Recommended.

We took our first train trip last year, and it was great. The problem isn't with the long-haul runs out of Chicago to the west coast, but with the feeder lines that connect all the smaller markets and towns. We stood out in the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania to get on a train to Pittsburgh, and that was a fine trip. But the connection in P-burgh (and overnighter) to Chicago depended on the train out of DC and that was almost 4 hours late.

But the "Empire Builder" from Chicago to Seattle and Portland was great.

We subsidize the interstate highway system, which was originally conceived as a military asset and is now hostage to the trucking industry and the inefficient automobile, both of which use way too much petroleum. But the rail system in between all those little towns it used to connect has been gutted and sold off. Air travel has also been subsidized in ways, including the necessity of having a big FAA bureaucracy (costly to the taxpayers), and various tax incentives to builders of airports.

Despite all the public taxpayer subsidies, though, the airlines are losing money because of energy costs.

I've felt for a long time -- moreso since the trip out west last spring -- that from an energy conservation and even a security standpoint, we need to rebuild (or at least expand) a system of rail that can move freight more economically per mile, and can give the traveler more options beyond the awful experience of air travel, or the butt-numbing and expensive option of road travel.

But it will take federal subsidies, and the trucking and highway and airline lobbies are deeply entrenched, and the only way to overcome that is to have this conversation out in the open and get in before the public. Freight has always been more profitable than passenger train trips, but a combination of light and high-speed lines to fill in the poor choice of routes, especially in the east, would help to attract more ridership. Right now, for instance, if I want to go to New Orleans or Florida from Pennsylvania, I still have to book an overnight train to Chicago, and then head south.

Not a real attractive option, and still too expensive.

When I lived in Northern California, I never took a train. I'm not even sure there were any passenger trains, and the lines only had a single track. Train travel was simply not something people did. I remember seeing abandoned railroad tracks up in the mountains, unused, rusty, bent out of shape, overgrown.

Now I'm in Germany and travel by train regularly, both short and longer distance. Many people going to town take the train - it's not much slower than a car, you can easily go downtown, don't have to worry about parking, and it's very easy to drink and not drive. The trains are clean and on time, although that bit may be somewhat specifically German.

My boss refuses to go by car on business trips within Germany. On a train he can use his laptop and actually get some work done - not possible when he's driving. Heavy travelers can purchase a flat rate pass.

Trains are again becoming important for medium distance travel (say several hundred miles). High speed trains are giving airplanes a run for the money - the actual time spent on a train vs. on a plane is longer, but there is much less time wasted. You don't need to get to and from an airport, you don't need to spend much time waiting, and the whole experience is a lot less stressful and much more comfortable (the ICEs are surprisingly smooth and quiet).

In short, like the 19th century, the 21st might again be the century of the train.

I hope we will have that rail system and I hope it will not be privatized.

I was in Salt Lake City for skiing over last Christmas and noticed that they have continued to expand their intracity rail system. A great way to get around the city. Hopefully, it will go all they way up to some of their ski slopes someday. I know DC is easier to get around on rail than in a car.

I cannot see how expanding and laying down lines or revamping the old lines and putting in service is bad for us. The only difference is that it won't ever be as fast as a plane.

What is most important (After physically building the network) is that there is sufficient competition between companies on the train lines. One of the reasons that airlines have become cheaper over the last few decades is that the competition for local commuter flights has been very high. Outside of the New York City area, with NJ Transit, PATH, MetroNorth etc, it's pretty much all Amtrak all the way. With that kind of monopoly there's no incentive for any sort of expansion, let alone the incentive for cheaper tickets that will make rail travel worth while.

Don't know how many of you read Josh's post about Wolfson being an "aerophobe" and driving across the country during the campaign. Josh said he used to be an aerophobe as well.
As for me, I wasn't one before, but I am now. I won't do it. It's not a fear of flying, or as the main character said on My Name is Earl, "I'm not afraid of flying. I'm afraid of crashing. And dying."
But I'm not. For me, it's more of a claustrophobia thing, compounded by being a relatively large person and a smoker to boot. The planes are now nearly always full, the vibes are too intense, and dogs and automatic weapons in the airports don't help much either.
And of course, I remember the glory days of the 80's, when it was easier than taking the bus for a short flight. Buy your ticket there and board your half-empty plane in a matter of minutes. and I'm pretty sure I remember smoking in the earliest times.

If there were good high speed rail lines across the US, it would encourage the expansion (or even creation) of cities in flyover country. That might not be a bad thing.

I took my kids to France last year to visit old friends. We were there for three weeks and never were in a car once. It was bus, metro, train, bicycle, or foot.

We went frrom Paris to Cap Ferrat on the Atlantic Coast. We took a fast train with hundreds of other families heading out for their beach holiday. I remember thinking of all the times we went to the Outer Banks in our car, stuck behind all the other cars, loaded down with stuff; all on their way to the beach. I never dreamed you could go to the beach on a train!

We took bikes with us, and a minimal amount of stuff. Once we got there, we walked to the boat ferry (called a Pinass -- pronounced penis -- no kidding) and then walked the rest of the way to our rental.

We did a lot more walking than I ever did at the Outer Banks, but it was glorious and fun.

We really give up alot here in the US for our "freedom" to drive where ever we want. Did you know that no one in Fance even knows what "car-pool" means? There is no equivalent.

Soccer moms? Kids walk to the nearby field and play together -- no signing up; no car-pooling; no pot-luck dinners.

We are so screwed

My family was po' folk, so loading up the car and hitting up Motel 6 was always cheaper than hopping a flight to our destination. The first time I was ever in an airplane was as pilot, on my 16th birthday where I was given an intro flight lesson as a present.

Rail or bus travel has always been more interesting, to me. When traveling, isn't the journey part of the fun?