Slashdot Mirror

A lot of Amtrak stations have Quik-Trak kiosks for purchasing train tickets.

In this instance, however, the Charleston, WV station doesn't have a Quik-Trak kiosk. Furthermore, although the station seems like it previously had a ticket window with someone there around the times when trains would be passing through (7-10 AM and 7-10 PM), that ended as of June 6.

Basically, Amtrak used to have someone at the station to sell tickets, and they decided to put an end to that. Senator Manchin is trying to restore things to the way they were at the Charleston station prior to June 6.

As I understand it, Charleston has one route, the Cardinal, which runs three times a week. It's from Chicago to New York, but the eastern terminus is temporary in Washington, DC because of track work along the Northeast Corridor. It would probably be better for Amtrak to make the Cardinal run daily and go to Chicago and St. Louis. There needs to be some track improvements because the route serves both freight and passenger traffic, though I believe that's taking place.

Last year, 9,812 passengers went through Charleston's station. I'm in Lincoln, Nebraska where the long distance California Zephyr is the only train passing through. The Zephyr runs daily, and the station is open from 11 PM-6 AM because the Zephyr comes through late at night. Lincoln had 15,964 people through Haymarket Station last year, yet there's a ticket agent on duty the entire time. I'd bet more people would use Charleston's station if the Cardinal ran daily. There isn't that much more traffic through Lincoln, but I've never heard of such concerns here.

I'm not sure if the Quik-Trak kiosks provide information about when the trains will arrive, and that's useful information because the long distance trains are often delayed. I don't know if that information is available on the Quik-Trak kiosks, unfortunately. What's confusing to me is that Amtrak offers checked baggage to Charleston, and their notice about closing the ticket window says that "caretakers will be available to answer questions." If someone is there to answer questions, couldn't they also operate the ticket window?

I agree with Senator Manchin on this issue.

A lot of Amtrak stations have Quik-Trak kiosks for purchasing train tickets.

In this instance, however, the Charleston, WV station doesn't have a Quik-Trak kiosk. Furthermore, although the station seems like it previously had a ticket window with someone there around the times when trains would be passing through (7-10 AM and 7-10 PM), that ended as of June 6.

Basically, Amtrak used to have someone at the station to sell tickets, and they decided to put an end to that. Senator Manchin is trying to restore things to the way they were at the Charleston station prior to June 6.

As I understand it, Charleston has one route, the Cardinal, which runs three times a week. It's from Chicago to New York, but the eastern terminus is temporary in Washington, DC because of track work along the Northeast Corridor. It would probably be better for Amtrak to make the Cardinal run daily and go to Chicago and St. Louis. There needs to be some track improvements because the route serves both freight and passenger traffic, though I believe that's taking place.

Last year, 9,812 passengers went through Charleston's station. I'm in Lincoln, Nebraska where the long distance California Zephyr is the only train passing through. The Zephyr runs daily, and the station is open from 11 PM-6 AM because the Zephyr comes through late at night. Lincoln had 15,964 people through Haymarket Station last year, yet there's a ticket agent on duty the entire time. I'd bet more people would use Charleston's station if the Cardinal ran daily. There isn't that much more traffic through Lincoln, but I've never heard of such concerns here.

I'm not sure if the Quik-Trak kiosks provide information about when the trains will arrive, and that's useful information because the long distance trains are often delayed. I don't know if that information is available on the Quik-Trak kiosks, unfortunately. What's confusing to me is that Amtrak offers checked baggage to Charleston, and their notice about closing the ticket window says that "caretakers will be available to answer questions." If someone is there to answer questions, couldn't they also operate the ticket window?

I agree with Senator Manchin on this issue.

A lot of Amtrak stations have Quik-Trak kiosks for purchasing train tickets.

In this instance, however, the Charleston, WV station doesn't have a Quik-Trak kiosk. Furthermore, although the station seems like it previously had a ticket window with someone there around the times when trains would be passing through (7-10 AM and 7-10 PM), that ended as of June 6.

Basically, Amtrak used to have someone at the station to sell tickets, and they decided to put an end to that. Senator Manchin is trying to restore things to the way they were at the Charleston station prior to June 6.

As I understand it, Charleston has one route, the Cardinal, which runs three times a week. It's from Chicago to New York, but the eastern terminus is temporary in Washington, DC because of track work along the Northeast Corridor. It would probably be better for Amtrak to make the Cardinal run daily and go to Chicago and St. Louis. There needs to be some track improvements because the route serves both freight and passenger traffic, though I believe that's taking place.

