No it is not backwards Europe or backwards US. It is Europe with 4 to 10 times as many people as a Huge amount of the US has. In the Michigan i can go 400 miles and not leave the state and only change expressways once. Give or take 400 miles from where I sit typeing this outside of Detroit will take me to West Virginia so I can go rafting.
In the US 400 miles is nothing. Look at a map of the US Detroit and Washington DC are 550 miles give or take the way the car (and train) drive. And along the way you MAY pick up a couple of more Cities worth stopping at. Now to extend this network accross the whole US? Any idea how much track you would need? It is financially impossible. Lets see if we can understand this. With a few exceptions we do NOT have the population density that you need to have railroads (passenger) like they have in Europe and Japan. We can do this for some areas like the East Cost or Southern Cal but it just can not be justified for most of the country.The distances are just to far, and we have to few f people. Take Detroit and Chicago. That would be a run of about 275miles or so. At an average speed of even 100 this would take give or take 3 hours. In a plan it is about an hour. Add in security and such and you have about the same time from point to point. Of course a car could do it in about 5 hours and you do not have to pay anything like the cost of a plan or a train.
That is assuming you build a dedicated line that we can run trains at 125 or so. Of course time works out better if you build a faster train but the costs go up a lot more trying to do that. And along the way you will get to pick up people in Ann Arbor (about 35 minutes out of detroit) and mabyt Kalamazoo. If you go out of your way (buy a lot) you can get South Bend or Grand Rapids or Lansing but of course you have a longer run (more cost to operate and to build) and you take longer.
It just does not work out folks. We have to many cities to far apart for most of the country to ever get good train travel as an option if time means anything. For long distance (and in the US that is a LOT farther then 400 miles) you can not compare to a plan for time. For a short distance besides commuting, you can not compare a train to a car, it is just simpler to take a car instead of having to worry about what I do when I get to the train station on the other end. So the only area that trains can compete is mid distance. And at only twice as fast as a car on average it is not that much faster. (note car average about 50mph, train about 100mph and plane about 500 to 550) It just does not work out and all the dreaming about it will not change the numbers. We do NOT have the population density. We do not have towns and cities set up to work with trains (everything within walking distance of a train station). We are just to big and to spread out for most of this country to have good trains.
I would love to see it but it will not happen. As of 2006 we had about 50,000 mile of interstates in the US assuming we need only 1/5 of that many miles to make a working high spead rail system that would still equal give or take 10,000 miles of line, now according to an artical I read europe right now as about 3500 miles so we would need at a guess something like at least 3 times what europe has right now to get us to a basic level. And lets be honest 10,000 is not much when you need about 8000 to 9000 mile to just make a single loop around the country. Europe where the distances are a Lot closer says they need to get to 10000 miles. We could easily need 50000 to 100000 miles to get a system any place even clost to what Europe has. The cost are just to much.
Add in that countries like England are starting out with less grade crossing and you can see how the expense over here would be nuts. I read someplace (not sure how true it is) that In all of England thier is only a few hundred grade crossings of road and rail. I would bet we have more then that in Metro Detroit. And you can not have some farmer taking his tractor accross you tracks when you have a train doing 100 to 150 mph going by. So all those places where we have crossings because we have the railroad splitting some farmers fields in half we will have to build a bridge or tunnel for also.
These are the kinds of things that just make the cost beyond what we as a nation can afford. Can we do more then we are now? Sure. But to get anything like over seas is just not something we are set up for over here. This is not Europe, what works over thier (and very well I might add) is just not practical over here.
Doug M
I'm all for exommunicating trucks to Flat cars. But moving truck off the highway, only makes room for more cars. Think about it. They build another lane of interstate because of congestion. So what happens? The new interstate is packed to the gills in lss than a month, and the problem arises again, because all that happened, was more people piled on. Nothing was done to curb the number of cars, just to make room for more of them.
That, is what Amtrak needs to be doing.
DouglasJMeyerAny idea how much track you would need?
