of the state, or East generally, is another matter.

I'd really like to see commuter trains developed in my region and elsewhere, as the job hubs have high cost housing, which forces many to commute. Trains as infrastructure have been deliberately starved by the GOP in Congress for years.

As for the disputes at DU about air travel -- if you've missed them, lucky you. They go back years and get triggered by any of several things: Democratic candidates who fly first class or take private jets is one. Another is how horribly mistreated passengers are by TSA and the airlines (we are). A certain tone of self righteousness on the part of non-flyers creeps in, which is what I object to.

But enough, enough.

[karynnj]

101. If we had a high speed rail back bone like other countries, it would not be 3 days.

Still it might not be the best option for that long a trip. However, it could be the answer for coastal travel on each coast and some high volume links like dc, Philadelphia, NYC to Chicago. When I lived in northern nj, taking the commuter train to NYC then a track to Boston was easier than driving to newark, going through security, flying to Logan than getting to the hotel.

[librechik]

103. yes, we need infrastructure in so many areas

it's really overwhelming. somebody has to make it happen, or we will continue to collapse

[MineralMan]

114. But, we don't have that infrastructure.

Currently, the cost of creating it is so high that it's unlikely to be approved. The cost killed the Twin Cities to Chicago project before it could even be seriously considered. The same is true everywhere.

Another problem is right-of-way issues. In most places, there isn't room for a parallel rail system on current rights-of-way. High-speed passenger rail needs a dedicated system. It's incompatible with freight rail. So, there's that, added onto other issues.

I don't see a way that the cost will be acceptable to Congress on a national scale, and most states are strapped for money, too. It's an enormous project, really, that will take a very long time to implement, even if it is approved.

Do we need it? Maybe we do. Is it in the cards? Nope. We have decaying infrastructure everywhere that isn't getting fixed or replaced already. We live in a huge country with vast empty spaces, or mostly empty. The cost will be enormous, and existing infrastructure needs repair or replacement already. In the city I live in, as in most cities, we still have some 19th-century water and sewer mains. Those are not getting replaced, either, until they fail utterly.

[theboss]

173. Honestly, water and sewer is the desperately needed infrasctructure project that no one discusses

I imagine the national cost to make the necessary upgrade is in the hundreds of billions.

I'm part of a facebook group for my hometown. It's water system dates back to the 20s, and I swear it has a breakage every week. This is a town of under 3,000.

[MineralMan]

174. Yes, indeed. In fact, we had no water in our house yesterday

for about four hours. A water main built in the 1940s broke about two blocks from my house. It's fixed now, but there are multiple water main failures in my neighborhood every year. The streets have numerous obvious patch jobs from excavations to fix them. There are no plans to replace those old mains. There are much older ones in the city that have a higher priority for replacement, and they're not being done, either.

It's a huge issue everywhere, and that's just water mains. Roads, bridges, and everything else is also crumbling. We don't even make those projects a priority. Too expensive, they say.

I'd love to see HSR systems. I do not think they can be paid for, however, nor do I believe they will be built.

[Still In Wisconsin]

105. Like most issues, "One Size Fits All" doesn't work for high speed rail.

Rail from MSP to LA? No way. High speed rail from MSP to Milwaukee, or Milwaukee to Chicago? Yes, please. Not Amtrak, but true high speed rail.

[MineralMan]

120. Who goes from MSP to Milwaukee?

I mean, really. Why would someone do that?

[Still In Wisconsin]

134. For a Brewers-Twins game of course!

Kidding aside you're probably right. But Milwaukee-Madison would be popular.

Like I said, high-speed rail makes sense in some places and not in others.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

115. It would work in some corridors

DC to Boston, San Francisco to San Diego via Los Angeles or Vancouver BC/Seattle/Portland/Eugene it could be an alternative to driving.

St. Paul to Los Angeles it's no surprise that flying is more efficient.

[Retrograde]

116. But I want to go from San Jose to Los Angeles!

A high-speed train would make the trip in a few hours - less time than it would take to go to the airport, arrive early enough to go through security, pick up baggage at the other end, and go from the airport to the part of LA I want to go to. So by your reasoning, we should have a high-speed rail connection between the Bay Area and LA.

Just because some bit of infrastructure doesn't benefit everyone right away doesn't mean it shouldn't be built. There are probably a lot of shorter hops that would benefit from better rail service: a railroad is probably why some towns are where they are in the first place.

[MineralMan]

119. You can drive it in about six hours. That's just a few hours.

Or, you can hop on AMTRAK and get there in about 11 hours. The Greyhound bus takes about 8 hours. Or, you can fly.

