4 ms·

> But in the early ’80s, the reality reversed: Air travel worsened (fares skyrocketed, carriers abandoned marginal routes, competition intensified), and some Am

by floren 4y ago

> But in the early ’80s, the reality reversed: Air travel worsened (fares skyrocketed, carriers abandoned marginal routes, competition intensified), and some Americans turned again to their network of trains. As all of my friends and co-workers relate the terrible experiences they've had with flying over the last year or two, I can't help but wonder if we might see this happen again. A guy can dream, I guess.

jazzyjackson 4y ago
I feel like all America has to do is pass a law forcing the railroads to respect the passenger time tables, and even if it's Amtrak's fault that they missed a slot, yield to passenger traffic and enable them to run on-time. If the trains had a reputation for not being overbooked, not being cancelled, and arriving at the time it says on the ticket, they could be a lot more popular. I take Amtrak whenever possible because I hate the way people are treated in airports and I often meet others on the train that don't fly for one reason or another, but I am also enabled by a life that is unaffected if I arrive somewhere 12 hours late.
- aetherson 4y ago
  This is crazy. Freight trains in America do an important job. Long distance passenger trains in America serve eccentric hobbyists. The one is obviously more important than the other.
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    I didn't say "dismantle the freight companies", I said "prioritize humans arriving on time over corn syrup"
    - aetherson 4y ago
      Logistics are important. Materials need to arrive when they're expected. People with a fetish for impractical modes of transit do not.
      - jazzyjackson 4y ago
        america must be the only country where reliable public transit is considered a sexual kink, thanks for the that.
        aetherson 4y ago
        Public transit is fine. Lots of people get around cities or connected metropolitan regions on rail, and that's great. There are plenty of places in America where we could usefully build more rail. These tracks do not have problems of freight preemption, because they are not used for freight at all. Outside perhaps of the northeast corridor, there is very little of America that is well suited for long distance trail travel, with distances being too long, with too little population between metro areas, and the terrain too rugged. There are nonetheless people who want to travel in trains for trains sake. That's fine, I don't begrudge then their hobbies. But freight is important, getting supplies around in time for logistics chains to work is a serious business, and we should not imperil it so that a few eccentrics can have slightly freer access to their hobby.
dylan604 4y ago
I doubt it. Compare the time table for a flight vs train to the same destination. It's not even close to thinking American's and their "RIGHT THE NOWS!" attitude will put up with a train schedule. I say this from the inside. I've looked at the options, and there's no way with my limited time off that I'm spending all if it on a train. Get me there as soon as possible to use my limited there not getting there, then turn it around to come back. If your destination is the train, you're golden.
- jfim 4y ago
  It really depends what you're looking for. The train in the US isn't for reliable fast transportation, it's for relatively comfy and relaxing transportation. I did the trip from Montréal, Canada all the way to San José, California on Amtrak and it was fantastic. It allowed me to disconnect by staring out the window for a few days and literally not doing anything but relax without internet connectivity. It was fun to chat with people from all over the US over dinner, and hear a bit about their world. But obviously the direct YUL-SFO is more efficient, it's just a few hours in a cramped and dry metal tube in the sky. That's what I'd pick, 100% of the time, if I need to be at my destination at a specific time with no time to waste traveling. Even though I'd love it if there were more passenger trains, I definitely agree with you that it's doubtful that a lot of trips will be done by train. The US is just so large that flying really is the most sensical option most of the time.

by floren 4y ago

jazzyjackson 4y ago

I feel like all America has to do is pass a law forcing the railroads to respect the passenger time tables, and even if it's Amtrak's fault that they missed a slot, yield to passenger traffic and enable them to run on-time. If the trains had a reputation for not being overbooked, not being cancelled, and arriving at the time it says on the ticket, they could be a lot more popular. I take Amtrak whenever possible because I hate the way people are treated in airports and I often meet others on the train that don't fly for one reason or another, but I am also enabled by a life that is unaffected if I arrive somewhere 12 hours late.

aetherson 4y ago
This is crazy. Freight trains in America do an important job. Long distance passenger trains in America serve eccentric hobbyists. The one is obviously more important than the other.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  I didn't say "dismantle the freight companies", I said "prioritize humans arriving on time over corn syrup"
  - aetherson 4y ago
    Logistics are important. Materials need to arrive when they're expected. People with a fetish for impractical modes of transit do not.
    - jazzyjackson 4y ago
      america must be the only country where reliable public transit is considered a sexual kink, thanks for the that.
      - aetherson 4y ago
        Public transit is fine. Lots of people get around cities or connected metropolitan regions on rail, and that's great. There are plenty of places in America where we could usefully build more rail. These tracks do not have problems of freight preemption, because they are not used for freight at all. Outside perhaps of the northeast corridor, there is very little of America that is well suited for long distance trail travel, with distances being too long, with too little population between metro areas, and the terrain too rugged. There are nonetheless people who want to travel in trains for trains sake. That's fine, I don't begrudge then their hobbies. But freight is important, getting supplies around in time for logistics chains to work is a serious business, and we should not imperil it so that a few eccentrics can have slightly freer access to their hobby.

dylan604 4y ago

I doubt it. Compare the time table for a flight vs train to the same destination. It's not even close to thinking American's and their "RIGHT THE NOWS!" attitude will put up with a train schedule. I say this from the inside. I've looked at the options, and there's no way with my limited time off that I'm spending all if it on a train. Get me there as soon as possible to use my limited there not getting there, then turn it around to come back. If your destination is the train, you're golden.

jfim 4y ago
It really depends what you're looking for. The train in the US isn't for reliable fast transportation, it's for relatively comfy and relaxing transportation. I did the trip from Montréal, Canada all the way to San José, California on Amtrak and it was fantastic. It allowed me to disconnect by staring out the window for a few days and literally not doing anything but relax without internet connectivity. It was fun to chat with people from all over the US over dinner, and hear a bit about their world. But obviously the direct YUL-SFO is more efficient, it's just a few hours in a cramped and dry metal tube in the sky. That's what I'd pick, 100% of the time, if I need to be at my destination at a specific time with no time to waste traveling. Even though I'd love it if there were more passenger trains, I definitely agree with you that it's doubtful that a lot of trips will be done by train. The US is just so large that flying really is the most sensical option most of the time.