Last year, 9,812 passengers went through Charleston's station. I'm in Lincoln, Nebraska where the long distance California Zephyr is the only train passing through. The Zephyr runs daily, and the station is open from 11 PM-6 AM because the Zephyr comes through late at night. Lincoln had 15,964 people through Haymarket Station last year, yet there's a ticket agent on duty the entire time. I'd bet more people would use Charleston's station if the Cardinal ran daily. There isn't that much more traffic through Lincoln, but I've never heard of such concerns here.

I'm not sure if the Quik-Trak kiosks provide information about when the trains will arrive, and that's useful information because the long distance trains are often delayed. I don't know if that information is available on the Quik-Trak kiosks, unfortunately. What's confusing to me is that Amtrak offers checked baggage to Charleston, and their notice about closing the ticket window says that "caretakers will be available to answer questions." If someone is there to answer questions, couldn't they also operate the ticket window?

I agree with Senator Manchin on this issue.

a) You better NOT be anywhere near in a hurry to get to your destination. I've looked at this train to get from LA to Davis, CA (have to make a connecting stop) and it took WAY WAY longer than just driving there. Did I forget to mention WAY longer?

You're in California. Why be in such a hurry? Geez, man, you've got to learn to relax or you'll die young from stress-related illness. If you want to be in a hurry to get somewhere, go to Kansas. Oh wait, I'm sorry, there's nowhere worth going in Kansas.

Took the Surfliner multiple times from Santa Barbara to San Diego area. Took much longer on the train than driving by night (don't even try driving in LA area during the day to get anywhere in a hurry). Wifi sucked.

I did LA to the Central Coast back in January. The wi-fi was good enough to stream video and it didn't take me any longer than driving would have (note: I drive like a fucking old lady, so YMMV).

c) Big problem with trains is that unless someone is there to pick you up, 90% of the stops do not have any decent transportation options such as rental cars.

In my sleepy little coastal town, there is a nice bus that can take me home or I can leave my bike at the train station and pedal home in about 20 minutes.

d) Do they have food on the Surfliner? Don't think so.

Here is the menu for the Coast Starlight

https://www.amtrak.com/content...

and here is the menu for the Surfliner:

https://www.amtrak.com/content...

e) I'm going to be long gone before I get on a CA HSR ride, if it's ever built.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're going to be long gone before there are ubiquitous autonomous cars and "smart roads", too.

As an aside, the Coast Starlight may partially go along the ocean, but CA HSR is going through the scenic San Joaquin valley, so you're not going to see much here except cows and almond trees.

I have to say that if you don't like cows or almond trees, you may be too cranky to live in California. Maybe scenic Arizona would be more your speed.

a) You better NOT be anywhere near in a hurry to get to your destination. I've looked at this train to get from LA to Davis, CA (have to make a connecting stop) and it took WAY WAY longer than just driving there. Did I forget to mention WAY longer?

You're in California. Why be in such a hurry? Geez, man, you've got to learn to relax or you'll die young from stress-related illness. If you want to be in a hurry to get somewhere, go to Kansas. Oh wait, I'm sorry, there's nowhere worth going in Kansas.

Took the Surfliner multiple times from Santa Barbara to San Diego area. Took much longer on the train than driving by night (don't even try driving in LA area during the day to get anywhere in a hurry). Wifi sucked.

I did LA to the Central Coast back in January. The wi-fi was good enough to stream video and it didn't take me any longer than driving would have (note: I drive like a fucking old lady, so YMMV).

c) Big problem with trains is that unless someone is there to pick you up, 90% of the stops do not have any decent transportation options such as rental cars.

In my sleepy little coastal town, there is a nice bus that can take me home or I can leave my bike at the train station and pedal home in about 20 minutes.

d) Do they have food on the Surfliner? Don't think so.

Here is the menu for the Coast Starlight

https://www.amtrak.com/content...

and here is the menu for the Surfliner:

https://www.amtrak.com/content...

e) I'm going to be long gone before I get on a CA HSR ride, if it's ever built.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're going to be long gone before there are ubiquitous autonomous cars and "smart roads", too.

As an aside, the Coast Starlight may partially go along the ocean, but CA HSR is going through the scenic San Joaquin valley, so you're not going to see much here except cows and almond trees.

I have to say that if you don't like cows or almond trees, you may be too cranky to live in California. Maybe scenic Arizona would be more your speed.

...you just invented an even more expensive version of Amtrak's Auto Train.

