General Discussion

Hauling passengers for hire has largely depended on subsidy since the demise of the stage coach. Mail, express, fuel taxes and other taxes for roads, the F. A. A., the list goes on. How many public resources do you direct where for what number and clientele of passenger.

Is the passenger rail subsidy better spent expanding conventional speed rail? It serves intermediate points high speed rail and air do not. Do you open new routes? Do you expand service on existing routes. If doing so creates a greater market share, where next from there? 

As more passengers feed into a hub such as Chicago, will the will and justification be sufficient for speed increases to Indianapolis? Once to Indianapolis, will going from there to Louisville and Cincinnati become the next extensions of higher speed.   

As with route structure, do you build speed increases in increments? There is no way to avoid working with private freight railroads. Will taking that partnership in steps make expanding services easier?

Just because the technology exists does not mean a massive commitment is wise, let alone rational. The super sonic passenger planes promised 50 years ago, where are they now?

htgguy:

schlimm:

htgguy:

Can you provide a link to the data on how many people travel the NE Corridor by various modes? I wonder about the lion's share statement. I don't know how many people travel by train, plane, and automobile. Just curious.

Thanks, Jim

 

I found this article, but not the original data source, although the figures sound trustworthy.

"Despite the fact that trains average only about 80 mph along the corridor today, Amtrak has managed to snag 63% of combined air and rail travel between New York and Washington, compared to 37% before Acela’s implementation. But the rail company only represents about 6% of total corridor travel ridership, so it could see a lot of growth with faster services."

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/10/26/amtrak-contemplates-a-renewed-northeast-corridor-and-lays-out-the-stakes/

Thanks for the link. I read some of the comments as well-do you think this is accurate?

"presently Amtrak would charge you $330 for that round trip… would you actually ever pay that much? Airtran charges $99 on that route, counting fees and taxes (read it and weep on Kayak). I like trains but I’m not a sucker, I’m not paying an extra $230 to be a bleeding heart, even if it was almost as fast (which is all it will ever be).

Acela only covers 6% of the market because it’s so expensive, not because it’s not fast enough."

Not sure if this was for the NYC-Washington leg or all the way from Boston to DC. This site found round trip airfares between NYC and DC starting at $118, and one way Acela Express at $146, or $292 round trip for the same cities. So there is a cost issue, for sure.

Acella: $266.00.  Amtrak Regional service: $142.00   Jet Blue (Reagan to JFK)  $207.00  And just for laughs, driving car $61.00 for gas at 20MPG or about $225.00 figuring full cost to own and operate the average car plus parking (if on Manhatten Island-Priceless).

Looking at some days further out, I did find round trip air at $119. 

Given the travel stats cited above, it should be obvious that the station/airport to station/airport fares aren't the controling issue.

Victrola1:

Hauling passengers for hire has largely depended on subsidy since the demise of the stage coach. Mail, express, fuel taxes and other taxes for roads, the F. A. A., the list goes on. How many public resources do you direct where for what number and clientele of passenger.

Is the passenger rail subsidy better spent expanding conventional speed rail? It serves intermediate points high speed rail and air do not. Do you open new routes? Do you expand service on existing routes. If doing so creates a greater market share, where next from there? 

As more passengers feed into a hub such as Chicago, will the will and justification be sufficient for speed increases to Indianapolis? Once to Indianapolis, will going from there to Louisville and Cincinnati become the next extensions of higher speed.   

As with route structure, do you build speed increases in increments? There is no way to avoid working with private freight railroads. Will taking that partnership in steps make expanding services easier?

Just because the technology exists does not mean a massive commitment is wise, let alone rational.

Quick question?  Where is it that high speed rail services do not stop at intermediate points?

Examine old time tables. The limited did not stop for the milk and an occasional farm wife going shopping in Chicago. It stopped only at larger points, or if operations dictated for crew change, fuel, service. Dwell time at terminals kills speed quicker than anything.

Chicago to Omaha as some now propose via Des Moines, do you stop at every county seat? Do you mix slower speed locals into the mix? Will sufficient business be generated and deposited at larger hubs to make it feasible?

jeaton:

Acella: $266.00.  Amtrak Regional service: $142.00   Jet Blue (Reagan to JFK)  $207.00  And just for laughs, driving car $61.00 for gas at 20MPG or about $225.00 figuring full cost to own and operate the average car plus parking (if on Manhatten Island-Priceless).

Looking at some days further out, I did find round trip air at $119. 

Given the travel stats cited above, it should be obvious that the station/airport to station/airport fares aren't the controling issue.

I don't think that would be the issue regarding air travel. But. How about the issue of shut downs due to weather? In the last 3 years I got a detour to another airport because of bad weather 5 times!!---and an involuntary stay at said airport for a couple of days! Yeah. The flights generally don't last long--about a couple of hours but but but--

Then again--there are discussions in some financial/business areas around those low priced seats---that is not helping the airlines much---as the business model that was cobbled around it developed during the era of low fuel prices----which we certainly are not in now----

blownout cylinder:

jeaton:

Acella: $266.00.  Amtrak Regional service: $142.00   Jet Blue (Reagan to JFK)  $207.00  And just for laughs, driving car $61.00 for gas at 20MPG or about $225.00 figuring full cost to own and operate the average car plus parking (if on Manhatten Island-Priceless).

