http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04...-plan-for-u-s/


I've been hearing more and more about this... Will enough people use it to justify it's cost? Or is it one of those things that look good on paper, but don't work in practice? Living in a rural area as I do it won't effect me one way or another as the plans I've seen connect cities, but I'd hate to see billions wasted when the money could be better spent elsewhere.

He'll face a lot of opposition from the oil and car companies (lol) - they systematically worked to undermine the rail industry in the US hence it's pretty much useless at present.

personally, I think it is bollocks.

we need complete public transport within cities......... buses, trams, trains.

People do not regularly go from Detroit MI to Columbus Ohio on a weekly basis.

but they do regularly go from Dublin Oh to Columbus Ohio.

I think one of the major reasons that US Cities are like empty souless ghost towns past 6pm is that people whom fancy a pint have to drive home from a bar unless they just go to a local bar in their suburb......

No offense, but European Cities are thriving till 11pm....... because people can go into the cities, socialise and still get home again without having to drive.

.... to the nearest ER to have their stab wounds attended to.

Have to agree 100%. Found out not too long ago that there used to be a train from my town into Louisville (only ~20miles away) about 60 years or so ago. Transportation like that is what we need in order for cities to 'go green' and to remove cars from roads and to generally save people money. It's great to give us alternatives to planes (and get the more scenic routes), but long term is local city transpo, not regional cities.

I think a possible exception might be to connect certain neighbouring cities on the east and west coasts, where high-speed rail might compete more effectively with air travel.

On the east coast there is the Acela high speed service linking DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC and Boston. It's great for business travellers but cost-prohibitive for many leisure travellers as it's first-class only and therefore expensive. They could do with a more affordable version of that IMO. Decent feeder services into these cities from the suburbs and nearby towns would be helpful though.

The other piece where I find the absence of rail services a pain is between cities and their airports. They're common in Europe, so I can't believe the faffing about with crappy bus services or expensive taxis to get to my destination when I fly somewhere over here. There are some exceptions - in the last couple of years I visited Baltimore and Portland, OR, which both have cheap and frequent light rail connections into the city and other suburban destinations, which was great.

Yeah I agree with others, this works well in other parts of the world because once you arrive at your destination you can easily get around without a car, either using public transport or cabs or walking due to more compact city sizes.

I used to use the train to travel to other sites with my old job back in UK. It was great, you could chill for a few hours or do some work on the train. Then when I arrived at train station, it was just a 10 min cab ride to the site. Our cities are so much more compact.

I'd love for it to work here though. It's definitely better to travel by train between cities a few hours apart than drive or fly. So I think it's good they are trying to work on it, they just need to consider what options people have when they get off the train.

I would use it if it was quicker than amtrack.

My Mother in law was on an amtrack train recently, and it was EARLY (yes early) and the only reason was Dick Durbin and the area manager of amtrack were both on board.

The time before that, it was 5 horus delayed.

If they had soul use of the line and didnt have to compete with freight traffic then it would be great.

Plus it beats flying for me as I hate planes. Air France for the win.

We were thinking of taking Amtrak between Denver and San Fransisco as part of our vacation this year, but it said it takes around 34 hours if it is on time WTF. The cost of a sleeper was almost $500 over the regular fare. I think we might stay with flying there. There is a light rail service in Denver and there are some more stations planned, one in our neighbourhood.

I'd recommend it for the scenery only.

We've taken Amtrak to KC quite a few times and to Chicago once. It worked well in Chicago, plenty of public transit and I didn't want to drive in that mess anyway. In Kansas City, (actually Lee's Summit a KC burb) we'd have a 10 mile walk to my in-laws if no one could pick us up.

It's not going to happen in the US. No need for conspiracies, the concept is precluded by simple economics. The distances are too great, the demand and population densities are too low to justify the huge costs.

That's what it boils down to, and that's what I thought when I heard about this. My fear is that it could be pushed through, aided by the greenies and the general economic sentiment, then lubricated by plenty of stimulus $$$, only to either wither and rot years down the road when it becomes untenable, or worse, to be propped up artificially by "Gov't" cash.

Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Chicago has a good public transport infrastructure! The only problem is the people who run it. I think a good high speed system would be well received if it was maintained by people who gave a damn like the Japanese.

It would help if there were more than just one major company offering long distance train travel. Maybe then they would care to care more.

Some mates from the UK and I did a train trip a few years back.

Springfield - Chicago - Memphis - DC - NYC - Springfield.

We used a cheapy rail pass for foreigners (not available unless you could show a foreign passport as I recall) and the sleeper supplements were under $100 per room per night for a roomette (sleeps 2) and with cooked meals in the restaurant car included.

We had a blast. It was a drinking holiday basically with a bit of sightseeing thrown in. We had been aiming for New Orleans but Katrina stepped in so we had to go to Memphis and then rent a car to get to Birmingham, AL to get the train to DC.

Scenery wasn't great - spent a lot of time starting at trees, but I can see how a trip out west would be much better.

The sleeper fares are demand-based and move through price buckets, from cheapy to bloody expensive (and sold out). Timing of booking is everything if you want to travel at low cost.

It was fun - we had a blast. Everything took ages though so you're got to want to do it. If convenience is your aim then air travel is almost always better...