On Feb 6, 2008 10:53 PM, Dustin Williams <dustinewilliams@gmail.com> wrote:
> In some areas this would be the case. In the Eastern US, with adequate
> infrastructure it could work as well everywhere as in the
> Boston-NYC-DC corridor. Ironically the very thing that opened up the
> West to serious settlement would never be feasible due to the vast
> distances. Seattle to Portland wouldn't be bad, neither would Seattle
> to Spokane. But to go to Idaho, Southern or Eastern Oregon, or Montana
> driving beats everything else due to the small towns and long
> distances. Traveling by train down to California, unless it was a
> bullet train with non-stop service and tunneled below all the
> mountains would never work. Another place that could be a candidate is
> Southern California. Otherwise air travel and road trips are the only
> way to go.
You're right, the West is pretty big. East of the Mississippi, though,
there are LOTS of places you could connect via rail. I was just
talking to a co-worker this morning about a trip to Pittsburgh he's
taking soon for a conference. He's decided to drive rather than fly.
His only options for a flight were to go through JFK or (I think) DC.
Either way, it just wasn't worth the hassle to go that far out of his
way, in addition to what TSA puts you through. In the same amount of
time (getting to the airport early, flight time, layovers, baggage
claim), he can just drive there directly.
If he could hop on a train, it'd be better all around. But even for
those shorter trips, we need faster trains to make them viable in most
peoples' eyes, because the average speed is still much lower than the
interstate.
Yes, it's chicken & egg - people won't use it unless prices come down
and the trips are reasonable in length; the rates won't come down and
the routes won't appear until there's sufficient demand. I *want* to
be able to take the train to visit my family at the other end of the
state (it'd make certain aspects of the trip much more enjoyable), but
the round-trip ticket is TWICE the cost of driving it myself. The
travel time is almost identical, and no worrying about having to stop
and feed the kid.
Once gas hits $5/gallon, it might be more appealing to go that route.
Or, for more lunacy, check this out - I can take one train right to
Schenectady direct from Rochester. Or I can take one from Rochester to
Albany, then sit in Albany for FIVE HOURS and hop on another train to
my final destination of Schenectady, a trip of 24 minutes. I can't
believe Amtrak.com even OFFERED that option - I'd just go right to
Albany and have someone come pick me up there - the cities are close
enough that it's just plain stupid to make that hop.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 02 2008 - 02:10:10 EST