Yeah, I’ve taken the San Francisco Bay Area through Seattle train a few times. I really like it.
It seems that specific route will stay. Eliminating the others is the sort of thing that makes me sad but at the end of the day I can understand it. Long distant rail just doesn’t compete with road or air in the US. It’s probably not a sensible use of resources subsidizing it.
What of putting the 18 wheeler trailers on flat cars for very long distances? Is that still done?
Yes, but the passengers were complaining about the lack of meal service.
Not for much longer. Washington DOT is building a new line for passenger trains south of Tacoma that will bypass the Point Defiance-Steilacoom-Dupont section of track.
I’m not really talking about distance, though. It’s more about all the one-way streets and stoplights and restricted turns and expensive garages.
Who needs trains, when people can just fly in their private jets?
I can’t tell how facetious you were being (internet; doesn’t translate well) but traveling by train is slower and more expensive than flying. Anyone traveling on a train has time and money to be there. Which is basically the problem with Amtrak. I’ve looked at traveling by train for a vacation. All options are slower and more expensive than flying and slower than driving.
I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first White House budget to propose eliminating cross-country passenger rail. It has been kept alive thus far by Congresspeople who like having trains in their district, and I expect that it will be saved once again.
That article you cite is only about the NY-area subways. Every system is different and I suspect that most, being much newer, are not crumbling away.
That’s the Amtrak Cascades train, which goes all the way south to Eugene. There are people who commute daily on it from points south of Portland (Salem and Oregon City) into the city.
The competition is the Bolt bus service, which also does PDX-SEA and SEA-Vancouver, and for far less money (as little as $15). Also, no intermediate stops or waiting for a freighter to pass by. It’s really not a lot faster, but much cheaper. It’s really a shame that this country can’t get over its car addiction. High speed rail, or at least dedicated commuter rail, is available in any other developed country in the world and easily pays for itself. Public transit has gotten an undeserved bad rap as something that only poor people use, even though major cities use it successfully.
The British rail service is as bad as the USA.
I’ve taken Amtrak cross-country on many occasions, but not in a long time. We used to take it from Chicago to Philadelphia to see my grandparents after my parents got divorced; Mom had a car, but couldn’t handle that much driving by herself with 2 kids in the car, and it was significantly cheaper than flying. I even took it to and from college in NYC a couple of times.
My grandparents used to take it from NJ to FL for the winter, because there was a train that took their car down for them. It was a lot of driving for them, and my grandfather had a bad hip and the train was much more comfortable for them.
I know a number of people in Michigan who prefer taking the train into Chicago - no driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and they live far enough from a decent-sized airport that it makes more sense than flying, even at the same cost. And the Chicago trains stop smack in the middle of downtown at a number of the small towns along Lake Michigan, where lots of people vacation. I wish we’d been able to take the train to Holland this past weekend; it would have saved several hours of driving in traffic and construction. But the trains are all booked up in the summer.
British rail services are terrible, extortionately expensive (there are multiple instances of of people discovering it’s cheaper to fly between two UK destinations via somewhere in Europe, and doing so) with incomprehensible fares, and slow.
I can see AmTrak being viable in the Mid-Altantic/New England region where there’s heaps of people and lots of passengers using the train, but I’d be surprised if there’s many people taking a train across America as more than a novelty anymore.
As a lover of train travel I’d like that option to remain, but I’m not surprised it’s under review if there’s a $1b hole in the budget.
What do you mean by this? Round trip airfare is almost as cheap and way faster than traveling by train across the country. A “private jet” isn’t necessary.
Surely there are places in England that are as viable or moreso than the Boswash corridor. My limited experience of rail in the south of England was that it is as fast as driving and cheaper than flying, in addition to being pretty darn full, a sure sign that a route is viable if there ever was one. (As a comparison, the few times I’ve taken regional rail in the NYC area, the trains were more than half-empty and it was on a holiday weekend, but I admit that that may be an anomaly and they might usually be more packed.) My only complaints: the intercity routes only ran around every 2 hours, and considering the packedness of the trains you’d think they could fit some more trains in the schedule; and the fare from Gatwick to Victoria indeed did seem extortionate since they have a captive audience, granted not as high as it could be considering the captive audience, but I felt mildly robbed having to pony up nearly $30 without having very many other options.
Amtrak, if they are smart would build high-speed genetic rail trains like Japan and China have for high traffic routes. Some of these amazing trains for 200 miles an hour or more.
I think they need a lot of money to build or modify the track.
It’s not Amtrak who needs to get smart, it’s Congress who needs to provide the funding. The newest part of the Japanese high speed rail network - a 100 mile extension through Hokkaido - cost $5 billion. That’s twice the annual operating cost of Amtrak.
By the way, they don’t just need new trains, they need whole new tracks. High-speed trains needs dedicated tracks (no slow freight trains to get in the way) and don’t have any level crossings.
That’s very, very expensive to do. Amtrak does have a plan to upgrade the northeast corridor to allow higher speeds and shorter travel times between Boston, New York City, and Washington. I think it does rely on significant federal funding, which, considering this thread is about a proposed cut to Amtrak, seems unlikely in the current political climate.
One thing that’s odd about passenger rail in the U.S. is that it’s funded rather opposite of highway and road travel. Roads and airports and managed and financed through public means; taxes and user fees pay for construction, air traffic controllers, etc. Private entities run the airlines and bus lines that operate on public infrastructure. Amtrak is the other way 'round; a public carrier operating on mostly private track.
And private train stations.
Who funded the transcontinental railroad, the government or the two railroads that laid the track?