I treated myself today--to a ride on the rails. I took Amtrak's Northeast Corridor line to work, instead of jumping on the slower and cheaper commuter-rail line that uses those same tracks. It was a particulary pricey way to go, given that there are so many other options on the routes between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston.
But, I'm weary of my commute right now, which on most days, requires me to utilize this:
And then this:
Or this:
and then this:
and then this:
I like the extra leg room on the Amtrak. The ride is more comfortable than a plane, which crams you in these days like a sardine. And Amtrak recently added WiFi to its Acela "express" train in the Northeast and will soon add it to others. There are no long security lines to get on the rail, nor crazy traffic to the station or full lots once you arrive.
I was pleasantly surprised to find an empty seat in the "Quiet Car," a place where no cellphones are allowed. And a vegan burger on the menu in the dining car? Bliss!
I suspect that if the airline industry continues its spiral, more folks may be riding the rails.
Sure, Amtrak has problems. Tons of them. The curvy tracks are old and creaky and the trains are almost always delayed. When they do arrive, they move like tortoises. (At 71 miles per hour, you can't really call the Acela an "express" train, can you?) The reality is that the monopoly that is Amtrak is grossly underfunded, using technology from last century and bowing to the freight companies whose tracks they use.
When compared with most countries, Amtrak is actually a poor excuse for a national rail system. Have you ever ridden the high-speed trains in Europe and Asia? No need for sleeper cars; at 185 miles per hour average, some trains move so fast you can barely make out what you're passing. Nevertheless, I sometimes prefer the leisurely ride.
After watching Europe and Asia race ahead in rail development, President Obama is trying to make riding U.S. rails a more enjoyable experience, insisting the U.S. should have the world's fastest trains. Congress has already earmarked $8 billion for upgrades in 31 states.
Yes, it's be a long road to catch up with, say, China. But imagine, one day, riding the rails could be faster, cheaper and even more enjoyable.
Would you take the Amtrak? How do you prefer to travel?
First class on the Andean Explorer on Peru Rail. The train makes a stop in the middle of nowhere, where villagers are selling souvenirs.
Train at Stazione Termini, which I took from Rome to Florence
2 comments:
Your pictures of the typical commute made me laugh, because they so accurately capture the stress of all those transfers.
I have mixed feelings about Amtrak. The quiet car = bliss. But the rates have been more costly than airfare on my last two trips to NY. And in the air, no one stops the plane for 90 minutes en route due to a machine vs. deer collision.
On balance, though, I'd almost always rather take the train.
I totally love the train, and used Amtrak for my commute into Philadelphia from Lancaster, PA for 6 months. My Mom and I traveled from Lancaster, PA to Boston, MA on Amtrak last year. Best trip ever. Amtrak through Connecticut was spectacular...we passed children ice skating on ponds, and the ocean at sunset. Priceless, and so relaxing compared to driving or flying.
I use Amtrak whenever possible, and would use it more if the price point was better. On the northeast corridor, flying always seems to be cheaper than Amtrak. However, as the delays and inconveniences at airports become more prevalent, I foresee that trains will come more into vogue. Improvements to the lines will be a bonus as well.
Post a Comment