Amtrak

I don't really have as big of a problem with Amtrak as some others. While its not as cheap as I'd like, the amenities between Boston and NYC are actually pretty good. I'm speaking specifically about the Acela Express, which is business and first class only between the two cities.

Firstly, unlike the regional, once outside of Boston, it makes few stops: Providence, New Haven, Stamford and NYC. This prevents delays which are typical of Amtrak. South Station is downtown near where I work and Penn Station is in the middle of Manhattan, eliminating 30 minutes of travel time to/from the airports. I simply walk into the train station 2 minutes before my train departs and board, eliminating the pesky and timely security checks at the airport. The train has plenty of space. The cabin isn't pressurized. I can use my electronics from the get-go (though I think they should add wi-fi at this point).  Really, all-in-all, its not that bad...its actually pretty good.

The biggest complaint I hear from friends is the price. "Why pay $100 for a train ticket, when I can pay $80 and fly there in 45 minutes?". Leaving aside the time added by security and travel to/from the airport, the cost argument just doesn't work. If you buy far enough in advance, the train ticket is always under $100. I bought my ticket yesterday and it was $107. If you buy a voucher pack of airline shuttle tickets, maybe it averages out to $80 per ticket, but this includes the cab ride to Logan (at least $15) and the cab from LaGuardia (I think it's about $25 plus tip). That puts the plane ticket at $120. If its a round trip, that's $80 of cab fares. The train is significantly cheaper.

I just don't get why people hate it so much. Must be a perception thing.

-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless

Morning Commute: Romney or Uncommitted

Wow. Congratulations to Mitt Romney. Once again, the press got a little ahead of itself calling a candidate essentially done. Not nearly as egregious as the early NH Clinton obituaries, but they had surely written him off. I wonder when they will finally realize that VOTERS and not "journalists" decide the candidates.

Had I lived in Michigan, I'm not sure who I would have voted for. I still like HRC in general, but I think I've decided I am not going to vote for her. I just don't like her campaign's conduct since NH. You can say that surrogates aren't the candidate, but someone speaking at a campaign event or heading up a campaign division represents the type of people the candidate will bring into the White House. And I've said from the beginning, as much as I do like HRC, I hate the people she surrounds herself with (ex-WJC, of course).

That leaves uncommitted or vote in the Republican primary. Republicans chose to have an open primary, so its my choice to make. While I think that Romney is a huge db, I do think he's the least crazy of all the Republican candidates and probably the most malleable for a Democratic congress to push legislation passed. Grummings and I had this discussion last night and, while we agreed Huckabee is the most crazy, she said she'd rather have McCain.

To me, McCain is a terrible choice. First of all, despite all of the talk of his being a principled, straight-talker, the guy sold out everything he believed in 2004, aggressively campaigning for GWB. See here:and here:
Second of all, he's a right-wing, reactionary conservative on everything except immigration and torture...and even there he didn't pusdh against GWB's signing statement and has toughened his immigration stance in the primary. Thirdly, I think Tim Noah makes a good point about the "experience" issue. But the main reason I can't stand McCain is the press lovefest that would ensue if he wins the nomination. Its horrendous. They would fluff him all the way to the Presidency. I just couldn't take it.

So for me, it probably would have been Romney over uncommitted. While I'm perfectly ok with another President Clinton, I couldn't take a President (or even nominee) McCain.

-------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry Wireless

Morning Commute: Rain

Snow can be many things. Snow can be fun (to ski on or play in). Snow can be beautiful (if you see it on a mountainside). Snow can be tasty (snow cones...mmmmm, tasty). Snow can be wet (ok, snow is always wet). Snow can be annoying (like if you get stuck in traffic). But in Boston, snow is none of these things.

Here in Boston, snow can only be described as one thing: dirty and long-lasting. Ok, that's two things. In Boston, snow can only be described as two things. See Boston is extremely quick to respond to snow. They have the plows out on the road before it even starts. The problem is, there is zero drainage for the melted snow. The plows clear the roads by pushing the snow out into 6ft high piles of dirty snow that sits on the side of the road until it melts.

Now, if we got a flash snow in April, when its warm, that might be fine. But in November, its brutal. These piles of snow don't melt for months. Does the city come collect them? No. But what about when they finally do melt? That's when the flooding begins. Last time we had snow, in late November, it was followed quickly by rain. As a result, street puddles began forming. And these aren't the type of puddles little kids go stomping in. No, thanks to the amazing drainage on Boston city streets, these are they types of puddles that kids could drown in. My entire street had 3 inches of water on it...for two days! I can only imagine what it is going to look like this time.

If it warms up, maybe I should break out my denim colored bathing suit from Friday.