Robert Orr, an architect and planner, writes about current rail transportation. He points out that with conventional equipment the running time from New York to Chicago could be half of its present 19 hours and that would make it competitive with flying when all of the extra time consuming aspects are considered. He also suggests ripping up a lot of track was a big mistake and it should be replaced; however, replacement would cost a lot less than high speed rail plans.
You may read his article in the Hartford Courant here:
http://articles.courant.com/2012-08-22/news/hc-op-orr-rail-travel-0823-20120822_1_standard-trains-rail-passenger
When you see what both the PRR's Broadway and NYC's Century did between those two points, then you can undersand what he is saying. While not half the 19 hour time, definitely it was done somewhere around 16 hours which is certainly stepping right along. But managment, track owners, and passenger train operators have to want to do it with the same interest and spirit as was done back then. Of course, each stop added will slow the train's overall schedule. But if you did a local NY to Albany, another Albany to Syracuse, Syracuse to Buffalo, Buffalo to Cleveland and Cleveland to Chicago with a single train restricted or "limited" to those points as only stops, then it might be marketable. It would also have to be consitistanty reliable so that it will be acceptable. I've always had problem with so called high speed rail because I have also believed the so called slow speed rail was never operated to its full potential. I also, knowing what has been achieved in the past, what is achievable with contemporary equipment and roadway, would also define slow speed as 75 to 125 mph with real high speed not considered until 150 or more mph. Since freight railroad companies control the track and the rights of ways in, what, more than 90% of the country outside of commuter districts, the likely hood of the relaying of track or improvement of track or dedicating track to passenger standards as this are probably very improbable especially in the near future. But, yes, the full potential of trains, tracks, and schedules, from the last half of the 20th Century was never realized because we got speed happy with jet planes and comfortable behind the wheel of our personal vehicle.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
You're absolutely right, Henry. The 20th Century Limited stopped only at Harmon and Albany and then went straight through to Chicago at 60 mph. Conventional Amtrak equipment could run faster than that if the track were clear.
To cover the 959 miles in 9.5 hrs. the train would have to average 101 mph. Over that distance, with 4 intermediate stops, slower areas and the approaches to CHI and NYC, the train would probably need to go at 150+ much of the time to cover in 9.5 hours, which would require HSR. Anyone of the many non-stop flights take 2 hours, 5 minutes. Allowing an hour transit time at each end from the Loop to ORD, an hour for security and one hour LAG to Midtown, you have a total of about five hours, along with the convenience of numerous flights and save four hours. By flying early and returning late, a businessman can avoid an overnight and be able to return to his/her office the next day, while the train would require at least two days, probably three. Also, to have the necessary HSR, you would need separate, dedicated track over much of the route. Call me a wet blanket, but that does not sound like a service that would attract enough riders to be worth the enormous investment. 960 miles is about twice the longest feasible distance for intercity rail travel that is competitive.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Schlimm --
Not disagreeing with anything you (and Henry) have stated, I would like to point out 2 things:
1) While 9.5 hours is more than a bit aggressive for conventional/low speed/slow speed rail, it certainly should be possible to do much better than today's speeds. Nearly 75 years ago, the 20th Century and Broadway Limited were doing NY - Chicago in 16 hours (and down to 15:30 - 15:45 by the '50's). With all of the improvements in the past 75 years (welded rail, better locomotives, etc.), if there was the will to do so (as Henry points out) ... ?
2) Of the 5 hours for the trip be plane, how many of those hours are truly productive? You can't do much productive work on the way to or from the airport, waiting in the various lines, or on most of the flight. You don't get a meal, so you shouls add that time to the total air trip. So, you lose maybe 3-4 hours of productive time on that trip.
A well-equipped train, with services and facilities catering to the business traveler, nearly all of the time could be productive.
So which option is really wasting more time?
According to the August 1938 schedule for the 20th Century Limited, as shown at Streamliner Schedules, the Century stopped at Harmon, Albany, Syracuse, and Buffalo to receive passengers; it stopped at Englewood to discharge passengers. Eastbound it stopped at Englewood and Toledo to receive passengers, and discharged them at Albany and Harmon.