Lots of ways to go from San Jose to LA.

[Pobeka]

125. My daughter takes Amtrak from Portland to Tacoma all the time. Works great.

Takes less time than driving, is cheaper than a tank of gas.

My other daughter lives in Boise. I think the train route was something like 18 hours. We can drive it in 8 hours.

Just depends on the infrastructure available...

[Arazi]

126. LA to San Fran, and Chicago to NYC are the 2 highest air traveled routes in the US

The Shanghai to Beijing high speed train does the approx 800 mile trip in 4.5 hours - this is the same distance as Chicago to NYC.

I predict we could see a huge switchover to trains if we just did those two routes alone in the US.

[TygrBright]

131. Let me offer another perspective with my parent.

She is 89 and still traveling.

When she goes to visit my sister in Champaign IL, she greatly prefers to take the train, either to Chicago (my sister drives up to pick her up and they spend a day or two together in Chicago shopping, taking in museums, etc.) or all the way to Champaign-Urbana. The fare is usually around $150-$180 round trip. Airfare between MSP and CMI is about $300-400 and involves a change at either Midway or O'Hare.

When she's in her seat there's lots of room. She can spread out her magazines, her little game-player doodad, and her snacks. She can snooze in the reclining seat if she wants to. There's never any problem getting to/from the bathroom and rarely a wait for the closest one. The aisles are wide enough to move down carrying her purse without whacking other passengers on the shoulder.

When she gets there, my sister is at the platform to meet her. The journey has taken about 10 hours door to door or door to hotel.

When she comes to visit me, we have to wait for one of the rare occasions when an airline decides to offer a nonstop flight between St. Paul and Albuquerque. Occasionally a one-stop no plane change flight with a BRIEF stop in either Denver or St Louis might work, but even there, it's usually too much "plane time" for her- she finds airplane travel stressful and exhausting because of the cramped cabin spaces, being treated like cattle, having to line up here, line up there, etc.

However, assuming we've found a nonstop (again, rare...) it's about a two-three hour flight, give or take, generally costing around $700 round-trip. But she has to get a ride to the airport, arrive at the airport early enough to check her bags, go through security, usually wait for a wheelchair to meet her to get her to the gate, wait at the gate, and board the plane, which makes it about a five hour process, and then at the other end there is the reverse for getting from the gate to where we meet her, and then driving from ABQ to Santa Fe, which makes the whole process about 8 hours.

At the end of the journey to visit my sister she's chipper and ready to take in a meal or a movie. At the end of the journey to visit me, she's ready for bed and it takes her a full day to recover from plane travel.

Small cities and small towns can be much more easily served by rail lines than by air travel. In all too many places, you have to drive for two or three hours or more to get to the airport, endure the misery of being treated like not-very-valuable cargo, packed into your miserably cramped, pressurized disease incubator, and reverse the process at the other end. Often more than once on each trip, if it involves multiple stops and changes of plane because you can't afford the luxury of a nonstop or if there is no nonstop.

alternatively,
Bright

[Phentex]

133. I want to be her!

When we were little, we took the train to visit relatives several times. And my mom took it a lot by herself. She was also able to get some sort of ticket booklet for plane tickets but I can't remember too much about it (People's Express?)

I have taken the train as an adult and enjoyed it somewhat BUT I think I would prefer to use it on my own, not with family members who may complain, lol. I did travel in a sleeper car when my son was a baby and that was kinda cool.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

144. Bingo!

You've described quite perfectly why train travel is an excellent alternative.

I am not suggesting no one fly, not at all. But the notion that train travel makes no sense is itself nonsensical.

But why doesn't she take the train to ABQ?

In May I'm taking Amtrak from Lamy to Kansas City, and I can hardly wait. I've booked a roomette, which I already know is wonderful. Several years ago I took Amtrak from Lamy to Portland, OR, and it was the best experience ever. I'm seriously thinking about planning a trip that will get me on the Empire Builder between Portland or Seattle and Chicago, depending on which way I want to travel.

I seriously love trains.

[Mr. Quackers]

135. If certain people thought like you in the 20th century

we'd have never went to the moon or built an Interstate highway system.

Your idea presents a very conservative sentiment and mindset.

[Humanist_Activist]

136. Eventually air travel isn't going to be economical, either due to not being able...

to afford the pollution or the fuel. So what will be the alternative then? What will your grandchildren do to travel cross country?

[meadowlander]

193. And not just for passengers.

Freight is already making a comeback because of the limited space/increasing costs of air travel.

[standingtall]

139. I dont know

I kind of think high speed rail could help the tourist economies of states and cities in a way air travel cannot, if we could keep the cost of high speed rail down.

