Railroad case 1

[Anonymous]

Why do people feel that it is better to drive or fly to a destination when they could ride the train. Yes I understand that trains can be expensive sometimes, that they want the conveniance of their own vehicle, etc.

But the common misconception I hear is that trains are dagerous. I heard on the news a year ago, "There are more train wrecks then plane crashes." People seem to look at the stats of wrecks, and not the death poll.

Yes, there may be a few train wrecks, more than planes, but the railroad is still the safest mode of travel. If there is an Auto accident, it is very likely that someone will be in bad condition in the hospital or dead, if a plane crashes, it is a miricle if there is a survivor, but when a train wreck occurs, maybe 10 or 20 out of say 200 people on the train are injured or killed, while in a 200 person pileup on the freeway most of them would be injured, and in a plane crash all of them would be dead!

Why then do I hear people say, "I dont want to be in a train wreck, while they drive theircar daily and will fly cross country without worry. I'm not dissing cars or airlines, but they could be used less. If CSX had left rails and not torn them up, the commuter line could run trains directly from frederick to brunswick brownsville, sharpsville, etc. now you can o to frederick and brunswick from Washington DC, but not to any of the other communities because the track was tor up as an unneccesary line. If we want railroads to suceed, we need a larger better commuter service, to show that railroads could replace highways just like highways replaced the rail lines. Just remember who the older brother is, the railroad!!!

[dehusman]

I don't think train wrecks are the reason people don't travel by train.

The number one reason is time. An all day trip by train is an afternoon by plane. Even with horrible layovers its quicker.

the number two reason is the trains don't go where you want to go (or don't go directly). I live in the upper midwest and visit family on the Gulf Coast. I would have to take a train to Chicago, change trains for one to New Orleans, change trains for one to Houston. I can actually drive faster by a day (or two) than I can take a train.

Dave H.

[Willy2]

[#ditto] Time is definatly the reason. When you ride a train it sometimes takes who knows how long to get where you want to go. If you go by plane, it takes a few hours. Sometimes even changing trains doesn't take you where you want to go. That is another reason that people prefer cars and planes and not trains.

[Anonymous]

Well, I don't think train wrecks are the main reason people don't travel by train as much. However, I would feel much more safer on a train than a plane. Think about this: You're on a train and something goes horribly wrong with the locomotive and you just stop right there. Now think about that same thing happening to the engine on a plane. Not that either of these things are something that happens often, but which would you rather be on. Also, passenger train derailments don't necessarily have a high death toll or even any deaths. On a plane crash practically everyone dies. Your chances of surving a train wreck are far greater.

[dharmon]

I don't believe that fear of accidents is what keeps people off the rails. For instance in the early post 9/11 days ridership on Amtraks NEC spiked significiantly. The issue is time and money. Unless you are a commuter and the train takes you from where you are to close to where you want to go, folks will drive. Amtrak's big money maker unless I'm wrong is the NEC, where it can certainly be less time to go from Boston to NY by train than plane...depending on your destination in the area. And for long haul, if Amtrak can take you do from your destinantion, then probably the train ride has to be a part of the vaction rather then the transportation becasue of time. If you have a week of vaction to see the relatives, and it's more than 300 or so miles, flying is the way to go, unless you only want to see the for a few of those days. If you want to take the kids on a cross country trip of America, and don't want to drive, then go train.

[JoeKoh]

time is a factor. I would like to take matt to chicago when he gets older.as far as csx goes it has shot itself in the foot with track routes before.
stay safe
Joe

[michaelstevens]

