# Why can't Americans show up when they launch a new train like the Japanese do!



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

This is what happens when the Japanese launch a new Shinkansen.[/i] They come out and show their love for it!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Because we don't any passenger trains to cheer about? 

Because we don't have that nice right of way away from everything else? (Shinkansen has separate tracks and right of way). 

Because I lost my pink umbrella? 

Greg


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Greg, check your dosage.... 

Because most Americans think trains are what other people ride. 
Because we cheer when it's only 4 hours late. 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually sounds like you and I are on the same wavelength! 

Yeah, if we had a rapid transit system like that, that runs on time, we'd definitely cheer the new one, because we would know it would be even better! 

Greg


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

When was the last time America launched a train?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It was a while ago, but a pretty impressive launch just the same!


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

When Amtrak launches a new train no big deal. It does not happen very often thats for sure and even then it's a slow train to no ware. Later RJD


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg; 

OW! That was a really hurtful launch. I do remember that folks got pretty excited seeing the steam excursions when N&W locomotives 611 and 1218 were in steam. I got to serve as a car host for a number of those excursions, and there were crowds of people waving to the train wherever there was a good place for them to stand - plus the usual motorcade of rabid railfan photographers. 

Perhaps I should add the phrase: _Because_ N&W 611 and 1218 are no longer in excursion service. 

Best, 
David Meashey


----------



## tmtrainz (Feb 9, 2010)

They cheer new trains so that less of this happens: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twDOr34om7Q


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Amtrak's service from Washington DC to NYC is excellent in many respects. It's comfortable, it's pleasant, especially if you pay for the Acela, and it gets you right into downtown DC or Philly or NYC. . 

But the Acela--the "flagship" of the line--makes it from DC to NYC in about 3 hours. That's almost exactly the same time as the "lindbergh special," a PRR E6 Atlantic, made it in 1927. 

That is, closing on 100 years later, we're right about where we were at the dawn of the "talkies." There's not much to celebrate. 

Recently we had dinner with some friends who had a houseguest, a young french woman, she was polite and gracious, but at one point she asked in a puzzled way "why are American trains so slow?"


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

If and when mass transit becomes significant to the transportation of every day travels combined with being a efficient, reliable high speed service then you will see such turnouts. Usually in areas where a new branch services has been introduced or new revision of bullet train will there be such celebration. These trains are part of national pride unlike the perspectives of our "national" rail service.


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

Because most Americans think trains are what other people ride. 
Because we cheer when it's only 4 hours late. 

From my experience, it's "most Americans think trains are what _ no _other people ride. And yet, every train I've been on in the past 2-3 years has had most or all seats filled at some point of its trip (ask me about Rachel with the unusually deep voice - Chicago to Cleveland - you never know who'll sit next to you). There's rarely an empty seat of Empire Service between Albany and NYC. 

Amtrak's on-time performance is about as good as it can get, considering they're running on someone else's track. Out of half a dozen cross-country trips over the past 7-8 years, practically all of the trains have gotten to their end destination within about half an hour of scheduled time. That's not bad considering the distance. My experience has been the Southwest Chief, Texas Eagle, CIty of N.O., Lake Shore Limited. I just booked myself for the California Zephyr in September. 

Only two of my trips either eastboud or westbound ended is serious delays. 

Westbound Southwest Chief: back when Amtrak pulled a boxcar of U.S.Mail at the tail end. A few hours in a siding in New Mexico, boxcar had problems and ended up being left on the siding as we finally went on. Arrived in Flagstaff about three hours late. (I have a couple great stories about this trip, one involving the brakeman's roll of duct tape). 

The other serious delay was on the eastbound Texas Eagle - notoriously the train with the worst on-time record, and not Amtrak's fault: three hours late into Maricopa from L.A., drug bust involving a mother and infant, putting off a drunk exhibitionist passenger at a grade crossing, being twelve hours late into San Antonio which caused us Chicago-bound passengers to lose our sleeping car, put up at the Red Roof nearby with $25 from Amtrak for dinner, arriving in Chicago a day late. THEN, Lake Shore Ltd. faces blizzard in Ohio, re-routed around a coal-train derailment, ice build-up prevents vestibule door from closing allowing snow and cold into the car. Got home a day late and with enough stories for a one-hour monologue. I had never seen the Alamo or Riverwalk - I had a great time! 