The 1956 Century stopped at Harmon and Albany to receive passengers. It discharged them at Englewood. Eastbound it stopped at Englewood to pick-up passengers, and it stopped at Harmon to discharge them.
According to the April 1967 schedule, the 20th Century Limited stopped at Croton-Harmon, Albany, and Syracuse to receive passengers. It also had coordinated flag stops at Toledo, Elkhart, South Bend, Gary, and Englewood to receive and discharge passengers. By 1967 the train carried coaches and a sleeper coach.
In 1938 and 1956 the train would have made four or five stops between Albany and Englewood to change crews. It would have made the same number of crew changes in 1967, I believe. Whether any of them were co-functional with the passenger stops is unknown, although I presume some of them were.
Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours. Like it or not, the long distance train is dead, although Amtrak, which is driven by politics, cannot admit it. The best outcome for the U.S. is moderate speed, affordable trains over relatively short distances in high density corridors.
Sam1 ... Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours. ...
...
Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours.
Even if those "nine or ten hours on a train" gives them 9 or 10 productive hours that day, while the "couple of hours" on, and getting on and off of, a plane, only gives them 4 or 5 or 6 productive hours during the same period? At least for some?
So, we're talking about a huge investment to get us roughly what we already have? What's the point of doing it?
About the only way to justify it would be if NY - Chicago was capacity constrained and the rail option was cheaper to build out than airport expansion. But, if that was true, it might be cheaper to relieve airport congestion at Chicago and NY by building out other shorter haul routes.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Agreed, a frequent NY - Chhicago 10-hour service could not make it on NY-Chicago passsengers alone. But with 125 mph top speed, good maintenance and good timekeeping, and service leaving NY and Chicago every two hours from 6AM to 2 pm running through, with 4, 6, and 6 pm departures from both ends running to Buffalo only, and 6, 8, and 10 AM departures in both directions from Buffalo, the corridor could be viable, not because of NY - Chicago business alone, but because of reliable short corridor service between the stations in between, such as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and the points on the current Empire service. Whether or not an overnight train with sleeper service would continue to be operated or not would depend on the overall economics. With the day train schedule in place, an experiment might be tried with a sleeper leaving on the 6pm to Buffalo, then attached to the 6AM departure from Buffalo to Chicago, giving an 17 hour trip with 6.5 hours spent sitting in Buffalo, and the reverse. It would represent an upgraded, extended, and near state of the art expansion of the present Empire Service between NY and Buffalo, where a majority of riders are not end-to-end.
I would bet a majority of the existing Lake Shore's riders are not end-to-end today!
Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service...in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a "main line" train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service...service, not running trains.
Another interesting point from Don....the intermediate stops. The situtation in the east right now is such that many smaller city airports are having to cut back in size and service if not existance. Scranton-Wilkes Barre for instance is talking actually talking of closing and scores of others play host to only smaller commuter aircraft. With that people who fly in these cigar like tubes don't feel comfortable nor look upon it as a service. A well planned and operated rail service/schedule with amenties could actually provide a usable and desired service in place of major airline full bodied plane services. It is why we need a coordinated, integrated, rationalized, inermodal transportatin policy in this country. Not a federally operated system, but a system of service and services overseen by some authority or enterprise or cooperative entity.
Dragoman Sam1 ... Serious business people are not going to spend nine or ten hours on a train to get from A to B when they can fly there in a couple of hours. ... Even if those "nine or ten hours on a train" gives them 9 or 10 productive hours that day, while the "couple of hours" on, and getting on and off of, a plane, only gives them 4 or 5 or 6 productive hours during the same period? At least for some?
The number of business people who would spend up to 10 hours on a train would be very small. Business today is far more competitive than when I started my business career with a Wall Street bank in 1964. Most business people have to fly, as well as use every communication tool available to them, if they want to beat the competition.
I fly commercially five or six times a year. It is not the hassle that some people portray. It seldom takes me more than 10 minutes to clear security. Moreover, being on an airplane does not mean that people cannot be productive. On most flights as soon as the bird is in the air, people wipp out their iPads, laptops, etc., Many of them are business people working.
