> i would pay the same amount of money, and gladly take a doubling in
> time, with current levels of comfort, to substitute any plane travel in
> the US with an amtrak trip. i know its been gone over a few times, but i
> really fail to understand why newark -> chicago should take more than 24
> hours by train (at 2-3 times the cost of a flight), other than a lack of
> govt support. i mean, it can't be the geography or price of fuel, or
> some such: i did the same trip (reverse direction: chicago -> newark) on
> a frigging motorcycle, in under 24 hours, for dog's sake!
Time for me to chime in and pontificate as somebody raised in a transportation family. I live in Kansas City, which is the hot spot for the train industry these days. My father was a former director of planning for the Kansas City bus system, until Reagan slashed funding in the early 1980s. In recent years he was a communications guy for Yellow freight. Now he's retired and gets a sub to Trains magazine. We've talked often over the years about these issues in the American context.
Ravi, it used to be that Amtrak trips took a long time because their rolling stock sucked and the rail lines were in poor condition. Then the frieght industry figured out how to use computers to improve shipping efficiency and the rebirth of freight trains happened. These days, Amtrak trains have to play second fiddle to freight traffic. Most of the rail lines have been upgraded, but Amtrak has to share track with freight, in most places outside of the Northeast metropolitan corridor, which has dedicated lines to passenger trains.
This is why it takes an Amtrak train so long to get through Ohio in the middle of the night.
In the early 90s, I used to take the train cross country more because I disliked flying. These days I don't mind flying, although the fucking airport stuff and the getting up in the middle of the night to catch a flight suck. If I were to start taking the train across country again, they would need to speed the trains up. Why? Because I discovered that I can't sleep on a train. I normally have no problem sleeping, but I just can't fall asleep on a train.
Otherwise, train travel is much better than a plane or driving. On the train you can stretch out, watch scenery, read a book, and these days, surf the Internet. You can go get a snack, have dinner, or watch working class people get drunk after losing their jobs earlier in the day.
The train system on the East Coast is pretty awesome. Even if you take the slowest train, such at the MARC to BWI airport or Baltimore, it's pretty comfortable. I've taken the Metroliner to Philly and New York City. On the latter trip I was kicked out of my initial seat because they found out that I had first class tickets. First class was a bit nicer than the normal coach, the free newspaper and the free drink being pretty much the only perks.
I see no reason why high speed rail wouldn't work in more of the U.S. WIth gas prices going up, more middle class people will be clamoring for public transportation. I can see high speed rail going in between Chicago and Milwaukee and Kansas City and St. Louis. The latter might be more doable than people think. People in both cities have cars, but the distance (around 4 hours) is annoying enough for frequent intercity trabellers that a high speed train would be very appealing. If I could get to St. Louis in an hour, I'd go over there for fun more often.
There are several factors which will play an important role in making public transit more appealing. Higher gas prices have woken up people to the costs associated with commuting and the very way cities are laid out. Higher jet fuel prices and crappy service will prompt more people to support a higher grade of Amtrak between cities. But if gas prices go back down to $2/gallon again, I don't see much change happening on the public transit front.
Chuck