None right off the bat. The track, is already there. The trick is getting the passenger train to be able to use it more effectively. Now, you want to build a new corridor? Which is ultimately yhre better option, then do it in stages. Let the Pere Marquette jog one to CHI, and then throw onto the Cardinal. During that, let them build a stretch from CHI to Indy, since the Hoosier State CAN beat a plane with boarding times, given room, and get deeper into CHI. Then take another stretch when the coffers are filling back up, either a Detroit/CHI corridor (is there a market?) or work East frm Indy. Admittedly, if one is flying out of there, the plane may be more effective, but if one is just weekending to CHicago, the Hoosier State puts you way further to where you want to be then does O'Hare.
Sidenote: Theis tracklaying could also serve as a Works Project, that would help get the economy spinnign again. Hey look, a dollar earning double value. If I were president, I'd spend that.
DouglasJMeyerAdd in that countries like England are starting out with less grade crossing and you can see how the expense over here would be nuts.
I agree that crossing are a thorn in the side, but track would have to be rebuilt for High Speed anyway. So it wouldn't be that bad
DouglasJMeyerI read someplace (not sure how true it is) that In all of England thier is only a few hundred grade crossings of road and rail.
DouglasJMeyerI would bet we have more then that in Metro Detroit.
Eh, I doubt it. It's prbably on par woth London, but they I suspect also have few ail-companies. In Detroit, you had PM, GTW, and Ann Arbor, probably more as well, all serving different customers, and spread out and meandering to do it. If England has two railroads in London, they can still consolidate rail lines.
DouglasJMeyerAnd you can not have some farmer taking his tractor accross you tracks when you have a train doing 100 to 150 mph going by.
Or, you can move the crossing sensors back a ways, so that the time difference is the same. (it still takes the train two minutes to go from sensor to crossing, or what have you) That don't cost alot, Even if one goes all out on a stationary warning sounder. .
-Morgan
From the OP linked article:
"But my support for rail travel goes beyond the emotional connection. With delays at our airports and congestion on our roads becoming increasingly ubiquitous, volatile fuel prices, increased environmental awareness, and a need for transportation links between growing communities, rail travel is more important to America than ever before."
Not among the smartest comments I've seen lately, as there are those who mean us harm, serious harm, who could look at this and say... Hmmmm....
Bill H. Not among the smartest comments I've seen lately, as there are those who mean us harm, serious harm, who could look at this and say... Hmmmm....
I love it when people who prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom tell the rest of us we are not smart. THAT is not among the smartest comments I've seen lately. The fear terrorism has been blown seriously out of proportion to the actual threat for political gain.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Bill H. From the OP linked article: "But my support for rail travel goes beyond the emotional connection. With delays at our airports and congestion on our roads becoming increasingly ubiquitous, volatile fuel prices, increased environmental awareness, and a need for transportation links between growing communities, rail travel is more important to America than ever before." Not among the smartest comments I've seen lately, as there are those who mean us harm, serious harm, who could look at this and say... Hmmmm....
mmmmmm---and I wonder what good going around worrying about what is said here wil help anything.
Look. I'm frankly, quite tired of having our freedoms and rights being strangled slowly by fear mongering and by basically criminal people who have only one desire----POWER. And they get it by making you so scared of even forums and such that some are willing now to even suggest that we shut these forums down to protect us....and to keep them from getting information.....
Does that make sense to you?
It is complete nonsense to think that by limiting what you can say here will stop terrorists from blowing up whatever.
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I didn't vote for Joe and his boss. Sheldon
I didn't vote for Joe and his boss.
Sheldon
I didn't vote for Joe and his boss either. I voted against their opponent. I am a Goldwater conservative which bears little resemblence to the Bush/Cheney brand of conservatism. (I didn't vote for them either). I was not alone. All of Barry Goldwater's grandchildren publicly endorsed Obama as did Bill Buckley's son Chris, which cost him his job as a columnist at the National Review, the magazine his father founded. Polls indicate that 20% of voters who identified themselves as conservatives also voted for Obama. That is a staggering figure. What part of "John McCain is unacceptable" did the GOP not understand.
