I don't care so much about the transatlantic tunnel, and I actually am jealous of service in the northeast. I would love to see more faster trains in other parts of the country--the southeast for one. I take the train when I can, but the cost is sometimes greater than flying and I have only one choice of times. It takes a while to get where I'm going, too.

Posted By Patty on October 30, 2010, 9:33 AM

YES! It's about time we caught up with the rest of the world with train service. I only wish they had started it 20 or 30 years ago! I'll probably never get to use it. I've ridden Japan's bullet train and it was wonderful. We don't need any more Interstate Hi-ways. Use that money for trains! Also get the tractor trailers off the roads and onto freight trains!

Posted By Jan on November 1, 2010, 10:08 AM

We Americans should be embarrassed about being so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to train service!

Posted By Bud Hansen on November 1, 2010, 10:30 AM

Train travel is actually the most energy-efficient mode of mass transit. I love train travel. Next spring I'll be traveling from Avignon to Paris in 2 hours and 40 minutes by train. But we're never going to get it here as long as oil lobbyists rule Washington and Republicans don't want to spend a nickel on public infrastructure. Taxes might go up!

Posted By John Korchok on November 1, 2010, 10:35 AM

I love train travel. In Europe, the trains are the best way to get around. The high speed trains are awesome. We are so behind in the United States. I am not sure about the transatlantic tunnel. The cost and logistics and scare factor of being under the ocean make it less appealing.

Posted By Ruth on November 1, 2010, 11:10 AM

After living in Boston and New York and moving back to the midwest, I can't tell you how many times I've wished that I could hop on a train and get to a baseball or football game without having to drive and park, as I did in the east. I'd be able to go to a game on a weeknight, even from 35 miles away. I can't imagine that it would ever happen here because of the cost. I fantasize about putting magnetic tracks on all of our freeways to pull cars in neutral from one exit to the next. Wonder which would cost less? And why can't train tracks be added to the shoulders of freeways?

Posted By Lynn on November 1, 2010, 11:53 AM

Sorry people, but on a logistical, technical, and common sense level...this isn't happening.

Logistical
An hour to cross the Atlantic means an average speed of 2,500mph. The only way this happens (even in the future) is in a tunnel that is pumped down to a vacuum (which is what the engineers designing this plan to do). Now imagine a 2,500 mile tube pumped down to a vacuum in an ocean surround by water at about 30+atm of pressure. This doesn't seem to make much sense especially when we have all the free vacuum we want just 100 miles up.

Technical
A single drop of water hitting the train as it passes by at 2,500 mph would have the kinetic energy of a bullet. A leak caused by anything (a bad weld, a terrorist) would cause the train to derail, possibly rupturing the tube and almost instantly drowning everyone on the train. And cleaning up that mess would take months. Maybe longer.

Common Sense
There'a famous quote in aviation circles. "Build me a mile of road and I'll take you a mile. Build me a mile of runway and I'll take you anywhere in the world". A tunnel would connect two cities, cost trillions of dollars (if it costs $50 billion to build a six mile tunnel in NYC and Boston, imagine what this would cost!), and that would be it. For the same price you could develop an inter-city sub-orbital system and then go ANYWHERE in the world.

Trains are pretty and fun if you live in a country the size of a postage stamp (Britain, France, Germany, etc). But for long distances, this is why we fly. Even with all the TSA headaches, delays, bad food....it is still the fastest, cheapest, safest, most flexible, and most efficient method of travel.

Posted By Brian Wohlgemuth on November 1, 2010, 11:56 AM

I agree completely with Brian (above).

Trains are the most expensive, least flexible means of transportation and are incompatible with other transportation.

Posted By Orval Fairbairn on November 1, 2010, 12:16 PM

What I find amazing is that the zealots who long for high speed rail never fail to point out that all of these systems require very substantial taxpayer subsidies to operate. We cannot afford another on-going drain on the national treasury.
I think the airlines and our highway system can handle our needs quite nicely thank you.