When I worked in New York I frequently took overnight trains to my destination. I was unusual. But to say that I got a good night's sleep would be a stretch. I realized eventually that I was better off flying to my destination and getting a good night's sleep in a comfortable hotel bed.
henry6 Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service...in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a "main line" train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service...service, not running trains.
Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don't someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc.
Bankers embrace investing in equipment only if they believe the buyer will be able to pay back the loan. Otherwise, no dice. Proponents of passenger rail, irrespective of location, are not able to get commercial loans because the bankers know that the users will not pay for it. This is why most projects are funded by governments or given a government guarantee.
daveklepper Agreed, a frequent NY - Chhicago 10-hour service could not make it on NY-Chicago passsengers alone. But with 125 mph top speed, good maintenance and good timekeeping, and service leaving NY and Chicago every two hours from 6AM to 2 pm running through, with 4, 6, and 6 pm departures from both ends running to Buffalo only, and 6, 8, and 10 AM departures in both directions from Buffalo, the corridor could be viable, not because of NY - Chicago business alone, but because of reliable short corridor service between the stations in between, such as Toledo, Cleveland, Buffalo, and the points on the current Empire service. Whether or not an overnight train with sleeper service would continue to be operated or not would depend on the overall economics. With the day train schedule in place, an experiment might be tried with a sleeper leaving on the 6pm to Buffalo, then attached to the 6AM departure from Buffalo to Chicago, giving an 17 hour trip with 6.5 hours spent sitting in Buffalo, and the reverse. It would represent an upgraded, extended, and near state of the art expansion of the present Empire Service between NY and Buffalo, where a majority of riders are not end-to-end. I would bet a majority of the existing Lake Shore's riders are not end-to-end today!
I am not sure about the Lake Shore Limited, but approximately 10 per cent of the long distance train riders west of Chicago ride end point to end point. For the CZ, last time I looked, it was approximately five per cent.
If the market you describe between Chicago and New York existed, the CSX or a group of venture capitalists would step forward and take advantage of the opportunity. The hard fact is the market is not there, and it is not likely to be there in the near future.
I read this article. Amtrak made the ill conceived decision to remove two of the "typically" four tracks before selling selling "their" lines to the freight companies? Oh? The millions of "taxpayer" dollars it cost to remove the tacks. Oh?
Someone takes this guy seriously?
oltmannd So, we're talking about a huge investment to get us roughly what we already have? What's the point of doing it? About the only way to justify it would be if NY - Chicago was capacity constrained and the rail option was cheaper to build out than airport expansion. But, if that was true, it might be cheaper to relieve airport congestion at Chicago and NY by building out other shorter haul routes.
Good points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
The argument about airport congestion is a bit overblown. Those who make it are overlooking the development of NextGen, which will be a significant improvement over the current air traffic control system, as well as using larger airplanes.
A quick train makes sense in highly congestion corridors where it can outperform the airplane and the car. Philadelphia to New York or Washington comes to mind as does New Haven to New York.
Qantas uses B767s on many of its Melbourne to Sydney flights, which is a bit like connecting New York and Washington. In fact, they also use through B747s, i.e. LA to Melbourne and on to Sydney. Frequently, when flying from Melbourne to Sydney, I was booked on a 747.
IMHO Henry6 is n the right track and probably would expand these concepts in the future. A few additions.
1. each route that will have to be considered with different ridership metrics so will only post here the NYP - CHI as an example
1. The present mileage from NYP - CHI is listed as 959 miles but could change slightly with some track construction.
2. It is not the top high speed that speeds service but the elimination of slow order sections.
3. if acceleration, deccelation, and no terminal restriction a non stop at 150 MPH would take approximately 6;15. at 110 MPH it would take only 8;45.
4. this is only 2;30 more at 110 MPH.
5. Now with some slop this difference can be considered taking in station stops, acceleration times, throat times, maintenance , etc.
6. the intermediate passengers of course would experience even less difference in trip times.
7. I can see scheduled overnight trains NYP- CHI of 11;00 leaving CHI at 8;00 PM and NYP at 10;00 PM arriving at the other end at 0800 AM. This would be a perfect business person's trip. The consist could be a mixture of sleepers, business class and lounge cars.
