<p>[Maglev</a> and Steel-Wheel Train Plans - U.S. Railroads - Amtrak - General Atomics - Popular Mechanics](<a href=“http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4232548.html]Maglev”>http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/transportation/4232548.html)</p>
<p>Feasible? Great idea? Unlikely to happen? Any thoughts?</p>
<p>There are certain corridors where it might make sense depending on the cost - like maybe between LA and Las Vegas. </p>
<p>The big factors are the actual cost to construct the engines/cars, test, certify (as safe), purchase, build the track, power the track, maintain the track, staff the operation, see how this cost translates into a ticket price, make sure there are enough people wanting to travel that route at the time to ensure it’d be reasonably full (or else ticket costs would go higher), and try to compete with air travel.</p>
<p>i was in sf for thanksgiving weekend and i drove. I was thinking how nice it would be if we had a bullet train travelling between SF and LA! so it’s interesting to see an article on it just over a week later. :)</p>
<p>We’re train people. We use them as much as possible in other countries- in many places, they’re much more efficient than the alternatives.</p>
<p>Trains are a giant waste of money. People won’t use them at sufficient levels to justify their expense. People prefer to travel by cars. What we need are more highways to eliminate grid lock.</p>
<p>razorsharp, I see you’re in the west, but in the east that isn’t the case at all. Here, new highways allow people to live even further away from their jobs and the new routes quickly become congested. We use Amtrak whenever possible to travel along the northeast corridor - I’d much rather take a train than drive from Philadelphia to NYC or Washington, and it’s how our D gets back and forth from college.</p>
<p>Yeah. The West is dramatically different from the east, razorsharp. In the east, trains are often far more convenient for people than driving. That, and they’re more efficient in general. Having more public transportation is a good thing for the environment, and a good thing for infrastructure costs, and so forth… we should be encouraging it. That said, there’s always a need for better and more roads as well. ;)</p>
<p>My daughter and I took a trip to Chicago this summer. We could have driven, from central MO, but the idea of handling traffic in the big city and finding a place to ditch the car was unappealing. Our destination was Michigan Ave., the museums and the shopping district, so a car was useless to us. We loved the train ride; fast, convenient, didn’t even cost us anymore when you calculate parking the car.</p>
<p>We have also taken long-distance trains on several occasions over the years, and usually had a great time. </p>
<p>I hope it happens, Sam Lee. I know we Americans love our cars and the independence, but I still thinks it is a workable idea, even outside of the east coast.</p>
<p>If what you folks are saying about the benefits of trains were true, Amtrak would not be costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. If train riders actually had to pay the full cost of their rides, the demand for trains would decrease even further. The only remaining role for trains is for transporting freight, not people. </p>
<p>BTW, if trains are such a smart way to travel, why isn’t there a train from Dullas Airport outside of WAshington D.C. connecting to Amtrak and the Washington DC subway? This would be a simple improvement in mass transportation yet it has not happened.</p>
<p>razorsharp: That argument is flawed, since someone driving a car does not pay all the costs necessary to driving (they don’t directly pay for driving on most roads, toll highways being the obvious exception), just as train riders do not directly pay for all of their costs. Just as taxpayers pay for roads, they pay for rails.</p>
<p>I’m failing to see any substantial differences here…</p>
<p>Amtrak does connect to Baltimore-Washington International Airport (BWI) via a free shuttle. It is VERY convenient (and a Southwest destination) for traveling on the east coast for college visits.</p>
<p>There is a pretty big difference between roads and trains. The vast majority of the cost of building roads comes from per gallon gasoline taxes charged by the federal government and state government. Large trucks also pay state and federal road taxes based on weight (in theory heavier trucks cause more damage to roads). Trucks also pay set fees based on whether they travel inter state or intra state. The big difference is that someone paying income taxes in Alaska who never uses a train has to subsidize someone else travelling in New York who uses the train all the time. With gasoline taxes, the more you drive the more you pay for your driving. </p>
<p>Free shuttle? You mean a bus, not a train, of course.</p>
<p>One of the enduring problems of the Amtrak system is the fact that passengers trains not only must share the tracks with freight trains, but they always must give priority to any freight train that is off schedule and needs the tracks. Hence, a lot of the schedule problems that plaque passenger train travel. There is no question this is a primary reason people are reluctant to trust trains for intercity travel.</p>
<p>Of course, that is not the only problem with Amtrak, and I’ve taken enough trains to know there are a lot of problems. Surly, irresponsible employees who figure they can’t get fired, and old equipment are two problems. </p>
<p>Building dedicated tracks would be expensive, but it probably is the only way to make the system work well enough in many parts of the country. Figuring out how to make federal employees care what the passengers think is important also. (Not to insult all Amtrak employees; I have met some who work hard, well, and always have a smile.)</p>
<p>Razorsharp, have you spent any time on trains? I know some people like to drive, but I would always rather be a passenger and read a book, write on my laptop, take a nap, play cards in the clubcar, sit in the dome car and listen to a naturalist describe the history and ecology of the west as you pass through…</p>
