In America, people adapt to whatever they can afford-or not. If they could afford to mimic the Joneses, they will do so and get into a huge amount of debt. If gas is cheap, they drive the biggest tank they can get their hands on. If new technology (computers, cable, Wi-Fi) is offered, they buy it without a second thought. So when passenger trains, buses, light rail proves to be too cumbersome (have you paid attention to all the rules and regulations on these vehicle-no food, drink, music, bikes, etc.) when you can do all these things and more in the privacy of your own space on wheels, well it is no suprise what people will adopt. Unless they have to go back to mass transit, why should they?

Prior to World War II, people got around in this country by train without much trouble. The problem is that cheap fuel made it easier for people to drive or fly, so the railroads withered. Now that the days of cheap fuel are coming to an end, the trend is reversing.

I remember these times all to well clear up into the late 1960's. It took less that 30 years
for big oil to kill ,and tear up the tracks for, both freight & passenger rail.

If it hadn't been for Eisenhower's Interstate program (to prepare for more war) big oil
wouldn't have an easy way to foster the growth of the interstate capable semi-truck.
Up until that time semi's were all smaller rail head to city delivery vehicles.

I recall reading a magazine article some years back, that noted that the ONLY Amtrak run that was consistently profitable was the Boston-DC run. And if you have been paying attention--that's the only run they've upgraded to a high-speed rail line.
~

If you have been paying attention then you realize that they did not say this.

They said that the runs of the Acela trainsets makes back the capital costs of the TRAINSETS.

This excludes all of the other trains on the line. This excludes the cost of the actual railroad.

We have dweebs at Amtrak that bought a piece of junk and spent several billons of dollars to upgrade the railroad to allow the ACELA to run at full speed for approximately 8 minutes. It never goes over 90 MPH once west of New Haven.

You can take Fung Wah for $15 and be in NYC before the Acela arrives. BTW the Acela would cost you $135. I know this because my friend can RIDE TRAINS FOR FREE and STILL TAKES THE BUS.

bill

The Fung Wah is about 100x more likely to explode somewhere along I-95 though! But still, it's strange how the estimated trip times of Acela trains are only about an hour and a half shorter than the regular Regional trails between DC and Boston.

I sure hope construction of a national high-speed electric rail system is a key part of some candidates' "green jobs" initiatives.

11 hours delayed because they're sitting on a siding just east of Clines Corners New Mexico awaiting a BNSF to pass.
That's a huge problem with the Cascades service, as well. It's actually faster and cheaper than driving from Portland to Seattle - unless you have to wait for a BNSF freight train to pass.

So when passenger trains, buses, light rail proves to be too cumbersome (have you paid attention to all the rules and regulations on these vehicle-no food, drink, music, bikes, etc.) when you can do all these things and more in the privacy of your own space on wheels, well it is no suprise what people will adopt. Unless they have to go back to mass transit, why should they?
Depends on the system. Where I live, unmessy food, covered drinks, and bikes are allowed. No one would dare deny Portlanders their morning coffee, that's for sure!

Depends on the system. Where I live, unmessy food, covered drinks, and bikes are allowed. No one would dare deny Portlanders their morning coffee, that's for sure!

People in Portland are such caffeine addicts, it's just disgusting. Can't get on a bus or train without some java? Give me a break. Good thing the citizens of Seattle don't have that problem...

:roflmao:

Forty years ago, almost everyone in China and India walked or rode bicycles. If you were rich, you might own a motorbike. Today, in both countries, the newly developed middle class is tossing aside bicycles and mopeds in favor of personal automobiles. This is not an 'American' issue. The human longing for freedom and mobility, beyond the confines of the village, is a universal one. The answer will be oil-free (or at least oil-minimizing) alternatives to the internal combustion engine, e.g. Ford's "plug-in" hybrid. Bikes are wonderful recreational exercise, but they will no more supplant the auto than will the Amish horse and buggy. Sorry to be a Cassandra, but it's time for some folks to get their face out of the granola.:)

All it takes is the first private rail passenger carrier to launch a revolution.