[mnhtnbb]

140. I will need to be in New York for a cruise that I booked late September.

I live in Raleigh. The flying time--non-stop--is a little over an hour with the requisite get to the airport ahead of time and time to take a taxi or bus in to the city.

I'm not flying. I'm going to take the train even though it will take me all day to get to New York Why? I don't want the hassle. I don't want to worry about a delayed flight and not getting to the ship in time. So if I'm going a day ahead--which I am, on the train--I'd rather not hassle the airport. I bring a book. Relax. Look out the window. Get up and walk around when I feel like it. Even take a nap, because I've booked a roomette.

I don't really care that it takes me more time. I'm retired and I HATE flying. If I can take the train, I will.

On the other hand, I'm going to the Caribbean island of Bonaire in March. I'm flying through Miami. Not looking forward to the two days of travel coming and going, but sure am looking forward to being in the Caribbean.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

145. You have the right idea.

Take it easy. Take the time needed. Enjoy the journey.

I've been in both modes, the need to get somewhere quickly and having the time to enjoy the journey. Neither one is superior. They fit different circumstances or needs. Which means we need more than one way to travel.

[Raine]

149. I would love to take a train trip

I took one once and really enjoyed it.

[DeminPennswoods]

152. For one thing, Congress does not adequately fund Amtrak

When freight became more profitable than passenger service, the RRs dropped it. That's why we have Amtrak, but they are seriously underfunded by Congress - deliberately, imho. Rail service could certainly work given adequate investment, but it is not as fast a air travel and never will be. And, there are so few passenger trains outside the NE corridor, most have to function as local and long distance routes meaning more stops and slower overall times.

Because my dad worked for the RR, we could ride for free and took the train whenever we could although for me it was near the end of the passenger service era. There is simply nothing like traveling by train. It's just comfortable, relaxing and relatively hassle free. If Congress would invest in upgrades to track and rolling stock (cars), plenty of Americans would flock to rail service.

[Voltaire2]

158. Sorry but that is just bullshit.

High speed rail,as demonstrated around the rest of the developed world outside the us, is the best way to provide public mass transit between cities, where the endpoints are in the 500 mile range. Total travel time is 3-4 hours. Airplanes cannot compete for convenience efficiency cost or environmental impact.

[Kaleva]

163. Why not read the OP first before declaring it bullshit?

Your comment:

"...where the endpoints are in the 500 mile range."

What is the distance between Minneapolis and LA? What is the distance between Chicago and the rest of the US cities in the top ten by population?

"1. New York, N.Y. 8,143,197
2. Los Angeles, Calif. 3,844,829
3. Chicago, Ill. 2,842,518
4. Houston, Tex. 2,016,582
5. Philadelphia, Pa. 1,463,281
6. Phoenix, Ariz. 1,461,575
7. San Antonio, Tex. 1,256,509
8. San Diego, Calif. 1,255,540
9. Dallas, Tex. 1,213,825
10. San Jose, Calif. 912,332"

https://www.infoplease.com/top-ten-cities-us-population

High speed rail may be practical in certain corridors such as Boston to Washington DC but not fro cross country travel which the OP is talking about.

[Voltaire2]

166. I read it. You identified where it is not a good option

and then in then declared it unsuitable for the entire us.

It is, as in other large countries, the best option for intercity transportation in the 500 mile range.

[Apollyonus]

169. It will work over short hauls

Like Los Angeles to San Francisco.

[R B Garr]

171. We met a woman on our train trip who refused to fly.

No way was she ever getting on a plane. There are probably lots more like her.

Plus we saw first-hand why it’s called flyover country. Lots of the country is a days train trip from the nearest airport. Most people around us were on their trek just to get to an airport.

[NewJeffCT]

172. Upgrading Amtrak/Acela on the East Coast

would be a huge boon.

Not sure where I saw it, but a few years ago, I saw a comparison:
Boston to New York is 200 miles and takes 3 hours
London to Paris is 300 miles and takes 2 hours, and you have to cross the English Channel.

Get that Boston to NYC time down from 3 hours to 90 minutes would be a fantastic upgrade. Make a similar reduction on NYC to Washington DC times as well. Part of the problem is that Connecticut, NY and NJ have some very old rail infrastructure that needs to be replaced/upgraded as it's not safe to travel at higher speeds on some of the rail lines. Plus, Acela is also using the same tracks as Metro North in Connecticut and similar rail services in NY and NJ.

