Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5788|College Park, MD
I swear that one of his selling points was how he was going to invest in rail transportation. Yet I just checked out how much it would cost to take a train from DC to California and it was about $350. That's for three days of travel. And if I want a bed, that's another $300. I could pay an arm and a leg to take three days to get across the country, or for the same price as the base ticket I can get there in 5 hours.

How the hell can Amtrak be so inefficient yet charge so much? I know that they survive off of federal subsidies, so if the government pumped more money into Amtrak wouldn't prices be lower?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6768|Disaster Free Zone
People take the train for the experience, not the speed. Same way cruise ships survive.

It also costs a shit load more because it takes longer. You have to pay the staff for a shit load more. You have to provide food, sewage facilities for a shit load longer. There are also huge costs to maintenance to tracks, not needed in the air. Because of the length of journey you have to provide more space so people can walk around (or sleep).
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6803
He promised everything to everybody... it's going to take awhile and a lot of thinking before he can make a decision on the railroads...lol
Love is the answer
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6736

Even in countries with good rail service, it's still really expensive. For example, it usually costs considerably more to get a train from one city to another in Europe than to fly. By that I mean cities a long way apart.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I swear that one of his selling points was how he was going to invest in rail transportation. Yet I just checked out how much it would cost to take a train from DC to California and it was about $350. That's for three days of travel. And if I want a bed, that's another $300. I could pay an arm and a leg to take three days to get across the country, or for the same price as the base ticket I can get there in 5 hours.

How the hell can Amtrak be so inefficient yet charge so much? I know that they survive off of federal subsidies, so if the government pumped more money into Amtrak wouldn't prices be lower?
It's less expensive than driving.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6736

Last time I took a train in the US, I sat in Albany for 4 hours.
Zimmer
Un Moderador
+1,688|6843|Scotland

Even in the most developed countries, train travel is expensive. Granted, it's reliable and fast, but still pretty damn expensive.

Britains railway is pretty poor in comparison with Japans/Germanys/Spains railway, but it manages to get by (I have daily stats on the delays). The fact is, it still costs more to get to London from Glasgow (403 miles) than to get from Glasgow to Barcelona (1,338 miles). That's just how it's going to be for a while. Not only in the US.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

ghettoperson wrote:

Last time I took a train in the US, I sat in Albany for 4 hours.
Haha, that's awful. Why would you have been in the armpit of New York anyway?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6736

I was going to Syracuse to see some friends.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6803
High Speed rail is the future.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

High Speed rail is the future past.
Fixed unless we're talking about stuff like maglevs
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6738|USA

DrunkFace wrote:

People take the train for the experience, not the speed. Same way cruise ships survive.

It also costs a shit load more because it takes longer. You have to pay the staff for a shit load more. You have to provide food, sewage facilities for a shit load longer. There are also huge costs to maintenance to tracks, not needed in the air. Because of the length of journey you have to provide more space so people can walk around (or sleep).
Ture, matter of fact, I have considered making my next vacation a cross country trip by rail.
jord
Member
+2,382|6765|The North, beyond the wall.

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

People take the train for the experience, not the speed. Same way cruise ships survive.

It also costs a shit load more because it takes longer. You have to pay the staff for a shit load more. You have to provide food, sewage facilities for a shit load longer. There are also huge costs to maintenance to tracks, not needed in the air. Because of the length of journey you have to provide more space so people can walk around (or sleep).
Ture, matter of fact, I have considered making my next vacation a cross country trip by rail.
Why? Just rent an awesome car.

I had to catch a train and make a change once and I had about 2 mins to make the change in a massive overly complex shithole called York train station. Needless to say I missed it and had to wait 58 minutes for the next one...

Trains suck, we should dig up all the metals that are wasted on tracks and sell them to China or something. And build roads where they were.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

People take the train for the experience, not the speed. Same way cruise ships survive.

It also costs a shit load more because it takes longer. You have to pay the staff for a shit load more. You have to provide food, sewage facilities for a shit load longer. There are also huge costs to maintenance to tracks, not needed in the air. Because of the length of journey you have to provide more space so people can walk around (or sleep).
Ture, matter of fact, I have considered making my next vacation a cross country trip by rail.
Why? Just rent an awesome car.

I had to catch a train and make a change once and I had about 2 mins to make the change in a massive overly complex shithole called York train station. Needless to say I missed it and had to wait 58 minutes for the next one...

Trains suck, we should dig up all the metals that are wasted on tracks and sell them to China or something. And build roads where they were.
Trains are good for short hauling passengers. The rail network around NYC has millions of passengers every day because the roads are so congested and the bridges and tunnels all have tolls. They're also superior for moving freight long distances vs trucks (both cheaper, and faster) and cause way less pollution. Yes, cars are more convenient but a good rail network is still very important to any nations economy.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6803

JohnG@lt wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

High Speed rail is the future past.
Fixed unless we're talking about stuff like maglevs
Actually I am 400km/h train rides are
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5788|College Park, MD
I know they're pricey in Europe, but your trains are also a lot faster. And I hear things like sleeper cars for long-haul trips are the standard, not an 'add-on.' Correct me if I'm wrong though...