Forty years ago, almost everyone in China and India walked or rode bicycles. If you were rich, you might own a motorbike. Today, in both countries, the newly developed middle class is tossing aside bicycles and mopeds in favor of personal automobiles. This is not an 'American' issue. The human longing for freedom and mobility, beyond the confines of the village, is a universal one. The answer will be oil-free (or at least oil-minimizing) alternatives to the internal combustion engine, e.g. Ford's "plug-in" hybrid. Bikes are wonderful recreational exercise, but they will no more supplant the auto than will the Amish horse and buggy. Sorry to be a Cassandra, but it's time for some folks to get their face out of the granola.:)

But it also depends upon what is possible from an economic and technical point of view. I bet all of us would love to have a flying car like on the Jetsons, but nobody has been able to come up with one that would work for average people.

We have built up this enormous infrastructure to support the car, and the very car culture presupposes inexpensive gasoline. Otherwise it wouldn't have made any sense. The problem is that as we enter into the twighlight of the age of oil, the conditions that made it possible for us to have this freedom will change, and the car will become less and less practical. Yeah, people will still want one, but wishing isn't going to make tons of oil suddenly appear.

All it takes is the first private rail passenger carrier to launch a revolution.


Already done. Several privately owned passenger RR's in the Philadelphia area:

Cape May Seashore Lines
www.capemayseashorelines.org

West Chester Railroad
www.westchesterrr.net

New Hope & Ivyland RR
www.newhoperailroad.com

Strasburg RR
www.strasburgrailroad.com

.......and countless others across the USA........

Already done. Several privately owned passenger RR's in the Philadelphia area:

Cape May Seashore Lines
www.capemayseashorelines.org

West Chester Railroad
www.westchesterrr.net

New Hope & Ivyland RR
www.newhoperailroad.com

Strasburg RR
www.strasburgrailroad.com

.......and countless others across the USA........

Yeah, but all of these are tourist railroads, and two of the 4 use steam locomotives. There is a big difference between this type of railroad and something that would work for general transportation purposes.

Forty years ago, almost everyone in China and India walked or rode bicycles. If you were rich, you might own a motorbike. Today, in both countries, the newly developed middle class is tossing aside bicycles and mopeds in favor of personal automobiles. This is not an 'American' issue. The human longing for freedom and mobility, beyond the confines of the village, is a universal one. The answer will be oil-free (or at least oil-minimizing) alternatives to the internal combustion engine, e.g. Ford's "plug-in" hybrid. Bikes are wonderful recreational exercise, but they will no more supplant the auto than will the Amish horse and buggy. Sorry to be a Cassandra, but it's time for some folks to get their face out of the granola.:)

Allow me to disagree. There can be no modern society that is highly mobile without a cheap
source of oil. Coal for electricity will do but pollutes at an alarming rate so it's use is dumb
at best.

Human, animal, wind or steam power are the only real sustainable sources of power known to
man at the present time. Even nuke power isn't sustainable long term.

Yeah, but all of these are tourist railroads, and two of the 4 use steam locomotives. There is a big difference between this type of railroad and something that would work for general transportation purposes.


Exactly my point: Unless and until there are enough incentives ($$$) from the Feds to make a private individual or group (ie; corporation) plan, and operate, a private passenger rail line along with a dis-investment in road and air infrastructure, tourist railroads, short-run commuter services, and Amtrak will all there will be.

BTW, the railroads, back in 1970, in exchange for $$$, were relieved of their obligation to provide passenger service, which was transfered to Amtrak. Amtk has (or is supposed to have) priority over freight traffic on the lines they run over.

There are already a number of PROFITABLE ROUTES that are available to private carriers, particularly with mid-spaced routes centered about a Chicago hub. All it takes is for a private carrier to come forward, purchase locomotives and rolling stock, and negotiate rights-of-way with the freight railroads. If I had the capitol to get started today, I would.

