Posted on 07/04/2010 8:01:49 AM PDT by Willie Green
It could only happen in America. After a rail odyssey of 3,397 miles from New York to San Francisco, our journey was ending at a bus stop.
As we stepped off the coach on California Street in the heart of San Francisco's financial district and lugged our cases a couple of blocks to our hotel, my wife and I probably looked like overstocked shoppers coming back from the supermarket.
Yet the journey's end was appropriate. America treats its trains like a widowed aunt: not frail enough for an old people's home but liable to be a little embarrassing in public.
The attitude was there from the start - in New York our Sikh taxi driver did not even know where the entrance was to Penn Station and dropped us half a block away.
You can also tell a lot about the regard in which rail travel is held from where they build their stations.
~SNIP~
In most places around the world, catching a train means waiting on a platform at ground level and starting your journey in the full glare of the day.
But at Penn Station we boarded our train in a gloomy, subterranean passage and only saw the sky after the train had travelled some distance.
Not that the initial view from our train - a service intriguingly named the Lake Shore Limited - was all that riveting. But, luckily, we had plenty to occupy us exploring our 'roomette'.
The self-contained compartment had plush armchair seats which converted into comfortable beds with the upper bunk having a large window allowing you to lie and watch the world go by.
Add a neat foldaway washbasin and a table with an integral chess board and this was better than anything you might find on an old-world train.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It could only happen in America. After a rail odyssey of 3,397 miles from New York to San Francisco, our journey was ending at a bus stop.
He’s right-you can only travel from New York to San Francisco in America...
MIHIR flew with Virgin Atlantic from London to New York and San Francisco to London. Fares start from £647.27.AMTRAK sleeper tickets from New York to San Francisco cost from £1,000, including meals.
It cost $970 to fly from London to New York and then San Francisco to London.
It cost $1500 to go ONE WAY across the US ($3000 round trip).
And that's supposed to be our future of transportation? A fun trip it can be, but economical? Not even close. And when you consider the TOTAL airtime of those two legs is 15 hours, and the train was at least 4 days one way, it's not even close to time efficient.
I’d rather drive.....I-80 has some great diners and scenery once you get out of Jersey...
Remember, though, on a train the chance that you could spin toward the groud and certain death in wide-eyed horror are considerably less. That’s worth a few extra bucks to me.
And that's supposed to be our future of transportation?
No, as you well know, the future of our transportation is not transcontinental service, but faster, more efficient regional service between cities that are 100~600 miles apart. For these shorter, regional trips, high-speed rail is much more efficient than short-hop air travel. And the fact that these regional routes also happen to link together in a continental network where one can relax and enjoy a more scenic excursion across America is an added benefit.
The author's description of the route he took out of New York City illustrates exactly why this country's passenger rail system is so cumbersome and expensive to operate. It simply developed without a lot of coordination because it was comprised of many different railroad companies. The Lake Shore Limited service he describes, for example, operates out of Penn Station (part of the former Pennsylvania Railroad system) and up the Hudson River and out along the Mohawk River valley along tracks that were once part of the New York Central system.
We could really streamline and speed up trains, make them, say, 500 miles an hour, give them wings and launch them from off the ground... we could call those contraptions aeroplanes !
How much will it cost for these regional lines of 100 to 600 miles?
I’m all for it. Just have it done by private companies that don’t get bogged down by politically-driven service plans and archaic railroad union rules.
How much will it cost for these regional lines of 100 to 600 miles?
Less than air fare along the same route.
Source, please? Anything to back that up? Does that include the deployment costs of the track amortized over the lifespan of the track?
My cost to fly 200 miles (Seattle to Portland) is about $150 round trip; will high speed rail - with the still-coming spending on the lines - be less than that amount?
“It cost $970 to fly from London to New York and then San Francisco to London.
It cost $1500 to go ONE WAY across the US ($3000 round trip).
And that’s supposed to be our future of transportation? A fun trip it can be, but economical? Not even close. And when you consider the TOTAL airtime of those two legs is 15 hours, and the train was at least 4 days one way, it’s not even close to time efficient.”
I’ll play along. Let’s all complain that going across the Atlantic in a steamship is slower and more expensive than flying.
Steamship could be a fun excursion, no doubt - just like that train trip across the US. But Willie loves to tout trains as the future savior of our transportation needs. And the facts are they are much more expensive and slower than other options available today.
And what Willie HATES saying is that he’s a greenie/peak-oil believer. Trains are “required” because Willie thinks we’re out of oil, when the fact is we have hundreds of years of oil in our country right now; we just don’t have the political will to get it.
So Willie’s posts need to be read with the understanding he’s pushing an anti-oil/green agenda only, and trains are just a way to do that. It’s part of some deep-seated hatred he has against “Big Oil” for some unnamed sin they committed against him way back in his history...
My cost to fly 200 miles (Seattle to Portland) is about $150 round trip; will high speed rail - with the still-coming spending on the lines - be less than that amount?
Amtrak already provides that service for only $58 round trip.
You're missing the point ... you can't see much of interest at 35,000 feet in a airplane. Train travel allows travelers to see the country at ground level, much more interesting.
I’ve traveled from Philadelphia to Seattle via Amtrak many times over the past 13 years. I wouldn’t want to go any other way.
You’re forgetting a few facts there, Willie:
- That AMTRAK train is subsidized $80 round trip
- It’s slower than driving
- Your costs are only when the tickets are bought a month or more in advance; it doesn’t apply to 2-3 day pre-buys (like my airfare does)
So how much will it cost, Willie? What is the general number? You’ve never stated that - ever. I wonder why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.