Looking at some days further out, I did find round trip air at $119. 

Given the travel stats cited above, it should be obvious that the station/airport to station/airport fares aren't the controling issue.

I don't think that would be the issue regarding air travel. But. How about the issue of shut downs due to weather? In the last 3 years I got a detour to another airport because of bad weather 5 times!!---and an involuntary stay at said airport for a couple of days! Yeah. The flights generally don't last long--about a couple of hours but but but--

Then again--there are discussions in some financial/business areas around those low priced seats---that is not helping the airlines much---as the business model that was cobbled around it developed during the era of low fuel prices----which we certainly are not in now----

jeaton:

I don't know what to say.  You could always push the airplane seat back the full 1.5 inches and take a nap or get one of the recliner seats in the waiting room.  (They didn't tell you about those?) 

The airline simply would not let us camp out!!

We got stuck at a cheesy airport that had a small kinda sorta variety thing for a store and that was it. yay.---- sleeping on the floor was actually pretty good for the back though

You left out tolls on that car trip.  Add another $40 or $50 depending on which river crossing you choose to NYC.

jeaton:

And just for laughs, driving car $61.00 for gas at 20MPG or about $225.00 figuring full cost to own and operate the average car plus parking (if on Manhatten Island-Priceless).

oltmannd:

I doubt you could beat the Acela's time flying into JFK.

BTDT---every time doing the roundy round for about 45 minutes---or more---nah

Instead of building faster trains we need to take the big picture view by looking at ways to eliminate the need for commuting altogether.. Cashiers and bank tellers generally don't commute long distance...it is office people with jobs that can pay for the commute that should be targeted...and alot of that work can be done from home. High speed rails makes the commute less painful..but why not eliminate the commute altogther by looking at the big picture through urban engineering and planning? High speed rail treats the symptom..we should be treating the disease..  

I see high speed rail and commuter rail as mutually exclusive.

Commuting gets me from where I live to where I work (and back).  It doesn't have to be high-speed, just consistent.   Speed simply lets us move folks further faster, but the focus is always local. 

High-speed rail should be serving as a replacement for short-hop flying and medium distance driving between commonly travelled-to destinations - exactly as it has in the NEC.  I doubt you'll find many people truly commuting on the NEC.

The advancement of high-speed rail should begin with city pairs that will support the service.  Once folks get used to that,  those city pairs can be included in expanded networks. 

While telecommuting does have its advantages, we lack the infrastructure to truly support it.   High speed Internet service is far from universal.  On top of that, there are many people who can't telecommute.  Someone has to sit at the front desk to greet the customers, and somebody has to make that pizza.  You can't do that over a fiber optic line.

There is a sort of discussion going on about HSR anyways in a lot of countries precisely because this is not really dealing with the issue of "urban development".

One of the main culprits--if you can call it that---is/was the single use zonal system currently in vogue in many places. Ranks upon ranks of single family homes/apartments seperated from commercial/retail districts that have nothing at all to do with industrial areas. All over the place we also have giant power centers, miles from where humans live, which causes them to have to drive miles to get whatever or work whererver they go. Now we are closing community schools so we can bus them to giant hypertrophied schools--all the time complaining about how they don't walk to school--which school boards closed so they can bus them 20 miles away from where they live-----

There are many different issues that drive a lot of this talk of a need for HSR that may really not be needed.

Also ----- why the rush anyway? mmmm? 

blownout cylinder:

There is a sort of discussion going on about HSR anyways in a lot of countries precisely because this is not really dealing with the issue of "urban development".

One of the main culprits--if you can call it that---is/was the single use zonal system currently in vogue in many places. Ranks upon ranks of single family homes/apartments seperated from commercial/retail districts that have nothing at all to do with industrial areas. All over the place we also have giant power centers, miles from where humans live, which causes them to have to drive miles to get whatever or work whererver they go. Now we are closing community schools so we can bus them to giant hypertrophied schools--all the time complaining about how they don't walk to school--which school boards closed so they can bus them 20 miles away from where they live-----

There are many different issues that drive a lot of this talk of a need for HSR that may really not be needed.

Also ----- why the rush anyway? mmmm? 

I know just what you mean about the school..I went to one of those regional High Schools in the 70s...spent two hours on the school bus every day... about 1900 HOURS of my youthful prime WASTED on transportation to and from school. Contrast that with what my parents and grandparents did: they spent an hour walking to and from school every day... that's about a thousand hours of exercise they got that I never got from my so called progressive school....Maybe we should look to the past for the answers...where people WALKED to work for the most part and the kids WALKED to school... A nice by product of that is we might just get back our communities...where people LIVE among their coworkers schoolmates, family, and friends. Now look what we have...we live among strangers and we waste precious hours in traffic or on the bus/plane/train. It's a crappy existence..not a life..

tree68:

I doubt you'll find many people truly commuting on the NEC.