daveklepper I am amazed that anyone would compare the NY - Chicago bus experience with the train experience. One is bearable and the other is enjoyable, even for a non-railfan under most conditions traveling coach.
I am amazed that anyone would compare the NY - Chicago bus experience with the train experience. One is bearable and the other is enjoyable, even for a non-railfan under most conditions traveling coach.
From the railfan's perspective-sure, another train (to me anyway-no pax trains here!) is fine and dandy. However, outside of commuter lines and the NEC (isn't that basically the same thing-writ large?) are these routes really utilized to the point that the expenses needed to improve service times are justified? To me this comes back to the argument of "If you build it, they will come" which I personally doubt, in the near future anyway.
In my travels the options to take passenger trains has been very limited and inconvenient (not to mention really expensive) which is probably a part of why I am asking these questions.
Dan
Dragoman While one can certainly argue the benefits of any particular service or improvement plan, and not to take away anything from what has been said above, but ... I think that the simplest answer to Dan (CNW 6000) is that there is a market for passenger trains. With all the complaints about Amtrak service (and we all know that there is frequently reason to complain), it carries 27-28 million passengers per year. All of these people have heard of Greyhound and Southwest, but still chose the train. Even at those stations that are only served in the midddle of the night, only once a day in each direction (and in some cases less than that!), they still come. We can only imagine how many would travel if the service was even a little bit faster, a little more reliable, a little more convenient (meaning, for me, multiple trains in daylight hours at nearly every station), and if it was marketed a bit more effectively. Yes, most routes (if not all -- accountants seem to disagree) currently operate at a loss. But that is a complex issue -- most airlines have had multiple loss years, and we don't say that maybe they should shut down. Yes, airline losses are covered by private investment, not taxpayer dollars (though some might argue that point, too), but that does not diminsh the fact that there is a demand for ground transportation more comfortable than the intercity bus. One could point to specific demographics -- those who are afraid to fly, those who hate the current hassle of flying, those who are willing to pay more and take more time to enjoy the trip or relive "old times", visitors from abroad who are used to - and prefer - the train, those who don't drive or don't have a car, and so on. Small percentages, but a small percentage of 300 million is still a large number! And for those city-pairs in the 100 - 500 mile range, there is an interesting dynamic -- a train trip (on a suitably-equipped train, with wi-fi & cell service available, etc.), even if it takes 5 or 6 or 7 hours, may be a more efficient and productive use of time downtown-to-downtown than the "2-hour" flight. How, you ask? Because downtown-to-downtown that 2-hour flight is really a half-day trip (airport transfers, check-in, security screenings, interminable walks to & from the gates, waiting at the gate, waiting at the luggage carousel, etc. etc.) -- and most of that time is un-productive (limited computer and cellphone use, etc.). On the train, getting to the downtown station is much quicker, getting on the train is much quicker, and nearly all of the trip can be used to work/read/study, without waiting for the message that "you may now turn on your electronic devices." Total productive hours for the day -- greater. Trains may no longer be the be-all and end-all in transportation, as they were a hundred years ago -- but neither are they as arcane and useless as the horse-and buggy. There is a market for rail service.
While one can certainly argue the benefits of any particular service or improvement plan, and not to take away anything from what has been said above, but ...
I think that the simplest answer to Dan (CNW 6000) is that there is a market for passenger trains. With all the complaints about Amtrak service (and we all know that there is frequently reason to complain), it carries 27-28 million passengers per year. All of these people have heard of Greyhound and Southwest, but still chose the train. Even at those stations that are only served in the midddle of the night, only once a day in each direction (and in some cases less than that!), they still come. We can only imagine how many would travel if the service was even a little bit faster, a little more reliable, a little more convenient (meaning, for me, multiple trains in daylight hours at nearly every station), and if it was marketed a bit more effectively.
