NationStates Jolt Archive

So, since me and my girlfriend live 2 hours apart and tonight I thought that we would give Passenger rail service a try, since it should be cheaper, faster, and easier for us to travel to one another by. However, when I went to Amtrak, I was disappointed, this is what I found.

92 Silver Star
Southern Pines, NC(SOP)
4:02 am
29-OCT-07

Raleigh, NC(RGH)
5:40 am
29-OCT-07

9 Carolinian
Raleigh, NC (RGH)
4:50 pm
29-OCT-07

Kannapolis, NC (KAN)
7:42 pm
29-OCT-07


Because of the scheduling, she'd be spending all of her days in Raleigh instead of Kannapolis, NC. What's funny though is the return trip back to her place.

80 Carolinian
Kannapolis, NC (KAN)
8:07 am
29-OCT-07

Raleigh, NC (RGH)
10:58 am
29-OCT-07

Raleigh, NC (RGH)
9:13 pm
29-OCT-07

Southern Pines, NC (SOP)
10:39 pm
29-OCT-07

So to catch the train from KAN to RGH, she has to be in KAN while she's still stuck in Raleigh. Now I know that Amtrak may not be a regular passenger service, and I know that the demands for a run between Southern Pines, NC and Kannapolis, NC may be low, so I didn't have high hopes that this would work, but after seeing that there isn't even a regular passenger service between two I guess you would classify as small to mid-size town that is
112 miles apart, then maybe there's something wrong with our rail system. What do you guys think? Also if anyone knows of an alternative to Amtrak, let me know.

try the bus

When I lived in France I was dating a girl from Iowa, and when we both returned to our respective states we decided to try to make it work. We also looked into Amtrak, but found that there is no rail service between Des Moines, IA and Chicago, so she'd have to take an 8 hour bus ride so she could get on the train and sit for a few more hours until she got to Lansing, MI which is a 1 hour drive from my house. Needless to say we weren't all to thrilled with that option.

The rail system is yet another reason I miss living in France.

try the bus

Greyhound doesn't even go near her neck of the woods.

If we spent more on infrastructure with our taxes, then we may just get better results.

And, no, it's not because of the war.

a)War funding has its own particular budgeted department, and
b)Total funds spent on the war in Iraq has taken up a mere 4.5 percent of our economy

It's just that, if politicians would spend as much money as they would promise on public transportation and infrastructure, maybe we wouldn't have as many car accident deaths or such a decrepid private transport situation (37 percent of highway overcrossings, according to the ASCE, are either functionally deficient or fuctionally obsolete).

I miss the German railsystem. So clean, so efficient, so nice.

But yes, we need one. We need some other transport method besides private vehicles and airplanes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU1_L5ww3og

So, since me and my girlfriend live 2 hours apart and tonight I thought that we would give Passenger rail service a try, since it should be cheaper, faster, and easier for us to travel to one another by. However, when I went to Amtrak, I was disappointed, this is what I found.

92 Silver Star
Southern Pines, NC(SOP)
4:02 am
29-OCT-07

Raleigh, NC(RGH)
5:40 am
29-OCT-07

9 Carolinian
Raleigh, NC (RGH)
4:50 pm
29-OCT-07

Kannapolis, NC (KAN)
7:42 pm
29-OCT-07


Because of the scheduling, she'd be spending all of her days in Raleigh instead of Kannapolis, NC. What's funny though is the return trip back to her place.

80 Carolinian
Kannapolis, NC (KAN)
8:07 am
29-OCT-07

Raleigh, NC (RGH)
10:58 am
29-OCT-07

Raleigh, NC (RGH)
9:13 pm
29-OCT-07

Southern Pines, NC (SOP)
10:39 pm
29-OCT-07

So to catch the train from KAN to RGH, she has to be in KAN while she's still stuck in Raleigh. Now I know that Amtrak may not be a regular passenger service, and I know that the demands for a run between Southern Pines, NC and Kannapolis, NC may be low, so I didn't have high hopes that this would work, but after seeing that there isn't even a regular passenger service between two I guess you would classify as small to mid-size town that is
112 miles apart, then maybe there's something wrong with our rail system. What do you guys think? Also if anyone knows of an alternative to Amtrak, let me know.

