Heck, even if it were more direct and NOT high speed, I'd certainly train more than I drive or fly. As it is, though, to get from Dallas to Houston by plane: 45 minutes in the Air (clearly much longer when you count in the commute to/from airport, security, baggage...)

by car is 3.5-4 hours.

on amtrak: 24 hours.

And the solution our government has proposed is a "super highway"...

For me, the deciding factor in my not being able to use amtrak is the cost. My wife and I recently took a 2 day trip from Boston to Philadelphia. Convenience isn't a huge factor, since flying is so ridiculous these days that a 7 hour train ride is much more convenient than a 1.5 hour flight. But the price! Amtrak was at least 4-5 times as expensive. Out of control.

The reason why Amtrak is so much more expensive than flights comes down to the airline industry receiving tons of funding. Most of the infrastructure is "for free" (well almost), no airline has to build and maintain the airport, that's up for the taxpayer to do.

Amtrak (and any other railway) on the other hand has to build their own tracks, maintain them and the stations as well as their rolling stock

I absolutely love trains, but: Too expensive, too slow.

"Amtrak (and any other railway) on the other hand has to build their own tracks, maintain them and the stations as well as their rolling stock"

This depends on where you live. In some places this is 1005 correct, in others the freight lines own the lines and Amtrak effectively leases them. The areas that Amtrak doesn't own the lines, they must yield to the freight trains, and the slow aspect becomes horrible. I think Houston TX is an example of the leased lines.

Yes, roads and airlines receive much more in terms of subsidies, but in terms of passenger-miles, amtrak's subsidies are dozens of times larger.

Amtrak could be a good service, but most of the subsidies go to long-distance routs that loose as much as $.50 per passenger mile (after ticket revenue), which are only kept because amtrak's subsidies are reliant on politicans who use amtrak as a means of bringing jobs to their districts. Politics forces amtrak to have horrible service. Amtrak could be good if they foccused on routs which were actually competitive.

Long distance railroads (>500 miles)aren't viable. Even high speed (>200 mph) trains take too long compared to airlines, and airlines are much more efficent on long routs anyway as compared to short routs.

I have taken Amtrak from DC to Philly and the price...$42 each way. The time...1:59min. Faster than driving! (not the Acela either) Plus, for driving I factor gas at $25 round trip, $15 for tolls and 12 cents/mile for wear and tear, oil changes, etc. The train was empty, though.

This region sees quite a bit of comeptition with greyhound, chinese, jewish bus lines, too.

Bill wrote:
I have taken Amtrak from DC to Philly and the price...$42 each way. The time...1:59min. Faster than driving!

I have taken the Amtrak from San Diego to San Francisco and the price... just a bit less than flying. The time... 17 hours - about 9 hours longer than driving. (Flying is about 80 minutes gate to gate)

Sometimes Amtrak is a win. However, my experience is that those places are DC/Philly/NY/Boston (along the east coast corridor). Everywhere else there's no contest.

I live in a small Ontario town and drive 50 km each day to my job in the city. Forty years ago I could have taken a train from my small town to a station two blocks from my office.

But those tracks were long since ripped up, replaced by a dysfunctional freeway that is constantly being repaired and expanded, so that thousands more cars can pollute their way into the city. I hate to think how many billions of dollars have been wasted on this process over the decades.

When I travel in Europe, I take the train everywhere. I can catch it directly from most major airports, and be delivered within blocks of where I want to go. I've never rented a car in Europe -- why would I?

But back here in North America I drive 500 km a week, like it or not. I have no choice. As I say, the tracks were torn up long ago, and no mass transit system has taken their place. So I drive, wasting vast amounts of money and burning vast amounts of fuel.

Sad.

I live in DC, and I recently took the Acela train from DC to Providence.

Yes, it takes longer. But it's not THAT much longer if you factor in all the crap you have to go through to take a flight out of the airport.

Anyway... it's cheaper, the security is a no-hassle affair, and they have a food car! Ok, the food kinda sucked, but the beer made up for it.

Also, I had a HUGE seat, I could use my cell-phone and computer with a tethered modem.