Ahhh, the good old days. Why anyone would fly, I don't know. The train trip sometimes is the best part of my vacation. Fortunately, Amtrak is getting better cooperation from the host railroads these days, and is actually getting a few bucks from the federal gov't. just like the railroads in other developed nations. 

Their on-time performance is really very good, but don't let it get out. They're getting too crowded. 

JackM


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Because Americans only show up to protest such things


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Here lies the problem:"practically all of the trains have gotten to their end destination within about half an hour of scheduled time." That is unheard of in Japan. Traveling the entire 7 hours of the Kyushu Shinkansen it was on time to and from our points of destination. The point is, if one wants service that can compete with airlines, thus be a viable option, there needs to be dedicated rail lines for high speed travel.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I've been in Japan, and have been on commuter trains/subways where they shove you in that way, in fact one of my first days there. One time I got so tired of being shoved I pushed back. Very bad manners I am afraid, but we are not used to being pushed around. Two people flew out of the car and back onto the platform. All the people around me smiled though! 

Greg


----------



## Charles (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg
Just last year we rode every rail service available in Japan from North to South at various points in the day including "rush hour". Never once did we encounter such an experience as you describe. My oldest son has been working in Japan for the past 3 years has yet to express any such experience using trains often.


----------



## DennisB (Jan 2, 2008)

Americans or Canadians, for that matter, don't celebrate because we own cars. Owning a car in Japan is expensive and a luxury. In many areas of japan you have to prove that you have a place to park a car, before you can buy one. It is a land poor country and space is at a premium. Regards, Dennis


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

I just wished rail would be a national pride here too... I mean it was what built our country up in the first place.
All I here (being in south Florida) is out dingbat governor denying free money from the feds to build highspeed rail here..... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_high_speed_rail


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

Posted By tmtrainz on 28 Apr 2011 06:37 AM 
They cheer new trains so that less of this happens: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twDOr34om7Q 

That is hilarious.

"Job Description: Professional shover."


----------



## Pterosaur (May 6, 2008)

Anyone here take public transportation? 
We have a brand new light-rail in town, and a commuter train newer still. The commuter rail goes right through my home town and rides the rails bordering my workplace...I see it every day. Yet it is cheaper, quicker, and infinitely easier for me to drive my car. 

If I want to go to our posh new ballpark i can take the commuter, transfer to the light rail, and it will drop me off at the stadium entrance...for roughly twice the cost of gas/parking and 3 times the commute time. And that's just for me. I take my family of four and my fare increases 4x! Yikes! 

I love the idea of trains, hate the real thing.


----------



## jgallaway81 (Jan 5, 2009)

First, most passenger trains in the US share tracks with the freight moves. This slows them down tremendously.

The other portion of that same coin is because they are sharing tracks, teh FRA demands certain crash-worthyness standards.. which makes the engines and the cars they tow A LOT heavier than they would be otherwise... look at the difference between an RDC and a modern DMU 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Back in the 50s and 60s, a new car meant something. The neighbors came over to see your new car. People at work came outside to see your new car. Sadly today, a car is nothing more than an appliance to get you from one place to another for most people and trains are the same along with airplanes and ships. One of the few things left in America that people go out of their way to see is the Space Shuttle launches and there are only two left of those to watch. Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Growing up in the 50s with a father who loved anything with a motor, I grew to appreciate these things as much more than an appliance to get somewhere and back.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

And now you have the answer as to why we do not have more high speed rail. Almost cost prohibited and who will ride it and pay for it. The major RR do not want this type of service to operate on the lines so building new routes is the cost factor. Later RJD


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Posted By jgallaway81 on 28 Apr 2011 09:33 AM 
First, most passenger trains in the US share tracks with the freight moves. This slows them down tremendously.