Phoebe Vet I love it when people who prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom tell the rest of us we are not smart. THAT is not among the smartest comments I've seen lately. The fear terrorism has been blown seriously out of proportion to the actual threat for political gain.
5 star post!!!
Mean while back on topic
First off you can NOT force the train companies to just hand over the railroads to Amtrak. And as for the issue with Amtrak getting delayed. That is kind of inefitable. First off you get a delay on Amtraks part for some reason then leave a station late. Then they get slowed down for some reason. Finally it gets to a point that they will not make the meet at the assigned location with the track owners train. So Amtrak gets held up waiting someplace else for the meet and they fall behind schedule. You can not expect the owning railroad to lose time and money (if the contract has a schedule clause) or just to have issues with the time the engineer on the train can work because of Amtrak. The company that owns the track is in buisness ( I know that is a bad thing now of days)
So if you want to have on time trains you need to get the track back into the control of the passenger company (Amtrak in this case). As for the idea of how to update the track for faster speed. You do in fact need to get ride of grade crossings. No one thinks it is a good idea to run 100mph plus on a track that has grade crossings. This is asking to kill a LOT of people. Now using this area as an example I have a line not to far from me that has give or take 8 grade crossing in about 4 miles of railroad. At a cost around here of at least 1 million bucks to build a bridge (and this is in fact most likly really really under the actual costs) that would work out to about 8 million to convert that one line for 4 miles and this is in no way shape or form unusual. I drive over grade crossings pretty much anyplace I go. We have thousands and thousands of them. And just putting in flashers or gates that work faster is not an option. Not when running that fast. One car could kill a whole train of people if it got on the tracks.
And of course no one wants to try and answer the issue about not having enough people in a given area to support the train (for most of the country) You can not get around the density issue. And is the point to get the cars off the roads? I thought the point was to get a workable option. Last time I checked it is not the job of the government to tell me how to live. If I want to drive that is my option. IF the government wants to give me an option that is fine but the argument that getting trucks off the road will result in more cars is so off base on so many points that I dont have time to point them all out. First off, even if you replaced every truck with a car (something that will not happen) you will still save a LOT of fuel. Turcks us more then cars. Also you will save a LOT of repair costs on the road. Trucks do a lot more damage to the road. OF course I am not sure where the extra cars will come from so i dont see you actually getting more cars. And the way to get people to take the train (or any other mass transit) is not to force people or to make it to the point that they can not afford not to use it but to make the mass transit system so nice that they WANT to use it. I know this is a strange idea now.
So if you want trains you need figure out how we can afford to build them. Then you need to figure out how we can afford to run them. Then you need to figure out how to make them nice enough to attact riders. Then you STILL have the issue that we in the US do not have (in most of the country) enough people living close enough together to make a train system work.
So I suggest that we expand them where they will work (Along the costs) and maybe use them for commuting in the bigger cities if you have a lot of people working in the city (not something we have in Detroit, Almost no one works in the City of Detroit we all work in the suburbs so mass transit will not work, as we do not have a mass of people going to the same place) And we should look at the long distance trucks (if you want to save the fuel.enviroment/world) and just forget the idea of fast trains for most of the country. We are just to spread out and the distances we travel are just to great.
DouglasJMeyer And the way to get people to take the train (or any other mass transit) is not to force people or to make it to the point that they can not afford not to use it but to make the mass transit system so nice that they WANT to use it. I know this is a strange idea now.
In large centers that would be the idea. Get people to want to use transit rather than using their car. One way usually is that property taxes in the core of a city is a lot more than outlying areas. Hence you end up paying for the privilege of parking the car downtown. If the expense of parking becomes higher than using transit then the choice is obvious in that sense. Don't have to get any more plainer than that.
But---and this seems to be the point that usually gets skipped over. Pop. density in the rural areas is such that you cannot make transit very feasible. Greyhound has to get provincial subsidies to keep certain local routes open in Northern Ontario for example---I'm pretty sure that that occurs in many states as well. I know of some Old Order Mennonite communities here that rely on a mini van service provided by some loocal company to pick up people here at the bus terminal and take them to farms north of here near Dundalk ON. There could be some demand for a small scale service of that sort in outlying areas. Passenger Rail service in rural areas? Doubt that----you'd really have to pepper the landscape with rails then. And that cannot be done---
Oh, I don't know about that. I quit using the turn signals in my car to confuse the terrorists as to my next move.
