Comments by "😊 Erin Thor" (@Erin-Thor) on "The Wall Street Journal"
channel.
-
22
-
17
-
9
-
Alexlfm — Yes, it would cost hundreds of billions to update the entire nations rail. But they are talking billions to just continue operating the existing train service. And we are not talking about replacing the entire nations railways. The plan that was scrapped was to have a high speed corridor between the east and west coasts, after that the major inter city railways could be upgraded. In this way you could have more expensive HSR non-stop LA to NYC fares/routes, and other trains that would exit the high speed corridor and travel at normal speeds to the largest cities. This would mean overnight service from the west coast to the Midwest or day trips such as SFO-PHX, LAX-DFW or whatever. Then later upgrade the tracks between major cities, PHX-El Paso, El Paso to DFW or DFW-HOU, etc. Have you traveled by train? This train was remarkably full, that is not always the case. To be profitable Amtrak needs more passengers. To lure more passengers they must be both time and cost effective. Yes, everyone knows that new or replacement HSR tracks would be both expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare. But if China, Japan and Europe can do it, why can’t we? This is NOT an impossible task. Do you want to know why rail doesn’t go from most major cities to the neighboring airports? Because ground transportation companies fight it and lobby against it because it 'might' reduce their revenue. Do you know why the high speed rail corridor plan never got off the drawing boards? Because the airline and bus industries lobbied to defeat it. High speed rail 'might' affect their profits.
6
-
4
-
翟义琥 — True, HSR's normally don’t have sleeper cars except in China. Almost all HSR's are used for commuter traffic. But the USA has sleeper cars, and we do have "higher speed" (still slow by international standards) rail sections, but to do HSR would as I just mentioned in my previous reply, would require new tracks with much more graceful curves as our current rail tracks make relatively sharp turns, too sharp for HSR. That’s why they were going to start with a corridor through the middle of the USA, that would allow standard speeds in the cities on existing tracks, and higher speeds on the new tracks between the major cities. If I remember correctly the scrapped plan was to have an arc beginning around LA, curving towards San Diego, the east near Phoenix towards El Paso, arcing northeast to pass north of DFW, through to below Chicago, then onto New York. Initially the only HSR was to be that main corridor, trains would slow to our current speeds to spur off to the cities. This would allow them to be serviced as well. If I remember correctly the plan was non stop service in 12-18 hours, and trains with stops to take about two days to cover the same route. I’m speaking for example overnight service (or day) from LAX to PHX or DFW, DFW-DEN etc. All I know is that I fly frequently for work, I would, as would many, prefer rail, but it’s not time or cost effective. If it were possible to go from say DFW-LAX, LAX-DEN, DFW-CHI overnight, so passengers could board, eat, sleep, shower and go... I for one would jump at the opportunity. It COULD work, Amtrak could be profitable, but who has two days to get from Dallas to Atlanta? HSR would give people the choice.
3
-
Bushrod Rust Johnson — Yes! Absolutely ridiculous! But also crazy brilliant IMHO. And you are half right, we took a standard HSR car from France to Spain. But from Madrid to Portugal we took a sleeper compartment and enjoyed a truly excellent excellent meal. Went to sleep, woke up, had a shower, breakfast and arrived in Lisbon. Keeping a train system going to cater to those people who don’t like to fly or drive, when the route isn’t profitable... THAT is insane. All I’m saying is that the plan the airlines squashed had merit and held the promise of both increasing ridership and revenues by making trains viable, cost and time effective. Step a multi-track route from CA, thru AZ, NM, TX, LA, GA and up to the NYC area. HSR only on the main corridor, all branches off to any respective city would be standard rail tracks, pending stage two. I travel frequently, I fly the day or evening before, check in to a hotel, eat, sleep, work, repeat. I mention this because if a business profiles for people like me, who travel, could easily justify a train!
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Craig F. Thompson — Yes, very few have two days to travel anywhere unless price is their only concern, but it doesn’t take two days to go from DFW to ATL now so your not comparing apples to apples. But the High Speed Rail, HSR service that was under consideration estimated a 12-15 hour trip from LAX to NYC "If" HSR were possible on a nonstop train service. Plane travel isn’t cheap, rail is much more cost effective. The plan was to start HSR service between major cities, LAX-SFO, LAX-PHX, DFW-ATL, or whatever. The tracks from the primary cities would go to the main corridors for longer hauls. So while a flight from LAX to ATL would take over 4 hours, a train from LAX to ATL would take about 8 hours and would have a much lower cost per passenger. All I know is HSR can be more cost effective, the kicker is the expense for the tracks and routes ($/mile) are so high that it currently is not a cost effective option. All I’m saying, or thinking was that "IF" the HSR tracks were in place it would be nice to have that option. Let say I’m in Dallas and needed to be in ATL tomorrow morning. A flight would cost around $400. But would I fly if the train could get me there for $100? I could pack tonight, get up at 3 am to catch an early 6 am flight ✈️, or I could pack and hop a train tonight, have dinner, sleep, wake up, shower, have breakfast and arrive at the same time... and save $300.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1