Sounds like a berth on the Autotrain. Done that. Works pretty well.

This was the Amtrak line between DC and NYC. There's no diesel fumes on that train, because it uses an electric locomotive.

It may have been a diesel electric unit. Many routes, such as the Northeast Regional travel from DC to NYC. But they also continue on to other places, like Richmond, VA. I can assure you that the trains continuing on to Richmond are diesel-electric since that line is not electrified. Often they will swap locomotives in DC, but not always.

"And no security theater?"

The TSA is at Amtrak. They've already had their hands on buses, ferries, etc.

Ask people who have ridden on the auto train:

http://www.amtrak.com/auto-tra...

Two day driving, or 18 hours or so on a train.

Unless you count gas-taxes re-appripiated for mass-transit as a 'profit'.

Most of the Interstate is supported by fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are paid for by drivers. Who use the Interstate. So, I'd say that it's a pretty good case of 'user pays'.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/

So far this year, gas taxes paid 22,953,703,750 into the trust fund, but outlays were 29,591,663,901. That is excluding transfers to/from the mass transit fund and excluding bailouts from the general fund. So users paid about 77.6 % of costs of highways.

Amtrak, on the other hand, covered 88% of its operating costs through fares last year.

Sounds like Amtrak is closer to "user pays" than the highways.

— while, demanding the passengers "carry identification at all times"...

Yeah.... if I want to deal with TSA Gestapo bullshit, I'll just fly. The cost is comparable to flying if you buy a soda or two on the train. And you get there slower.

If taking the rails were less hassle, the trains were better maintained and slightly faster, I'd choose them every time for domestic travel over flying.

The TSA is KILLING commercial mass transit IMHO.

Yeah, it competes with road funding, but Amtrak also takes huge funding from the government, too... near 30% of operating expenses or about half of revenue:

Bloomberg: "After automatic budget cuts, Amtrak is getting $1.3 billion in taxpayer money for fiscal 2013, with $905 million of that going to capital costs and debt service, Kulm said. That’s less than the $1.4 billion the railroad received the previous year."

Amtrak: "In FY 2012, Amtrak earned approximately $2.877 billion in revenue and incurred approximately $4.036 billion in expense. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without some form of public support for capital costs and/or operating expenses."

It may be a good social service, but it's a lousy business, and it is nowhere near self-sufficient.

Yes, I know, I know. The crazy Libertarian talk. But that is, what happened — a combination of government regulating the cost of tickets, while imposing heavy taxes and building highways, where automobiles — both passenger and goods-carrying — could travel for less and less.

And then Amtrak took over all passenger rail-travel, and has never shown a profit since — losing money on the most idiotic things — while, demanding the passengers "carry identification at all times"...

It takes 9 hours to go from Omaha to Miami on Amtrack , and you can get a one way ticket for $275.

Yes, you can opt for the 23 train that takes two partial days (not three full days - although there might be a possible package for that too), and yes you can buy a cabin ticket for almost $1100.

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/...

No it's not faster to drive, and I've driven such distances. Cheaper? Perhaps. If you have more than one person, definitely. Again, I've done this, I prefer to drive, and often get a rental with full coverage, in case I decide to pull any Jackass stunts ( with full coverage, I can take the car to a demolition derby before returning and not have any worries). It's definitely not more relaxing, especially if you're trying to beat a train going 90.

Note: if going from Omaha to Miami you'll probably go first to Chicago, and may get put on the City Of New Orleans (made famous by the song), and go to , you guessed, it New Orleans, then to Jacksonville, and then to Orlando, and then to Miami, there might be 3 to 5 train changes there. Then there are other, slower routes, with more changes.

It may be more rewarding to drive.

Also, it should be noted that some train stations have TSA agents and you'll still have to deal twith them sometimes by train. If you go that route. Trains can be fun though, no need to turn off your electronics, and you'll likely have excellent signal strengths wherever possible, plus a lot more room to get up and walk around and socialize.

Within the US you can take Amtrak. (No "c" in "Amtrak".)

Don't believe the prices on the Amtrak website. It's a rather lo-budge operation, so they don't have advance purchase pricing available from the site. The site does work correctly for determining where and when you can go, but then go down to the station for your ticket purchase. If you purchase so much as one day in advance, quite likely you can get a discount.

For example, last I checked, to fly one-way between San Jose, California and Portland, Oregon is about $250. Last Summer I took the Coast Starlight from Diridon Station in San Jose to Union Station in Portland, one day advance purchase for about $80.00.