Posted By jchb on November 1, 2010, 1:15 PM

I love the train. I take it often from Philadelphia to NY and Boston. Also took the train from San Diego to Los Angeles to Oakland CA. I will NOT get on the BART system because I do not want to be under the water if an earthquake hits. I do not think I would take the train across the pond due to the inherent dangers. My next train ride may be from Virginia to Florida with my car.

Posted By Karen Kelly on November 1, 2010, 1:17 PM

I love train travel. It's much more comfortable than flying, there's lots more leg room, you get to see some beautiful scenery, you can get up and walk around, and people seem to be so much friendlier on trains. Maybe it's because they're more relaxed. I choose train travel over flying whenever I can. Of course, if I have to be somewhere in a hurry, I have to fly. But I don't have to like it.

Posted By Kathy on November 1, 2010, 1:18 PM

I'm a D.C. resident who uses Amtrak regularly for business and leisure travel up and down the East Coast. I've also used trains on three other continents during overseas trips. Rail travel is vastly preferable to any other mode, in my opinion.

Please don't tell me we can't afford it -- the U.S. taxpayer currently subsidizes highway and air travel with billions and billions. Put some of those resources into our rail network and we'll have a world-class system. It's all about priorities, isn't it?

Posted By Roger on November 1, 2010, 1:27 PM

I would love to if the cost isn't so high!

Posted By Tina on November 1, 2010, 1:28 PM

Please don't tell me we can't afford it -- the U.S. taxpayer currently subsidizes highway and air travel with billions and billions. Put some of those resources into our rail network and we'll have a world-class system. It's all about priorities, isn't it?

Yes, priorities are important. And making good investments. That SHOULD be the purpose of government. Investing in systems that allow for the widest use overall. Tell me how a point to point rail system will allow for the widest range of transportation options for everyone. Roads are good for, well, almost everything. You can drive, ride, walk on a road. You can only ride a train on a train track.

Of course, I may get thrown under a political bus for linking to a Cato analysis on high speed rail...but hey, it's a damn interesting article.

Trains are comfortable because they are non-profit, government entities. Airlines are (mostly) private/public corporations that are driven by profit. This is what happens when demand pushes price and not comfort.

Posted By Brian Wohlgemuth on November 1, 2010, 1:48 PM

I agree with several of the comments above. Air travel is safe and gets you where you need to go, usually with out 2 or 3 stops before you get there. However, I think that high speed rail in the US will be a great asset in that we have an outrageous population that keeps growing (...dont worry, I doubt the airline industry will die out..we have too many people to let that happen). Air travel is a very safe way of travel, but terrorism in this century has distorted that view of many people. Rail service would be the same way with security (metal detectors, body scans, etc), but at least in an emergency the train can stop within minutes rather than with a plane has to find the nearest airport that can accomodate it and make an emergency landing.
Air travel is horrible on the enviornment and keeps our country relying on foreign oil. High speed rail uses electricity...which we can run with solar or wind energy! Nuf said.
Lots of things to consider here.

Posted By Derek O on November 1, 2010, 2:46 PM

With due respect, some advices, if allowed, from Europe.
High speed train is fantastic for medium distances (i.e. around 400 miles and less). Fast, reliable and you do not have to go in advance to an airport that is miles away from downtown. In addition, no many delays, furthermore in Spain if high speed train gets to its destination over 5 minutes later, you are entitled to a refund of your ticket. In addition, this is the only part of the railway system that requires no subsidy. Honestly, this is one of the few things I really miss when I have to go to the States

Posted By fer on November 1, 2010, 3:15 PM

I, too, mostly agree with Brian that long distance travel with high speed train service doesn't make practical sense. Where I think we need to focus is in increasing both regular and high speed service where population densities justify the investment. Seattle to San Diego is a good example of high speed need. We need to create dedicated rail lines which will not be shared with freight. This is a very costly buildout. Unfortunately, those private investors with the money to make this happen, fly by NetJet and the like. They really don't give a rats a$$ about national infrastructure and what's best for citizens. Without major public spending to effect this change, we are consigned to our inferior Amtrak system and we certainly know how public spending is being demagogued right now.