Overall, I'd take an express train over a sardined jet-flight any day... if it was available to more places!

Just another reason that the US is doomed, or at least in for some very hard times, in the coming century. With fuel costs doing nothing but rising for the next 100 years, It's going to get to the point where it's a distinct advantage to have a small compact country, and a vast, spread-out country such as the US won't be economically feasible anymore.

I would love to see Amtrak make a big comeback and demand for travel by train to increase. That, coupled with more funding for development of railways to more destinations and it'd be paradise. Well, as long as it was affordable :)

I wish we had a setup like those in Europe riding the train everywhere was so enjoyable and the high speed was really nice. Living in New Orleans you don't have any useful routes unless you like going to Chicago and it is considerably longer then taking an airplane. Europe still has many airlines albeit smaller from what I could tell I don't think a better rail service would shut down airlines since there are always people who need to fly for whatever reason.

If amtrak set up short commuter routes that would be amazing because if I could take a train between Baton Rouge and New Orleans everyday I could use that hour and half to get actual work done instead of driving on the road with the maniacs that like to speed and then get all up on your car. I don't like driving (obviously) it's too dangerous.

I wish we had a setup like those in Europe riding the train everywhere was so enjoyable and the high speed was really nice. Living in New Orleans you don't have any useful routes unless you like going to Chicago and it is considerably longer then taking an airplane. Europe still has many airlines albeit smaller from what I could tell I don't think a better rail service would shut down airlines since there are always people who need to fly for whatever reason.

If amtrak set up short commuter routes that would be amazing because if I could take a train between Baton Rouge and New Orleans everyday I could use that hour and half to get actual work done instead of driving on the road with the maniacs that like to speed and then get all up on your car. I don't like driving (obviously) it's too dangerous.

If this form of transit becomes prevalent then whats to stop terrorist from sending a bomb into a tightly packed terminal, therby also once again making it necessary to impose strict security measure making it a slower and more painstaking process, add to that the slower travel time and it seems to me that this could spiral into a worse mess than the airlines. Assuming that trains become popular again and peple ride them, and terrorists want to attack them, and anyone cares... i think i have lost my ....train.... of thought...

High-speed trains may compete with airlines for your green dollars. Slow trains compete with buses.

In much of the US, on interurban routes with restricted-access highways, buses are faster than trains, run more frequently so they better fit your schedule, and are more fuel efficient (think of how heavy a train really is). How much traffic is required on a route before trains become cost effective (less air resistance, fewer employees) on routes where tracks exist capable of highway speeds --- 100 passengers/hour? 1000/day? Amtrak runs buses on some of its historical routes, as well as competing with existing bus lines (Greyhound, Trailways, etc.)

How much traffic is required to support track upgrades for higher speeds? Are you willing to ride the slow train in the mean time? Many will say no, so maybe Amtrak should merge with a bus service so it can profit from the increased ridership and then invest those profits in upgrading tracks on high traffic routes. Oh wait, another bus company will compete and offer lower prices instead of investing in track, so that may not work. So does this mean we as taxpayers should foot the bill for rail infrastructure speed upgrades like we do for roads?

(I just looked and noticed that pending Amtrak reauthorization S. 294 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-294
does not seem to include track infrastructure upgrade funding. The only opportunity I saw is a clause where a rail carrier that owns the tracks can petition to take over the passenger service on that route; *if* any railroad did that then it might have a incentive to invest in higher-speed tracks. Early-stage bills for freight rail infrastructure capacity improvement such as S. 1125 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1125
specifically state that its funds cannot be used for upgrading existing tracks, only for adding tracks.)

So while faster trains are not yet on the horizon, in the meantime maybe buses can be made more attractive?

Maybe there is an opportunity for 'business-class' express bus service with more legroom, airline-style fold-down tray tables for your computer, and maybe even with wider seats (3-across instead of 4?).

Another idea is to design bus seating on tracks like some airline seats, so they can be moved close together during the holiday capacity crunch and spaced farther apart during lighter seasons (after removing a row or two).

Amtrak has huge problems ... not the least of which is the pathetically nasty state of on train restrooms.

