Dude, they had like 40 lbs of camera equipment to carry. Get something valuable to be outraged about.

I think you're making a pretty big mountain out of one very small molehill. But as long as we're talking about increasing rail transit capacity, can anyone speak with authority on the feasibility of a European-style rail system in a country as large as the U.S.?

I had planned on meeting a friend in Chicago this week, but I canceled the trip when the cheapest ticket I could find was $600. You could get to Europe for that amount just five years ago. In fact, the last trip that I took to Chicago (about five years ago) cost me less than half that amount.

"So how to do business? How to travel in a country the size of the US?"

Take a look at recent stock prices of railway companies - BNSF traded at $103 today and Norfolk Southern is at $64. We still have the rail architecture to ship products by rail, and if gas continues to climb, there can be a rapid shift back. Rail car manufacturers are also doing well. I'm less than a mile from railroad tracks, and it's not prime real estate. Wouldn't cost too much to put a station there - the infrastructure, especially out west, is already there in many, many places. But that's not all.

DF didn't take his trip (yet) and many people aren't either - the word "staycation" is new to the mass lexicon this season. People have woken up fast, and are already changing their behavior. CarolBG, myself, most of my officemates, and many others who can are negotiating increasing telecommuting abilities.

Societies change when millions of people change their behavior. Just watch what happens this year. Fast.

We still have the rail architecture to ship products by rail, and if gas continues to climb, there can be a rapid shift back.

Not true. Shipping rail and transportation rail are two different things.

Moreover, our shipping rail is about to be overloaded beyond capacity with all the trucking shipping that will be converting over.

You are also thinking simply as airplanes as a means of vacation -- but they are also a means of conducting commerce. And regardless of what some people say, business transactions need face-to-face interactions. We humans are mammals, after all, and that part of our brain is still quite active.

Public transport is a good idea, and rail is wonderful. But alas, we have put all our resources in highways and airways. Clearthinker is right that we would need new rails for Euro or Asian high speed rail transport. Our distances make it daunting in much of the country, compared with Japan or Europe. Biofuels can fuel aircraft, and will eventually. The microalgae biodiesel facility at Petrosun plans for jet fuel to be one of its products.

By the way, I agree with you wholeheartedly about conservation and lifestyle. We have to cut our (hyper) consumption and live smarter. But it need not be so painful. I have a good friend who built a stunning energy neutral home for 8% more than conventional construction. His family of four can live there for life with no utility bills and within a few years he'll recover the cost. Another friend built an office that is energy neutral, made from nontoxic sustainable materials, with big beautiful windows that are more energy efficient than most people's walls. The cost? $75 a square foot, well below the typical cost (roughly 120- $200). And no, he didn't pound the nails himself.

pssst, clearthinker. Yes we can.

I mean, this is point to point transport in NYC, probably one of the best cities in the country for rail connections. And he took a cab.

Maybe Josh was in a hybrid taxi.

The event was held at The Strand, a used bookstore. That's good, right?

The NYC subway is a filthy, ramshackle 100-year-old system. It's got plenty of drawbacks that make getting around the city a nightmare, because it schlepps 4.5 million people a day. Average New Yorkers evaluate transportation strategies (including walking) constantly. Factors include scheduling, stairs, weather, efficiency, cost, rush hour, one-way streets, shortest route, parades, tourist hubs, street festivals, construction, clothing, subway line connections, multi-tasking, broken escalators, safety, group orchestration, add-on errands, and amount of sweating involved.

Transportation in NY is not really a matter of "older lifestyle" habits unless you have tons of money. But even famous people take the subway: I've seen Philip Glass and John Turturro on the train.

There's a wealth of really good information about the NYC subway and mass transit in general in the 4-part "Answers About Mass Transit" article I linked to, btw. I suggest reading it for the information and the disgruntled-passenger aura it imparts.

For those that doubt what air travel will become, here is a disturbing paragraph:

At least a dozen airlines globally have filed for bankruptcy in the last six months and US airlines faced a collective first quarter 2008 loss of $11 billion according to the International Air Travel Agency (IATA). Since 2000, QANTAS’ fuel costs have increased from 10% to 24% of operating expenses, overtaking labour as the airlines greatest expense. Virgin Blue is also facing the same pressure, with its fuel costs rising from 15% to 35% of operating costs. As reported in the same article, "No airline business model was built for oil prices to be sustained well above $US100. If it continues we will certainly see airlines continue to fail."