[8D]
I'm pretty sure I've said this before (regarding a similar topic); that I think that its a cultural thing.
Coming from Europe (U.K.) I take train travel for granted.
Despite the advertising efforts of the Automobile and Airline industries, the majority of Europeans commute and/or travel within Europe by train -- including e.g. between London and Paris (230 miles).
[8D]
The US and Canada, however are a different case.
As noted in the previous posts; distance is the most significant factor and once you exceed 500 miles, rail may never be able to compete with air.
There is a growing interest in developing HST technology in several markets, particularly Tampa to Orlando (JetTrain/Bombardier and Fluor) and if they can advertise enough, to affect the culture,so as to attract Federal funds and concentrate on the "less than 500 mile" corridors, they will surely (eventually) succeed.
[:)]
What confirmed this "cultural" element for me, was being involved in construction of NJT's new "River Line".
The locals (future beneficiaries) were dubious about its viability, having been used to (and stating a preference for) sitting in traffic on Rte 130 or I-295.
When just across the Delaware River, generations of Pennsylvanians have commuted by train, every day, into Philadelphia (or even New York) without a second thought !
[:D]

[ironhorseman]

We're not gonna start this old argument again? Well, since it's already started, here are my observations.

People don't ride trains because:

Passenger Trains? They still have those?! [:0]
1) Because they don't know that passenger trains exist. This is the number one reason in my experience. True, every time Amtrak crashes it gets negative publicity and becomes notorious with the public as "AmCrash." But face it, people have short term memories. Most people think the world began when they born, everything that happened before is irrelevant and inconsequential to what goes on today. So how are they supposed to remember when and/or where the last Amtrak crash was and how many fatalities occurred?

Amtrakaphobia: The fear of being killed in an Amtrak crash [X-)]
2) The second most frequent reason is because of the bad press in Amtrak crashes. The Most people today when they hear the word cra***he image that comes to mind is critical injuries to fatalities. Drunk drivers kill more people on the highway that airplane or train crashes. Plane crashes usually kill everyone on board. Most train wrecks that involve fatalities usually kill no more that 2 or 3 people. Some, like the Sunset Limited that plunged into the swamp killed way, way more, but relative to the total number of passengers it was way less than half. The further back in history you go the more horrible and fatal the train wrecks where killing hundreds. This is what people fear. However, in the 1950s the Capitol Limited crashed into Union Station Washington DC and crashed into the lower level leaving a horrible looking scene with stone and mortar and train parts scattered everywhere. Miraculously no one was killed.

So Where Are These Passenger Trains You Speak Of?[?][%-)]
3) The 3rd most popular reason is that trains don't go everywhere. This goes in hand with #1. Because the trains aren't visible all the time people don't know they're there and therefore don't believe they exist or are shocked when they find out that they do exist. I tell people about my train trips and you should see the looks on their faces because they never knew passenger rails still exist. It's like them hearing about Santa Clause for the first time.

"Well If You're One Of The Millions Who Own One Of Them Gas Drinkin', Piston Clankin', Air-Pollutin', Smoke-belchin', Four Wheeled Buggies From Detroit City Then Pay Attention: I'm About To Sing Your Song, Son.[xx(]" -Jerry Reed
4) People in America can't let go of their automobile. Everyone just has to have one. It's a status symbol, it's security, it's freedom. Yet people are so tied to their cars they think they can drive to a concert or a game, pull up to the venue 5 minutes before start time, expect to park in the front row, and expect to get front row seats with no lines to wait in. America is just like that. It's too big to go by rail. In the car you're on your own schedule. And people will fly cross country because it's fast and their willing to put up with the stress and the hassle. I'm convinced people like to be agitated. All I hear from people who travel was how awful the food was, how cramped the plane was, how irritating the passengers were, how bad the in flight movie was, how mean the stewardess was. People like to walk into stores and gripe out clerks for no reason other than they like to stress themselves out. I worked in an exercise facility for a time and some patrons do nothing but complain. They're never satisfied and they never will be and they like that way. It gives them something to [censored] about.
"Lord, Mr. Ford, I just wi***hat you could see what your simple horseless carriage has become/ Well it seems your contribution to man to say the least got a little out of hand, Well, Lord, Mr. Ford, what have you done?" -Jerry Reed

Time: Is It Really On My Side?
5) Time is a factor, but not the major one. Those of us who are railfan know all about Amtrak and it's reputation for being late and sometimes bad service. But this also goes in hand with #1. If people don't know passenger rail exists how are they going to know if the trains run on time? It's hard to imagine there are people out there that don't know passenger trains exist because all we railfans do is eat, sleep, breath, and think trains from our first waking hour to our dreams at night. The people that use time as an excuses are these Type A Personality types. Everything’s got to be on schedule. Got to do it by the book. Gotta go right now. Can't waste time. Have to hustle from the New York office to the airport, grab a jet, and speed to LA on business. No time to relax. No time to be friendly. Forget please and thank you, there's no time for that. Gotta keep the vacation on schedule. Hurry out to Aspen to ski. Turn right around and go back to the office. Work. Work. Work. Work. Work. Work.