This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department.

That sounds like an awful lot of jobs. Think of all the benefit to our economy! :)

Bikes are wonderful recreational exercise, but they will no more supplant the auto than will the Amish horse and buggy. Sorry to be a Cassandra, but it's time for some folks to get their face out of the granola.:)

Have you seen any large European city lately? Or, for that matter, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or even NYC and Chicago? Cars are everywhere, of course, but the number of bicycles is increasing markedly in all of these places. A great many people, it seems, have decided that bikes, in addition to being wonderful recreational exercise, are actually a practical way to get around in a city. Maybe you should try some of that granola, it's good stuff. ;)

BTW, I tried the new SLUT train (South Lake Union Transit, very unfortunate acronym) yesterday, and though it was certainly fun, it was way slower than using my bike. It still beats the pants off (sorry, couldn't resist) of driving and trying to find a parking space downtown, though.

There are already a number of PROFITABLE ROUTES that are available to private carriers, particularly with mid-spaced routes centered about a Chicago hub. All it takes is for a private carrier to come forward, purchase locomotives and rolling stock, and negotiate rights-of-way with the freight railroads. If I had the capitol to get started today, I would.

moving passengers _by any means_ is only marginally profitable, if at all. How much do you think locomotives cost? They're about 1.5 - 2 Million USD new, perhaps 500,000-800,000 for a 20-30 year old one. You'd have to amortize the cost. Not to mention maybe 200-300,000 for the use of the tracks. Add in ADA requirements for stations, electric, diesel, ongoing maintenance of the equipment (every week needs to be thoughroughly checked out) and your only source of revenue is $10 fares from people??!! ....... It doesn't add up!!!! (without major subsidies, of course)

Back in the day, (1910's-30's) railroads' freight ops funded the passenger sides' losses. I can count on one hand the years where pass. ops. actually _made money_ (in the 20's). All this has been well documented.

Look @ www.narprail.org (National Ass'n of Railroad Passengers) for more info. Lots of info on their website.

moving passengers _by any means_ is only marginally profitable, if at all. How much do you think locomotives cost? They're about 1.5 - 2 Million USD new, perhaps 500,000-800,000 for a 20-30 year old one. You'd have to amortize the cost. Not to mention maybe 200-300,000 for the use of the tracks. Add in ADA requirements for stations, electric, diesel, ongoing maintenance of the equipment (every week needs to be thoughroughly checked out) and your only source of revenue is $10 fares from people??!! ....... It doesn't add up!!!! (without major subsidies, of course)

Back in the day, (1910's-30's) railroads' freight ops funded the passenger sides' losses. I can count on one hand the years where pass. ops. actually _made money_ (in the 20's). All this has been well documented.

Look @ www.narprail.org (National Ass'n of Railroad Passengers) for more info. Lots of info on their website.

This all sounds about right. Finance people are chasing things with a higher rate of return these days. A passenger railroad isn't going to be high on the list, even if the things were to be profitable.

My guess is that what is likely to happen is that any railroads that are constructed will be quasi-government entities. Perhaps initially they would start as commuter railroads, and they might look for ways to make more use of the rolling stock that they already have. This probably won't happen until such a point that air travel becomes so expensive that governments are no longer willing to invest in airport expansion and maintenance (especially at smaller regional airports).

This all sounds about right. Finance people are chasing things with a higher rate of return these days. A passenger railroad isn't going to be high on the list, even if the things were to be profitable.

My guess is that what is likely to happen is that any railroads that are constructed will be quasi-government entities. Perhaps initially they would start as commuter railroads, and they might look for ways to make more use of the rolling stock that they already have. This probably won't happen until such a point that air travel becomes so expensive that governments are no longer willing to invest in airport expansion and maintenance (especially at smaller regional airports).

True, very true indeed. That said, we can look for some very bumpy times ahead until
rail and short haul mass transit can be worked out to re-establish a non-interstate
infrastructure.

