"5 reasons for taking the train."

[CG9602]

See link: http://www.bcentral.com/articles/elliott/113.asp

Post your remarks below. What would be your response to some of the comments and observations made by some of the people quoted in the article?

[jeaton]

The writer is not off the mark. There is no sense telling someone to take a long distance train when time is of the essence. For the working family, even vacation time may be too short to risk the all too often serious delays. On the other hand for me, I can leave a day early and return a day late. The Social Security Administration says that over 70 million people will join my my class in the next decade.

I still would like to see Amtrak achieve the goal of some reasonable performance level.
Fly if you want, but if you drive, let me see you have two sit-down meals, a few cocktails, watch a movie, get some sleep and still match the Chicago-Washington running time for the Capitol Limited.

[Anonymous]

I personally would love to choose train over plane everytime, but there is one factor that will always leave me pointing towards the planes.... Cost.

I travel to Toronto, Ontario maybe 3-4 times a year from here in Vancouver. There's nothing I would like more than to take Via Rail's "The Canadian" over and back, taking the extra few days to sit back, relax, watch the scenery and sleep. Problem is I just can't afford it.

Here's a quick Comparison.... (let's say I have to be in Toronto for the first week of April)

Vancouver to Toronto Return Trip WestJet Airlines
(Depart March 31st from Vancouver, Arrive back home on the 8th of April)

My total cost with all taxes is going to be about $431 -about 8 hours travel total

Vancouver to Toronto Return Via Rail Canada (economy - all this gets you is a seat)
(Depart March 28th from Vancouver, Arrive back home on the 11th of April)

My Total Cost with all taxes is going to be about $922.34 -about 6 days 6 hours or so travel
If I want a sleeper berth (not a room - just a berth) my total cost with taxes is going to be about $1547.22

So there it is, with airline prices were they currently are I just doesn't make economic sense to take the train, in this particular case.

[jeaton]

macguy-
I agree for that price differential, your choice is obvious. My case on the round trip Chicago to Washington is about $125 including commuter line tickets to Chicago and tax. My wife is in a rush and flying Milwaukee to Baltimore Washington for $173 round.

The Internal Revenue Service allows 36 cents per mile as the cost for running the average value car in the U.S. If thats me, 1700 miles at 36 is $612.

[Anonymous]

You get to meet people you wouldn't on a plane

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
macguy-
I agree for that price differential, your choice is obvious. My case on the round trip Chicago to Washington is about $125 including commuter line tickets to Chicago and tax. My wife is in a rush and flying Milwaukee to Baltimore Washington for $173 round.
The Internal Revenue Service allows 36 cents per mile as the cost for running the average value car in the U.S. If thats me, 1700 miles at 36 is $612.

Yeah you're lucky.

Basically the problem is, in my case, the only people that Via is going to attract with those prices will be people looking for a good train trip. I'm sure via is offering the best prices that are humanly possible for that trip, only problem is they don't come anywhere near the competition.

Much like the article said, I suppose that rail travel can compare and compete with the airlines and cars, they just have to pick their battles.

I should also mention that Via does very well and does have profitable routes and trains that run on the east coast between places like Montreal and Toronto, I guess the west is just too sparsly populated to make similar routes (out west) viable.

[CG9602]

Anyone with a computer can find a train fare that is less than an airfare, or just the opposite. Want an example? Go to Amtrak's website, and input a ride from, say, Red Wing MN, to Ft. Luaderdale, and see what the coach price is. Take the distance into consideration. Then go to Northwest Airlines' site and input a trip from Duluth, MN to Madison, WI - a round trip of less than 500 miles. Look at the two prices and compare. you can do that with other pairs of cities as well. for example, Raleigh NC to Ft. Wayne IN, or Cincinnati. Long-distance trains serve not only the major markets like flights do, but serve many markets with poor or no air service ( just try getting air service the Red Wing, MN, for example), or costly air service. another thing to compare is that Amtrak walk-up fares are often much less thanwalk-up airfare. you also have to consider that there is a segment of the travel population that doesn' care to or can't fly.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Anyone with a computer can find a train fare that is less than an airfare, or just the opposite

That's what I did with my example above, Via Rail's website, via.ca and westjets website, westjet.ca.

[jeaton]

macguy-Not that I am trying to get you to change your mind, but that VIA rate is pretty pricey. I Checked Seattle to Toronto routed via Buffalo at about 500($US) coach. One can get 50 bucks off that for almost any reason. NARP membership, for example. Of course that would be more in Canada $'s, and you'd probably run into a bunch of Canada bashers---Oh, nevermind.
If I were in your shoes, I'd wait until I could afford to indulge in the trip on VIA.

[Big_Boy_4005]

As much as I love trains, I find long distance travel by rail tedious. I have taken a number of long train rides over the years, and while they all start out exciting, after 8 hours or so, I'm ready for the trip to end.

I will admit that it is fun to watch the countryside go by the window, but as soon as the sun goes down, the party is over and the nights are long.

If regional rail service was available throughout the country, I'm sure that more people would travel by train. Unfortunately the distances in North America are just too great, and the population densities too low, to warrent even the existance of Amtrak as a national carrier.