Yes, most routes (if not all -- accountants seem to disagree) currently operate at a loss. But that is a complex issue -- most airlines have had multiple loss years, and we don't say that maybe they should shut down. Yes, airline losses are covered by private investment, not taxpayer dollars (though some might argue that point, too), but that does not diminsh the fact that there is a demand for ground transportation more comfortable than the intercity bus.
One could point to specific demographics -- those who are afraid to fly, those who hate the current hassle of flying, those who are willing to pay more and take more time to enjoy the trip or relive "old times", visitors from abroad who are used to - and prefer - the train, those who don't drive or don't have a car, and so on. Small percentages, but a small percentage of 300 million is still a large number!
And for those city-pairs in the 100 - 500 mile range, there is an interesting dynamic -- a train trip (on a suitably-equipped train, with wi-fi & cell service available, etc.), even if it takes 5 or 6 or 7 hours, may be a more efficient and productive use of time downtown-to-downtown than the "2-hour" flight. How, you ask? Because downtown-to-downtown that 2-hour flight is really a half-day trip (airport transfers, check-in, security screenings, interminable walks to & from the gates, waiting at the gate, waiting at the luggage carousel, etc. etc.) -- and most of that time is un-productive (limited computer and cellphone use, etc.). On the train, getting to the downtown station is much quicker, getting on the train is much quicker, and nearly all of the trip can be used to work/read/study, without waiting for the message that "you may now turn on your electronic devices." Total productive hours for the day -- greater.
Trains may no longer be the be-all and end-all in transportation, as they were a hundred years ago -- but neither are they as arcane and useless as the horse-and buggy. There is a market for rail service.
That's closer to the answer I was looking for. I also agree with the "balanced transportation system" answer from above as well.
My other question is whether the market share that's being guessed at by borrowing the line from Field of Dreams ("If you build it...they will come!") is accurate or properly proportionate to the amount of funds the Federal Gov't. has allocated to solving this future "problem". Exactly where this balance should be I won't pretend to prognosticate, but I wonder just what this future usage really is worth the expense since there seems to be a plethora of other transport projects that are fighting for the same money. How much money would have to be spent to get the transport time down (again-as a hypothetical example only) to reduce the travel time for the CHI-NYC trip to even 12-15 hours? Is the opportunity cost worth it? Once that money is spent-it's gone.
O K, I'm a very conservative Republican, I am VERY concerned about our national debt and government waste! That said, I know passenger service will always run at a loss and will need government funds to cover that loss however, I don't believe that any modern country with an effective transportation system can do without passenger service. There are those who for many reasons can only travel comfortably by rail. Long distance trains are still a great way to actually see the country. Commuting is faster and in most cases cost effective. Also I love to take the train...... anywhere! As for them costing the tax payers for me to ride..........I've payed taxes for the last 55 years and passenger railroading is a better investment in the future than PBS, welfare, etc.
Transportation should be balanced with several options. It is a matter of not putting all of our (the US) eggs in one basket. If one mode of transportation fails for several hours to several months (look at what happened in Europe last summer due to the Iceland volcano) there needs to be a balanced system to take up the load.
1. If it snows hard the roads may close (then no buses)
2. Bad weather may be closing airports or at least cancelled many of the short haul flights.
3. A bridge may fail (ie Mineapolis I-35 closing a waterway, RR, or road.
4. The middle east may flare up cutting off some oil.
5. Major electrical system failure slowiing or stopping electrified RRs and all RR signaling.
6. On and on
So we (the US) needs a balanced transportation system and as of now the passenger train side is badly in need of getting to a point of balance/.
On a train you can get up, move around, eat, even go to the lavatory in a little more respectable closet.
A lot more fuel will be saved than what is implied. And so will envirnmental contaminants be decresed. In any case, rail is very cost effective, fuel efficient, and enviornmentally safer than highway emmissions. But, yes, planners should come up with cost effective proposals. We, as a nation, have to look at more than just automobiles or airplanes as the only ways to travel. Land usage, fuel consumption, air pollution, return on investment, service, are just a few things that have to be incorporated into a total transportation system. The question to you is $500 billion to air will give you what? highway? rail? And we cannot look at an instant return on investment. Land grants were'nt instant so why should a dollar be so?
