With that said, air travel has become so exhausting and quite pricey, too. The Miami to Altanta run that used to cost roughly $140 on the “premium” airlines are now costing between $245 – $300! The low cost airlines like Jet Blue and so on used to be so good with service and price, but lately, the quality of service and the ticket prices have much to be desired. Then, there is the option of taking the 14-hour drive, but with gas prices the way they are, that is becoming a nightmare even with the most fuel-efficient car.

Train service, then, is the way to go because frankly, I don’t see any other way.

Oh, I forgot to mention, too, that many highways are funded through tax revenues garnered through gas prices. Motorists are filling up less and less, so there has been a huge decrease in tax revenues for highway funding, which means less lighting and signage, less road-side assitance and more and more strips of highways in disrepair. That makes driving less attractive to me.

A TGV traveling between San Diego and Seattle, a distance of 1,062 miles should make the trip in about 5.5 hours or so. It would take a lot of bucks to build it, but over the long haul I think it makes sense. As far as Union Station, LA goes, a new station location makes sense. Union Station’s location belongs to another time. In fact, the precise layout of any route would have to be carefully planned, including building stations which no one has yet considered.

Amtrak has a significant on time problem at this point. In my opinion, that problem mostly stems from the fact that Amtrak owns less than 1,000 of the 21,000 miles of track on which it travels. Most of that track is owned by freight rail companies and they get priority on their tracks, often delaying Amtrak trains interminably. Part of what will be necessary for TGV travel will be for Amtrak to own the TGV trackage.

While I’m advocating funding Amtrak so it can finally become a viable national railroad, I’m not advocating a railroad that crisscrosses the nation, serving communities as a replacement for air transportation. Not only isn’t that going to happen, it wouldn’t make sense. I travel between the coasts almost every other month, and even a train travel advocate like me will continue to fly those 2,400 miles.

While there are some wonderful routes crossing huge swaths of the country, such as the Empire Builder which goes from Chicago – St. Paul – Portland/Seattle, that’s a “sightseeing route,” not really a “transportation route.” By the way, it’s a fabulous “sightseeing route.” Europe doesn’t have “long” distance routes which compete directly with plane travel either. You’re right about true long distance train travel. The days of the Orient Express as “transportation” are gone.

I’m advocating an Amtrak which sets up train travel between carefully selected city pairs. There are many routes like Philadelphia – New York, or Washington – New York which would be as highly successful as those routes are already, running at close to capacity.

I’m advocating an Amtrak which uses TGV and faster trains, which are coming in the future, for specific routes of multiple cities. The slow Acela shows the tremendous potential of the TGV. Already, Philadelphia to Boston via Acela is better than any airline from Philadelphia to Boston, in my opinion, and Acela runs at less than half the speed of a TGV. A TGV should make that 273 mile trip in less than an hour and a half. Can you imagine that? Take a look at this 2001 map of proposed high speed routes across the nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:High-Speed_Rail_Corridor_Designations.png This shows many potential TGV routes which could be highly successful alternatives to air travel. These routes could be run by multiple companies and authorities, but I believe there is a significant economy of scale of which we can take advantage, with a single entity national railroad.

Thanks very much for your comment Hapgood. If you’re not a regular here at Tripso, I hope you will be. I also invite you to participate in our forum, Talking Traveler. I know we would welcome your participation in our discussions there.

I live in Los Angeles. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner provides reasonably convenient service to Santa Barbara and San Diego. A train trip to either place should be the first vacation choice for all economically and ecologically responsible Angelinos who have exhausted the numerous vacation possibilities of their home town. The only problem is that for many people in Southern California, getting to Union Station (in “downtown” Los Angeles) can take nearly as long as getting to Santa Barbara or San Diego; and a taxi or shuttle would probably cost more than the train ticket.

A look at the other trains available from Los Angeles reveals why passenger rail has questionable value in a country that spans a continent. The Coast Starlight takes a day and a half to get to Seattle (at least officially– it can be delayed up to 14 hours). The Sunset Limited takes two days to get to New Orleans (again, its on-time record is dismal). And the Southwest Chief takes not quite two days to get to Chicago. Business travelers certainly don’t have that kind of time to get to meetings. And workers who are extremely lucky if they’re allowed to take their full two weeks of vacation would most likely be unwilling to spend such a large part of their extremely precious days off on a train (especially if they have to allow an extra day for delays in getting home).

Passenger trains are surely a very good transportation option in places with a high population density, such as the Northeast or Southern California (or Europe), where the travel time is comparable to flying. But absent something like the TGV or bullet train, they’re useless for cross-country trips that require multiple days and overnights. They may may have been great back in the day when the country moved to a slower pace and people had no choice. But Amtrak’s long-distance routes seem usable only for people who have lots of time and can afford to arrive at their destination when the train gets there rather than at any particular time. That may apply to retirees, but certainly not to anyone else.