The other portion of that same coin is because they are sharing tracks, teh FRA demands certain crash-worthyness standards.. which makes the engines and the cars they tow A LOT heavier than they would be otherwise... look at the difference between an RDC and a modern DMU 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); 

Not only that, but they are intruders, not owned/operated by the host RR. So on a railroad geared towards long unit type trains, I bet when push comes to shove regarding running a short passenger train against such long ones, Amtrak gets as good as possible vs high priority.

John


----------



## ChaoticRambo (Nov 20, 2010)

High Speed rail is completely impractical in the US.

Take a look at the places that high speed rail works greatly:

Europe, China, Japan

These countries are all comprised of massive cities with tons of people crammed into them, and very little in between the cities.

In the US, we do have cities - but most people live inbetween major cities in suburbs and the like.

Even with a high speed rail line in every major city, people would have to drive their own car to the station, ride the train, and rent a car when they get where they are going. 


Also, keep in mind the size of places. Japan is a TINY country, literally 26 times smaller than the US in terms of land. The US is the third largest country in the world, with Canada and Russia beating us.


In all reality, high speed rail as nice as it might be, would be completely impractical and bankrupt any company trying to start one. Keep in mind, even the European high speed rail does not make money, it actually loses money because of the cost.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I like to watch all trains, but when it comes to riding, what happens when you arrive and there's no efficient local transportation to finish your trip? Trollies after the light rail? A jitney? Not when Amtrak pulls into Tucson after 2am.... 

John


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Totalwrecker on 28 Apr 2011 10:03 AM 
I like to watch all trains, but when it comes to riding, what happens when you arrive and there's no efficient local transportation to finish your trip? Trollies after the light rail? A jitney? Not when Amtrak pulls into Tucson after 2am.... 

John This is exactly why I am against the hi=speed rail systems proposed for Florida. This isn't NY City.

There is no local transportation system set up to service the passengers of these systems. 

The bus system we have not only runs on the hour at best and it has a very linited coverage area. 

They are constantly dropping areas of service due to lack of funds to run the busses, yet the politicians keep trying to run speed rail down our throats. 

It would do nothing but cost the tax payers millions of dollars to keep running.


----------



## xo18thfa (Jan 2, 2008)

There is a channel tunnel in Japan between northern Tohoku and southern Hokaiddo. It was built in response to a major fare boat disaster that killed 1200 people. By the time the tunnel was finished airports sprung up all over Hokaiddo. The tunnel is for passenger service only and is now largely bypassed by air and sea traffic. The official Gov't belief is that the tunnel will never be paid for. Revenues will never over take the debt interest. Same thing will happen with natioanl high speed rail in this country. It won't generate the revenue. 

There was a very serious proposal floating for a while to built HS rail between Las Vegas and LA. The terminal in California is actually in Victorville. Victorville is 60 miles from downtown LA on top of the pass. Don't know where the terminal is in Vegas, maybe in Primm (30 miles south) where they wanedt to build a new airport. This is brainless.


Build this stuff in the northeast or major metro areas where it is already proven to work.


----------



## fred j (Jan 12, 2011)

Question,
[Why can't Americans show up when they launch a new train like the Japanese do!]

I think cause Gas cost to much to get there.









Fred


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By ChaoticRambo on 28 Apr 2011 09:57 AM 
High Speed rail is completely impractical in the US.

Take a look at the places that high speed rail works greatly:

Europe, China, Japan

These countries are all comprised of massive cities with tons of people crammed into them, and very little in between the cities.

In the US, we do have cities - but most people live inbetween major cities in suburbs and the like.

Even with a high speed rail line in every major city, people would have to drive their own car to the station, ride the train, and rent a car when they get where they are going. 


Also, keep in mind the size of places. Japan is a TINY country, literally 26 times smaller than the US in terms of land. The US is the third largest country in the world, with Canada and Russia beating us.


In all reality, high speed rail as nice as it might be, would be completely impractical and bankrupt any company trying to start one. Keep in mind, even the European high speed rail does not make money, it actually loses money because of the cost. 





I think you're wrong about this--see here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_per_liv_in_urb_are-people-percentage-living-urban-areas

France has fewer people living in urban areas than the US: So does Italy. Japan males your case, but China is a huge country, and while it has many very large cities, it also has vast open a lightly inhabited areas


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

I take the train in Canada between Toronto and Montreal on a pretty regular basis once or twice a month. 