Amtrak is hindered by a number of things, not excluding the few big city to big city routes; namely they do not have dedicated tracks and they are at the whim of freight trains schedules. This is like having a single lane Interstate with trucks driving 60 and everyone else driving 70. Sort of backs things up.

America could use high speed trains in a lot areas, but Amtrak can not do this with the infrastructure they have and government is not bold enough to change that. We need a 10 year plan and need to start now ... but of course, we won't do either of those things will happen. Instead we will pile more planes into the air, load already overloaded airports up and put up with hideous flight times which keep getting extended. It's amazing how a Chicago to Boston flight used to take 2 hours and now takes 3 (and I don't believe the planet has stretched any).

Big problems require bold vision and a commitment. Instead we are spending valuable resources lobbing peas at a small group of religious fanatics half way around the world hoping they will like us some day.

Amtrak has huge problems ... not the least of which is the pathetically nasty state of on train restrooms.

Amtrak is hindered by a number of things, not excluding the few big city to big city routes; namely they do not have dedicated tracks and they are at the whim of freight trains schedules. This is like having a single lane Interstate with trucks driving 60 and everyone else driving 70. Sort of backs things up.

America could use high speed trains in a lot areas, but Amtrak can not do this with the infrastructure they have and government is not bold enough to change that. We need a 10 year plan and need to start now ... but of course, we won't do either of those things will happen. Instead we will pile more planes into the air, load already overloaded airports up and put up with hideous flight times which keep getting extended. It's amazing how a Chicago to Boston flight used to take 2 hours and now takes 3 (and I don't believe the planet has stretched any).

Big problems require bold vision and a commitment. Instead we are spending valuable resources lobbing peas at a small group of religious fanatics half way around the world hoping they will like us some day. But I digress ... fixing Amtrak is nearly impossible. Attempting to fix it is at best a bandaid.

Let us hope that with a new administration we can see more public transportation subsidies :) I would love to use Amtrak for my regular DC/NYC route but the cost is $150-$300 round trip compared to the $35 chinatown bus. I would pay more for a train, but many people simply can't afford that kind of fare.

In cities that are closer together trains great and in many cases I've found them faster than flying when you add up the total door to door time. However, I have to really question all these comments about public subsidies of highways and air travel. Aren't all or most of those subsidies paid for by specific taxes on those services such as gas taxes and airport fees? If so, then the whole complaint about subsidies makes no sense. Train tickets would be even more expensive if travelers also had to pay the same fees auto and air travelers do. I have no problem with carbon taxes or something similar being added to other forms of transit to reflect the lesser energy efficiency but I suspect that would still not make up the difference and doubt current train technology is competitive for much of the US outside of perhaps the NE.

Why are the trains so expensive???? Can someone answer this for me???

Trains seem to be a luxury way of travelling in the U.S. Most people on trains are typically business travellers. Quite the contrast to the trains I've taken in Europe and especially in India.

I would be happy to take Amtrack (after Asia's bathrooms, I can handle anything)- but it is significantly cheaper to fly.

Actually, it's the freight companies-NOT Amtrak that build and maintain the tracks except the DC-Boston corridor. Amtrak also carries less than 1/30th of the passengers as planes do. For that it get's 1/15th of the funding and still loses money. Seems fair to me-more than fair-to Amtrak

WIthin the NY-Philly-DC corridor, one way to really spike up hi-speed rail traffic is to make hi-speed rail almost like commuter rail... and that means making it as cheap and convenient as commuter rail.

Amtrak service, even in the Northeast, cannot be competitive if it relies ONLY on business travellers or day-trippers. AMtrak HAS to capture a good number of commuters travelling from home-office 5 days a week.

From a speed perspective, it should take no more than an hour and change to get from Philly to NY, even with a couple of stops in between. And similar for Philly-DC. People driving in from suburbs or taking commuter rail/subways to work often spend an hour or so commuting to work, so an hour and change would be competitive.

BUT the biggest problem is PRICE. UNLESS Amtrak can offer commuters a package of let's say, 10 trips for 100 bucks, this wont work. 5 day a week, rounds trip travel= 10 trips; 100 dollars a week x 4 weeks/month= 400 dollars per month.