I took Acela a few years back from New London, CT to Philadelphia for work purposes. It was 3 1/2 hours by Acela (Which was right on time around 5:30AM in New London, CT) - the train started in Boston. Despite the cost ($250? round trip), the train was almost entirely full when I boarded in New London. I think there was maybe 1 open seat left after I got on. It started before 5am in Boston, probably closer to 4:30, yet was still full.

You could drive from New London, CT to Philly in 3 1/2 hours without traffic (chance of no traffic = 0), but I would have driven 3.5 hours for a 1 day trip and would have needed to drive back another 3 1/2 hours.

[empedocles]

176. DC to NY, NY to Boston. Train is the only way to go.

[NewJeffCT]

183. We've driven CT to DC several times

because Amtrak is expensive if you're paying for 3,4 or 5 seats for a family.

[empedocles]

184. Know what you mean. We've driven many dozens of times DC to Waterbury area

for family cost reasons. 95 traffic so bad though, when we drive, now go through Pa, Harrisburg. Hopefully not get stuck on 84.

[Drahthaardogs]

179. Having a rail system is a matter of National security

Just like 911, if airspace is ever compromised this allows us to move troops and equipment.

[empedocles]

181. Tell that to 'con Congress.

[MicaelS]

196. Nope, that is what Interstate highways are for.

That is the reason Eisenhower had them built. He was a young officer back in the 30s. He was ordered to move a company from one coast to the other by roads as a test, since RR tracks could be bombed. It took one solid month. He took the lesson to heart.

[Drahthaardogs]

198. Nope.

Our nuclear arsenal was moved mostly by train. The military still considers rail as part of the national defense strategy.

Google STRACNET


It would also be instrumental in evacuation of citizens from large areas if needed.

[hack89]

197. We have a perfectly adequate freight rail system to move troops and equipment.

How do you think the Army moves large numbers of troops right now?

[empedocles]

180. Wife and I took Amtrak cross country DC to LA/SF - Delightful

Stopped to see a friends for a few nights here and there. As we trained through some Cumberland Gap kind of places, imagined doing the trip in a covered wagon. Slept through some slow patches. Marveled at scenery - especially N.M. rock country. Tracks cut fairly deep through some rock areas. Saw eons of geographic layers, from 5' outside the train window. Linen table cloths, salads were cared for.

Recommended.

[Panich52]

185. Except there are those of us who won't put up with being

manhandled, probed & prodded by TSA. My prosthetic sets off metal detectors so that I even get the wand at amusement parks. I haven't even been inside an airport in over 15 years. And I'm getting older so I don't enjoy long drives as much as I used to. Trains need major upgrades, not neglect.

And speed isn't always a plus in travelling. Sometimes the ride is a pleasure in itself.

[Polybius]

186. I am actually very, VERY surprised

$500 for a round trip? I would have thought $200, maximum. 72 hours each way is what really shocks me though? Why? A car can drive there much quicker than that. Even our non-high-speed trains are faster than cars, and there won't be any traffic. It should not take more than 10-12 hours. 72?

[dlk]

201. When I Was Little My Family Used to Take the Train from LA to Detroit & the Trip Took 3 Days

We're moving backward.

[Anon-C]

202. High speed electric buses that go 120 mph and use dedicated lanes adjacent to

... existing highways would give an LA to SF non-stop trip of 3.5 hours.

Your Minneapolis to LA trip would be 16 hours, still better to fly surely, but a much better trip than is currently available with Amtrak or Greyhound.

Besides, all the right people abhor electric buses:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/20/koch-fueled-attack-electric-buses-washington-examiner?amp

[HeiressofBickworth]

203. I take Amtrak several times a year.

Once every other month, i take Amtrak to visit a friend in a city 75 miles away. I used to drive, but traffic south of Seattle is getting so bad, it no longer is a pleasure. On Amtrak i can read. Crochet, nap, or just watch the scenery.

I also take the train from Seattle to Sacramento. Been doing it for over 30 years. There were a few years that i drove. I found that it took less time to take the train because when i drove, i needed to stop over night somewhere along the way.

Flying? No way. I have a long term fear of flying and and absolutely won't get anywhere near an airplane. Fares could be free and i still won't fly.

So, for this 73 year old lady, im grateful for Amtrak and will continue to take the traim.

As a side note, Amtrak is very useful for small towns that have no near-by airports or other access to public transportation.

[MountCleaners]

209. I've taken Amtrak from Chicago to Glacier National Park

The train goes right to the park...no need for an expensive flight to some place far from the park, no need to rent a car. Rented a bike and biked around the park and did hiking. Also took Amtrak from Chicago to Flagstaff, which is the closest stop to the Grand Canyon. Many smaller towns and cities are a pain in the ass to fly to, even from Chicago.