My Aunt just recently paid about $250.00 for a round-trip from Spokane, Washington to Portland. With two-week advance purchase, that's $86.00 on Amtrack.

The trains don't go everywhere they really need to, so there is some chance you'll make part of your trip on an Amtrak bus. That was the case when I travelled from LA to San Jose. Rather oddly, I took a bus from the HUGE train station in downtown LA to Bakersfield, then the train from there to San Jose. However the busses are quite nice.

Their only "security" is that they want to see your ID when you purchase a ticket. You don't need to show ID when you board the train. There is no X-Ray, no metal detector.

The seats are spacious, there are lots of 110 VAC power sockets. Most but not all trains have WiFi, however the train itself gets onine via a 3G connection that's shared by the whole train, so they limit downloads to 10 MB and do not permit streaming video at all.

Because 3G is a cell phone protocol, you can only get online when the train is within range of a cell tower. Sometimes the trains are way out in the sticks so you cannot get online.

My only gripe is that the food is scanty and very expensive, although it is quite tasty. Pack some sandwiches.

They want you to have ID so that the masses who for some reason don't have ID can't vote.

What "masses" are these? Not only is ID de-facto required to travel around this country by air, you can't ride Amtrak without an ID either. Bus operators (I was told by one of them) are also supposed to check IDs, though nobody currently enforces the requirement.

So, if Obama-managed TSA has some good reason (whatever it is) to keep those "masses" from traveling, is not it logical, that same reason applies to keeping them from voting?

Plus, of course, the very good other reason — already cited — of preventing voting fraud, which you dismiss as "miniscule" problem without citing any evidence. We are told repeatedly by the ruling classes not to worry our pretty little heads about it, but the only evidence ever offered is the low rate of fraud-prosecutions... That's a rather bizarre logic — I wonder, if GLAAD would've accepted the argument claiming there being no gays in America based on absence of applications of anti-sodomy laws.

The conflict of interest is staggering — few politicians want to talk much about voting fraud, because that would endanger the validity of their own mandates. Why would you be willing to accept such claims without skepticism, is beyond me.

I love this idea. Does anybody know whether it's been tried?

Sticking cars on trains is already happening. Some examples:
- Amtrak auto-train can take you from Washington D.C. to Orlando with your car on the train.
- Euro-Tunnel is the easiest way to get you and your car from the UK to France.

My personal suggestion for an ambitious transportation goal: Have auto-trains parallel to / in the median of 2-digit interstates, with stations every 50-100 miles and near major cities. Sure, that would be a big undertaking, but there would be significant benefits too: reduced wear on rural interstates, fewer accidents, fewer miles driven, a much-improved passenger rail system, less stress for passengers, etc. And for a really ambitious engineering project, see if we could invent a way to do the loading and unloading of cars on a train that's still moving, so that trains could provide service to, say, Syracuse NY without significantly slowing down the people trying to get from Buffalo to Albany.

The three major Airports around NYC (La Guardia, Newark, and JFK) closed by 8 pm on Oct 29. Flights to Newark & JFK had resumed by 7 am on Oct 31, and La Guardia resumed at 7 am the next morning, Nov. 1.

Compare how often trains are late or canceled vs. airplanes

Okay, why don't we?

Most of these Amtrak lines are well below 100% on-time. Most seem to be in the 60-70% "on time" range, with some as low as 50%:
http://www.amtrak.com/historical-on-time-performance

Several of the busiest US airports are ranked at 70-80% on time performance.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/17/travel/flight-delay-map-business-traveller/index.html

Overall, I'd say that the delays are pretty comparable.

You know what would improve the US even more than making people travel abroad? Making HSR proponents like you actually cite facts to support your arguments.

You mean this one, the description of which specifically mentions "Sleeping car passengers can experience a full range of exclusive services and amenities on the Coast Starlight, including complimentary onboard internet access via AmtrakConnect and an exciting alternative meal service, both available in the Parlour Car."

It's restricted to select passengers and only in one car, apparently, but it IS there.

USA Rail prices are reasonable if you are traveling a lot in a given period and don't mind (or actually want) to take the train. I actually used a 30-day pass to travel across the country (round trip). I would highly recommend it.

If he's taking a multi-day train trip, it's almost certainly not in the US (may God have mercy on his soul if it is).

I have no idea where the OP is traveling but there are plenty of long distance Amtrak train trips in the US - and a lot of them across scenic routes. I have done Chicago to San Francisco on the California Zephyr and the views of the rockies were stunning. I've also done San Francisco - LA - San Diego which while it was only an single day trip again had stunning views along the way.