Lest we forget, railroads have also been heavily subsidized- that's how they got all those miles and miles of right-of-way in the first place. They got the right-of-ways plus additional land just for building through. They didn't have to pay for all that like we did with freeways.

I think you're right, if you're talking mainly about the 19th century. The railroads got right of way grants from the federal government. Most of these were in the west, where land at the time was judged to be almost "worthless". The RRs got 20 miles or more to each side of the tracks in many cases. They sold the land later, not only to subsidize the RR, but for enormous profits, as the worthless land became valuable after the tracks went through.

IIRC most if not all European railways are at least partially subsidized by the goverment/taxpayers. As are cars, but most drivers like to conveniently forget that. There was a move in the large city near me to raise sales tax 1/2 cent to help upgrade the bus system. You should have heard all the hollering and carrying on, "make it pay for itself"..."raise the fares to cover the costs" etc, etc. Okay...then we need to toll road ever friggin' "freeway" to pay for itself! I pay state taxes that are used to build roads I never drive on..why?:rolleyes:

Aaron:)

Because cars and highways are to America what bread and circuses were to ancient Rome.

It is the service and access requirements that kill Amtrak. If they only ran profitable trains and slowly expanded, we would be a lot further along I think. There are plenty of trips from NYC that I could see working (up to Boston, down to DC). But going across the country isn't really time-effective for most people. It would be better to have different regional networks that could be attached as demand changes and people get used to it.



I agree. Certainly there should be good passenger service for Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland-Buffalo, for example. But this plan has been stalled for at least 30 years that I can remember because nobody in either private or public sectors will come up with the capital.

Oooh, Didn't even know we had a Living Car Free section in these forums. I like you guys :) In the DFW area we have the DART, or Dallas Area Rapid Transit that encompasses both the bus system and the rail system. We have two passenger railways in Dallas and the T line (I believe its called) that runs out to Fort Worth. They are creating a fourth line to go out to the Airport as well. We live in Plano, which is several miles north of Dallas (through a couple of other metropolitan cities) and we are at the northern most end of the Dart rail. We live just over the expressway (the bridge has a sidewalk, yay!) from the DART terminal and my wife uses that and her bike to get to work each day (her business is about a block off of the local DART terminal).

They just increased the price of a monthly ticket to 50 dollars, so it's too steep for me by that route. But an occasional 3 dollar day pass is perfect for when I want to go downtown to Trinity Hall Irish Pub or the theater district on the weekends. DART is alive and thriving around here and you can take your bikes on the busses and trains just fine.

Edit: We're talking about trans-city passenger railroads, huh? Then I agree... we need more of em :) That being said, incorporating transcity railroads with existing city railroads will be the next step. Have a terminal hub that uses both lines.

Edit: We're talking about trans-city passenger railroads, huh? Then I agree... we need more of em :) That being said, incorporating transcity railroads with existing city railroads will be the next step. Have a terminal hub that uses both lines.

No, the topic is passenger rail ,both light and national, that needs to be supported better
to get cars off the roads while cutting oil use.

Have you ever been on a passenger train. Every one I have been on has been gross - even worse than big city bus systems. I would rather not go somewhere that sit on a dirty train for several hours.

Human, animal, wind or steam power are the only real sustainable sources of power known to
man at the present time.

Steam belongs in the category with electricity and hydrogen. You can make it as a way to transfer power, but you can't just find it sitting somewhere and use it to power something (as with sunlight, coal, etc).

Have you ever been on a passenger train. Every one I have been on has been gross - even worse than big city bus systems. I would rather not go somewhere that sit on a dirty train for several hours.

Chicago's light rail trains are clean. Crowded, but clean. I've never ridden the El trains, so I don't know what they're like.

Toronto's light rail trains are clean. Also crowded. The subway is less clean, but nothing objectionable. The city buses tend to be even less clean, and just as crowded.

The DC Metro system is clean and crowded. The various tourist buses are clean. If there is a city bus system, I've never needed it. Walking and the subway works fine for my needs.