Posted By HalB on November 1, 2010, 3:26 PM

I would love better rail travel in the US. But transatlantic? Way to scary...to be under the ocean for that long?? Or above it, for that matter, which is why I don't like cruises. I know, I'm.....different:) I don't even like the Holland/Lincoln tunnels under the Hudson River! "Give me land, lots of land under starry skies above. Don't fence me in!"

Posted By rose pascale on November 1, 2010, 3:35 PM

TRAINS: The ONLY way to Fly!

Posted By edward on November 1, 2010, 3:35 PM

YES! All come aboard...
It is easy, faster and will be cheaper to get to downtown in each capital city in Europe than by plane in the near future!
It will be in the US but a little bit later or when Airlines and Car companies allow!!

Posted By JJM on November 1, 2010, 4:23 PM

How many times does this discussion have to happen. Trains are the best option for distances of up to 300-400 miles. Many European cities are within this distance so trains work well. The only place in the US where this applies in the Northeast corridor between Boston and DC. Beyond this distance, flying is FAR more practical and faster. Then there is the issue of cost. I was recently in the UK and traveled from London to Edinburgh. The flight north cost $85. The train return cost just under $200.

Posted By Minneman on November 1, 2010, 4:34 PM

High speed trains? - absolutely! To hell with the conservative ditherers and whiners in congress. Give the contract to China and we could have it in two years.

Posted By Jimm on November 1, 2010, 5:14 PM

The only people who benefit from rail service are those who live in major metro areas. If you can get to the train station in ~15 minutes, you are golden and it makes sense.

However, for the rest of us in flyover country....the nearest major airport is 40 minutes away. And the nearest train station is over two hours away. By the time I budget in driving to the station/airport, parking, leaving my car there for my trip...I might as well just drive it myself.

Look at Australia. They had the British mindset of trains. And the trains are great....in the cities. Sydney has a great rail system. However once you need to go somewhere else (Melbourne, Perth, etc) most people choose to fly. It's faster, cheaper, and gives many more options.

People, I know you may love your trains and how comfy they are. But flying will get you wherever you want cheaper and faster. And if you want comfy, fly first class.

Posted By Brian Wohlgemuth on November 1, 2010, 6:10 PM

As someone who has travelled 10,000 kms on W. European trains, and Has Criss-crossed The USA and along both coasts a dozen times, I can say that Train Travel is the most enjoyable and humaine method of travelling ANY distance.We built the European trains and we have ignored ours to our detriment. Besides the humanitarian nature of interaction with fellow travelors, a National RR system would be an economic boast to the nation and every city and hamlet." Full Employment," as a Constitutional Right, would be finally and permanently achieved. It would unite all of us , Red or Blue, closer as a society. Finally, we could shift our Economy from Military waste basis, to one more in line with our Judeo-Islam-Christian heritage.

Posted By tommy timonere on November 1, 2010, 6:26 PM

Yes, High speed trains are a must, but what I dont like is the government is talking to foriegn countries, there is no reason why americans can not design & build them, especially in these tough times.

Posted By Frank Gamba on November 1, 2010, 6:40 PM

I was in Europe 3 years ago. The trains are way superior to those here in USA. I took a train from D.C.to Chicago, Colorado, Arizona, California. big difference with the ones in Europe

Posted By German Sueiro on November 1, 2010, 7:07 PM

As others have pointed out, high speed rail (HSR) works best in 150-500 mile stretches or about 1 – 3 hours of travel time. There are only a few places where HSR might work, in the northeast where some big cities are close together and maybe the southwest. I just don't see a HSR system from New York to L.A. as being practical.

One of the biggest problems I see with HSR is that the line must be uninterrupted – no road crossings. A train hitting a truck at 200mph would not be pretty. So where could you put something like that? Down the median of an interstate highway is a possibility but the highway can have turns that are navigable in a car going 70mph but not a train doing 200mph. Do you just do a “land grab” and take the land needed? That’s ok as long as it’s not my land you are grabbing!