Beginning 1 February this year, I plan to start driving erratically to confuse them even further.
Andre
I've heard that argument before. I've even believed that argument. But I've learned that one person's estimate isn't much more valid than anyone else's.
Several years ago the City of Charlotte announced that they had hired a consultant to determine the feasibility of a mixed mass transit system that would include light rail. The hired consultant told them that they did not have enough density to support rail and recommended bus-ways. I drove toward center city regularly along South Boulevard, a fairly busy road that paralleled the proposed light rail line, and on I-77, a busy 6 lane highway that roughly parallels the proposed line. I could see the buses that ran on South Blvd every half hour or so. They had 5 or 6 people on them when I saw them. There was also an express bus that went from a park and ride at the state line along the interstate to city center. That bus also seemed under used. The city wanted to run a 2 unit train that could carry 200 people per unit every 7 minutes during rush hour and every 15 minutes the rest of the day. Like many people in town, it sounded like a pipe dream to me. They built it anyway. It is carrying 15,000 people a day, high end apartments and condos along the line are popping up like mushrooms, and they have ordered more units.
I believe we have a chicken vs egg scenario. The trains are not faster and don't run more often because not enough people ride and people don't ride because the trains don't run fast enough or often enough.
Barry:
No one is suggesting that every community in the US should be served by passenger rail.
Such an undertaking would take a hundred years and, of course, would not be well used. The US should set up a fast frequent rail service among the larger urban centers. Any local transportation needs should be a local project, using whatever system meets THEIR needs. Some, like NC does, might choose to run local trains along the same right of way the national trains use. Others might use buses. Local communities should consider local mass transit services.
andrechapelon It is complete nonsense to think that by limiting what you can say here will stop terrorists from blowing up whatever. Oh, I don't know about that. I quit using the turn signals in my car to confuse the terrorists as to my next move. Beginning 1 February this year, I plan to start driving erratically to confuse them even further. Andre
Nah---I just drive----------really fast---SSEEEEEEEYYAAAAABYYEEEEZOOOOOOOOMMM!!!
Phoebe Vet Barry: No one is suggesting that every community in the US should be served by passenger rail.
I know that---I'm being my silly self
The idea that some have of using more smaller passenger vans as opposed to buses may actually work better in even medium sized towns to service outlying centers.
Way back around the early 1900's Woodstock ON had an electric trolley service that went to Ingersoll ON that ran alongside the old Ingersoll Rd. There are some areas that one can still come across the tracks--
blownout cylinderLook. I'm frankly, quite tired of having our freedoms and rights being strangled slowly by fear mongering and by basically criminal people who have only one desire----POWER. And they get it by making you so scared of even forums and such that some are willing now to even suggest that we shut these forums down to protect us....and to keep them from getting information.....
SHUT THE FORUM DOWN? Are you serious? Is that what you, and others, believe I said?
If so, you truly ARE legends in your own minds.
My statement was clearly prefaced by that of the VP. It was HIS comments that were alluded to.
Phoebe VetI love it when people who prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom tell the rest of us we are not smart. THAT is not among the smartest comments I've seen lately. The fear terrorism has been blown seriously out of proportion to the actual threat for political gain.
There is another problem with that earlier comment; it implies that those who would seek to do us harm are unimaginative, not very intelligent or perceptive, and couldn't possibly long since have deduced all this by themselves.
Now, back on topic...
-Crandell
All I'm going to say on the VP quote, is that I think you're reading too far into it.
DouglasJMeyerFirst off you can NOT force the train companies to just hand over the railroads to Amtrak.
I didn't say put a gun to their heads. Throw money at them. It's working for Amtrak California that way. Have you ridden it? They ride UP tracks, and UP TRAINS hole up for 'em. Gee, wonder why?