8. sales could be CHI - BUF / ALB / NYP and for those days demand is sufficient cars for those origination / destinations could be placed with occupancy at reasonable times.
9. crew costs for all trips would be dramatically reduced. with operating crews changed at buffalo 4 engineers ( 2 for the longer than possible 6 hr ) and 4 conductors / assistant conductors there wold be a great reduction there.
10. on board service crews would not require dorm space for the 11;00 CHI - NYP legs .
11. have not considered cleveland and toledo passengers.
12. this would only require 2 sets of equipment with long turn times at each terminal giving substitution to other trains a much easier time and keep equipment in better shape.
Sam1 henry6 Dave has an excellent point. It is easy to talk NY-Chicago as a non stop service...in the air. But it need not be on the ground. People in intermediate towns have to get somewhere, too, and need to be served. My concept of local districtes and a "main line" train servicing ony the end points of each district is much like what railroad used think, commuter services in this country often do, and European rail services strive for. It does take transets and people. Trainsets are equipment investments, real tangable assets, banks and bottom liners understand and embrace. People are a waste of money, labor, no tangable value, detracts from the bottom line, and therefore the cost that elminiates American business acumen from dealing with rail passenger service...service, not running trains. Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don't pay for them, someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc. Bankers embrace investing in equipment only if they believe the buyer will be able to pay back the loan. Otherwise, no dice. Proponents of passenger rail, irrespective of location, are not able to get commercial loans because the bankers know that the users will not pay for it. This is why most projects are funded by governments or given a government guarantee.
Bottom liners (presumably you mean accountants and financial analysts) point out whether the users of a product or service pay for them. If they don't pay for them, someone else has to tote the note, i.e. taxpayers, other product line users, etc.
Bottom liners will see that it costs to have a trash receptical, for instance, so orders the getting rid of them and not ordering more; then they''ll not allow the hiring of people to clean up or add to the burdon of already overworked people making them less productive and more unhappy. The point is that while one thing may not be an income or even profit source, its importance to the whole operation has to be taken into account and discounted if necessary. In dining, do we really need a salad, a dinner, and dessert fork when one will do? Where do you draw the lines of service or civility? Bottom liners would eliminate even the forks if they thought a spoon would do! So, we should not pick servce operations apart piecemeal but take in the whole picture. As for ROI on equipment purchases, I think that is or is going to be turning around as the need for passenger rail services increases in a rationalized and planned transportation system emerges over the next 5 to 20 years. We are moving toward a non carbon based fuel use society in an ever increasing population density. Personal economics as well as environmental and social adaptatins will lead us to more public (not necessairly owned or operated by government) transportation becomes a need and a reality.
warren wilson I read this article. Amtrak made the ill conceived decision to remove two of the "typically" four tracks before selling selling "their" lines to the freight companies? Oh? The millions of "taxpayer" dollars it cost to remove the tacks. Oh? Someone takes this guy seriously?
Amtrak did not dismantle tracks...New York Central, Penn Central, and Conrail did. Amtrak's Corridor has remained the same as has the route to Boston. Amtrak never sold any of these lines to any freight companies but has been at their mercy when it comes to infrastructure or has had to ante up to pay for the needed improvements and facilities to accomodate passenger trains and services.
Read history of any of the above railroads including Amtrak...check your library for the many available.
Sam1 ] \points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
]
\points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes.
This is absurd and impossible. Unless you are talking top 50 markets to top 50 markets, you are talking further economic disaster to the air industry. They already have pulled out of many airports in markets above the top 50 in favor of contracting out to smaller companies with smaller planes. Some airports were built for bigger planes but have not needed the plant but settle for these small planes. Your answer is a major market answer but not the answer needed for over 90% of the Americna airports or population. This is why a coordinated, rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system has to be divised and implimented.
henry6 Sam1 ] \points! Wanna relieve airport congestion? Use bigger airplanes. This is absurd and impossible. Unless you are talking top 50 markets to top 50 markets, you are talking further economic disaster to the air industry. They already have pulled out of many airports in markets above the top 50 in favor of contracting out to smaller companies with smaller planes. Some airports were built for bigger planes but have not needed the plant but settle for these small planes. Your answer is a major market answer but not the answer needed for over 90% of the Americna airports or population. This is why a coordinated, rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system has to be divised and implimented.
