Thread: Don't Fly, Just Take The Train

Quote: Originally Posted by rickair7777 I'm all for rail in metro areas, it often beats driving, especially if you have to find parking or want to have a frosty refreshment or two. Even in the sprawling suburbs, I think it could work...many folks would prefer a five minute local drive to the train station rather than a 50 drive to work. If there is parking... Many Chicagoland Metra station parking lots are filled up within the first hour...

I agree with the economics of transcon rail posted above - I should have been more clear about that. I was thinking more about rail in metropolitan areas as a form of mass transit, like SFO's BART or Chicago's Metra/L systems. Most large cities have at least some rail infrastructure that could be massaged into a successful local mass transit. We've built our society around sprawling suburbs that require a huge energy overhead...

Quote: Originally Posted by HSLD I agree with the economics of transcon rail posted above - I should have been more clear about that. I was thinking more about rail in metropolitan areas as a form of mass transit, like SFO's BART or Chicago's Metra/L systems. Most large cities have at least some rail infrastructure that could be massaged into a successful local mass transit. We've built our society around sprawling suburbs that...

#6. The existing rail systems are busy. In fact, NJ is building another tunnel to NYC because that corridor is the busiest rail corridor in the world. If we intend to clog up the freight rails with passenger service, you can expect a lot more accidents.

Quote: Originally Posted by tortue As far as railroad priority goes, Amtrak has the lowest priority when compared to any other freight on the right of way. I've done Montreal -> NYC and I think we showed up like 3 hours late - which was the norm I was told. I've also done Chicago -> Toronto, arriving hours late. Going to be hard to convince passengers to ignore flying with unpredictable service like that. Seems the...

By RICK STEVES THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE Europe is investing in its infrastructure, and travelers know the results are breathtaking. With the English Channel tunnel, trains speed from Big Ben to the Eiffel Tower in about 2.5 hours. You zip under the English Channel in 20 minutes ... looking out the window for fish. More travelers now connect London and Paris by train than by air -- and high-speed rail between these two cities may get even faster...

Trains work well in Europe, but I doubt they would in the US. London and Paris are about the same distance apart that New York and Boston are. Unless they get a lot faster it will still be faster to get naked in front of the TSA and fly from New York to LA or where ever.

Just for comparison... AMTRAK New York Penn Station to Los Angeles Union Station 1005 26 NOV to 0815 29 NOV = 72+ hours $303 Delta JFK to LAX 1645 26 NOV to 2021 26 NOV = 6+ hours $169 We have a long way to go.

When SW started, they didn't worry about other airlines, they wanted to get people out of their cars. It's 30 minutes for me to DFW, 45 to DAL. Plus 15 to park and you have to get there an hour early. AUS blocks a bit under an hour and IAH right about. I can drive AUS in three and IAH in 3.5. And when I get there, I've got wheels. A train would take longer but at least you'd be right downtown. One of the biggest opponents...

Rick Steves, author of the article Vagabond posted, has a website that is very useful if you're planning to travel in Europe, especially by train: Rick Steves Europe Through the Back Door