The NYC subway is reasonably clean and crowded. I know there's other rail, but haven't used it. I haven't used their bus system either. Usually, walking and the subway are sufficient for when I'm in NYC.

Amtrack sleeper service was excellent for our trip from LA to Madison. I don't know what coach would have been like, but doing a 48 hour trip in coach is not my idea of a good time. I suspect that clean would not have been my main issue there based on my long Greyhound trips. Lack of sleep is far more unpleasant to me.

They all are at least comparable to Greyhound and the various city buses (which includes several of LA's bus systems) I've ridden. I find the crowding mildly unpleasant, but I can cope. It's never clean enough that I'd be willing to eat off the floor, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to eat off the floor in a hospital surgery *g*. It's certainly cleaner than the streets.

Given the crowding, I would not try to take a full size bike on most of the rail systems I'm familiar with. It would be very rude to the other passengers, even if it was permitted in the rules. A folding bike that fits inside a suitcase wouldn't bother me so much. A suitcase or two grocery bags are a common load, and they don't feel like an imposition to me. Mass transit does mean some compromising. In general, I find the compromises involved in rail travel to be less irritating than similar compromises for air travel.

Passenger rail started to die out when GM killed light rail to
sell more cars.
Except that that isn't what happened. What happened is that the rail lines were expected to maintain themselves, whereas roads were federally funded; also, the fare was capped at a nickel regardless of inflation. When the rail company went to the city for funds to keep the rail lines maintained, they ran face first into big political squabbles where they would have to get neighborhoods that they did not have rail lines anywhere near to agree to tax themselves to pay for them. Getting money to maintain their rail lines proved impossible, so the rail company started ripping out their rails and switching to buses. Then in the end they sold their BUS LINES to GM.
Sorry, but that urban myth pops up all the time, and it really doesn't help the discussion.

Except that that isn't what happened. What happened is that the rail lines were expected to maintain themselves, whereas roads were federally funded; also, the fare was capped at a nickel regardless of inflation. When the rail company went to the city for funds to keep the rail lines maintained, they ran face first into big political squabbles where they would have to get neighborhoods that they did not have rail lines anywhere near to agree to tax themselves to pay for them. Getting money to maintain their rail lines proved impossible, so the rail company started ripping out their rails and switching to buses. Then in the end they sold their BUS LINES to GM.
Sorry, but that urban myth pops up all the time, and it really doesn't help the discussion.

Maybe it depends upon what city you are talking about. Where I grew up in Minneapolis, they got bought up before the buses came in, but it was organized crime that seemed to have the most direct hand in it all. If it weren't for GM, they probably couldn't have pulled it off. So who was ultimately responsible? Don't know for sure, but the net result is that the streetcars were gone.

http://www.baycrossings.com/Archives/2003/04_May/paving_the_way_for_buses_the_great_gm_streetcar_conspiracy.htm

Allegedly, it was easy money from GMAC that convinced the gangsters in control at Twin Cities Transit to scrap its modern PCC style streetcars (to pocket the scrap sales) and buy buses. The crooked officers eventually were convicted of swindling and fraud, but by then the modern streetcars in Minneapolis and St. Paul were burned for scrap.

While GM was engaged in what can only be described as an all out attack on transit, our government made no effort to assist traction whatsoever and streetcars began to fade in earnest after the Second World War. In 1946, the government began its Interstate Highway program, with lots of lobbying from GM, arguably the largest public works project in recorded history. In 1956, this was expanded with the National Interstate Highway and Defense Act. Gas tax funds could only be spent on more roads. More cars in service meant more gas taxes to fund more roads. And we got lots of roads.

A couple of links on this topic.........

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/thint_andy_kunz.php

http://www.newurbanism.org/

It's interesting that so-called free market people prefer roads over railroads, because actually, it's the *roads* in the US that have a longer history of being socialized/subsidized rather than the railroads.

