Absolutely... and I think the definition of "Higher-Standards" needs to be narrowed to availabliity, reliablity, and reduced cost.
I commute daily on CalTrain in the San Francisco / San Jose Area, and it is WONDERFUL !! Inexpensive, reliable / timely, clean and safe.
I make a monthly "vacation commute" on the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) from San Jose to Stockton (~90 miles), and THAT ride is actually CHEAPER and QUICKER than driving (during commute-hours). A 2 hour drive is 2.5 hours of relaxing, typing, reading, or listening to tunes.
AMTRAK BITES though... I'd LOVE to travel further on the rails, but the intra-state travel on AMTRAK is just too pricey and unreliable (12-24 hour delays?).
I PRAY that the State of California actually gets off their collective @sses and BUILDS the proposed CAL-HI-SPEED-RAIL Corridor... and I'd like to see it extend PAST Sacramento: North and East... and also EAST from LA.
2007-12-11 05:20:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by mariner31 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
A serious answer without any politics, name calling, or real "spin": for medium time span travel, trains are great, and if we could change our habits some, this would be a wonderful thing for 200-1000 miles trips. But the direct answer: I don't think we can catch up, and very much doubt if the effort will be made. The keys are population and destination density, not just the infrastructure, and as pointed out already, there are a few rather efficient high speed lines in New England and along the Atlantic corridor, working well and actually making money. I am old enough to remember high quality express trains and how quick, comfortable, relaxing, and interesting they could be. But cost is always a factor--I'm not thinking so much about construction, I'm thinking about ticket prices, which do reflect the construction prices. I loved it. And so did everyone who used them with whom I was able to discuss this means of travel. For shorter trips, I suspect Americans will always prefer something more private, especially the automobile. Going from New York City to Boston is generally considerably faster by rail than by air, and far less impacted by weather, as an example of convenience. For much longer trips, the answer would be mixed. Still, this isn't a "race", where we have to "beat" someone. It's about comfort and efficiency for passengers. Yet, I think the habit changes might take generations to be effective, even with the energy implications involved. Incidentally, this is an idea that has been toyed with and considered for a very long time, by both private enterprise and administrations of both parties. So to call it an "Obama" idea is, at best, stretching the truth.
2016-04-08 07:56:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Definitely. When I lived in Europe I took trains everywhere. If I was touring a city, my car wasn't really an option. Gas was expensive, parking was a *****, and half the time I didn't know how to get anywhere.
Taking a train to get somewhere, then riding the subway/bus while I was there was AWESOME! Not only awesome but conveinient. Public transportation was built around all the must see sites.
2007-12-10 19:49:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by whatwillittake 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I love trains. When I lived in California, I took commuter trains up and down the coast instead of driving.
2007-12-11 01:28:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by aries_jdd 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes I have always liked train rides. They do need to make them faster so you can get to a lot of places at a good time. They should make them a little cheaper too. I think more people would use them too.
2007-12-10 20:19:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by sjcp138 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
If everyone rode the trains, it would save a lot of gas, and pollute the atmosphere a ton less. that would be great, but if that many people were taking trains, the trains would have to have a lot of maintenance.
2007-12-10 20:03:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Zacheriah Hammilton 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would!
I would love to spend my commute reading, playing or napping. Instead, I spend my commute yelling at the Jerk selfishly holding up traffic by speeding up, slowing down and not letting traffic by in the left(passing) lane.
2007-12-10 19:50:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by nobodyspecial 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
i would just seeing how economical they are (if i have the time). Moving several hundred tons per 100 miles on one gallon of fuel! amazing.
2007-12-10 21:27:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nope.
2007-12-10 23:47:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by penhead72 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Absolutely!
A great many people would, I hear that comment a lot.
2007-12-11 03:28:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