TimePeace
Disillusioned.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,166
We are in complete agreement.There's some truth to this, but most folks don't just consider speed when deciding what mode of transportation to use.I think trains in general are a tough sell to anyone who owns a reliable car and is looking for the fastest way to get someplace.
And yet more than a half-million people rode the Downeaster in the last fiscal year, spending more than $7 millionGuess I am thinking more locally, and of people I know. Most of them wouldn't consider taking the train to Boston.
on tickets. (Granted, not all of them traveled the entire length of the corridor.) So despite your admittedly anecdotal
observations, some people don't consider the travel times to be a deterrent.
Although the Downeaster does very well, still the average person you meet is not really aware the service exists - and if they are, they do not consider it a viable transportation option, but rather a pleasant day excursion. I am two hours North of Portland, and a great many people live north of me. To them, a two hour plus drive and then a train to Boston might just as well be a 4 hour drive.
I hope I didn't come across as not liking the Downeaster. I was meaning to say, nobody takes it because it is fast. They take it because they like it. And the same for most trains, except Acela and other Northeast Corridor trains which as was said, are often much faster than driving. This may be true of some California Corridor trains as well, I don't know. My original statement was referring to Americans in general, not just those living and traveling in urban corridors.