Years ago, we had private railroads. The big ones owned 1000s of miles of rail and hundreds of stations. They paid taxes on all those rails, all those stations. I used to have a copy of the Saturday Evening Post - I want to say Sept. 1957ish, that had an article: "So You Don't Ride the Rails Anymore." That story detailed how RR's like the NY Central had 600+ stations up for sale because they were being taxed and taxed on them while taxes were being levied on rr passenger tickets to help pay for the Interstate Highway System then being built. It mentioned how the then privately owned Washington (DC) Union rr Station was paying over $4500 in property taxes every day, while Washington National Airport was being built on the other side of town with taxpayer dollars.

In the 1940s and 50s, when the railroad companies tried moving into bus and airline businesses, the federal government blocked them on anti-trust concerns. So...our private transportation network, the one that arguably built the Industrial United States, was being taxed to death, to build its competition, while being blocked from buying into that competition.

Years later, when all the public roads built with tax payer money, on land removed from the tax rolls, finally killed the private rr and trolley passenger business, we created *another* taxpayer supported entity, Amtrak to *&^% transportation even more.

In the Boston area, all the highways eventually put the NY, New Haven & Hartford and Boston & Maine railroads as well as all the trolley and street railways under water financially and they ceeded their commuter passenger business to a government transit agency, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) one of the biggest, most financially inefficient government entitites that has ever existed in these parts (and in MA, *that* says something.)

I think all the interstates should be sold off, fee simple to whomever wants them to run as toll roads. Let them pay property taxes too on all that real estate just like the rr's used to have to do. Let's do likewise to all the government run airports too..... Let the airlines buy them and run them as "union" airports (not union as in labor union, but union as in jointly owned by several airlines like the railroads used to do when they got together to build a large, shared train station.)

The day is quickly coming when declining gas and diesel sales will make the federal gas tax $$$ dry up all while construction and repair costs for roads continue to go through the roof. (Construction equipment runs on diesel and pavement is rock glued together with heavy oil components. Even concrete depends on large amounts of nat. gas to cook the limestone and diesel to mix, transport, and spread it.)

Our problem is that for going on 70 years now, government at all levels has been heavily subsidizing the public paved road for the private automobile as well as the public airport and it was all predicated on cheap, cheap oil.

Things are about to change in a big way. Too bad too many of those private rr lines (at least the branch lines) with their very durable (read: needs no oil) metal rail roads and all their stations have been sold off. Too bad too they weren't allowed to get into other transportation businesses.

Now we are stuck with deteriorating roads that falling gas tax revenues can't pay for, and a lousy govt. run remains of a national passenger rail network that is sick. (Though at least for freight rr's, though it looked bleak 30 years ago, things are still going okay.) Just wait until the interstates start dropping bridges over all the culverts etc. and we can't pay to replace them. The few trucks left plying the roads end up with broken wheels and axles from all the potholes. Thank Goodness that we may still have the freight rr's like Burlington Northern, CSX, Norfolk Southern, etc. Maybe when the airlines try to run their own airports (now taxed like everybody else's real estate) and fly planes on $7.00 a gallon jet fuel, the freight rr's will get back into the passenger business like they used to do so well.

We've been clueless on transport in this country for way too long and we're now getting what we deserve for messing with govt. subsized interstate roads in the middle and latter half of the 20th century by playing with socialized roads at the expense of efficient, privately run transportation networks (the railroads.)

As for the comment that busses and rail using a lot of energy, the fact is that they use *far* less per passenger mile than cars do. That the exhaust of a train or bus smells bad, well ya, but I dare one to smell the combined exhaust of the 40 or more cars that a loaded bus replaces or the 300 to 700 cars that a loaded commuter rail train replaces and then reconsider. It's a silly thought, but so was the original comment.

Highways have never paid for themselves when you account for all the real estate taxes lost on them, the pollution, the countless hazardous waste accidents involving trucks (which GREATLY outnumber rail chemical spills, despite what some might think.) Just take away the road subsidies for a few years and see what survives, privately run interstates, or privately run railroads.

