21st Century Passenger Service in the US of A

[Anonymous]

If we had high speed rail in place, there wouldn't be a need for trains running at night..... The only exception would be a transcontinental train running to the west coast from either Chicago or Texas.....

Unfortunately, Amtrak still hasn't put in place a daily train from Houston to Dallas.....the two largest closest cities in America without such a service..... And considering that Texas is now the second largest state in population, its a wonder why Amtrak hasn't increased the number of trains and the service in Texas.... In fact, outside Florida and California, and possibly the upper Midwest around Chicago, Texas would be an idea location to build a HSR line....

One thing is for certain, the 1950s era trains Amtrak is running in most of America outside the north east corridor won't last much longer...... The citizens of America want faster and more frequent service......which are hand in hand tied together......

[Anonymous]

A major problem with long distance Amtrak trains is the schedule. They arrive and depart in the middle of the night when most people are sleeping. This type of scheduling was used in the past to discourage passenger traffic. It worked then to turn away passengers and is working now. Sleeping in a day coach is pure hell. Sleeper charges are outrageously high. Many routes between our nation's cities would be viable if civilized scheduling was put into place.

[daveklepper]

I've always argued that the USA needs a national public transportation system, the society now forces people to use private automotibiles even when they would prefer a bus or train or combination. But the present set-up suits the Highway Auto Oil lobby who come near to running the world, including energy and foreign polilcies, and a lot of effort is going to be required to change it. I use the National Defense argument. Amtrak has the right idea. Major transportation by train, but supplemented by bus feeders. But there should be a lot more of both. And then when even a bus is too much for the traffic, the example of the Swiss Postal buses, mail truck and passenger van in one, can reach the smallest communities.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Capt Carrales
DSchmitt, the automobile society of America may die of starvation for oil and gas. I think we should have a nation (note the use of the word "should") defer longdistance travel to rail and air travel and save our cars for lesser trips. This would conserve gas (for the Conservatives out there) and the environment (for the LIBERALS).

An ideal to strive for, but the automobile is often the more efficient way to travel.

An example: Most of the year I can easily drive from my home to Reno in 2 hours and schedule my departure to arrive there any time I want. (In winter I do have to plan trips around storms) To fly commercial I would be at the mercy of the airline schedule, have a 50 minute drive (or airpport shuttle ride after driving to the shuttle stop) to the airport, the have to rent a car or take a taxi to reach my real destination.

Bus or train would be worse. (actually the only "train" that stops in my town is a bus, the real train does not stop anymore. The 2 AM train used to stop reguarly around 7 AM). Guess I could take a "gambler bus" which does go direct from my town, but then would be subject to their schedule, and it would not be honest since I don't go to Reno to gamble or even visit the casinos.

A friend who has a private plane (probably not environmentally friendly) parked at the local airport (10-15 minutes from his home) drives because the actual door to door time for him is about the same either way and by driving he does not have to rent a car in Reno.

Actually I believe in conserving the environment, but believe that many environmental policies and decisions are wrong headed, being made based on slogans that sound right to the uninformed, and not on real information.

I can see a full train being more fuel efficient than the auto, but would flying really reduce the use of oil?

[Anonymous]

I think all the attempts to save passenger service, both classically and cntemporary, have actually served to work against it. (This may work also for frieght)

Working from the "top down," with larger rail companies serves greatly to increase potential profits, but it also collects all the losses in one place. A huge system, in other words, amplifies the problem by a ratio equal to the size of the company, thus overwhealming it. Thus, the only option for these merged companies was to scale back and elimanate rail passenger services. Even worse, they dismantled and abandonded the greatest railroad network in history...we were the Railroad Builders!

DSchmitt, the automobile society of America may die of starvation for oil and gas. I think we should have a nation (note the use of the word "should") defer longdistance travel to rail and air travel and save our cars for lesser trips. This would conserve gas (for the Conservatives out there) and the environment (for the LIBERALS).

Automobiles, while very American and independent, constitute what some can call a problem. As for the Trucking industry...The roads would be alot safer if the long haul convoys were done by rail.

U6729csx, I feel AMTRAK should be an interstate railway system connecting various privately own d(albiet with some subsity) regional or local carriers. A local system can address minor issues on its portion of the line and provide the efficient railway service that local control can provide.

Capt Carrales

[Anonymous]

AMTRAK is not the future of rail passenger transportation.

At best AMTRAK is a watered down 1940's era product being sold in the 21st Century. Who of us want to by a 1948 Chevy for daily highway tranportation today. Not me.

If rail passenger transportation is to have a future, High Speed Rail on a dedicated right of way constructed with 21st Century technology will be it. If we as a country, really desire to have rail passenger transportation in the 21st Century, then we must fund such a public works project. If we don't publiclly fund it, it won't get built and if it is not built, there is no future for rail passenger transportation.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Capt Carrales
[I think, and I beg you to differ, that we sould have regional local service that feed into these HUBs and that provide commuter service to and from those centers.

Capt Carrales

Would help, and probably worth doing in many cases, but unless you ban the auto or artifically make it too difficult to use, many (probably most) people would still find it more convienent to drive in most areas of the US.

The great advantage of the auto is you can go "directly" from point to point.
If you have to change modes the auto may be personally more efficient.

20years ago I had to commute for awhile between Fairfield CA and San Francisco
The trip in my car never took more than 1 hour either way (I had a place to park in the city) although I lost time in traffic congestion (particuarly in the evening rush) A combination of auto and BART took 1-1/2 in the morning and never less than 2 hours in the evening (I actually lost more time in highway traffic when I took BART than when I drove all the way since my departure time from the City was a little ahead of the peak). In the morning I could get a seat on BART, in the evening I had to stand most of the way. It was much more comfortable to sit in my car.

Note: I do realize that the auto trip would not be as easy today, but using BART would be worse too.

[Anonymous]

I have always felt that Amtrak's main problem is that, although they hit the major population centers, they don't go enough places to make those suitable destinations for people who don't like in those centers. I have to drive 4 hours to get to the nearest Amtrak Station. Then pay an exhorbitant fee!

I think, and I beg you to differ, that we sould have regional local service that feed into these HUBs and that provide commuter service to and from those centers.

Tracks will have to be laind, relaid if you will, and scientific planning will have to go into schedules to make these thing pay off. I do believe that regional rail corredors have a better chance at viablily, due to small size and management, that feed into the large centers will improve ridership of the Transcontinental and multi-Regional routes.

If you disagree, pleas eprovide a solution that we can come to a compromise on.

Capt Carrales