<p>I’d love to see a way to make it work. By the way, there is a train that goes to Alaska. I’m going to take it someday I think.</p>
<p>Unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. The west population centers are too sparse to make financially feasible. OTOH, the east has the opposite problem – the density would mean that such a train from north to south would require the eminent domain of (hundreds of?) thousands of homes and businesses, not to mention the problem that the exisiting tracks would have to be relocated somwhere, somehow as midmo notes; think about the freight, existing tunnels under the Chesapeake, the NYC rivers, etc.</p>
<p>
Yes. I have spent many times on Amtrak and have enjoyed my travels greatly. I like the big seats and being able to read and listen to music, etc. The problem with trains is that over large distances, they are slow as compared to jets and often more expensive. Amtrak trains are late many times. You still have to drive to the train station (unless you are using an underground train i.e. subway). This means you can’t eliminate conjestion due to cars. For short trips, cars are always better and more convenient. For long trips (such as flying from Washington D.C. to New York City) a jet is cheapter and quicker. The only time trains come in handy is those middle size trips such as going from Washington D.C. to Baltimore, M.D. Or trains from Port Washington NY into Manhattan. Other than that, trains are a waste of time and taxpayer money.</p>
<p>we’ve had three family members take Amtrak between Chicago and Syracuse. Frankly, we’ve had horribly airline experiences with almost any airline that flies into Syracuse, and it’s always very expensive. What I liked about the train was that it’s an overnighter… you leave in the evening and arrive at your destination in the morning. The seats were very, very comfortable. I was able to get more comfortable on a train seat, than in the passenger seat of a car. With the time you spend driving to an airport, parking remote, taking a shuttle to the terminal, getting there a minimum of an hour and a half ahead of time (especially needed at O’Hare), flying to where you are going, then more transportation from airport to wherever, it wasn’t that many more hours to take the train. And a LOT less stressful. We arrive at the train station about a half hour before the train leaves. And to reiterate, the ticket is almost a 1/2 of what it would cost to fly.</p>
<p>I will say, Amtrak runs late often, but it still felt so much less stressful than flying (and I don’t mind flying). I agree the issue lays with who owns the tracks and who gets priority, which is unfortunate. But if there were more train routes, tracks, etc., with faster speeds, I’d much prefer the train. We used them in Europe exclusively for two weeks one summer, and they know how to do trains.</p>
<p>The question may not have to with trains or planes but whether there is enough will and money to repair, improve, and make new infrastructure. The US has relatively old equipment that is wearing out. </p>
<p>Let’s take the automobile. Japan has had a 8 year lead in designing, creating and making a successful gas-electric car. The first US high efficiency car isn’t going to be marketed until 2010+. Who and what do you suppose could have a better car in 2010?</p>
<p>Amtrak travel in the Willamette Valley is well received at a very reasonable cost.
The problem with the western railways is that the Chinese didn’t build a double track! Can you imagine a single track for All north and south bound freight and passenger trains from Canada to Mexico! If there is a problem between Sacramento and Vancouver, WA , the detour is to Utah, on the main W-E continental RR. When there is a holdup on the N-S track, the problem is reflected at all points.</p>
<p>The recent rain storm has blocked I-5 south of Seattle. The detour for interstate travel is probably a few hundred extra miles.</p>
<p>From Gallup web page:</p>
<p>Gallup poll shows that former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani remains in the lead for the Republican nomination, although his percentage of the vote is trending downward. Meanwhile, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has moved into a four-way tie for second place, only nine points behind Giuliani.</p>
<p>Read more:</p>
<p>[Giuliani</a> Still Leads Nationally, but Huckabee Is Gaining](<a href=“Giuliani Still Leads Nationally, but Huckabee Is Gaining”>Giuliani Still Leads Nationally, but Huckabee Is Gaining)</p>
<p>If you plan for the way things were ten years ago, chances are your choices won’t work out well twenty years from now. Razorsharp is analyzing transportation from the perspective of 1995. In the future, roads will continue to be more congested - we’ve run out of land to pave in many areas - double deck freeways, anyone? Double deck surface streets next? The cost of energy sources to move objects will continue to rise - outpacing inflation for the first time. The environmental cost of fossil fuels (unavoidable in air travel or long distance auto travel) will continue to escalate. Trains use less land and less energy per person/mile - hands down. That’s an unavoidable fact. Given that, the negatives can be lessened or eliminated.</p>
<p>True fact: A couple of years ago some colleagues and I were attending a conference in Pasadena. I live in the SF Bay Area. We left home at the same time, but I drove and they flew. I beat them there (no flight delays, just time spent getting to the airport, parking, going through security, getting on/off the plane, renting a car etc.) So I get Razorsharp’s point about the convenience of cars. But a high speed SF - LA train would have beaten all of us to the punch. Flexcar/Zipcar at the train stations for local mobility, etc.</p>
<p>Transportation will change in coming years. Razorsharp’s first post could have been written by a guy in a horse-drawn carriage talking about those new fangled “stinkpot” automobiles. Look ahead, not back, and you can plan well.</p>