In other words, the Amtrak Auto-Train. It's not only possible to do this, we've been doing it for a while, and there are many happy customers.

The challenges:
- Loading and unloading currently takes a while.
- It currently takes 17.5 hours by auto-train to cover the same distance as an 11.5 hour drive. To be competitive, auto-trains should be faster than driving.
- It costs more than driving it.

The long-term goal, in my view, might want to be a high-speed autotrain along most 2-digit interstate routes, with stops in major cities and highway intersections. For instance, train 65 would run Gary IN - Indianapolis IN - Louisville KY - Nashville TN - Birmingham AL - Montgomery AL - Mobile AL. For anyone driving long distances along I-65, that would be potentially faster, safer, lower emissions, cheaper, and more comfortable to boot.

1. Amtrak does operate in Canada. The train from Toronto to NYC is an Amtrak train. There is some sort of joint-agreement with VIA rail.
http://www.amtrak.com/maple-leaf-train
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=VAC

2. Not true. I I've done Aldershot ON (on a train originating from TO) to NY Penn Station and back.

3. Depends. If you're willing to fork out the dough to get on the 407, it can be quite pleasant. (though not on the pocket)

4. I take the GO train all the time. It's okay.

1. Amtrak does operate in Canada. The train from Toronto to NYC is an Amtrak train. There is some sort of joint-agreement with VIA rail.
http://www.amtrak.com/maple-leaf-train
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=am/am2Station/Station_Page&code=VAC

2. Not true. I I've done Aldershot ON (on a train originating from TO) to NY Penn Station and back.

3. Depends. If you're willing to fork out the dough to get on the 407, it can be quite pleasant. (though not on the pocket)

4. I take the GO train all the time. It's okay.

AMTRAK's Auto Train is probably their best competitor to air travel. Unfortunately, it only runs between DC and Orlando, FL. Unfortunately, it takes an eternity to load and unload the train. Unfortunately, it costs about as much as airfare - unless you're staying at the far-end for a month, where car rental costs start to be significant. Unfortunately, you can drive the route in about the same time as taking the train.

If you get the sleeper cabin, you're effectively traveling first-class. It's not a bad way to travel, but it certainly isn't significant competition for the airline industry. Further, AMTRAK presents the Auto Train as the most profitable route they have - in FY2006, they reported $49M revenue against $62M operating costs ... sheesh. The FY2011 revenue was up to $68M, so maybe they're in the black now. Maybe.

Amtrak is $1000 for a cross country journey?! Do you bother to check anything before you put your drivel in to writing?

Here is the Amtrak site: http://www.amtrak.com/home

You can look up ticket prices right there.

From New York to Los Angeles: $212

You know what would be really cool? a car partnership with locomotives, drive up to a ramp and have your train-compatible car packed on a train for longer commutes.

Washington DC to Orlando, FL only. You can use the car you have now. Costs a couple hundred bucks, takes about 17 hours.

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak/autotrain
http://www.on-track-on-line.com/autotrain-stations.shtml

I do wish there were more routes, and cheaper prices. One of those weird things I'd love to do someday.

Yes, they are. At least, on Amtrak. See: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1246044325520/1237405732514

Perhaps you know something I don't, but I've never heard of broadband over catenary or broadband over rail.

Amtrak requires ID.

Greyhound doesn't, though.

For instance, if America could get the national momentum to develop a truly high speed rail system, not that wannabe crap that got passed in California a year or two ago, that would show that we could overcome the bureaucratic, legal, and technical challenges that high-power, high-cost, high-risk projects tend to run into.

I ran across a phrase recently that describes my opinion about large projects like this. You can't steal a million from a million. In other words, you need a big public works project, if you want to steal a lot of money from it. I think a publicly funded space tether would be just as much a boondoggle for the US as a nation-wide high speed rail system today.

If one looks at the high speed rail, it doesn't fill an impressive role. Timewise, it covers distances too long for car and too short for plane. Merely improving those means of transportation (for example, a much faster airport check in and security screening procedure or tolls on congested artery roads) would close up that gap.

Nor is it going to be cheap. Glancing around it looks like the average cost per mile of track will be at least $50 million (and IMHO closer to $100 million per mile). In comparison, a 4 lane freeway in rural areas seems to cost up to $20 million per mile. I think there's far more mileage to be gained from merely improving existing transportation infrastructure.

There's no indication of demand for high speed rail. Amtrak would place somewhere in the bottom ten airlines by revenue passenger mile, if it were an airline.

