The first article seems very reasonable and well written, and I would agree that we should take more trains, buses, and autos (in that order) for reasons of comfort and environmental friendliness. I always try to take the train when visiting anywhere that it is within 6 hours drive of where I live, or possibly car-pool.
The second article is a pile of bullshit. I travel both to and within the U.S. somewhat regularly and it's always the same for everyone, although getting to the U.S. also involves talking to customs so it isn't as pleasant. Oddly enough Canadian customs folks are always really friendly but they seem to be more astute and careful (they seem to be able to better judge a person, and they try to calm us down as we go through). There are several places where the article attempts to be factual but in my opinion fails.
Who knows, maybe I'm just biased because it suggests that all terrorists that attack the U.S. are from the outside, such as Canada and Mexico, when that's generally false but the right-wing in the U.S. loves to blame its neighbours. Because the unibomber, the Oklahoma bombing, and the anthrax letters couldn't technically have been done by Terrorists because those people are U.S. citizens.
Harumph! But you don't have to take my opinion into account...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/...id=1519587
Although here's a good story about paranoia:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/05/07/...arter.html
This is the coin, for those who are curious:
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l301/a...y_Coin.jpg
I really fly and every time we do it always is a huge pain. Never ending lines and flight delays-every single time. I much prefer traveling by train. Took amtrack to Washington DC, and they treated us very well.
I have not flown in years and have no desire to start doing so. We drive or travel by train.
Jen M.
Flying sucks. It's terrible for the environment. I don't find flying for "vacation" to be a real vacation anymore - it's too much hassle getting there. Plus I like to bring lots of stuff.
I used to like flying to a destination, but not anymore. I hate how everyone (except people who show up with kids) is a terrorist suspect. The last 5 or 6 times I flew, I got pulled to the side for secondary inspection-the wand treatment and inspecting the contents of my bags. The last time I flew in the summer-to try to avoid the extra inspection, I wore shorts, a tank top and sandals. Wouldn't you know it-I was told to go to the side for extra inspection. The guy was waving the wand up and down my bare arms and legs. Bastards. I can't think of any other business that serves the public that would survive this kind of scrutiny.
Also, I'm not fond of being stuck in a metal tube with screaming and crying kids that I can't get away from.
We just came back from flying home for for a family funeral. Checking three bags (we stayed almost a full week) added another $100 to the cost of the already jacked up tickets. Bereavement fares were a joke. I ended up doing better online than I would have for one of those "specials." We spent an extra two hours on the ground at home and then almost another three in Atlanta for the plane change due to an earlier storm that caused massive ground stops and then delays. There's only one nonstop left between here and my original hometown, and it's scheduled to be discontinued this spring even though the plane is completely full every time we've taken it in recent years. Oh, and free Internet is a thing of the past in most airports now too. Talk about a captive audience!
On the way back, the TSA scrutinized every single bag. I forgot to take my hand sanitizer out of the carry-on and put in in my Ziploc. I had to wait while they took everything out of the bag to make sure I didn't have any other potential items of terrorism. Then at least they gave it back to me to put in my Ziploc. But why is it less dangerous in the Ziploc than it was in the bag (which is right where it went back to as soon as I cleared the checkpoint)?
I do like the added benefit that snow will only marginally slow down a train or bus, rather than cancel the trip completely like planes tend to be. This is definitely an issue around here in the winter.
(12-10-2009 01:24 AM)Ziggy Wrote: [ -> ]I do like the added benefit that snow will only marginally slow down a train or bus, rather than cancel the trip completely like planes tend to be. This is definitely an issue around here in the winter.
Some were advoacting for trying to expand the American rail system for that exact reason. Trains are hardly affected by the weather, making them much more reliable. The problem is Americans just don't use them and as a result Amtrack is struggling to stay in business. Guess we're just too impatient because it takes longer, but honestly it saves you so much aggravation, and its wonderful to be able to walk around, compared to the tiny rows of seats in planes.
