Time To Bring Back The Train?
Perhaps the time has come for America to rekindle its long-lost love for the noble train.
Imagine seeing America through the window of a train, as thousands of Americans did for so many years throughout our history. Imagine enjoying the experience as opposed to the hassles of air travel. Imagine not being cooped up in some compartment. Imagine spending less money and using less gasoline.
The Europeans got it right when it comes to trains. Passes for 15 days worth of travel range in price from $49 to $795, according to http://www.eurail.com/, with passengers able to travel all over Europe and to up to 20 countries.
These passes have existed since 1959, and their trains can run faster than 120 mph. There is high-speed rail all over Europe.
In the news business, we avoid using Wikipedia as a source, but according to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States - high-speed rail development in the United States can be traced back to the 1930s.
However, today the Acela Express in the Northeast is the only high-speed rail service in America, operating between Washington, D.C., and Boston.
A map on the above link shows proposed highs-speed routes nationwide, include a route that runs out of Houston and presumably runs through Beaumont. If that comes to pass, I'd use the hell out of it, taking the train instead of the plane for our annual sojourns to Richmond, Va., home of my wife's family.
Opponents of high-speed rail say the costs of building the system outweigh the benefits. In one report I saw, from 1992, it was estimated that it would cost $18 million per mile. Obviously it would cost a lot more than that today.
There are a lot of pros and cons floating around out there. I'm just trying to generalize the topic at a time when high gas prices are making travel by car and aircraft more expensive.
I couldn't find any studies that detail how high gasoline prices would have to be before building a high-speed rail system can be justified, but I did find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
Here, it shows fuel efficiency, and you get far more fuel bang for your buck with trains than you do with jets.
But even if we don't build a high-speed rail service, more of us should be using trains at a time when gas prices are soaring and airlines are hurting, passing their hurt on to consumers.
I did a quick check of http://www.amtrak.com
I found a couple of travel options that would cost half of what I'm paying this year to take the family to Virginia.
Sure, you have to change trains, and, yes, there's an overnight stay in some place like New Orleans (Bummer!).
But I would look at a train trip as more a part of the vacation adventure than I would just a means to get somewhere. Instead of arriving at the destination with a belly full of stress, we'd pull into a quaint station with a head full of fond memories.
Imagine seeing America through the window of a train, as thousands of Americans did for so many years throughout our history. Imagine enjoying the experience as opposed to the hassles of air travel. Imagine not being cooped up in some compartment. Imagine spending less money and using less gasoline.
The Europeans got it right when it comes to trains. Passes for 15 days worth of travel range in price from $49 to $795, according to http://www.eurail.com/, with passengers able to travel all over Europe and to up to 20 countries.
These passes have existed since 1959, and their trains can run faster than 120 mph. There is high-speed rail all over Europe.
In the news business, we avoid using Wikipedia as a source, but according to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_States - high-speed rail development in the United States can be traced back to the 1930s.
However, today the Acela Express in the Northeast is the only high-speed rail service in America, operating between Washington, D.C., and Boston.
A map on the above link shows proposed highs-speed routes nationwide, include a route that runs out of Houston and presumably runs through Beaumont. If that comes to pass, I'd use the hell out of it, taking the train instead of the plane for our annual sojourns to Richmond, Va., home of my wife's family.
Opponents of high-speed rail say the costs of building the system outweigh the benefits. In one report I saw, from 1992, it was estimated that it would cost $18 million per mile. Obviously it would cost a lot more than that today.
There are a lot of pros and cons floating around out there. I'm just trying to generalize the topic at a time when high gas prices are making travel by car and aircraft more expensive.
I couldn't find any studies that detail how high gasoline prices would have to be before building a high-speed rail system can be justified, but I did find this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
Here, it shows fuel efficiency, and you get far more fuel bang for your buck with trains than you do with jets.
But even if we don't build a high-speed rail service, more of us should be using trains at a time when gas prices are soaring and airlines are hurting, passing their hurt on to consumers.
I did a quick check of http://www.amtrak.com
I found a couple of travel options that would cost half of what I'm paying this year to take the family to Virginia.
Sure, you have to change trains, and, yes, there's an overnight stay in some place like New Orleans (Bummer!).
But I would look at a train trip as more a part of the vacation adventure than I would just a means to get somewhere. Instead of arriving at the destination with a belly full of stress, we'd pull into a quaint station with a head full of fond memories.
posted by Brian Pearson at 11:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home