DouglasJMeyerFirst off you get a delay on Amtraks part for some reason then leave a station late. Then they get slowed down for some reason.
Admittedly, pocketting delays can be detrimental to the entire system, and because Host A decided Amtrak isn't worth their time, Host B is forced to have to run them in the cracks. That too, is unavoidable, and whatever Host A's problem is needs to be fixed, so that Host B isn't forced to have to juggle everything again for a late train.
DouglasJMeyerSo if you want to have on time trains you need to get the track back into the control of the passenger company (Amtrak in this case).
DouglasJMeyer As for the idea of how to update the track for faster speed. You do in fact need to get ride of grade crossings. No one thinks it is a good idea to run 100mph plus on a track that has grade crossings. This is asking to kill a LOT of people.
Nuking crossings is a good idea. Is a framer going to want to lose land for a fill though, through his entire field? Or lose a few feet for a larger crossing that has all the lights, a detector (SInce I'm assuming the circuit method wouldn't work that far away) a mile and a half away, and a sign that says
Sign at the Railroad crossing CAUTION!!Fast moving trains cannot stop. DO NOT CROSS if the lights are blinking, or you hear the train whistle
In town, it would be better to elevate or tunnel the railroad, IF it isn't making a station stop. Suburbia, it would be a good idea to elevate. In the mean time, treat the elevation as a stages project like the above, and gradually work back the timetable.
Just thinking here, if it takes a car 10 seconds to go across a crossing, and a train is running at 125 miles per hour, figure 15 seconds to be safe, the gats would have to trip wih the train a half a mile away. If you put the detector a mile away, that's 30seconds from trip to train. enough time to drive across. I for one though, would move it further back, say 1.5, so that the idjits who stop on the track at a streetlight can move too. But your right, getting things out of the way is better
125 mi. X 15 seconds 3600 seconds
Then again, a train in Detroit is likely stopping in Detroit, so it's not doing high speed yet, anyway
DouglasJMeyerAnd of course no one wants to try and answer the issue about not having enough people in a given area to support the train (for most of the country)
We did, past few pages. A little bit here, a few people there, still adds up. You wanna run RDCs? that'll solve your density problem. Apearenly, there's enough people in Michigan to justify the Wolverines. Apperantly, there is enough density btween Indy, Lafeyyette, and Chicago to justify Not only the Cardinal, but to also run the Hoosier State to fill in the timetable gaps when the Cardinal is out East. I'll re-iterate a point. No one's saying every town has a railroad station. But there are a number of viable corridors, some mentioned here, that would work wonders. And to kill another bird, run the High Speed, and a cleanup train to hit the small towns. IE: A High SPeed Hoosier would hit Cinncy, Indy, Lafeyette, and Chicago. While the High Speed is going IN-CHI, the cleanup train based out there is working IN-Cinncy. Or, if there are in fact two High Speeds that depart opposite directions, then the clean p trains are working the opposite direction to meet the High Speed on the return. Say, High SPeed leaves INdy, the cleaner leaves Cinncy. They meet somewhere out Eastern IN. When the cleaner hits Indy, it discharges. The High SPeed is already working back West. The cleaner leaves, they again pass, and probably after only a half-hour late, the middle town people again whisking West.
I'm sure a pro could work out a better timetable, or at least one that's more legible.
DouglasJMeyerAnd is the point to get the cars off the roads?
DouglasJMeyerLast time I checked it is not the job of the government to tell me how to live.
Not in this country it isn't.
DouglasJMeyerIf I want to drive that is my option.
DouglasJMeyerbut the argument that getting trucks off the road will result in more cars is so off base on so many points that I dont have time to point them all out.
This, I want to hear. Do it, please.
DouglasJMeyerFirst off, even if you replaced every truck with a car (something that will not happen)
I can almost guarentee you hat the number of people driving cars FAR exceeds the number of trucks on the road. ANd I can almost guarentee that the number of people who use the interstate is FAR less than the number of people driving. If you take a semi off the road, you open up 3 more spots for 3 more cars. Three more people who have been driving on the surface streets, because THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THEM ON THE INTERSTAE FOR ALL THE TRUCKS will get ont he interstate.