Have you ever been on a passenger train. Every one I have been on has been gross - even worse than big city bus systems. I would rather not go somewhere that sit on a dirty train for several hours.

I regularly ride the Amtrak between Charleston, SC and Fayetteville, NC (about 3 hours) or between Fayetteville, NC and Richmond, VA. (about 3 hours) I have yet to find a "gross" or even mildly dirty train car. Some are in better repair than others, but none have come close to the crappy seat and filthy aircraft I last flew in a couple of months ago.

Aaron:)

Have you ever been on a passenger train. Every one I have been on has been gross - even worse than big city bus systems. I would rather not go somewhere that sit on a dirty train for several hours.

From January to April, I rode Edmonton's LRT 4 days a week ... it wasn't pristine, but wasn't bad. It was comparable to a city transit bus ... decent.

I rode Amtrak between Sacramento and Eugene in 2005 ... and it was fine. Better than the LRT, and much, much, much better than the US Greyhound I took from Eugene to Vancouver! Amtrack would be comparable to Canadian and Australian Greyhounds.

I've also ridden trains in England, France, and Australia, and they've all been fine as well.

Steam belongs in the category with electricity and hydrogen. You can make it as a way to transfer power, but you can't just find it sitting somewhere and use it to power something (as with sunlight, coal, etc).

what about geothermal?

Chicago's light rail trains are clean. Crowded, but clean. I've never ridden the El trains, so I don't know what they're like.

If you have gone to Chicago, then how can you ride their "light rail" but not the EL trains? How? The only thing closest to general conception of light rail is the Skokie Swift line. It is not that light.


Amtrack sleeper service was excellent for our trip from LA to Madison. I don't know what coach would have been like, but doing a 48 hour trip in coach is not my idea of a good time. I suspect that clean would not have been my main issue there based on my long Greyhound trips. Lack of sleep is far more unpleasant to me.

I have slept fine in coach. The time required to get from Boston to Chicago is crazy. the NYC used to do it a lot FASTER.

It takes 5 hours at minimum to get from Boston to Albany, which people can do in 2 and by bus in 3. It takes an hour to get out of Albany as they set the trackwork at the station and bizarre configuration. Really! NYC to Chicago used to be 16 hours by train versus the typical time of 24, today. What happened?

In Seattle we have the sounder and I think it pretty successful. Also Amtrak has the Cascades line that I have used between Seattle and Portland. It was worth the $26 I paid to use Amtrak to go from Seattle to Portland. I made my Home buying decision on the Sounder and my ability to put my bike on the train when i commute.

I agree with others much of the rail travel to other places is totally out of the question.

Amtrak has the Cascades line that I have used between Seattle and Portland.

I believe Spanish Talgo Pendular trains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talgo) run along that line. Good equipment.

If you have gone to Chicago, then how can you ride their "light rail" but not the EL trains? How? The only thing closest to general conception of light rail is the Skokie Swift line. It is not that light.



I have slept fine in coach. The time required to get from Boston to Chicago is crazy. the NYC used to do it a lot FASTER.

It takes 5 hours at minimum to get from Boston to Albany, which people can do in 2 and by bus in 3. It takes an hour to get out of Albany as they set the trackwork at the station and bizarre configuration. Really! NYC to Chicago used to be 16 hours by train versus the typical time of 24, today. What happened?

Amtrak has to "rent" space on freight railroad tracks. Freight movement by rail has increased exponentially in the past few years. IIRC in the late 70's early 80's the freight railroad was all but dead. Now they are looking at spending billions of dollars on long overdue infrastructure upgrades to handle the increases in freight....wish we could get that kind of money spent on dedicated passenger rail!

Aaron:)

Have you ever been on a passenger train. Every one I have been on has been gross - even worse than big city bus systems. I would rather not go somewhere that sit on a dirty train for several hours.

I have ridden trains in India, Hong Kong, Thailand, Chile, France, Switzerland, Germany, UK, USA, and Canada. Many have been crowded, some have been somewhat dirty or worn, but none have been 'gross'.

