Trains are becoming popular again

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: And suppose I want to go to downtown Chicago rather than just to O'Hare. The rails look even better.

Well, yes and no.

A passenger landing at O'Hare, wishing to go to downtown Chicago, can either catch the CTA "L" train (Blue Line), or take a shuttle to a nearby Metra station. The latter case, however requires a lot of good timing. Last I checked, the commuter trains on that line (former Wisconsin Central) only run on weekdays, and there are only two trains each way during rush hour.

(Please note, I spent most of my life living under O'Hare's flight patterns, and pass O'Hare airport just about any time I drive anywhere.)

(Of course, traveling with luggage on a commuter train is not terribly convenient.)

[Anonymous]

A few years back, CP Rail single tracked most of the former Milwaukee Road line between Milwaukee and St Paul. With others saying that Amtrak should have its own tracks, I thought this is one way to do it.

Have Amtrak construct its line on the former second main and lease the land from CPR. CP trains can use the Amtrak line during road maintenance and vice-versa. The only time the passenger train and freight train would mix is near the stations in larger cities.

I read stories all over the country that this railroad or that is pulling up one set of rails of a double track line. Why not useit for a dedicated passenger line? R/W costs are next to nil (relatively speaking). The host railroad doesn't want or need the extra track. Amtrak culd use it. It gets the passenger train "off" the freight rail.

I'm sure there are flaws in this idea, but let's start thinking.

[tpatrick]

Earlier in this thread I proposed 100 mph service from New York to Chicago. Altonfan asks a good question: why would I take a 10 hour train ride when air service is only 2 to 4 hours? Point well taken. But suppose my only real alternative is (for a variety of legitimate reasons) Interstate 90? Now that train ride is looking good. Or suppose I live in Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie, Cleveland or Toledo? And suppose I want to go to downtown Chicago rather than just to O'Hare. The rails look even better.

Now lets look at the bigger picture. First I will posit that no form of passenger transportation is profitable. Everything from skateboard to 747 depends on government subsidy. Passenger rail cannot escape from that fact. jhugart wants a comparison of airline subsidies vs. Amtrak over the past 30 years. I don't have those numbers, but for 2004 the FAA budget, which subsidizes all air travel, is $13.873 billion. The Federal Railroad Administration budget for 2004 was $1.443 billion, of which $1.218 billion went to Amtrak. When you compare annual revenue passenger miles (airline: 496.2 billion; Amtrak 5.503 billion) it is clear that airlines carry more for each tax dollar. However that is partly due to the fact that Amtrak just isn't big enough to carry more.

But the real question is where do we go from here? Despite Osama's best efforts, our population continues to grow, and with that growth comes need for ever more transportation capacity. Passengerfan lays it out very well. Where do we find the space and what will it cost? A clue to those answers comes from two projects, one nearly completed and one proposed.

Boston's Big Dig addressed urban congestion in a 7.5 mile corridor. The cost , originally estimated at $2 billion is currently estimated to top $14.6 Billion (MSNBC Dec 2003) That is more than the inflation adjusted cost of the Panama Canal. All for one tiny piece of one city. If you live in Peoria or Keokuk, what did you get for your tax dollar?

Chicago's mayor Richard Daley (a selfless public servant, no?) sees trouble at O'Hare Airport. Long air traffic delays due to congestion on the runways and terminals led him to an O'Hare-brained scheme to expand the airport. By current FAA mandate O'Hare is limited to 155 takeoffs or landings per hour. Daley wants to raise airport capacity to 200 by adding another runway and associated terminal space for the astounding cost of $15 biillion. That's by his estimate. Others like the Suburban O'Hare Commission say the true cost will be $40 to 67 billion. Airport debt service alone would increase by $1.2 billion annually. You may ask how those extra arrivals and departures can squeeze into the already dangerously congested airspace around Chicago, but Mayor Daley isn't answering. The cash register is jingling in his ears, as he contemplates all those construction contracts to let. He would rather not think about the air safety issues. And again, it is just one project for only one city. What about the rest of us?

Amtrak's data shows that it costs $10 to 20 million to add one mile of one lane to an existing interstate highway. It costs only $5 million to upgrade existing railroad track to 150 mph operation. It would be even less expensive to upgrade to the 110 mph limit. I do not have the exact number. But for the cost of Mayor Daley's plan to upgrade one airport and increase airspace congestion, Amtrak could (using Daley's low-ball estimate of $15 billion) build 3000 miles of high speed track. And each mile of rail would exceed the capacity of any mile of concrete by several times. Using the more realistic higher cost estimates for the airport, you could not only build the track, you could also buy all the trainsets, construct the stations, hire the employees and operate for a number of years as well.

I believe that rail, when done right, fills the need better and cheaper than the alternatives. When done right it will attract riders. But it must be done right.