Amtrak is very effective in the Northeast, but as you look farther west the problems begin. Cross the Mississippi River, and you might as well start looking for the airport. One major problem is that almost every route goes through Chicago. The single hub design makes it almost impossible to travel efficiently.

I live in St Paul, I would love to go to Denver to visit, because I used to live there. Sorry, not without going through Chicago first, according to Amtrak. I would settle for St Louis or Kansas City, or even Des Moines, BUT NOOOOO!!! Can't get there from here.

If I want to go to Madison, Milwaukee or Chicago, I can drive there much faster, leave whenever I want to, and when I get there I have a car to go see the sights.

The bottom line may be, if you want to travel by rail, visit Europe!

[jeaton]

big_boy_405. You bring out good points about the the service not meeting your needs and, again I would be the last to tell anyone "You must take the Train". There is evidence that a substantial portion of the riders on the long distance trains are traveling between intermediate points, so it isn't just the issue of say Chicago to Seattle.

I doubt if I will ever travel the Sunset Limited, but I would still advocate its continuation.
Part of my advocacy is about the future. I have spoken about an aging population, and thier potential need, but there is another thing to think about. Where is the world at with petroleum reserves? I am 63, and I' m not to concerned about being able to get gas for my car for as long as I'm able to drive. I wonder if someone, say younger than 40, would want to risk having no alternative to the automobile to travel. Better wish for a big technical breakthrough.

[CG9602]

I also note that Big_Boy_4005 has some good points about the rail cervice in the Upper Midwest being unable to meet his needs or desires. The articles lkisted here give qualified compliments to commuter style service, or service that would supplement the smaller commuter air services. would you like to have two choices of getting from A to B,or 3? if you're like most North Americans, you want to have as many options as possible. I too would like to be able to go out west without having to travel via Chi-town, but barring a major increase in funding and new equipment, a connection from St. Paul to Omaha and Denver ain't in the cards right now. I support increased passenger services because if we show that there is a market out there, then we can more easily get support for expansion. Where there is a strong Amtrak presence, such as the NE corridor & NYC - albany, Amtrak dominates the airlines and offers a significant alternative to car travel. In areas of high population density, the passenger train can even carry more passengers than air travel does. Travel volumes will continue to grow in the future, and passenger rail, or commuter rail should be a part of it. the construction of more andd more Interstates and airports is steadily becoming less practical, and the need for passenger rail services throughout the continent will only grow. In rural areas, passenger rail infrastructure costs are insignificant, and sometimes the only option to cars. I also would like to see the day when I can travel to Mad City & MKE at 90+ MPH sometime in my lifetime. Let's face it, as a culture we like to travel, and while driving has been made to be the most convenient way to get around, driving is work, and driving over three hours can be tiresome. To a certain extent, driving is a response to the highway policies of our elected representatives, who for decades have encouraged state and local decisions that rig the marketplace in favor of the private car. States find it easier to choose to put up another highway project in part due to the plethora of Federal $$$ available for highway projects. When there is little to no funding available for rail, while there is generous (to the tune of 80 - 90% of the cost) funding for raods, what sort of choice does one expect? Meanwhile, the general public has demonstrated time and again, via opionion polls, the support for more passenger rail. Note that I didn't write more long-distance, inter-city rail, just more passenger rail. More and more cities are looking to set up commuter rail systems, and that is where Amtrak as the service provider, can step in. Amtrak can say that they are the only entity with legal permission from the frieght RRs to operate passenger trains over the freight RRs tracks. When you write "Can't get there from here," you are correct in so many ways. I want to have a third option in getting around, and as it stands, Amtrak is it. As a train fan, using Amtrak once in a while is my way of supporting the rail industry.

But enough ranting. Let's get back to train talk. Sorry if I sounded a bit critical, it's just that I've had my share of long car and bad airline trips, and I like having another option around, even if it's Amtrak.

.

[Anonymous]

I have managed to take a train from KC to NYC back in the old days (mid 70's), drove a car cross country several times, and flew a whole bunch of times. I even got to take a bus. If you have the time, take the train. Why? When you get sleepy, you go to sleep. You can get up and move around. You meet folks. You see the country from the ground.

My five reasons for taking the train (if it's available):
1) No stopping for directions.
2) Leg room, leg room and leg room.
3) You are in a vehicle that can run trucks off the road, instead of the other way round.
4) Only an incredibly learning disabled terrorist would try to hijack a train... from a passenger car.
5) An AMTRAK train leaving the rails at 60 MPH gives me a better chance of survival than a 600 mph jet letting the earth rise up and smite it.

Erik

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I read Christopher Elliot's article, and I mostly agree with his views. What he is advocating is taking the train on short to medium distance business trips, and nothing else. Most organizations - government, industry, academia, and possible the military - permit train travel for business trips of 4 hours or less, and this makes sense.

[IRONROOSTER]

I always take the train whenever I can. Last year I took the train from Wash. D.C. to Pompano Beach, Florida. I loved it. Just got back from this weekend from Portland ME, another great trip. Frankly, I hate to fly, but love the train. Haven't gone longer than 22 hrs yet, but anything up to that is delightful.
Enjoy
Paul