It doesn't add anything to existing transportation networks. Amtrak had this cool idea of moving cars by rail. That seems pretty popular. But it doesn't require high speed trains in order to work.

While I've beat up on high speed trains, I imagine the same absence of practicality, high cost, and very similar problems would infect any public space tether project.

Finally, the US has a long history of underperforming public transportation projects. Sure, I bet it's the bureaucratic, legal, and technical challenges. But most of all, I think it's the reality challenge. Sure, we could waste a few tens of billions of dollars to find out that not only couldn't we pass those hurdles you mention (since that would never be the intention of the thieves who sponsor high speed rail, a space tether, whatever), but that the resulting product would never be worth what we put in, even if everything had gone along smoothly.

Create a (federal) government run site to manage sales-tax related data, and offer an API that can easily integrate with all major services. The coding required for individual vendors would be minimal - when the user clicks the "checkout" button, create a connection to the API requesting the most recent applicable tax rates for the customers address, and apply them to the total. Even a script kiddie could slap together the required code in about 5 minutes. Larger sites could store a local cache of the entire tax database to minimize latency and unneccessary overhead, while smaller vendors would use the simpler approach. For even easier integration, paypal and similar payment-sites could compute the taxes automatically if the vendor requests it.

I'm not saying that this is neccessarily the ideal solution, but it's certainly not an insurmountable problem.

Yeah that sounds like a good idea because everything else That the federal government has become involved in works so well.

This business solution is a service better provided by the private sector. If that isn't obvious to you, then you don't have a good grasp of history or government.

-=Geoskd

And, I wish we had trains for long distance travel in the US. Traveling by car at 70mph for hours and hours is tiring and there is always the prospect of a problem with a car and being stuck somewhere. Airplane travel is marred by the security checks and delays and long wait times.

Err...we do. Americans just don't like to use it. Probably because once you get there, you will most likely need a car once again. One D.C. to Orlando route addresses this by tacking on some extra cars to carry your automobiles with you. Guess which is the one Amtrak train I've ever personally taken?

Of course if Americans *did* like to use it, then we'd probably have to add all those security checks like the airlines have. For example, in India everyone uses the train system, and it has been a primary terrorist target for decades.

And, I wish we had trains for long distance travel in the US. Traveling by car at 70mph for hours and hours is tiring and there is always the prospect of a problem with a car and being stuck somewhere. Airplane travel is marred by the security checks and delays and long wait times.

Err...we do. Americans just don't like to use it. Probably because once you get there, you will most likely need a car once again. One D.C. to Orlando route addresses this by tacking on some extra cars to carry your automobiles with you. Guess which is the one Amtrak train I've ever personally taken?

Of course if Americans *did* like to use it, then we'd probably have to add all those security checks like the airlines have. For example, in India everyone uses the train system, and it has been a primary terrorist target for decades.

Yes, I can make biofuels cheaper than that, both ethanol and biodiesel. And if I had 35 acres I could grow a lot.

I have actually advocated user fees or taxes. Not only raise fuel taxes but institute a mileage fee. Another thing I'd like to see, but probably won't for too many years, are trains I can drive right up onto so I can then ride the train into the city. I know there's a pale implementation of this in the US, Amtrak's Auto Train. It only runs between Lorton, Virginia, south of Washington DC, and Sanford, Florida, north of Orlando in Central Florida.

Falcon

...opting out by not flying? http://www.amtrak.com/ or, 1-800-USA-RAIL

There is non-high-speed passenger service that runs this trip (not all the same stops, but it has many more in the Podunk towns between). In 2000, I road it between FTW and SAS. It took 12 hours exactly and cost $30. It was fun for a while, but got boring quickly because I was alone. Now I see you can still do it, but they've apparently cut out a lot of stops. It costs $48 and takes 7 hours. It stops in DAL afterward adding another 1hr 20 min. Getting off in DAL actually reduces the fare by $10. http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak . I'd do it again if I had a traveling companion.

As far as all the stops you suggest, I'd submit it wouldn't be worth doing on a high speed train if you include all these stops. You'd end up with a 12 hour trip again because of the stopping, boarding, and getting back up to speed. Low speed service would be good enough on that kind of trip. A high speed train could go San Antonio to Dallas with stops at Austin, Waco and Fort Worth only and still get you there in a reasonable amount of time.

"Or they could design the train so that people could drive their cars onto it and park.

It'd kill the airlines in a week."