[Anonymous]

Noticing that there are several stops in larger cities (Chicago and Washington D.C. are to name two) where both Amtrak and the local commuter agency (Metra or VRE) also stop, I had a radical Idea.

Individual states sponsor the local trains, and leave the true long diatance trains to Amtrak. For example, the Capitol Limited stops only in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Washington. It becomes a true "limited" again. The states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, et al pick up all the intermediate stops with their own funded trains run either by Amtrak or thier own agency.

This should shave at least an hour over the total travel time between Chicago and Washington without the cost of higher speed trains or improved infrastructure. Just eliminate 12 stops over the route at 5 minutes each, there you have it. How much time could be saved on the Sunset Limited, if it made half the stops?

In theory this should be easier for the freight railroads to dispatch.

Does this compete with 500mph aircraft? No, but it puts local trains in control of the people they serve, and the true long distance trains in a national network.

I know there are probably alot of flaws in this theory, but lets start looking at this and see how to make the problem better rather than pointing fingers at each other and saying this or that won't work.

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: And I would gladly choose a 10 hour "fast mail" over a 4 hour hassle at the airport- a place where you can't even sneak sharp wit onto the plane. Even in coach railroads offer more space and amenities for say, half the cost, and twice the time. It works out.

Yeah, but you're a train buff. Most people I know would rather get their travel over and done with so they could get on with whatever they plan to do when they arrive. (The matter is further complicated if one has to travel with young children.)

As for business travel, which historically has been the bread and butter of passenger transportation, the tendency has been to use telecommunications to eliminate the need for such travel. And when the travel is necessary, speed is preferred.

A lot of the problems faced by rail passenger service are "nature of the beast" problems. In the US, railroads are largely private enterprise. Problems with passenger service began to emerge in the late 19th century, in part due to government regulation which required railroads to operate passenger service, but would not allow the railroads to either raise rates to cover costs, or cut unprofitable service deemed "in the public interest".

If passenger rail service is to have any future at all, it will have to be able to compete with the airlines in the area of speed and convenience. And that will only come with high speed rail, on dedicated lines.

[railman]

Let's not forget, boys and girls, that the "Big 6" airlines have been losing money for years. Northwest alone lost hundreds of millions! How, you ask, do they keep going? The answer is the mighty checkbook of Uncle Sam, through low interest loans and the like.

And I would gladly choose a 10 hour "fast mail" over a 4 hour hassle at the airport- a place where you can't even sneak sharp wit onto the plane. Even in coach railroads offer more space and amenities for say, half the cost, and twice the time. It works out. And 100 MPH is very reasonable-- they were doing that in the 1930's, for cripes sake. Just get that track up to snuff, and let em' roll! If the train was fast enough to get business travelers to their destination by the next morning (assuming an evening departure) I think businesses would send their people back to the railroad in a hurry.

Funding a first class national railroad network would also have benefits beyond reducing congestion. Passenger rail needs people to run smoothly. Stations must be staffed, food served, track kept up. The new jobs certainly couldn't hurt a nation where good paying jobs are being outsourced every day!

Finally, for those of you who think all government does is a big waste, keep in mind that everything you have has been subsidized one way or another. Roads are self explanatory. You didn't build your own sewer system- you paid to hook up to a city system. (Unless you're on septic.) Your electricity may come from a WPA dam or other source. Water is the same way. We're all in this together, and beating down on Amtrak isn't going to make it right. Even your job might be lured to town by a TIF district. (Tax increment financing.) And taxes take care of all that other measly stuff too- like jails, law enforcement, consumer safety, the military, etc. So is the rail network. But look at the last, say 60 years and for what passenger rail/ amtrak has been getting compared to the auto, they've been doing pretty good.

My solution is to give Amtrak what they want for a couple years, then if things don't get better, you have a legitimate gripe. Don't give them half of what's neccessary and complain when they manage to hold on to ridership, defer some more maitenence, and battle the freight RR's to keep the trains moving every year. Then have to come back to Congress and scrape and beg for $900 million more to start the whole proccess over again.

[jhugart]

Especially after 9/11/01, when the airlines were getting subsidies (grants?), I wondered why Congress would complain about Amtrak.

Does anyone have a table showing the amount of money given to the airline industry vs. Amtrak over the past thirty years?

[Anonymous]

Go railroads. There is still much to be done to improve our railways.

[AltonFan]

QUOTE: In truth, even with all its flaws, it is often hard to get a seat on Amtrak. Many of the trains sellout early, especially the first class accomodations. If Congress had the guts to invest real money in Amtrak and build a truly national first class rail system, I think they would be surprised, shocked even, to see how popular it is.

The second statement doesn't follow from the first. Amtrak has probably reached a point where consists closely match demand. Something tells me that if Amtrak added one extra coach and one extra sleeper to each train, those cars would probably remain mostly empty.