If 100 years ago HSR would have been possible, then the car may not have become the primary source of transportation in the US as it is today. Private enterprise would have come up with an efficient means of transporting people from point A to point B and getting the people to the departure points. But since the car is the primary mode of transportation, you are going to have a very hard time breaking the American people of that love affair.

Since private enterprise does not see a way to make a HSR system profitable and the masses do not support a HSR system, do you turn to the government to punish (tax) the masses for not being like the rest of the world and force a HSR system down their throats anyway? Hmm, now doesn’t that sound familiar....

Posted By GAN6119 on November 1, 2010, 9:11 PM

I think train travel would be great if it worked here. I agree that A LOT of Americans don't live in major metropolitan areas, but rather mid-sized cities. Until now, I had to drive 3 hours to get to the nearest international airport. Trains are great where there are a lot of large cities close by (Northeast, West Coast), but for the rest of us in the West, Midwest, South, & Southeast, there are not enough options and flying is definitely easier. Plus, for those of us with "real" jobs who get very little time off, you don't want to spend 2 of your 7 days vacation on a train.

Posted By megan on November 1, 2010, 10:42 PM

We like to take the train from Salem, Oregon, to Seattle, Washington. But it takes longer by train than it does to drive the freeway. Yes, we need to catch up with Europe.

Posted By DManning on November 1, 2010, 11:12 PM

A high speed train network will never happen, even if pols like to jolly the public about the possibilities. As a society we simply cannot afford and probably don't really need such a system, especially given our geography and demography. The cost of a useful national system is in the same order of magnitude as the Social Security program.

This isn't a matter of left or right wing politics. Almost any thoughtful analysis, even in mainstream media, says the trade-offs are lopsided. And there has been a stream of such analyses. Just this week, for instance, Newsweek weighed in on how the notion of such a network is preposterous if you just scratch the surface of the idea (10/29/10 issue.)

An even better explaination of why this pipe dream can't work in the US -- and why it would cause greivous harm to the freight system that underpins the American economy -- was given by The Economist this summer (7/22/10 issue.)

Both articles are on the web. Read them if you want to appreciate why a useful high speed rail system isn't in the cards.

Posted By brus on November 1, 2010, 11:22 PM

We must Nationalize the Federal Reserve to create a Fourth (the others were all destroyed by private bankers)National Bank of the United States and then DIRECT public CREDIT created through an act of congress for the improvement of the economic productive potential of the nation instead of allowing this private, corrupt, unelected,immoral, unaccountable (they have NEVER been audited and the minutes of their secret meetings have NEVER been made available to the public)cabal of private bankers, which was inflicted upon us by an illegal constitutional amendment process during the treasonous Woodrow Wilson administration, to dominate our country. It is time to be a proud sovereign nation again instead of an appendage of the British empire that expends it's resources and the lives of it's young enforcing the foreign policy of the British Foreign Office, a la Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
DO THIS, stop being fools who sell our nation for a bowl of rancid porridge, get rid of British monetarism, go back to the practices and policies of our American System of Political Economy which is based on directed public credit, as practiced by Lincoln and FDR, under both of whom we came back from the throes of economic devastation to World dominance, and all good things will be added unto us.
Until then all good ideas like a national and even international network of magnetically levitated (maglev)trains will continue to be blocked by the agents of influence of the British Empire (FDR called them American Tories)among us. But what a magnificent gift to our posterity cuch a train network would be! A transportation system with a fraction of a penny cost per mile to operate. And all we have to do to attain it is to stop begging for scraps from this or that political party, and instead act as citizens and demand that the corrupting bankers money be removed from politics, and that our representatives act for the welfare of our people and their posterity. Ah!, but we are brainwashed to be against welfare as a knee-jerk reaction because the clever crooked bankers have bankrolled propaganda that makes welfare a BAD word, EXCEPT of course when the welfare is for them (in which case other creative names beside welfare are applied), a la the current bailout of international banks by the American taxpayer who; while having the burden of this economic swindle transferred unto their backs, are being foreclosed and thrown into the streets with their families BY THE SAME BANKS THEY ARE BAILING OUT. This is an injustice that is sustainable, and even then only for a short time, only by force, and we can expect that after the midterm elections a REICHSTAG incident, which is what happened at the World Trade Center was (and I lost some friends and almost lost others in that incident) will conveniently occur with perfect timing in order to gather the necessary quota of popular opinion of fools unto itself to impose a more complete dictatorship than was created by the oxymoron-ically named patriot act. We are not headed for dictatorship, we are ALREADY THERE, and soon the velvet glove over the iron gauntlet will be coming off. There is a painting by Goya entitled 'The sleep of reason' where a bestiary monsters come into existence. Such is the (natural) lawful reward of chronic, mule-headed foolishness that glorifies it's own stupidity. And this is why, unless we improve as people, we will soon feel the iron glove