And yeah, I do enjoy the experience of a beautiful train ride (I heard the California Zephyr line is gorgeous) but even a trip like going to Chicago is relatively plain except for when you're near the lakes. And costs as much as simply flying there. And I'm sure it was just bad luck, but when I went by train from DC to Chicago it was supposed to take something like 17 hours, and it ended up taking more like 20.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
PureFodder
Member
+225|6372
Weren't all the investments going to be on medium haul train distances. The US is so large that cross country trips are not going to be well served by trains, but the investments were aimed at upgrading/installing rail connections that were on the scale of 2-6 hrs. This way it's typically cheaper and more convenient than flying, but further than many people would want to drive/go by bus.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

PureFodder wrote:

Weren't all the investments going to be on medium haul train distances. The US is so large that cross country trips are not going to be well served by trains, but the investments were aimed at upgrading/installing rail connections that were on the scale of 2-6 hrs. This way it's typically cheaper and more convenient than flying, but further than many people would want to drive/go by bus.
I don't know anybody that would rather sit on a train for 2-6 hours vs driving a car and having a means of transportation at the destination. Not going to change American car culture just because you build more rail lines. It's too late.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,812|6192|eXtreme to the maX
High Speed rail is the future.
Not travelling so bloody much is the future.
The amount of travel people do for business is ludicrous, there is very little which can't be achieved by email or telephone/teleconference.
Mostly its an ego thing, I have to take my ego half-way across the country/world so I can feel more important.
I have wriggled out of so much travel and done a better job I reckon.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6768|Disaster Free Zone

Dilbert_X wrote:

High Speed rail is the future.
Not travelling so bloody much is the future.
The amount of travel people do for business is ludicrous, there is very little which can't be achieved by email or telephone/teleconference.
Mostly its an ego thing, I have to take my ego half-way across the country/world so I can feel more important.
I have wriggled out of so much travel and done a better job I reckon.
Paid vacation.... who the fuck would want to give up that?
PureFodder
Member
+225|6372

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Weren't all the investments going to be on medium haul train distances. The US is so large that cross country trips are not going to be well served by trains, but the investments were aimed at upgrading/installing rail connections that were on the scale of 2-6 hrs. This way it's typically cheaper and more convenient than flying, but further than many people would want to drive/go by bus.
I don't know anybody that would rather sit on a train for 2-6 hours vs driving a car and having a means of transportation at the destination. Not going to change American car culture just because you build more rail lines. It's too late.
They managed to forcable move Americans from trains and trams to cars, there's no particualr reason why they can't do the same in reverse.

Just because you don't know anyone who'd happily take a train, doesn't meant the 300,000,000 Americans you don't know don't want to. Train travel on those time scales is popular everywhere else in the developed and developing world, so there's no particular reason why the US couldn't do it.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,812|6192|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't know anybody that would rather sit on a train for 2-6 hours vs driving a car and having a means of transportation at the destination.
Me for one, trains are relaxing, you can get up and walk around, look out of the windown with a beer and packet of nuts or just read. Driving around an unknown city and trying to find somewhere to park the damn car can be a PITA - at least in Europe, where public transport is good enough and taxis plentiful so a car is just an expensive liability.
Most cities you can walk around anyway so why have a car?

Paid vacation.... who the fuck would want to give up that?
Why travel round and round the world when you can invest the time and money in something useful?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't know anybody that would rather sit on a train for 2-6 hours vs driving a car and having a means of transportation at the destination.
Me for one, trains are relaxing, you can get up and walk around, look out of the windown with a beer and packet of nuts or just read. Driving around an unknown city and trying to find somewhere to park the damn car can be a PITA - at least in Europe, where public transport is good enough and taxis plentiful so a car is just an expensive liability.
Most cities you can walk around anyway so why have a car?
I've always preferred having my own car wherever I am. It gives you a sense of freedom to be able to just jump in your car and go wherever rather than being reliant on there being taxi service or bus service or train service. Not relying on a set scheduled departure time is also convenient. When I travel into Manhattan I do take the train out of convenience because it turns what could be an hour long trip in a car into a twenty minute, hassle free train ride

When I was stationed in Texas I rarely ever flew anywhere. I was engaged to a girl that lived in St Louis and I drove up to visit her (A 12-13 hour trip one way) twice a month or so. Driving home to NY usually took 2 days but I did it in 26 hours straight once when I had a buddy come back with me. While a total pain in the ass to drive that much, it's just way more convenient when you arrive at the destination. I grew up in the suburbs and cars are just an important part of the culture, shrug.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,812|6192|eXtreme to the maX
I'm used to having regular and easy public transport, or having everything I need within walking distance - especially the pub.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5445|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm used to having regular and easy public transport, or having everything I need within walking distance - especially the pub.
What is this walking thing?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard