Comments on: Train in Vain

By: Jacke

Jacke — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:43:19 +0000

I recently took the Amtrak Adirondack from NYC to Montreal, Quebec—and the trip took over 15 hours.351 miles—15 hours. Kids on bicycles were literally traveling faster than our train.I think it’s US government policy to intentionally PUNISH any American who chooses to travel long distances by train.Why should the engineers be allowed to stop trains and sit to wait for alternate shifts to arrive, causing untold delay and inconvenience for all of those passengers?Car companies, airlines have a great deal of interest in keeping Americans off trains, and the government is more than happy to accommodate these entities.

By: The Renewed Interest in Amtrak - PSFK

The Renewed Interest in Amtrak - PSFK — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:17:32 +0000

[...] Americans will consider investing again in their rail system. The author James Howard Kunstler once wrote that American trains “would be the laughing stock of Bulgaria,” but maybe that can [...]

By: paxsierra

paxsierra — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:27:05 +0000

I don’t think the correct approach is to try to build a customer base FIRST. As explored in the article, Amtrak is slow and unreliable, in large part due to its shared infrastructure. How can we expect Americans to want to ride the train if it just plain sucks (unless you’re the adventurin’ type)? No. I like the idea of a nationalize rail system: we should, as a people, invest in the rail system. Make it fast, make it reliable. The customers will come.Jervey says, “Per passenger mile, an Amtrak train uses about half the energy of an
airplane, and can carry twice the number of people. It’s also the
passenger-carrying equivalent of 16 lanes of highway.”If this is true, how can it NOT be profitable to revamp the rail system? We just have to make the investment. If this is true, the price per trip HAS to drop. If we’re talking pure economics here, trains, by their very nature as more energy efficient, should be cheaper than planes. Again, we just have to make the investment. The customer base will come.As far as where the facts are in the article: they’re there, plain as day. Jarvis doesn’t give us specific source on a lot of them, but if you read magazine you’ll note that this is pretty much the norm. He’s telling a story here—it’s not investigative journalism. I, for one, trust he checked the accuracy of his facts. And with just a few minutes internet research, I came up with many of the same facts, myself.Great article! I’m riding the train tomorrow from the Bay Area to Salt Lake City. I’m excited. But then, I don’t have a timeframe, really.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:38:38 +0000

Where were the facts in this article?

By: OneBrazillion

OneBrazillion — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:01:00 +0000

Also Amtrak can’t count on Americans for a reliable customer base. For all the novelty of rail travel I have never taken Amtrak, and my guess is most Americans are the same way. Upgrading the rail system isn’t feasible until a profitable customer base comes into being, which is less likely considering how much Americans love their cars.

By: jimmy red

jimmy red — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:19:30 +0000

a big part of the problem lies with cost of operation on the Railroads track, in other words ,the railroads don’t make as much money hauling passengers. profit seems to be the motive in motive power here.