Posted By edmund W on November 2, 2010, 12:52 AM

Trains will not replace planes if federal highway planners fail to incorporate high speed rail right of ways into interstate highway systems presently being built. I always thought foresight was better than hindsight, and much less expensive!

Posted By Dave K. on November 2, 2010, 9:39 AM

I would love to see train travel utilized more heavily right here within the U.S. In order to do that, some changes would have to occur:
- Trains would have to be more reliable (on time) than they are now.
- Passenger trains would have to be treated on par w/ freight service.
- Amtrak would have to start easing up on certain antiquated regulations like their current rule that doesn't allow bikes on certain routes.
- Our government would have to subsidize trains equally with air travel.
- We would have to gradually add high-speed service on more routes.

Posted By trailsnet on November 2, 2010, 10:03 AM

I'd like to go from northeast Ohio to Chicago or to Washington D.C. by train, rather than all cramped up in my small car. I don't even need it to be high-speed. Just match the speed of a car and MAKE IT AFFORDABLE. Amtrack wants $150-200 for round trip to Chicago - it takes them an hour longer than driving, and they only stop in my city at 1:39 A.M. Who is going to pay that (and get up in the middle of the night)? Especially when you can get a round trip plane ticket from Cleveland to Chicago for $140.

Posted By Saimi Bergmann on November 2, 2010, 12:16 PM

Until Amtrak, or any public/private system is surgically removed from the freight carriers, we cannot efficiently plan, or operate, passenger service. We need a critical analysis of why the American public lacks the imagination, or simply information, on the economic efficiency and social benefits of a rail dependent transportation system. We need to expose the economic and political forces prevent such an understanding.

Posted By walt on November 2, 2010, 1:32 PM

Edmund W. hits the nail on the head. When this country returns to Constitutional Principals, freedom will be restored. I urge others to view, "America: Freedom To Fascism", by filmaker Aaron Russo, who was friends with Nicholas Rockefeller.

The Constitution states: "Governments create Markets". WAKE UP FOLKS! Everything that used to work 50 years ago is now broke. For the Globalists plans to suceed, they ahve to get rid of all the Free People in this country...

Posted By David S. Schneider-Citizen on November 2, 2010, 4:37 PM

It's about time the US upgraded the rail service. Despite jammed commuter trains, the service is still disjointed and dilapidated for the most part. The Acela is very civilized but has much improvement to be made to match world class rivals.

As to a transatlantic tunnel, I am vehemently opposed. I have crossed the Atlantic in a small sailboat three times now. I have encountered whales "playing" around our 57 foot boat, storms of ever-worsening proportions, undersea volcanoes exploding with tsunamis following, and countless other unpredictable hazards. I for one wouldn't want to notice a leak half way across or witness a whale bumping in by mistake. I'd rather support large-scale submarine travel or transoceanic hovercraft that can make rapid changes in route. Please get scientists involved who can think outside the politicians' box.

Posted By DOB on November 3, 2010, 9:47 AM

I've seen a lot of wishing and hoping and "darnit it should be cheaper/better/faster". Here's an idea.

The market will serve the customer. If your customer says they want to use it at 07:00, then you better make it at 07:00....or your competition will. There will be NO competition on the high-speed rail network. None.

