Peter L. Montgomery wrote:
> It is the potential 12-24 hour trips (plus regional ones going
> up to 1000 miles) which attract my attention.
> Schedule a coast-coast trip so you can sleep overnight on the train,
> leaving and arriving during waking hours (7 am - 11 pm local time).
>
> For example, in June, 2004 I flew Seattle, WA to Burlington, VT
> for a conference. The opening reception starts
> at 6 pm, and the conference ends at noon a few days later.
>
> Suppose the US had frequent long distance trains
> with express trains (few stops) averaging 160 mph
> and regional trains (more stops) averaging 100 mph.
We're so very, very far away from having any high-speed *regional*
corridors that the idea of a transcontinental high-speed train is
beyond ridiculous. The highest-speed trackage in the U.S. doesn't even
have a top speed of 160 mph, let alone an average speed. Amtrak from
Boston to Albany takes almost as much time as a transcontinental
flight, and only runs once a day. So I can't take anyone seriously who
keeps talking about how transcontinental business train travel would
make sense because you'd save $100 on a night's hotel stay, when there
are so many regional corridors that would be the perfect market for
faster, omre frequent train service.
-Apr
|