A few years ago, it pretty much never was on time, at least partially because the passenger service is by Via Rail, a separate company that rents the use of the track from Canadian National and CN freight had priority. 
However, in the last two years they ironed out the scheduling kinks and the train is now always on time, even during snowstorms in the winter when both air and bus traffic is at a standstill and there are more cars in the ditch than on the highway. 

Travel time is about an hour less than by car, two hours less than by bus and not that much longer than by plane if one counts the the total travel time downtown to downtown. 
Cost is a lot cheaper than by car for one person, a bit less for two and a break-even or a bit more for three people - depends if you got discount tickets for the train by booking three days ahead and what type of car one drives. 
That's looking at the total cost of running a car, not just the cost of the gas. 

The train is definitely much more comfortable than any of the other modes of transportation, wider seats, much more leg room, on gets free WiFi service on the train. 
The equipment is relatively old - a Genesis pulling it, but older cars that are just getting renovated. It's not really high speed, top speed is around 100 mph. 

I travelled a lot in Europe, trains there are faster and more modern but they had a lot of equipment failures causing delays and cancelled trains. When their system works it works well, but if one train has a problem, the effect ripples through the system. 

BTW - the original video posted - all the Japanese cheering - that's just an advertising blurb.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Those "trains" are subways in the cities, not "trains" as we would call them. Get onto a rush hour train in Tokyo, Osaka, or Nagoya and that is what you will see. I'll guarantee it. I worked for Japanese companies for 7 years, and was working for Nippondenso/Denso/Toyota and Uniden. I stayed in Nagoya about 1 block from the JR station, but the subway was a different station, so , I'm guessing you probably never rode a subway during commuter hours. My destination was a rural town, where the Denso research center was, right next to NT&T's research center. (In Japan, the "research centers" get to be NOT in the city). My usual "train" started out as a subway in Nagoya, then at the outskirts of Nagoya, it came out into the daylight, and ran a bit, then they switched locos and had pantographs. By that time, it was more like a "normal" train. If you just ran the JR line, you were never on a subway as shown in the video.(The JR line runs "trains" not subways) Regards, Greg Posted By Charles on 28 Apr 2011 07:55 AM 
Greg
Just last year we rode every rail service available in Japan from North to South at various points in the day including "rush hour". Never once did we encounter such an experience as you describe. My oldest son has been working in Japan for the past 3 years has yet to express any such experience using trains often.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

I advocate the building of High Speed Rail here in California...though there are many that don't. The reason for high speed rail being needed here was laid out years ago...and fought over...when the HSR authority here released its Environmental Impact Report. The EIR analyzed three ways of growing the transportation infrastructure in California to meet the population demands of 2040. It looked at increasing freeways, increasing airports, and installing an HST network. The report is really worth reading...because it's an eye opener when it talks about the practical issues related to each of the solution spaces...and the computer modeling that was done was amazing.

Take airport expansion...who wants a new airport near where they live? How much do you think the land for the new airport is gonna cost in central LA...or San Diego? I'm living through a freeway expansion where I live. It's 14 lanes wide now...5 south, 5 north, and 4 for the commuter lanes. Damn thing is 400' wide...and widening the freeways means encroachment on land already in use here. Greg lives by the coast...where the BIG issue today is whether to do the same thing to Interstate 5...and the no's are winning because of the impact on the already developed land. Just think about what widening Interstate 5 in LA would be like...going from 6 lanes total to 15. 

The EIR really looked at these situations...and gave estimates of travel time if the long haul transportation improvements were not implemented. Like...8 hours to get from downtown LA to the north end of the Valley...like 30 miles...just to get OUT of LA and go north. It analyzed and projected major gridlock. Same for the airports...even if they could get the land for new airports or airport expansion, the congestion in the air became another problem. There's only so many aircraft that can be flying in the pattern at one time...and there's only so many cars/buses that can get to an airport to drop off or pick up passengers PER HOUR. That's all analyzed...and the result is an eye opener...and the general sense should be applicable to any major metropolitan area.