Notice: Kansas doen't have this problem, because their interstate is a long stretch of nothing. But the interstates in IN, around INdy, Ft. Wayne, Gary/Chicago ILL,
DouglasJMeyeryou will still save a LOT of fuel
Yes. What's this have to do with the price of eggs in China? We already agreed that trucks being removed would save fuel. Not the issue.
DouglasJMeyerOF course I am not sure where the extra cars will come from so i dont see you actually getting more cars.
1) Cars from people who were crowded off he interstate and have taken to the surface streets. Don't believe this happens? look at construction. They cut a lane out, people get off. They put a lane back, people get on. If you don't see this happening, then you are probably too blind to be driving safely, and should take the train.
2) Teenagers are gettin their lisences faster and more frrequently then people who drive are dieing off. Hence, more cars
DouglasJMeyerAnd the way to get people to take the train (or any other mass transit) is not to force people
DouglasJMeyerThen you STILL have the issue that we in the US do not have (in most of the country) enough people living close enough together to make a train system work.
Again we did this in a previous page. A few people here, a few people there, it adds up. RDCs may take the fuel costs of three cars. But if 10 people are riding. Then hypothetically, you have 7 people generating profit, because the first three's ticket price over the year, paid for all ten of their cars. The other seven can then pay fo rmaintnence with their ticket prices.
And don't say "Your crrect, you'll only have 10 people riding" beause in all of the cases we've looked at in theis thread, your wrong. And if your not, self-power a talgo car. It's light, set to gauge, and still sturdy enough.
DouglasJMeyerSo if you want trains you need figure out how we can afford to build them
It will probably need a government kick to start, and a piggy bank to save in. That;s how museums have been upgradin the length they un trains. WHy can't it work on a larger scale for a larger difference.
DouglasJMeyerThen you need to figure out how we can afford to run them
DouglasJMeyerThen you need to figure out how to make them nice enough to attact riders.
Put food inthem, and make the schedules convient. As we said at the top of this novel we co-wrote. That's all that HAS to be done, the rest is already standard on most Amtrak trains. Power, internet, etc.If you build it, and make it accesible, they will come. I doubt anyone from ALaska went to Iowa, but I bet most of Iowa did.
DouglasJMeyerSo I suggest that we expand them where they will work (Along the costs) and maybe use them for commuting in the bigger cities
Something else already mentioned in a previous post.
DouglasJMeyerand just forget the idea of fast trains for most of the country
There is an interesting article in today's Contra Costa Times. From 2008 to 2009, ridership declined 10% on BART, 8% on Santa Clara VTA, 9% on Caltrain, 7% on Samtrns, 34% on County Connection (my local busline), and 10% on AC Transit. It has been a downward spiral as fares have increased and routes and frequency has been reduced in a futile effort to raise revenues and reduce costs. For a growing number of people, commuting by car is usually far more cost effective as well as a large time-savings commuting. All this despite the already huge tax subsidies provided to these public transportation systems. Perhaps the only "solution" is more Orwellian government actions such as artificially making automobile use more expensive and the actual banning of automobile use. After all, it is the function of government to control the lives of its citizens for their own good.
Mark
Bill H. blownout cylinderLook. I'm frankly, quite tired of having our freedoms and rights being strangled slowly by fear mongering and by basically criminal people who have only one desire----POWER. And they get it by making you so scared of even forums and such that some are willing now to even suggest that we shut these forums down to protect us....and to keep them from getting information..... SHUT THE FORUM DOWN? Are you serious? Is that what you, and others, believe I said? If so, you truly ARE legends in your own minds. My statement was clearly prefaced by that of the VP. It was HIS comments that were alluded to.
And you were worried about what we said here--on this forum as well. And? And you alluded to them but where did you think it was going to lead?----Some of the worry warts --not on this forum but a few others were squawking about this very thing-----
--------
This was the statement in question------where did you think this was going?-----
-----mmmmm-----
markpierceThere is an interesting article in today's Contra Costa Times. From 2008 to 2009, ridership declined 10% on BART, 8% on Santa Clara VTA, 9% on Caltrain, 7% on Samtrns, 34% on County Connection (my local busline), and 10% on AC Transit.