I would be more inclined to make a train trip if it were more convenient. DH and I have looked into it before for trips and found that in many cases, the time on the train is almost double the time we'd spend if we drove it ourselves, even if we stayed at a hotel overnight. Friends who took trains through Amtrak in Texas and the Midwest have told me that they almost never run on time and in some cases have been as much as 12 hours off schedule.
We also found it to be very expensive, much more so than air travel in every case. Plus, if it were going to be an overnight trip, we'd want a sleeping car. The price for those isn't too bad, but when it's coupled with the outrageous fares and massive amounts of time it would take to get from Point A to Point B, it's all just too much. I understand train service in the East Coast area is much better, but it is just awful in most other places.
I love rail so this always gets my attention. I think it's a law that all guys must love trains.
The real problem with passenger train travel in the US is multi-faceted.
The biggest problem is geography. Britain for example is almost perfectly designed for rail travel because of the short distances combined with very high population density. It simply isn't practical for most people to travel from LA to NYC by train. Rail is practical for mid-range distances of say 200-500 miles which would be the Boshington Corridor. There are many people who use it to go from Boston to NYC to Philadelphia to DC and oddly enough, the Acela (the train that runs that route) is quite profitable.
Speaking of profit, the reason Amtrak loses money isn't because of inefficiency on the part of trains but government mandates which specify that certain routes must be run regardless of the monetary loss. It simply isn't feasible to have a route from Chicago to Dallas because flying is easier and yet they must keep that route. If Amtrak were private they'd dump the long range routes that lose money and stick to the mid-range runs that do make money.
Since I'm on the topic of money, I remember reading that to make a fully integrated high speed rail network in the US would cost about 500 billion dollars. Obviously nobody is willing to invest this much which is odd considering we're approaching TWO TRILLION dollars on our failed wars overseas, 700 billion on bailing out greedy corporations, and over 600 billion on interest on the national debt. Think about that for a minute. If we didn't write checks that our ass couldn't cash we could fund a fully integrated high speed rail network in one year and have cash left over.
Many people comment on the fact that Amtrak is always late. There is a good reason for that. Most of the rail network in the country is privately owned. A government mandate orders the private rail companies to allow Amtrak trains to use their rails but there is no priority for passenger service since Amtrak doesn't pay to use the rails. In other words if you're riding the train that can go at 100 mph but doesn't pay anything and a coal train going at 20 mph which is paying to use the rails, guess who gets top priority. Hint: follow the money.
I read someone else posting about this on another site and the best way to deal with getting people to ride trains would be to use our current interstate system. Put a set of elevated tracks right in the median of every highway and make them high speed. I guarantee that the site of a train gliding by twice as fast as you can drive would make people want to take the train especially since you can have a drink while playing on a laptop or walking up and down the aisle instead of being crammed into an airliner.
Eddy, great post about the rails! I, too, want to see it come back and be strong. I hope that people on all sides of the issue will wake up and realize that it really IS a good solution.
I have to say, though, that convenience really IS a big issue. We use the Vermonter line from DC to Vermont to travel between DC and MA. Our only options are: Leave very, very early in the morning and arrive mid-day, or leave mid-day and arrive very, very late at night. It's not ideal, but it IS cheaper than driving for us, and it's much more pleasant. Only problem is we have to go all the way into the heart of DC to catch the train. There used to be an Amtrack stop about 30 minutes from my house, but they no longer use it.
Also, where we disembark in MA, it is JUST a station stop. There is nowhere nearby to rent a car, so his family ends up having to cart us all over. That's why we drove this last time, but we both really prefer to take the train.
I hope that solutions can be found. I really think a good rail system would be easier on the environment and on everyone's mental health.
Jen M.
Thanks for enlightening me, Eddy. Highly informative.
Dune-have to agree with you, it does take a long time by rail, so we usually can't use it because I have to be back for class. And the sleeping compartments are expensive, but worth it if you can afford it. When we went they were quite comfortable, and it was quite like part of the vacation.
I'm glad you learned from my post. Rail is one of the passions I have and it baffles me why we aren't investing in this?
My grandfather was a lobbyist for the railroads back when I was a little girl. I think he'd be very disappointed in the state of rail travel if he were still with us.