High speed rail had the least impact on the environment and the most benefit for dollars spent. And I'm talking about real high speed rail...220 mph stuff...not this phoney stuff the Feds are investing in to get trains to go 100 mph. We're talking about a dedicated infrastructure for moving people at high speed. The reason the Acela isn't a 220 mph train is that it's running on the same right of way that was installed 150 years ago...with too tight curves.


Beyond the least environmental impact issues...there were other significant issues researched...like efficiency. High speed rail is electrically powered...so where does the electricity come from? Well, the plan here is to lease the right of way to solar electric companies...and use that electricity to run the trains. Of interest, you'll find a lot on the California High Speed Rail Authority web site regarding public/private partnership...because they're looking for private firms to invest in the railway...i.e. meaning our taxes don't pay for all of it. The developing business plan for this service, is another thing to follow...because it's NOT the old Amtrak idea.


Now even as an advocate for this project, I'm still one that thinks the government is spending too much and that private companies need to do some spending. Well, I was pleasantly surprised recently when the financial operations plans for the HST began being discussed...and discussed in ways that liken the proposed operation of the California lines to the way France operates its HSTs. We're so used to trains being run by the government (e.g. Amtrak and Caltrans here), that most folks assume that the California HST will be another CalTrain. NOT....well maybe NOT. In France, the building of a new HST line is bid out to contractors by their rail authority...and with the bid to build it also comes the rights to operate it for 30 years...with another 30 year option. The winner bidder PAYS the French government for that privilege. The French do NOT pay to have the rail line built...but they sure help with eminent domain issues...and they probably buy the land (don't know).


Once the rail line is built, the winning bidder operates it...and leases "slots" on the rail line to railroad companies to operate their trains. I was surprised to learn this. The trains that run across France are privately owned and are scheduled by the operating company. This lets trains run from outside of France, through France. So, it's possible to get on one HST and go from Belgium to Nice, France...or from somewhere in Germany into France and onto Spain. I very much liked that operating philosophy as it got my totally broke state government out of the paying mode...if it can be made to work here. The idea is very similar to the way airports are financed in the US...with their bonds and operating costs being paid for by landing fees paid by private companies operating airlines and concession fees charges in the terminals. 


Personally, I think folks in the US need to rethink whether HST would work in the US...because that EIR really convinced me that expanding roads and airports isn't gonna hack it.


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

To a greater or lesser extent, everybody's right. It's a matter of applying thought and reason, and deleting politics. 

I take Amtrak because I like to see the country, chat with interesting people on board, and generally relax. The cross-country trains are great for that and I'd hate to see them speeded up to 150 mph. That's not why I ride 'em. (Admittedly, I don't like flying, at all.) 

For the rest of our world, HSR (high speed rail) makes sense in "corridors" that have sufficient population density to warrant the investment. Acela does a brisk business. The Chicago-St. Louis corridor makes sense. LA-SF makes sense, although I don't know enough about LA to know where it should terminate there. Seattle-Portland makes sense. I think Florida's HSR project made sense, as do many Floridians. To me, it looks like simple politics of its Governor. Likewise Ohio and Wisconsin. 

I think Empire Service - Niagara Falls to NYC - warrants HSR. It's already full Albany to NYC and the Upstate section has enough population to generate traffic to the Big Apple. I occasionally take it to catch an act at one of the jazz clubs there, get something to eat near Penn Station, kill a few hours in an uncomfortable waiting room and catch the first morning train back. And since I can't get my cars serviced locally, I drive them to a guy in Poughkeepsie and take the train back. About 6 hours either way by either mode. I look forward to these trains doing 110 in a few years.. 

But, as someone pointed out, transportation at the destination become a big factor that is often overlooked. When I go to NYC for the "evening" I park my car at the Amtrak station here, so it's waiting for me when I get back. But when I drive my car to Poughkeepsie, I get back and either my son picks me up or I take a cab. Here's the fun part: my train fare is about $45 one way; cab fare, train station to my house, is $40 with tip! So we're back to population density. There will never be bus service to anywhere near my house. But I knew that when I decided to take my cars to Poughkeepsie. 

