While comparing major markets (e.g. New York to Chicago) between air and rail travel, you miss that if you do not live directly in a major air market, air travel is way less convenient - and often pricier due to lack of competition. Recently, my wife and I had to travel one way from eastern Iowa to Richmond, VA. For air travel, the closest airport was Quad City International Airport - for train stations, you could travel out of Burlington, IA or Galesburg, IL. Now, if you could fly straight from Quad City to Richmond, the flight would be pretty fast - however, you can't - you generally have to fly to Atlanta or Chicago for a connection. As a result, when you add in going through security, waiting for connections, etc. some of the speed advantage of flying vanishes - especially when you add in that both Richmond and Quad Cities have a limited number of flights (you might have to leave the airport at 6:00 a.m., for example) - it can easily take 9 hours if there are no delays (flying from St Louis to Richmond, it once took about 15 hours due to weather related delays. Obviously, the train is longer and also has connection issues (you have to take three trains to get from Galesburg to Richmond) - the train takes 2 days, the airplane effectively takes 1 day. However, the alleged convenience of airplanes is much less when you go between smaller markets. We also did not take the fastest available schedule - the fastest schedule would have been a combined bus and rail schedule which was scheduled for about 20 hours.
Now let's look at driving - between Galesburg and Richmond, the drive will take about the same amount of time as the train - the train is scheduled (including layovers in Chicago and Washington) for about 30 hours. The amount of driving time is probably about 16 hours, but when you include stops for meals and gas and breaks, it would have been easily a two day drive (especially since my wife does not drive which would make me the only driver). Of course, the train for long distance travel has an advantage over driving yourself - when you go to sleep, you are still going on a train.
Now, the cost issue was the main thing which led this trip to be by train - the one way airline ticket was so expensive that my wife and I could get sleeping accomodations on the Capitol Limited for much less than taking the airplane - especially when you take into account the sleeping accomodations include meals. I believe that without the sleeper accomdations, for two people you could travel by train for less than the cost of driving that distance (with gas over $4 a gallon at some spots at the time, the gas costs alone would be well over $100). Obviously, with several drivers/passengers, driving looks more economical - we traveled to Iowa wih my parents - with three dirvers and a total of 4 people in the car, driving was more economical - but extremely tiring and I was extremely sore by the time I got to Iowa (especially in my legs)..
Comfort is a big issue as well - Amtrak is way more comfortable (even on the Northeast Regional we took from DC to Richmond) than either flying or driving and you can make a definite case for long distance trains - especially in cases where people may not drive for whatever reason. I would also think that giving the high price of gas now, (its lower than when we traveled last month, but still high) that solo travelers would especially see an advantage. I think that one of the main issues is when you start looking at the smaller markets where the airlines offer fewer flights and you are likely to have to make connections.
Maybe I should book your next flight. Checking today, the earliest you could get a a train with a Superliner roomette was by traveling on the 27th - 2 weeks. $236 one way from Burlington + $354 for the roomette CHI-WAS. So for the two of you, $826 for a 31 hour journey with two train changes.
By air, on the same date, $310 each, so $620 total., for a 7-8 hour trip with 2 changes. Air is cheaper and many people, even train lovers, would prefer to save 24 hours.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
The more important question That I have been asking for the past year is this.
For the Safety of the passengers and to SPEED up service, why are the passenger trains not yet on their own elevated guideways?
All passenger trains should be looked upon as commuter trains and run as such. Unless you think that certain people in the nation are not worth moving to other parts of the country. It looks like transportation has become an east coast versus west coast and north versus south "don't let those people come here" battle. It is mean spirited in the national media.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer The more important question That I have been asking for the past year is this. For the Safety of the passengers and to SPEED up service, why are the passenger trains not yet on their own elevated guideways? ... Andrew
...
Answer: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And taxpayers have to foot the massive bills for airport security.
Many good points have been made already about the need for a decent rail system in the USA. Trains are efficient, civilized, better for the environment and more fun. Look at any advanced country around the world and you'll find it has a thriving, sensibly subsidised railway.
USA by Rail
Trains are the Future And taxpayers have to foot the massive bills for airport security. Many good points have been made already about the need for a decent rail system in the USA. Trains are efficient, civilized, better for the environment and more fun. Look at any advanced country around the world and you'll find it has a thriving, sensibly subsidised railway.
Actually, the TSA's airport security is funded from fees collected from passengers and the carriers.
Amtrak might have a chance to be a "sensibly subsidized" railway if it weren't saddled with so many LD trains. The original idea was for Amtrak to rationalize the LD network and open new corridor services where the day to day cash flow from the corridors could offset the remaining LD services.
The exact opposite happened. Political pressure added LD trains and there no corridor development. Amtrak has been doing what it's been doing for so long, I wonder if they can change.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Well, funded by fees and the proceeds from the auction they have to sell the stuff they steal from passengers.
http://www.gadling.com/2007/11/18/how-to-buy-goods-confiscated-by-the-tsa/
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
"No new corridor development"? Honestly?
What about the NEC, which is apparently covering its variable/operating costs, and so contributing to covering other (LD?) costs.
And what about the several very successful "403(b)" corridors, such as the 3 in California, the "Cascades" route in the Pacific Northwest. And haven't some of the newer Virginia or North Carolina corridor services actually begun operating at a break-even or better? And these operations can't cost Amtrak much of anything (since the states are contributing to the expenses), but they cause (at a minimum) infrastructure improvements that positively affect Amtrak's LD services.
Things may not have gone as well as they could have, and Amtrak may indeed be too "old" to change (though I would hope not!), but to say that there has been no progress at all just does not sound right.
I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but Amtrak needs to be put in a position where it can make rational decisions without having to run trains for congressional votes. If that happens, one of the first things to go would be many of the worst LD routes (the Cardinal, for example). Use the equipment freed up to add cars to the LD routes that are usually sold out to improve their operating revenue numbers, and to corridors that can handle Superliners. Gradually phase out LD routes that take more than 12 hours.
Dragoman "No new corridor development"? Honestly? What about the NEC, which is apparently covering its variable/operating costs, and so contributing to covering other (LD?) costs. And what about the several very successful "403(b)" corridors, such as the 3 in California, the "Cascades" route in the Pacific Northwest. And haven't some of the newer Virginia or North Carolina corridor services actually begun operating at a break-even or better? And these operations can't cost Amtrak much of anything (since the states are contributing to the expenses), but they cause (at a minimum) infrastructure improvements that positively affect Amtrak's LD services. Things may not have gone as well as they could have, and Amtrak may indeed be too "old" to change (though I would hope not!), but to say that there has been no progress at all just does not sound right.
You are correct about new corridors of late. Should have said "no corridors other than state sponsored routes."
However, in the late 70s and even into the early 80s, when this change was supposed to take root, we almost nothing except new LD routes and once-a-day day trains to hither and yon. (Shenandoah, NCL, Palmetto, Hilltopper, Desert Wind, Pioneer, Lake Shore Ltd. Capitol Limited, Sunset to FL, Crescent Mobile section, etc.) Amtrak did try upgrading Chicago to St. Louis, and NY spend some cash on GCT to Albany, but that was about it for corridors.
Dragoman Things may not have gone as well as they could have, and Amtrak may indeed be too "old" to change (though I would hope not!), but to say that there has been no progress at all just does not sound right.
I don't think they are too old. They've just been through so much that the corporate culture among the "troops" is "survive now" It'll take a quite a change to get them forward thinking, and an even bigger change to get them thinking like owners.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.