QUOTE: You don't even need ultra-high speed. A 100 mph average would give us less than 10 hour service between NYC and Chicago.

Unless you enjoy the ride, or it's subtantially cheaper, why would you want to spend 10 hours travelling someplace you can get to in 2-4 hours (counting security at the airports) by air?

Other problems with rail service are stations thst are often located in remote or dangerous parts of town, and often in facilities that have seen better days. Many destinations are served by rail are served by only two trains, one each way, which often arrive and depart at odd hours.

If passenger train travel were profitable, private companies would be offering the service, and Amtrak would either not exist, or would be a provision for those places where rail passenger service is needed, but unprofitable.

[passengerfan]

Nowhere is it more apparent than in California where the number of trains and numbers of passengers have increased dramatically. Whats needed is more state support not federal. California is the proof when the state got behind Amtrak and put their money where their mouth was they turned rail service around in this state. Stop expecting the federal government to be the total answer the states need to do their share and invest in new trains and services. The feds will certainly increase Amtrak spending if the states show they are willing to invest their fair share. California is the proof in the pudding. Washington and Oregon has also invested but more is needed. Amtrak California with connecting buses etc. reaches 90% of the states population. Other states need to follow Amtrak California's example and the federal government needs to put more pressure on the freight railroads to operate the trains on time and add new services. The highway system in the U.S. is a mess and will not get any better as more and more cars are added to the problem each year. California has finally realized that the highways are not the answer they only compound the problem. And the cost of expanding any of California's existing freeways is astronomical and grows more out of reach each day. If it becomes necessary for the feds to help expand the freight roads then the price should be on time performance for all passenger trains.

[AntonioFP45]

I am conservative by nature and to a degree, politically. But it absolutely makes me fume when many members of congress either want Amtrak support minimized or eliminated. Yes, there are some inefficiencies, however, Amtak has been experiencing small but steady ridership increases.

It's sad that intelligent people like John McCain and Norm Mineta put Amtrak on the bottom of the transportation priority list.

[Anonymous]

I believe that some passenger train service restoration is imminent. Years ago passenger train service died due to the emergence of the automobile. Now with so many cars on the road it is difficult to go anywhere, especially during rush hours and on the weekends. More and more people are moving away from the big cities to live in their shadows in the suburbs . As the highways get more jammed with vehicles, this will create a strong need for rail service. Also look at how jammed up the major airports are becoming. It is just a matter of a few years.

[Anonymous]

By all means possible, let's support getting " America Back on Track" again. I also live in New Jersey, I'm sick to death of the highways, the one person, 2 ton SUV's and the price of gasoline. We need the MOM Line now and reactivate others like it, both for freight and passenger service. There are no more excuses, not even for NIMBY's!

[tpatrick]

Politicians like to point to Amtrak, calling it unpopular and unwanted. And those are just the nicer things they say. In truth, even with all its flaws, it is often hard to get a seat on Amtrak. Many of the trains sellout early, especially the first class accomodations. If Congress had the guts to invest real money in Amtrak and build a truly national first class rail system, I think they would be surprised, shocked even, to see how popular it is. You don't even need ultra-high speed. A 100 mph average would give us less than 10 hour service between NYC and Chicago. It would give the airlines a run for their money, and ease congestion on I-90 as well.

[Anonymous]

I agree that we have a LONG way to go before train service starts to take route again. I just found out that in my hometown of Hillsborough NJ that a new Railroad company just signed a 75 year lease on the abandoned former Gov't General Services Administration depot here. The Raritan and North Jersey railroad is apparently coming to town this year and will use the huge terminal as a rail to truck transfer facility.

[Anonymous]

These are indeed great strides. However, our country is still WAY behind most of europe in passenger rail travel. Our love for the auto is the blame of course, but any positive strides are always welcome news. Here in Las Vegas the Monorail just opened. I rather think of it as a bus in the air,( let's face it, it's NOT really a train) but its about as close as we will get here in the city of the taxi cab..

[Anonymous]

In the last two years I have noticed ever increasing growth of railroad lines in my home state of NJ.
First ,the Camden to Trenton passenger line service along the Delaware river was completed and put back in service.
Next the Cape May Seashore lines completed the trackage restoration all the way from Cape May to Woodbine a 27 mile stretch. While the CMSL is still largely a tourist / freight line the rails are now booming with action once agiain.
Last, I read that a new railroad company will redevelop the old General Service Administration railroad yard that is in my home town of Hillsborough. Just like in the old days the terminal will be used to link rail freight car service to trucking routes in the area.
I have also heard that the former Lackawanna Cutoff from NJ to Scranton will be put back in service within two years. Railroad service is badly needed and finally starting to grow again.