Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
RAILforum
»
Passenger Trains
»
Amtrak
»
I think its time to stop the long distance routes
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr. Toy: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by polarbearucla: [b]I think what has become clear through the John Kerry thread is that long distnace routes make little sense in terms of money and time. [/b][/QUOTE] I don't recall any such conclusion posted there. One trip for one person was used as an example. You can't extrapolate that into all trips for everybody. [QUOTE][b] Amtrak may or may not cost more than a flight but will surely take a lot longer, [/b][/QUOTE] So? Time isn't everything. [QUOTE][b]and as someone pointed out delays are measured in hours not minutes. [/b][/QUOTE] That is not an inherent deficiency of rail travel, but rather the result of inadequate capital investment in infrastructure quality and capacity. [QUOTE][b] Thus if Amtrak's long distance routes don't serve business they must serve the leisure crowd - ie perosnal trips where travel time is not a major factor. [/b][/QUOTE] You are making a common assumption that trips break down into only two categories, business (related to one's profession) and pleasure. There is a third category called personal business. This covers things like attending family events (weddings, funerals), students shuttling between home and school (which I did a lot in the '70s by the Coast Starlight), and all sorts of other personal matters that are as diverse as the people traveling. A large chunk (30%-40%, I forget the exact number) of Amtrak long-distance customers travel on personal business. [QUOTE][b]While I totally agree that travel by train is a great vacation within itself, I'm not sure that it should be on the Federal government's tab. I dont see the federal government running AmCruise or any other luxury cruise ship. [/b][/QUOTE] In all modes of travel, Amtrak included, leisure travel constitutes about a third of all travel business. Amtrak is actually pretty consistent with other modes in that regard. As for cruise ships, (which are 100% leisure travel) the government does fund the ports, waterways, security via the coast guard, customs, etc, which those cruise ships require. The government also funds the aviation infrastructure, including air traffic control, so tourists can spend a few days lounging at resorts on Maui. (You seriously don't think they're flying to Hawaii on business do you?) And the government supports the highways for the leisure traveler's motor homes. [QUOTE][b]I dont see the federal government running AmCruise or any other luxury cruise ship. [/b][/QUOTE] You're right, Government doesn't run the ships. Nor does the government fly the planes or drive the cars. Government supplies the infrastructure so these things can function. With the long-distanced trains, the situation is reversed. Private companies supply the infrastructure, the traffic control, security, etc, with virtually NO government money. Just because, in this one case, the setup is different doesn't mean no government money should be involved anywhere. [QUOTE][b] I dont think very many people would argue that the goverment should sponsor cruises. [/b][/QUOTE] As mentioned above, the government does sponsor cruises, just not directly. However, implicit in your comments is the idea that leisure travel is somehow less legitimate than business travel. There are several problems with this. Tourism is a huge part of the national economy, if not the largest. The government helps support tourism in many ways, such as transportation infrastructure (as already noted) and state and national park systems, and many states pay for advertising to promote tourism. Government pays for all sorts of tourist activities. In the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the only industry that was directly attacked was the travel industry, specifically the airlines. Travel was really the only segment of the economy that was directly affected, and the tourism industry was especially hard hit. (Business travelers could compensate with teleconferencing and that sort of thing, but tourists can't do that.) The loss of tourism business dragged down the entire national economy for a over year afterwards. It hurt restaurants, retail, hotels, and on down the line. Tourism is indeed economically vital. So even if your assertion is correct, that almost all long distance train travelers are tourists, why should that be a problem? Tourism is an essential part of the economy, and Amtrak supports tourism. I think that's great! It might also be noted that Amtrak goes to many popular tourist destinations with little or no air service. Glenwood Springs and Winter Park in Colorado come immediately to mind. [QUOTE][b]Yet, it would be unwise to say that people dont travel amtrak for other reasons; such as health or fear of flying. However, there are always good ol' GreyHound and best of all a nice road trip down an interstate. [/b][/QUOTE] Greyhound is horrible for a trip much over 200 miles. Private auto is better, but not suitable for all trips, especially long-hauls across the deserts, or for the elderly. [QUOTE][b]The basic idea is that a car provides greater speed than amtrak; [/b][/QUOTE] Not if you factor in lodgings en route. If you do that Amtrak is both cheaper and faster. I calculated that our trip from Emeryville to Denver in 2000 cost my wife and I just 32 cents per mile on the California Zephyr. That's 16 cents per person per mile. Total time, including delays was about 35 hours each way. It would have taken three days to drive that in blistering heat. No thanks. [QUOTE][b] while greyhound provides greater savings than amtrak. [/b][/QUOTE] You get what you pay for. [QUOTE][b]Thus the way I see it - one of these two options should fit the needs of 99% of amtrak long distance travelers. [/b][/QUOTE] Unless you back that up with some hard empirical data, it amounts to nothing more than a pet theory. [QUOTE][b]I state once again that the government has no obligation to make your travel overly relaxing. [/b][/QUOTE] The government has no obligation to provide roadside rest areas either. But at those certain moments I'll bet you're sure glad they do! Remember, the "government" is you and me, so I have no problem with my tax dollars being spent to make my life a little easier. [QUOTE][b]And if you really want to relax on a train- then take the American Orient express. [/b][/QUOTE] Problem is, AOE doesn't provide regularly scheduled service to over 500 cities from coast to coast. Nor do I have the $3000+ necessary to travel by train and see a few parks on AOE's limited schedule. I take Amtrak long-distance trains because I need to get somewhere, and because, for my needs, it is cost effective and convenient. And with that statement, there goes your entire theory. Amtrak long-distance trains work for me as basic transportation, as it does for many of the people I meet on the trains. [QUOTE][b] Now that being said - Amtrak serves many purposes in the NE US and down here in So. Cal - the service is fine and is *almost* as quick as car a way less stressful.[/b][/QUOTE] It serves many other places as well. Long distance trains are all I have access to, and I use them because they meet my needs. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
Home Page
Powered by
Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2
Copyright © 2007-2016
TrainWeb, Inc.
Top of Page
|
TrainWeb
|
About Us
|
Advertise With Us
|
Contact Us