I was thinking the exact same thing. I'd never fly or drive more than 300 miles again and I'd actually take a train for the first time in my life.

This would also help electric cars because you no longer need a car that can drive 400 miles on a tank of gas and be refilled in 5 minutes.

1) Drive electric car 20-50 miles to train

2) drive electric car onto train

3) leave car and go to quarters for sleeping, eating, etc

4) get back in car and depart train to destination

only problem I see is that a boxcar is only about 10 feet wide while a large SUV is closer to 20 feet long so you couldn't drive vehicles on there the easiest way which would be sideways, they'd have to go lengthway like the train. I'm afraid by the time you loaded hundreds of vehicles on the train most people could have already arrived by plane.

Mind you, Amtrak's Auto Train has been pulling this off for a while, albeit in the limited sense of one route departing each terminus once daily. Were they to add more trains (which itself might not necessarily be practical, considering the way rail traffic observes prioritized access and spacing along a given stretch of track -- but if the departures are 11 hours apart, that'd be OK, wouldn't it? Theoretically, at least?) or more routes (like, say, outside Chicago to San Antonio, or to San Fran or Seattle), Auto Trains could prove extremely popular.

Since there's only one route (Lorton, VA to/from Sanford, FL), the transit to either station to travel on the train can vary quite a bit -- I used the Auto Train to move from SW PA to Tampa last summer, and I had roughly a 2.5-3 hour run from my original hometown to Lorton. Were I moving from just outside of the DC beltway, I would've of course used considerably less fuel (not even driving a hybrid, me) for my trip.

Umm, because Amtrak already does it, and it takes longer to load a train with cars, and empty the cars off the train, then it would to fly from Virginia to Florida and rent a car when you get there. Look at the schedule if you don't believe me.

How about you do some research before you disrespect a poster. And you got "Insightful" for it too, for shame...

Amtrak has this on the eastern seaboard. They call it the Auto Train. http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Route_C/1241245666320/1237405732511

I fear the high speed rails will be deployed on the east and west, and those of us in "fly over" country will be left out in the cold.

Which is a shame, because in many ways the middle of the country is where high speed rail could really shine: the trains could get up to speed and stay there for a significant length of time.

However, a few random points:

1) France has a total of 1000 miles of high speed track. The Southwest Chief runs from Chicago to LA - about 2000 miles. That's just ONE of Amtrak's routes.
2) In Europe, they have auto-trains: put your car on, go, take your car off, drive. The only place this happens in the US is on the east coast, on one run. Again: were it possible to put your car on in New York, pull your car off in Flagstaff, and drive up to the Grand Canyon, I think it would be much more attractive to many people.
3) Were autotrain runs more common in the US, then driving an electric car with limited range wouldn't be the deal-breaker for long trips it is now: again, put the car in in NY, off in Flagstaff, with a fully charged battery courtesy of the train's power.
4) There is a great push on just to restore old-style rail service in the middle of the country: see the Heartland Flyer extension effort.

I routinely travel long distances: Wichita to Los Angeles for example. I'd love to be able to put my car on the train, roll overnight, and be able to make the trip in a day rather than two. I'd love to be able to hop on the train for my business trips to Kansas City and Austin. The idea that Americans won't take the train doesn't square with how many ride it now, when Amtrak seems to go out of their way to make it unattractive. Over 4000 people used the Amtrak station in Hutchison KS last year, and that is a little station in a town of about 40,000 people - the station isn't even manned, and the train gets there at 4 in the morning.

No, rail COULD work in the US - it's just that no big company will make $$$$ from it, so no CongressCritters are motivated to do anything about it.

I fear the high speed rails will be deployed on the east and west, and those of us in "fly over" country will be left out in the cold.

Which is a shame, because in many ways the middle of the country is where high speed rail could really shine: the trains could get up to speed and stay there for a significant length of time.

However, a few random points:

1) France has a total of 1000 miles of high speed track. The Southwest Chief runs from Chicago to LA - about 2000 miles. That's just ONE of Amtrak's routes.
2) In Europe, they have auto-trains: put your car on, go, take your car off, drive. The only place this happens in the US is on the east coast, on one run. Again: were it possible to put your car on in New York, pull your car off in Flagstaff, and drive up to the Grand Canyon, I think it would be much more attractive to many people.
3) Were autotrain runs more common in the US, then driving an electric car with limited range wouldn't be the deal-breaker for long trips it is now: again, put the car in in NY, off in Flagstaff, with a fully charged battery courtesy of the train's power.
4) There is a great push on just to restore old-style rail service in the middle of the country: see the Heartland Flyer extension effort.