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you a pilot? :p

It seems that that it'd be a hell of a lot faster to just drive there, instead of taking the train (so she doesn't waste her entire day in Raleigh). Public transportation like the train would be nice for this kind of trip, but not when the layover is that long. As to alternatives, have you checked bus schedules (not a train, but it is still public transportation)? ETA: NM, I just saw your response to the other suggestion about the bus.

If we spent more on infrastructure with our taxes, then we may just get better results.

Why should I give my tax dollars so a bloke in Kannapolis, NC, can visit his girlfriend?

Damn right they do. Hell, the system in poland is not so good those of some other European countries, but it's still dacades ahead of the USA's.

Why should I give my tax dollars so a bloke in Kannapolis, NC, can visit his girlfriend?

So you'll have a rail system that isn't a waste of space?

Damn right they do. Hell, it's not so good in poland compared to other parts of Europe, but we're still decades ahead of the USA.

Heh, I don't know about that. I think I'd take Amtrak over some of the post-soviet monstrosities you guys use.

The US hasn't had a decent passenger rail system since the government stopped subsidizing it.

Why should I give my tax dollars so a bloke in Kannapolis, NC, can visit his girlfriend?

Because, F&G, you should give your tax dollars so we can have a decent public transportation service. Like we damn well should.

You haven't once considered the strain that our underfunded roads endure, do you? Nor have you considered the environmental impacts of a full fleet of privatized cars when we could have a wide array of public transportation methods, and the benefits that come from them?

Regardless of which country has better public transportation, the problem with America's infrastructure is, simply, it's vastness and array of differing physical aspects. This can be overcome very easily if we funded our infrastructure like we said we would.

In fact, Gov. Swarzenneggar had to sign a bill guaranteeing that all public funds going to construction of infrastructure would not be sent to the general fund for those in Sacramento to play with, which was usually the case for the past decade.

Why should I give my tax dollars so a bloke in Kannapolis, NC, can visit his girlfriend?

Have you ever seen I-95 during the Christmas/Summer time? Oh my God...

All this talk of a good rail system in the US is completely un-American. :)

Why should I give my tax dollars so a bloke in Kannapolis, NC, can visit his girlfriend?

So that one day you can say you actually helped another human being. This may be anathema to you, but I think you grasp the point.

amorica has a shit passenger rail service. considering the country was fucking built on railroads its ridiculous you don't have even half the kind of network europe does. some bugger fucked up there.

Our rails are great for moving cargo, but not so good at moving people because cars replaced rail as the primary reason for transportation in early 20th century. Now that gas is starting to get expensive a rail system seems like it might be a wise investment.

Rail in the US is only effective in urbanized areas. Interurban rail is dead in this country (except for NE corridor and CSS&SBRR).

In Europe, towns are much closer together than they are in the US. I bet most foreigners on this board don't understand how vast the US really is. Once you get away from the coasts, small towns can be as much as 30+ miles apart. It just doesn't pay for publicly funded mass transit there.

If you're in a city or suburbs, then it does pay. I do enjoy the Metra and CTA.

amorica has a shit passenger rail service. considering the country was fucking built on railroads its ridiculous you don't have even half the kind of network europe does. some bugger fucked up there.
See my above post. The population density in Europe makes rail travel quite efficient.

The lack of density in spots 50+ miles away from the ocean makes rail travel very inefficient in America. It makes far more sense to fly or drive in America.

See my above post. The population density in Europe makes rail travel quite efficient.

The lack of density in spots 50+ miles away from the ocean makes rail travel very inefficient in America. It makes far more sense to fly or drive in America.

Yeah. You can drive miles in the midwest (including some plains states i guess? that other thread just confused me) and see nothing but beautiful farmland.

Rail in the US is only effective in urbanized areas. Interurban rail is dead in this country (except for NE corridor and CSS&SBRR).

In Europe, towns are much closer together than they are in the US. I bet most foreigners on this board don't understand how vast the US really is. Once you get away from the coasts, small towns can be as much as 30+ miles apart. It just doesn't pay for publicly funded mass transit there.

If you're in a city or suburbs, then it does pay. I do enjoy the Metra and CTA.
Not always. Japan is, in terms of total size, slightly smaller than California, but it streches from Maine down to the Florida Keys (If you bothered to set Hokkaido up there) and is 78% mountains, but most of it is connected by very effecient rail networks. There's very few towns that don't have access to some sort of rail connection.