For links of 200-300 miles (a four-six hour car ride) there is a possibility of high-speed rail making sense. Even intracity it may make sense. But that's it. On a 2,000 mile run from Chicago to LA, you are still looking at 12 hours (with stops, etc) as opposed to a five hour flight. And with little infrastructure to upkeep (FAA, airports) as opposed to 2000+ miles plus fo rail...do you see how this is a non-starter from the beginning?

And honestly, I'd rather be going 200+mph up in the air than 200mph near the ground. More time to fix a boo-boo without smacking into something. :-)

More on this here...

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/yglesias-on-high-speed-rail/

Posted By Brian Wohlgemuth on November 3, 2010, 1:46 PM

I am not interested in a trans-Atlantic rail system, but I have long wished for an alternative to air travel. It seems with the advent of airplanes, we dropped the passenger rail system to focus solely on the "magic flying buses." I live in Texas and there are many areas that have poor/no airline access. It would be nice to be able to travel by train over some of these vast expanses of nothing. Also I would love to see train service RETURN connecting smaller towns with big cities. Most mass transit in our cities is by bus.

Posted By Bea on November 3, 2010, 5:18 PM

Yes,I think the U.S. should put our money to good use and using it toward bettering our trains systems would be an excellent use of the money. A trans-Alantic system would be wonderful! I always wanted to travel over seas but, will not fly to do it.

Posted By Doreen H on November 3, 2010, 5:22 PM

If something has to be subsidized by the government, as in more taxpayer taxes, it shouldn't be done. The only things that should be subsidized are related to the freedom, security and defense of the country as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, not for individual comfort. Our new Governor in Ohio understands this and rejects the previous now ousted Governor's efforts to ram a costly tax-payer subsidized tri-city railroad system down our throats for use by a few. Instead, the new Governor will focus on lowering personal and business taxes and improving and integrating freight rail, highway and air services to improve the business climate in the state.

Posted By travelzim on November 6, 2010, 1:30 PM

After visiting Europe and Japan within the past two years, all I can say is bring on the high speed rail! I understand the comments from those outside the Northeast, but as a New Yorker myself, let me be among the first to say that it's time for a change here as well! They just upgraded the signals for the Long Island Railroad this past weekend. Still, the trains are no faster than they were 30 years ago. It probably takes at least an hour and a half from Penn Station to Eastern Long Island, especially on a local train.

Posted By jon on November 8, 2010, 9:58 AM

Something that you all have forgotten. In most of the rest of the world the government owns the rail right of way. All of their service was initially built with paired tracks - one for each direction of travel. Here, with the exception of a single line in the northeast, the right of way is owned and operated by freight companies (CSX, etc)and not by Amtrak passenger service or the government. I live near Louisville, KY and we used to have Antrak service to Chicago. The only train left at 2 AM and took 12 hours to get to Chicago. this is a 45 minute flight and a 5 hour drive. The Amtrak train was required to set on sidings waiting for oncoming freight trains. Plus, due to the condition of the roadbed, most of the trip has a speed limit of 45 MPH or less.
To have high speed rail in the US we would have to buy up all of the existing right of way and start over laying new rails to everywhere.

Posted By John Hardaway on November 10, 2010, 10:27 AM

i would love to travel by train. but if is like the one i took from flagstaff to chicago, no way. it looked like it was never cleaned. and the bathrooms were pretty bad. i think amtrack needs to "clean" up their act before promoting more train travel

Posted By randy on November 10, 2010, 1:46 PM

I think it would be great if our rail system were improved to the point that it would rival European Rail systems, or systems around the world, for that matter. With a few exceptions, travel by train in other countries of the world is fast, efficient, plentiful and relatively low cost. I've traveled throughout Europe and also in various other continents by rail, and I can safely say that some of the systems are so inclusive that one hardly even needs a car to get around, even from city to city or country to country!

I would love nothing more than to be able to travel like that in the US, especially with air travel becoming more and more of a 'bad experience' with its tighter seat allowance on overcrowded planes, its baggage fees and consequences of such (people carrying on more and more things and hogging the bin spaces, extra fees for everything onboard (remember when we got free meals or even a package of pretzels with our free in-flight beverage?).