From http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4143#more

Now, forget about how the very poor are going to move around -- think about how the middle class is going to move around. For example, In 2007, US Airlines carried 769 MILLION passengers.

http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2008/bts013_08/html/bts013_08.html

That's more than 2 flights for every person in the United States. The average distance flown was 1078 miles. That's about 1/3 of the way across the country.

That is not a car ride.

Want to see it another way? Say you took that 1078 mile trip driving at 70 mph... that's over 15 hours of travel.

Compare that to about a 4 hour plane trip covering the same distance. (We'll be very conservative and allow for time arriving to the airport, time through security, and even a small delay.)

So that's 11 hours of lost productivity during travel.

This is not all about sitting home for vacation. This is about connecting our country.

If we're looking to reduce our footprint, shouldn't we all be planning moves to gentler climes? Don't cold winters and muggy summers make for an uphill battle?

Believe me, I'm not thinking of airlines as just a means of vacation. I'm only pointing out one of many, many recent trends in consumer behavior. As CarolBG points out and at my company as well, people aren't flying as much right now.

I loved traveling by train in Europe. American culture and companies drove the country away from rail in the 50s; at this point, I agree that high speed passenger rail makes sense. That 1,000 mile flight takes two hours, but it's around 5-6 with the security, delays, and car time between the airport and destination.

You've said before in your posts that we will be experiencing lifestyle changes you fear will be painful. I absolutely agree with the former, but question the latter.

I think there will be a resurgence in local farming; people will walk more where it is practical; there will be movement away from colder and muggier climates; movement away from places where things don't grow (Arizona) and we'll travel less. We won't be eating blueberries from New Zealand in December as much.

The experience of "pain" and "pleasure" are really personal - I, for one, enjoy home grown local produce and don't like food from a can. I like to walk. And both are good for my health. Other people hate vegetables, like driving and flying, etc. They'll have a different onion than I will in the future, and different tears.

You've said before in your posts that we will be experiencing lifestyle changes you fear will be painful. I absolutely agree with the former, but question the latter.

When people are already complaining about $4/gal gas, how can you not think that the reorganization of our American lifestyle will not be painful?

We haven't even begun down the long slide of peak oil and already there are those that are complaining!

Moreover, America, as we know it, is presently set up on the premise of cheap energy. And also, you are rather cavalier with your observations:

Do you know, for example, how to grow enough food on an acre to at least feed yourself? And store that food so you can last for 12 months? Do you have an acre of land to even do the farming? Are you willing to defend and protect that land against others who will want to steal from you out of hunger and desperation?

It's one thing to talk of a "resurgence of farming". It's another thing to do it. For example, if you can walk where you need to go, you must live in a more densely packed area. So where is the farmland for you to till? Conversely, if you have acreage around you, how long are the distances you can walk?

You are linked in with society -- the painfulness is society's pain. Which you will experience rather directly as a result.

I agree with most of what you say CT. Want to thank you for at least bringing up the subject that we should all think about daily. Its a HUGE issue facing our country and world that is not going to go away. We either deal with it or it will eat us up.

Your points about the Airlines are especially good. As to farming there will need to be a resurgence of "local" farming because as costs rise on oil based products farmers will be forced not use as expensive of fertilizers as they do now. That will result in a drastic drop in yields......

I think many of us wanted this to be dealt with 30 years ago but we let Reagan soothe us into thinking we could let it fester. Time is up. Unfortunately.

I'm hoping someday we'll build vacuum tubes deep beneath the earth along chords in the earth's circumference. (See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain)

Seriously, how cool would that be?

I agree totally with your point, although it has to be remembered that the US part of the continent is not as densely populated as Spain, Germany or France, where the train services are truly excellent.

Nevertheless, a high-speed rail network would be a very good idea, also if one has to take into account that also the cities in Europe are a lot more densely populated, which makes train journeys comparably more advantageous, since the railway stations typically are closer to your final destination than any airport.

The conclusion made after the expansion of the high-speed networks in Spain, France and Germany is that on distances up to 400 miles (650 kilometers) the train can compete with, and beat, the airlines. For longer distances, some travellers will prefer the convenience of trains, including uninterupted phone- and internet connections, and others will prefer the airlines.

With "high speed" I do here mean trains that run 155 miles/hour or faster. For that separate tracks are needed. They are expensive to build. But one wonders for how long America can afford to postpone these projects. In any case, the California High-Speed Rail project is on the right track.

p.s.
Myself, I belong to the bad guys. I make journeys by air every second or third week. I've been able to abstain from airline trips only a few exceptional months of the last years. And I hate it!
I do much prefer trains and ferries, but they are often more expensive, at least when the travel time is included in the calculation.