Mark, with so many working class people taking those trains and so many jobs lost over the past couple of years, do you think at least some of the reduction might be caused by that?
Lou
Although I had to drive six miles to the nearest station, for decades I commuted on BART to The City. The City isn't automobile-friendly, the automobile route is subject to an excessive bridge toll, the fares are subsidized by sales taxes, property-tax assessments, government grants, and direct government subsidies through employer-provided transit vouchers, and my office was in walking distance of a BART station. Still, I always had a twinge of guilt from those taxpayers not served by BART because without subsidies, the fares would be several times higher.
Javelina Mark, with so many working class people taking those trains and so many jobs lost over the past couple of years, do you think at least some of the reduction might be caused by that? Lou
Undoubtedly that is part of it, but the drops in ridership are several to many times more than changes in employment levels.
blownout cylinderAnd you were worried about what we said here--on this forum as well.
No. I said nothing about what anyone said on this forum. My original post pointed specifically at the comments made by Joe Biden. Clear? Should some choose to read more into it, well... that's just how it goes.
I have no interest in this becoming a political thread, I am just very happy that someone in Washington is a supporter of rail travel and wanted to note VP Biden's comments to folks I thought might be interested in reading them. I would love to see some stimulus money used to construct high speed corridors in as many places as possible. We'll see if that will happen.
As far as traveling on Amtrak goes, I am a fan. I have done it several times between Eugene and Portland or Seattle. It was a very comfortable, enjoyable experience. We got delayed on a siding during one trip which was not fun, but other than that, we have been on time consistently. I have also traveled via train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and it was an excellent trip. I recommend it!
markpierce Javelina Mark, with so many working class people taking those trains and so many jobs lost over the past couple of years, do you think at least some of the reduction might be caused by that? Lou Undoubtedly that is part of it, but the drops in ridership are several to many times more than changes in employment levels.
The Trains article on AMTKCA poited this out as well. But while ridership is down since 2008, it is still far higher than 2007, which means that they may have lost the valence riders, but the core customer base, plus some, is still there. Not their exact words, but darned close.
The VEEP is a train wreck unto himself.
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
hcc25rl The VEEP is a train wreck unto himself.
Just determined to make this thread into a political food fight, aren't you? Sounds like a one track mind.
To bring this back to something a little more train-like
A question--
Which city pairs would be a good choice to start a cross country journey? I'm thinking here of a chain of city pairs---
Audrey and I would eventually like to try a cross America trip some time --- say in the next year.
blownout cylinder To bring this back to something a little more train-like A question-- Which city pairs would be a good choice to start a cross country journey? I'm thinking here of a chain of city pairs--- Audrey and I would eventually like to try a cross America trip some time --- say in the next year.
Do you want to go coast to coast or are you willing to start from your home town? I'm pretty sure that with a combination of VIA and Amtrak, you could get to Chicago from London, ON. From there, you got a choice of 3 routes, Chicago-Seattle, Chicago-San Francisco Bay Area and Chicago-Los Angeles. The first two are more scenic and with Chicago-Bay Area, you get a double helping of mountain scenery (Denver-Salt Lake City and Reno-Sacramento).
If you want to go essentially coast to coast, I'd suggest you get yourself down to Albany, NY, and catch the Lake Shore Limited to Chicago. Unfortunately, that's a night trip. OTOH, except for some nice scenery along the Mohawk River, you won't miss much. From Chicago, as I said, you have essentially 3 choices. You could do a kind of circle trip in the West, going from Chicago to Seattle then from Seattle to the SF Bay Area and then over the Sierra and Rockies to Chicago.
If you really want to go whole hog, go from Seattle down to LA on the Coast Starlight and catch the Southwest Chief back to Chicago. You won't get the spectacular mountain scenery, but you will get some nice vistas of the California coast. If you spend some time in LA, you can also take a side trip down to San Diego.
Hope this helps.