I routinely travel long distances: Wichita to Los Angeles for example. I'd love to be able to put my car on the train, roll overnight, and be able to make the trip in a day rather than two. I'd love to be able to hop on the train for my business trips to Kansas City and Austin. The idea that Americans won't take the train doesn't square with how many ride it now, when Amtrak seems to go out of their way to make it unattractive. Over 4000 people used the Amtrak station in Hutchison KS last year, and that is a little station in a town of about 40,000 people - the station isn't even manned, and the train gets there at 4 in the morning.

No, rail COULD work in the US - it's just that no big company will make $$$$ from it, so no CongressCritters are motivated to do anything about it.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241267362248/1237405732517

It's an economies of scale thing. If you had decent capacity on the train things may be different, but the travel time really kills it, so not enough people are willing to ride it to make it worthwhile.

I doubt that's why trains cost as much as planes, because of low ridership. People still use bus lines like Greyhound, and they're even slower than trains.

I rode a train once, ages ago. Well back in the '70s. An uncle worked for a railroad so he got me a ticket from Detroit, MI where I was visiting to Springfield, MA where I lived. I had wanted to ride one again, about 12 years ago I moved from Florida to Minnesota, but I wanted to take my truck. However the Autotrain only runs between Lorton, VA, near Washington DC and Sanford, FL, outside of Orlando. I'd love to be able to drive my car on the train and go wherever now.

Falcon

You didn't go "From Soho down to Brighton, did you?" 8-)

Although i suppose you said that as a joke, from Soho, to London Victoria (there the train to brighton departs) is a 10 minuite journey on the Underground (assuming from Oxford Circus). Its a cheap journey too. beating car/taxi in speed and price.

I actually started my journey from Harrow, which was longer, but still cheaper/quicker than car overall.

Compare a similar trip from Washington DC, to Fredericksburg, VA on the US's only train - amtrak.com. Google maps says it's 52.5 miles and 1:06.

Amtrak wants a minimum of $88 (58 GBP) for two adult round trip tickets. The outbound leg takes a minimum of 1:05, and the return trip takes a minimum of 1:15.

I can drive that same route (105 miles) for a tenth of that, and arrive at the same time as the train.

Additionally, this schedule shows a minimum of 4 stops each way.

And non-US citizens still wonder why we don't just take the train???

Actually I DO understand why you guys dont take the train, and I was trying to say, it needed be that way! :)

Wouldnt you take a train if it was competitive to car?

Last year, me and my wife when to Brighton from London, on the Brighton express it took just 45 mins to get there on a 100mph line with 2 intermeadiate stops, a journey that would easily take about 1 hour 30 mins by car. the cost was £4.50 each one way, total £18

You didn't go "From Soho down to Brighton, did you?" 8-)

Compare a similar trip from Washington DC, to Fredericksburg, VA on the US's only train - amtrak.com. Google maps says it's 52.5 miles and 1:06.

Amtrak wants a minimum of $88 (58 GBP) for two adult round trip tickets. The outbound leg takes a minimum of 1:05, and the return trip takes a minimum of 1:15.

I can drive that same route (105 miles) for a tenth of that, and arrive at the same time as the train.

Additionally, this schedule shows a minimum of 4 stops each way.

And non-US citizens still wonder why we don't just take the train???

There are quite a few long distance train services in the US. Most of them are scenic routes because nobody wants to sit on a train that long.

Here is a site you can go to for tickets if you want to sit on one of these long boring rides: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/HomePage

They even offer sleeping cars because some of these trips are days...

Amtrak actually makes a little money. Unlike, say, the massive socialist US interstate system.

...which makes a LOT of money (mostly from gas taxes), some of which is then spent on subsidizing Amtrak and mass transit programs.

And of course despite your Insightful rating, Amtrak loses money, over a billion dollars a year.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/08financial.pdf

Yes they are.
Although that train only runs 3x/week.

You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site? I'm quite sure the train doesn't drop you off anywhere near the front door of your office for most people, so, how do you get to and from work? If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?

I've thought about this for years and what I'd like is to be able to drive my car onto the train then ride the train to my destination city then drive off the train. Amtrak has this, the Auto Train, however there's only one route. It runs between Virginia and Florida.

How do you live like that without a car...I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.

By far from the only reason but a big reason it's like that is because of zoning laws. It seems many places don't have mixed use zoning, an area is zoned either commercial, industrial, or residential.

Falcon