I have been on some buses that were borderline, however. In my experience big city bus systems are pretty nice - it's the intercity buses that are occasionally dodgy.

NY/CT seem to have things under control. (http://www.mta.info/mnr/)

I have ridden trains in India, Hong Kong, Thailand, Chile, France, Switzerland, Germany, UK, USA, and Canada. Many have been crowded, some have been somewhat dirty or worn, but none have been 'gross'.

I have been on some buses that were borderline, however. In my experience big city bus systems are pretty nice - it's the intercity buses that are occasionally dodgy.

I agree, yet it's not the first time I've heard someone (usually a fellow American) express disgust, fear and loathing when discussing trains and buses. Perhaps motorcar travel has made many of them fearful of shared transport and close contact with their fellow human beings.

My guess is that what is likely to happen is that any railroads that are constructed will be quasi-government entities.

It takes two to quango!

Ho ho ho.

I agree, yet it's not the first time I've heard someone (usually a fellow American) express disgust, fear and loathing when discussing trains and buses. Perhaps motorcar travel has made many of them fearful of shared transport and close contact with their fellow human beings.

:thumb:

I think that's a great point, and I don't recall seeing it made here before. I've observed that people have developed feelings of mistrust/disgust toward their fellow citizens, but I never before realized the connection to automobiles.

:thumb:

I think that's a great point, and I don't recall seeing it made here before. I've observed that people have developed feelings of mistrust/disgust toward their fellow citizens, but I never before realized the connection to automobiles.

I suspect that ultimately it is the perception that people who ride buses are those who cannot afford an automobile that leads people to wish to avoid riding the bus.

I suspect that ultimately it is the perception that people who ride buses are those who cannot afford an automobile that leads people to wish to avoid riding the bus.

It's not a perception. It's a misperception.

I suspect that ultimately it is the perception that people who ride buses are those who cannot afford an automobile that leads people to wish to avoid riding the bus.

I suspect that you were born after the time when one car was a luxury not many could afford.

I suspect that you were born after the time when one car was a luxury not many could afford.

How does that have anything to do with how they are perceived today? It's a fact that, in the United States today, most people perceive public transportation as being for people who can't afford cars.

How does that have anything to do with how they are perceived today? It's a fact that, in the United States today, most people perceive public transportation as being for people who can't afford cars.

Especially true for buses. We also have a good subway system here, and the image there is really quite different. I guess because the trains are viewed as being used by average working people just trying to get to work, and who don't want to fight the traffic.

The perceptions vary a lot from one area to the next. Folks in the far suburbs are much less likely to want to take the bus than folks who live in the inner city. In the suburbs, the bus service is worse, and parking is free. In the inner city, service is better and parking is difficult.

Part of the problem with the bus is that bus systems are often underfunded, so the buses aren't reliable. The schedules aren't as good as they could be. The AC is broken in the summer, or the suspension is shot so you feel like you are riding a jackhammer (try reading a report for work while the thing is bouncing up and down in your hands).

Part of the problem with the bus is that bus systems are often underfunded, so the buses aren't reliable. The schedules aren't as good as they could be. The AC is broken in the summer, or the suspension is shot so you feel like you are riding a jackhammer (try reading a report for work while the thing is bouncing up and down in your hands).

I'm sure this is true where you live, but the situation is just the opposite here. Buses are new and clean. Most are hybrids that use ultra-low sulfur diesel, so they're quiet and odor-free. Behavior codes are strictly enforced and the drivers are friendly and service-oriented.

Nevertheless, buses here have a bad reputation that's totally undeserved. People don't like buses just because they're buses--even if they've never actually ridden on a bus to know what it is like. They're low status, only for those who don't have cars and probably "don't deserve cars." I think this is due in part to billions of dollars of automobile advertising over the last hundred years. Bus companies don't have the ad budget to compete with cars, so they'll always be viewed as second class transportation.