However, as much as I love travel on AMTRAK, I must say that they have quite an undertaking to do if they have any prayer of such a lofty ambition. First of all, we have lost a huge number of tracks around the country, some due to financial problems with the rail system in the past. I think it must have been a downward spiral, our train system having trouble financially, then dropping stations which resulted in less income, and on and on...

But, let's say that they are able to make train service more accessible to the US population, which is what we're really talking about here. It would be grand to do that. And, I'd really like to see them add another autotrain route, one cross-country, perhaps DC or NYC to Chicago and then on to either LA or San Francisco.

(BTW, has anyone ever traveled on the auto-train between Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL? Well, I have, several times, and absolutely love it! THIS is their crowning achievement, in my opinion, something that sets AMTRAK above overseas train systems)

However, that being said, Amtrak needs to retool some of their passenger policies, in my opinion, in order to begin to consider themselves a world=class train service.

For example, AMTRAK currently has a no-pets policy on every one of their trains, including the Auto Train, which is frequently utilized by people who are relocating, either temporarily or permanently from the North to the South, or vice versa. And yet, they won't allow their passengers to make the choice to carry their pets, even in carriers, in their own cars as cargo, even in the winter. We're not talking about a 2 or 3 day trip here, where the pet would be left alone in his kennel in the car; the trip between the two points leaves at 4pm one day and arrives the next day by 8:30 a.m., with most cars gone by 11 a.m., meaning that the pet is in 'storage' for about 20 hours. Yet, AMTRAK won't change this policy. I was a happy and frequent customer of this service, but now I have a cat (who would easily travel contentedly in her kennel in the car with her bed, small litter pan and food close at hand), so I guess, until AMTRAK decides to adjust this policy, as much as I'd like to, I will not be able to help them with their goal. And neither will other pet owners who frequently travel between the North and the South.

By comparison, nearly all trains in Europe allow pets to travel onboard in carriers, and some Scandinavian trains even have special compartments that are pet-friendly, which seems like a good idea to me. That way, people who don't like the idea of traveling with pets, will not have to worry about the possibility, but pet owners are acknowledged as 'paying customers', too.

And, by the way, even our airlines allow small pets to travel with us, right under the seat in front of us, in authorized kennels. Yes, we have to pay for that privilege (with airline fees these days, is it any wonder?). But the point is, we are allowed to do so.

This is just one example of how they could improve their customer service, which I think is just as important to helping them reach their goal as adding more tracks and trains would be. With better customer service, more people would be willing to travel in the areas where AMTRAK now travels, and that increased revenue would help to fuel the drive to increase trains, develop more routes with more trains and more income......Upward Spiral toward success.

In my opinion, AMTRAK could be more helpful this way, and yet they refuse to help their potential customers to help them to advance. Another downward spiral....maybe.

Posted By Jen on November 12, 2010, 2:09 PM

This article should have avoided the sci-fi level trans-atlantic project. The realities of highspeed rail in Japan, China, and Europe are enough to make Americans jealous.

The NPR article on the swiss tunnel begins with the line: "There is a certain majesty in projects of grand engineering" With politicians such as Wisconsin's Gov-elect Scott Walker, though, the US will have to remain jealous and never again see such majesty.

Posted By oionio on November 12, 2010, 4:50 PM

Apart from planes public transport here in America is a joke. I feel sorry for the elderly, and young people who cannot yet afford a car.
I live between San Antonio and Austin...no transport at all!
Back in my home country (U.K.) you have buses in the smallest of villages. There are people there who have never had a car.
You have to have a government who cares about the peoples' quality of life. That's why places like Norway come out #1 for Best Places to Live.
Until people in power get their hearts right life will be difficult. I wish I could flip the switch.

Posted By Janet Watson on November 15, 2010, 8:45 AM

Federal subsidized rail service for every state in the union....NOT! States are turning down the offer of increased jobs, because they will not have the $ to finish and maintain the lines!

Posted By Hoosierone on March 28, 2011, 3:12 PM