Apparently you did not read my posting regarding the use of inflammatory language, i.e. calling another person's point of view absurd. It may be different, but that does not make it absurd.
Air service is a dynamic. It expands in some areas and contracts in others. With the exception of several remote locations in the western part of the United States, most people are within an hour to two hours driving time of a commercial airport with acceptable service.
As soon as an airline, usually a regional, reduces service to a location, folks claim that air service is going away. Actually, overall it is expanding, although sometimes it means a connection as opposed to a non-stop.
Recently, American Airlines announced that it was reducing its American Eagle flights. What was not noted is that it is switching many of them to another carrier with different airplanes.
From 2007 through 2011 the nation's major commercial airlines had net operating profits of $7.4 billion. However, after adjusting for the losses sustained by American Airlines, net income was <$463 million>. And this includes the disastrous years of 2008 and 2009, which were the result of a severe recession.
Who is going to coordinate your rationalized, intermodal or interactive transportation system? The federal government? It can establish a framework, but hopefully the outcomes will be determined by the market. And that includes allowing passenger rail to flourish in the few markets where it could be viable today, as well as future markets.
Those who favor a high centralized, federally coordinated solution need look no further than Amtrak. It has lost more than $28 billion on-balance sheet and millions more in off-balance sheet subsidies. It is a prime example of a federal government program gone wrong.
First, it is ok to call a point of view anything you want. Calling a person names, etc, however, is totally wrong. We are discussing points of view, etc. not you personally. You have a major market approach to everything which is not always valid. Yeah a bigger airplane form New York to Chicago or LA is perfect. But serving Scranton, Binghamto, Youngstown, Chattanooga, Topeka, and Casper it is an abusrdity in economic use. As I noted, Scranton Wilkes Barre is talking closing and smaller planes of subcontracted small carriers are doing the landing and take offs at more and more airports in between the big markets. Bigger planes for bigger cities, but smaller planes for smaller airports that will still be open.
And I am looking well beyond Amtrak for answers, solutions, and services. At this point it doesn't matter who becomes the oversight of an integrated transportation system, getting to an intigrated transportation system is more important. It that can be agreed upon then the mechinism for oversight is a matter of agreement. It could be a goverenment agency or a private orginization either for profit or non profit structure paid for by its users: transportation companies, portion of ticket price, dues, what ever is decided upon by the partricipants. Getting there first, however, is more important.
According to Travelocity, Wilkes-Barre Scranton International Airport has at least 14 flights a day by three airlines to DFW. All of the flights connect through a major hub, which means that practically any destination served by the airlines can be reach from Wilkes-Barre Scranton with good air service.
Wilkes-Barre Scranton is approximately two hours driving time from Newark, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, which have excellent airline service. That is not likely to change.
Without a realistic plan to get to the end point, discussing the end point is visionary but lacks nuts and bolts substance. Many of the world's governments, as well as international businesses, have given up on the idea of a highly structured, top down central solution. This is especially true for large, diverse countries like the United States and organizations like P&G.
The government can facilitate a framework for passenger rail as part of a transportation network in the United States. But as soon as it begins to micro-manage the process, which it tends to do, it is likely to result in a sub-optimum outcome.
What is missing in all of our discussions is how a nation with a $16 trillion debt and at least $48 trillion of unfunded liabilities is going to pay for a passenger train network that is not and is not likely to be supported by the markets; that is to say, by the people who use it.
Never have so many words been expended in saying so little that is rational. If airports close or services are reduced to a few small planes connecting to hubs, it is because the traffic no longer supports the prior services. Population and economic activity is dynamic. Much of the talk of serving places like B'hampton, Scranton etc. is viewing those places as though we were stuck in the 1950's or earlier. Look again. Scranton 1930: 143,333; 2010: 76,089. Binghampton 1950: 80,674; 2010: 47,376. While overall US population has soared from 1930: 123,203,000 to 2010: 308,745,000, many of those rust belt towns have dramatically shrunk and become economic wastelands. Why would any government or corporation build an expensive infrastructure to serve places like that when growth areas have none? Nostalgia for the "good old days" makes for a pleasant reverie, but not as a part or guiding element in a rational transportation infrastructure and service.