They don't know they can work on the train. They can bring their laptop with them and set up a mobile office right there in their private room. They can use their satellite link up to connect to the internet and use their cell phone to stay in touch with associates.

These people that use time as an excuse must also love to be stressed out. They don't know how to relax and enjoy life. They're usually married to their work. You couldn't even suggest to them as taking a train as a primary vacation because it moves too slow. There are not enough agitators on a train. If the Type A personality doesn't get agitated that would really stress them out and cause a nervous breakdown.

In all my conversations with people everyone either didn't know about Amtrak or were afraid of the crashes. Yes, the crashes are an unrealistic fear, but it's still a fear none-the-less. I don't know how to cure a phobia, but that's what it is.

[kenneo]

[soapbox]

I suppose that the short answer to all that has been talked about on this thread is that the train must go where I want to go and do so at the time I want to do so.

Closely behind that is service wich comes in two parts: schedule keeping and the results of not being able to keep a schedule.

[soapbox]
Example of paragraph 2. I recently took Trains 500 and 509 between Portland and Seattle. These two trains operate between Eugene and Seattle with Portland as an intermediate stop. On the day in question, there were two games in Seattle (baseball and football) and as usually is the case, the trains were SRO - in fact, I understand that there were three or more regeusts for seats than there were seats. In the same car as I and my party, was a group from Eugene that normally went by auto, about a 6 hour trip, but were going by train because of a wedding anniversary gift from one of the wifes to the husband. As it would seem to happen, just about everything that could go wrong, did, and 40 miles north of Eugene, Uncle Pete split a switch in front of #500. [oops] Since the yard in Albany is Willamette and Pacific, #500 was routed through the yard and around the derailment, [yeah][yeah] but a a cost of 1:40 behind the advertised. Well, part of this present was tickets to the Mariners play-off game that day, and we got to Seattle in the middle of the 5th inning. The husband was really really really steamed and we heard from him all the way up and back. He blamed AMTRAK for the entire non-enjoyment of his day (not to mention that of his poor wife) and I really don't think he will favor anything to do with a railroad or passenger trains in the future. The main point is - AMTRAK IS BEING HUNG WITH THE ENTIRE FAULT by this (these) person(s) yet had nothing to do with the problem, in fact, AMTRAKs efforts helped the train run earlier than it would have. [yeah] In fact, had they not been able to get around the derailment, both #500 and #509 of that day would have been cancelled, and busses substituted.

And speaking about bus substitutation --- when the situation first occurred, AMTRAK did order up busses, but only 1/2 the ordered vehicles ever showed up, so as a result, there was a complete SRO #500 and #509 on the trains plus 1/2 cap in busses. I only laugh when I read that "train so-and-thus service was bus substituted." What century did THEY get there?[soapbox][soapbox]

[willy6]

one resaon might be all the train stations i've seen are not in the best neighborhoods,and that may tend to scare people. when's the last time you've been
to a bus bus station............not in a good "hood"..........y'all think about it.

[Puckdropper]

When I was taking a friend to the Amtrak station, her train ran about 4 hours late. (Good thing for us, as we were delayed about 40 minutes on I-69 due to weather-related accidents.) It was supposed to get to the station at 9:17 PM, and didn't arrive until about 1:50 AM.

On another note, I looked up Metra schedules once, and by the time we left an hour earlier to get to Wrigley, the Metra would have gotten us to the place to switch to the L just about game time... It was much faster to drive.