Not always. Japan is, in terms of total size, slightly smaller than California, but it streches from Maine down to the Florida Keys (If you bothered to set Hokkaido up there) and is 78% mountains, but most of it is connected by very effecient rail networks. There's very few towns that don't have access to some sort of rail connection.

Also remember the country was built from the ground up due to allied bombing in WWII. The subsequent reconstruction had something to do with it too.



Map of US rail network if anyone is interested.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/usa-maps/usa-rail-map.jpg

Also remember the country was built from the ground up due to allied bombing in WWII. The subsequent reconstruction had something to do with it too.
Not quite, most of the rail lines were undamaged. The city lines got screwed, but the majority of the long distance lines were the same laid down during the Meiji Period and through Showa Era (Though there were plans to attack them of course).

The issue is though that Japan has since replaced many of those aging lines with much more high speed beasties (The Shinkansen being the most noteworthy one) and is still working on expanding the network. America just hasn't put the money into a good rail system. It's not the size of the country, it's our unwillingness to fund it.

Also remember the country was built from the ground up due to allied bombing in WWII. The subsequent reconstruction had something to do with it too.

The population density of 337/km² (872.8/sq mi) can't hurt either. Compare this to the US average of 30.75/km² (80.7/sq mi).

edit: Also, on your map not all of those lines carry passengers. There is a line in Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan on there, and I actually used to live right across the street from one of them, and not once did I ever see passenger trains.

Also take into consideration that a little more than half of Europe can fit into the US, and France is only the size of Texas.

The population density of 337/km² (872.8/sq mi) can't hurt either. Compare this to the US average of 30.75/km² (80.7/sq mi).
The population density for Japan is a little misleading, most of the population is squeezing into the large mega cities (Tokyo, Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya), leaving a much more sparely populated countryside. Think of how off kilter the population density for New York State is thanks to New York City.

First of all, I don't think anything can be worse than New Zealand's rail system. Most of our rolling stock dates from anywhere from the 1930s through to the 1970s; the track condition is horrendous in places and there are only four intercity trains here. In fact, it is so bad that only the scenery keeps the tourists using it. Anyways, back to the main point of this thread.

Yes, the United States may have a low density overall, however, how many people live East of the Mississippi? I am guessing about 200 million people live in that region; once you take that into account, then the population density starts increasing - once you bring in higher speed trains, then you would see the number of rail users in the eastern United States explode. Of course, population density is also a very lame excuse - just look at Australia. Australia is roughly the same size as the continental United States; they only have twenty million people concentrated in five cities, and yet they have decent passenger services throughout the country - QR has a daily high speed service from Brisbane to Cairns; Country Link has frequent services along about seven different lines; VLine has daily services to half a dozen rural destinations; and you have the Indian Pacific, the Ghan and the Overland to top it all off - that, in a large nation with twenty million pople. Of course, then you also look at their metropolitan rail services.

The problem in America is that the freight railroads own the track and they tend to maintain it for the purposes of hauling freight; not for the purposes of carrying passengers. So, you have three options - either, the government takes over the track network (not the freight companies); the government requires the track owners to improve the track to a reasonable standard; or they pay the track owners the costs of improving the track.

there's no maybe about it. it's just that the oil and automotive industry are the 'gods' that have usurped the american political proccess. i'd say anyone who has more then one intercity passenger service each way daily is luckier then most of the u.s.

by the standards of anyplace else even half way civilized this is of course disgraceful.

but just take a look at how the u.s. transportation budget is allocated and the source of the problem becomes readily appearent.

yes the u.s. CERTAINLY need a LOT of MUCH better NON-auto oriented transportation infrastructure. and that certainly includes a LOT more and better rail service.

and don't forget, railroads in the u.s. have to maintian their own rights of way, while they, and everyone else, including you and me, if you live in the u.s., are forced to subsidise through our taxes the oil and automotive industries by providing their's!

=^^=
.../\...

Y'know, I just took a peek at AMTRAK, to see how much it would cost to visit a friend in Oregon.
It would cost over 500 dollars for a cabin with a bed, and take a whole week to get there, for a ONE WAY TRIP.

Or...

I could get a ticket from Travelocity for a plane, take 12 hours to get there, and for a ROUND TRIP....about 300 bucks.

So why would I bother with a train?