Even the title of this thread is inaccurate. The service proposed was hardly "low speed" even if not truly HSR.
schlimm If airports close or services are reduced to a few small planes connecting to hubs, it is because the traffic no longer supports the prior services.
If airports close or services are reduced to a few small planes connecting to hubs, it is because the traffic no longer supports the prior services.
Only partly true. We still have segments of the business and investment population that believe bigger is better. Takeing a large plane from NY to CHicago is better than taking any plane from NY to Chicago and landing everywhere in between like a railroad train or a bus. Smaller planes drive away customers just as much as anything. Big money between big places, not enough for big money in between. Again, I reiterate...and everyone's argurment support this...we need an integrated, intermodal, rationalized transportation sytem of services. Two hour train hops to support four hour train hops to support 2 hour plane hops, etc. and whatever.
henry6Big money between big places, not enough for big money in between. Again, I reiterate...and everyone's argurment support this...we need an integrated, intermodal, rationalized transportation sytem of services. Two hour train hops to support four hour train hops to support 2 hour plane hops, etc. and whatever.
Is that supposed to mean something or is it the lyrics in some obscure rap?
It is an obscure song I sing to myself all the time. It apparently means nothing unless you read the lines and sing it to yourself. I call it the Passenger Train-Plane Hop Blues.
Dragoman 2) Of the 5 hours for the trip be plane, how many of those hours are truly productive? You can't do much productive work on the way to or from the airport, waiting in the various lines, or on most of the flight. You don't get a meal, so you shouls add that time to the total air trip. So, you lose maybe 3-4 hours of productive time on that trip. A well-equipped train, with services and facilities catering to the business traveler, nearly all of the time could be productive. So which option is really wasting more time?
To continue your line of discussion, Dragoman, the idea that business people must travel by the fastest possible way is rooted in the traditional workplace with work being accomplished sitting in an office at a desk. To get more work out of an employee you tether him or her to a desk for more hours. But increasingly companies are looking at quantity and quality of work rather than desk hours. In fact many companies no longer give employees desks; employees work at home or at other places and use the internet and cellphones.
Consider Joe or Joan worker getting up in the morning, going to the local train station, swiping the e mail boarding pass for a ticket, getting on the train, sitting down and plugging in. After a full day's work and a little relaxing the train pulls in about a thousand miles away. The next day is a day of meetings and another night's sleep. The return trip is mostly writing reports and orders generated at the meetings. The following two days are typical work days working at home. It seems to me to be not totally misguided.
It appears that there is no effort by most posters to try to reduce the long distance losses. I have worked on a thread to address those problems but have been diverted several times. I found that the latest article from NARP to be enlightning.
http://narprail.org/news/press-releases/2084-long-distance-trains-multipurpose-mobility-machines
Although I do not agree with everything it has some important points. The most important IMHO is what would happen to ridership on the Lakeshore if it split and not go NYP - CHI. Another point id that over 40% of all revenue comes from LD trains. Do we really think AMTRAK could survive just running corridor trips?
My point of view is that a properly run passenger rail system providing service and reliability would garner ridership and perhaps pay for itself...but my discussion is not there yet. We are not trying to reduce losses here, but butld a service that will actually do the job as outlined above.
However, I have to take issue with the overnight businessman's trip, etc. Even same day trips for business. Though still commonplace, a lot of travel has been cut back by the internet and all the connections and technologies available. Yes, there are still reasons for face to face meetings and travel, but I believe it is becoming less and less thus, less and less important.
What is most important is that planners look at the needs to move people and goods over the next 10, 25, 50 75 and 100 years and make preperations for a transportation system...be it automobile, bus, truck, train, motor boat, commercial air, privatge plane or personal air jet pack! That is where transportation and infrastructure planners must put their attention and efforts. We can argue our favorite passenger train concept all we want. And it should be more than just considered, it should be used. But used in the overall picture of transportation modes and not as a stand alone technology.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.