End total: 
The good ol' U.S. has some areas where HSR can be beneficial, even practical. But only in areas of high population. Everywhere else, we have roads. That's the way it's going to be for a long time to come. 

Oh wait - our roads are getting more and more crowded, and studies show that adding a lane doesn't lighten the load much, after all. If not rail, what? 

JackM


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

"On March 4, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously turned down the request of two state senators to force Scott to accept the federal funding for the project. Shortly thereafter, LaHood announced that he would be redirecting the funds intended for Florida to other states." - Ya we lost our funds due to one man and our state congressman even tried to get him overruled... - tax payers are still footing the bill, to somewhere else.... very disappointed! (miami orlando tampa has a HUGE population). Maybe Disney should pay for it, it would increase visitation to the park if you could hop a train to the resort, stay, then hop it all the way back. They should at least have a rail line(monorail!) between the airport and their parks, its retarded that they don't.


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

Posted By afinegan on 28 Apr 2011 02:53 PM 
"On March 4, 2011, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously turned down the request of two state senators to force Scott to accept the federal funding for the project. Shortly thereafter, LaHood announced that he would be redirecting the funds intended for Florida to other states." - Ya we lost our funds due to one man and our state congressman even tried to get him overruled... - tax payers are still footing the bill, to somewhere else.... very disappointed! (miami orlando tampa has a HUGE population). Maybe Disney should pay for it, it would increase visitation to the park if you could hop a train to the resort, stay, then hop it all the way back. They should at least have a rail line(monorail!) between the airport and their parks, its retarded that they don't.


I dont think it has anything to do with Disney. They probably would do it if they could. They spend large amounts of money on the bus transportation that they use now. Its probably the same thing that stopped this other project, politics. Plus, the state owns a toll road between the airport and Disney World. Do you really think they want to give up that "honey hole"?


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

Wasn't grade crossing the issue? When did Europe do away with grade crossings. It was way before High Speed Rail I think. 

JJ


----------



## Dansgscale (Jan 9, 2010)

When you ask why americans don't show up when a new tain is launched. You have to ask yourself this, when was the last time that the average american was ever up close to one, little own ride one. I remember a time when lots of americans rode trains across the country and from large cities to other large cities, but thanks to Detroit auto industry and the airlines, they just about killed off the train. I for one would rather ride a train long distances than drive. You can not beat the relaxation you get from doing so. having the luxury of getting up and walking aound and getting something to eat without having to stop a streach your legs when driving long distance. 

Here in Texas , It would be a welcome thing to be able to board a train and go to one of the big cities and not have to drive for hours and even days to get to where you want to go in the state. 

A few years back TGV made an offer to build and operate a high speed system from Houston to Dallas / Ft Worth and to Austin and Back to Houston at no cost to the state other than help with right-o-way acquistion. The proposal was killed faster that a man squashing a roach. Southwest airlines complained to the then governor that it would take business away from them, even though at the time they could not handle all the business that was projected for the future. 

This was to be a 14 billion dollar project which would have provided some 15,000 construction jobs and seveal thousand full time operation jobs when completed. But even with No cost to the state, our gov officials bow to the pressure of a few corporations that say it will hurt thier bottom line, over the needs and benefits it would have for the state as a whole. 

This is as I see it the main reason why you will never see the average American show up to the launch of a new train, well at least until Gas reaches $8.00 or $9.00 a gallon, if the Oil compaines have thier way, and when it does I just hope that the CEO's of the railroads see that they hand been handed the goose with the golden egg and re-start passenger rail service throughout the country and not just in a few corridors. 

Stepping down from the soap box. 

Dan S.


----------



## jcopanos (May 29, 2010)

Country wide mass transit in the US will never really happen because too many Americans believe mass transit should pay it's way and that will never happen. Sad but true.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

by the way, on the normal (low speed) train lines in Japan, there ARE freights... the freight trains share the lines with the local passenger trains... 

They also have express passenger trains that do not stop at all stations mixed in with the ones that hit every station. 

It all works... 

Of course gas is about 4 times as expensive, parking spaces cost hundreds per month in the city and car taxes are high... 

Greg


----------