I don't understand it, either.
Jen
Big oil, rubber, and the automotive industries colluded to give us the personal motor vehicle.
(12-11-2009 12:21 PM)Eddy Wrote: [ -> ]Big oil, rubber, and the automotive industries colluded to give us the personal motor vehicle.
That's totally true. At one time southern California had a train and streetcar system that even Europe envied, then the Ford Motor Company convinced the powers that be to sell them the system and they dismantled it so people would be forced to buy cars. That whole 1950s "Americans' Love Affair With Their Cars" mantra is a complete made up public relations lie by the oil and automotive industries. They destroyed our rail system leaving Americans with little choice.
Here in San Diego, I've taken the train to LA a few times. It's expensive as hell, and takes nearly 4 hours sometimes. That really doesn't matter because driving to LA takes up about the same amount of time even though by distance it should only take 2 hours. But the main problem is once you arrive at the Union Train Station downtown, that's it. If your final destination isn't on their very limited metro line, forget it, you're not going anywhere much without a car. And here in San Diego there's a trolley system but it's so limited I can't use it, and it's so expensive you might as well drive and pay for parking. So the city says not enough people use it to justify an expansion, but the morons don't seem to understand that if they expanded it, more people could use it!
(12-11-2009 04:24 PM)anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]That's totally true. At one time southern California had a train and streetcar system that even Europe envied, then the Ford Motor Company convinced the powers that be to sell them the system and they dismantled it so people would be forced to buy cars. That whole 1950s "Americans' Love Affair With Their Cars" mantra is a complete made up public relations lie by the oil and automotive industries. They destroyed our rail system leaving Americans with little choice.
Bullseye! That's exactly what happened. Mass transit can exist even in a small town. When my grandmother was a young girl in the 30s, her hometown of 30k was able to support a bus line, trolley, and even what would be called light rail today. You could live there without a car easily, go to work in the outskirts of town, and visit neighboring towns without difficulty.
Today, none of that exists. If you want to work in the factories they are five miles away and there are no bike paths or walking trails to get there. You need a car. If you want to visit a nearby town you'd better be prepared to spend a few hours hoofing it if you don't own a car. Hell, even the local Walmart is about three miles from the edge of town so if you don't have a car and want your groceries you'd better have good shoe leather.
It disgusts me on a logical level because mass transit is clearly a more efficient use of resources than private vehicles for everyone and yet private vehicles generate a hell of a lot of money which lines the pockets of the wealthy.
'The End of Suburbia'
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
I saw it at City Hall one night, as they had a meeting of citizens to see what we thought of the end of peak oil and they started off with this documentary.
They're planning a multi-billion dollar light rail transit system in my city, which is meant to deal with the fact that the downtown section is getting too crowded with buses right now. It will reduce congestion and save on having to buy more buses. We have a surprisingly good system right now, although it isn't perfect but at least people love to bitch about it which shows that we care and as a result there are continual attempts to improve it. Public transit is definitely a big topic within our city. In fact I don't know of any other topics that are as popular, as schools are rarely mentioned. Oh, although snow is always a fun topic because we love to talk about weather, and land-use is another big one (they recently decided to renovate a very central stadium and market area and there is a strong push to keep it friendly and non-commercial). Still, digging a huge tunnel under downtown is probably the biggest topic:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/20...-cost.html
Our voting population soundly defeated light rail the last time it was brought up. However, we are now reaching the point where some parts of town are so congested that the Legislature is making it possible to create toll roads on existing highways (whereas before they had to be built brand new). Needless to say, that's causing quite a ruckus here in Big Oil, Little Government Texas. When I have to go to that part of town (where my doctor's office and a specialty pharmacy I need are located), I cringe because I never know how long it will take. Even the "sneak routes" are becoming an nightmare. The area is about 12 miles away from where DH and I live, and most of the trip can be made on interstate or interstate-like highway. We left 45 minutes before a scheduled doctor's appointment yesterday and were still 15 minutes late. I would have gladly taken a train or paid extra for a toll road to avoid that nightmare!