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.
Dan! Would you rather put in billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of more dollars into highways and airports and create congestion and pollution and not be at least as equal or betteer than the rest of the world?
On the other hand, there are many believers in trains who view trains superior to any mode of transportation known to man who perhaps don't look at things in as utilitarian terms as you do.
Ever ride a bus for ten or twenty or forty hours?
Ever occupy a coach seat on a train for that length of time? I did 40 hours once on the Southwest Limited and it pretty much converted me to the benefits of air transportation.
Rail investment will reap benefits of reliablie, inexpensive, and environmentally better transportation when rationalized and designed into a national transportation policty.
Is the Vision report, proposing the expenditure of 500 billion dollars to save less than two tenths of a percent on the amount of oil we import, what you have in mind? If it is not, join me in asking that planners do better in coming up with more cost effective proposals.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Dan! Would you rather put in billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of more dollars into highways and airports and create congestion and pollution and not be at least as equal or betteer than the rest of the world? Ever ride a bus for ten or twenty or forty hours? NO! Rail investment will reap benefits of reliablie, inexpensive, and environmentally better transportation when rationalized and designed into a national transportation policty. When provided as a service rather than running trains it is extremely cost effective, effecient, and envornmentally friendly. Read the April issue of Trains to see how the rest of the world travels and why they do it. If we can't move people quickly, efficiently, using less fuel and creating fewer hydrocarbons, we will not be able to compte in the world economy. With a better passenger system will also be a better freight system. We cannot continue as we have been. We must move forward somehow...at the moment, if only to keep fifth place to ourselves!
Trains overcome the size and weight limitations of a bus. Steel-wheel on steel-rail vehicles (trains) can also be operated safely at higher speeds than a bus, which is subject to failure of its pneumatic tires, can lose directional control on icy roadways, and is subject to other road hazards.
Hence trains can and do offer more spacious accomodations than buses -- wider seats, more leg room, special seating areas for meals (dining car/cafe car). There are high speed services where trains offer substantially faster trip times with buses and trip times competitive with air travel when the various embarkation and disembarkation delays associated with that mode are taken into account.
There is a certain mystique associated with train travel, maybe it is nostalgia for time past when trains were more prevalent, maybe it is inherent in trains themselves. There are a variety of sights, sounds, motions, and even smells (brake shoe smoke?) that are unique to railroading that many people find appealing.
Buses are widely regarded as second-best to a "real" surface transportation option -- a train. Keep in mind that Europe has about equal market shares for trains as for intercity motorcoach buses, and their buses have 5 times the market share of buses here and 50 times the market share of Amtrak here in the U.S..
I think the advocacy community views the bus as "why do we need this train when we already have bus service", but bus service has diminished too. My own position is that the advocacy community should support buses as well as trains as they both provide a surface public transportation option that in many cases can be complementary, the buses serving as the "locals" feeding the "limiteds and expresses" in the form of trains. If we are ever to have an HSR network, that network will need feeder and local service that may take the form of buses.
The train is said to be fuel-saving and perhaps the best answer to the problem of importing oil. If the train is electric, it can be operated from a non-oil energy source, but whether that energy source is better for the environment than an equivalent bus depends on where the electricity comes from. Using current Amtrak practices of number and type of locomotive, weight and level of streamlining of passenger cars, usage of Diesel-generated electric power for both heating and A/C, the need to keep cars with water systems (toilets) heated during layovers, energy requirement for an 85 foot passenger coach per mile is about the same as a pair of 45 foot buses. To the extent that the train provides more room and more amenities to its passengers than the rather cramped seating of a motorcoach bus, the train uses more fuel per passenger mile than a bus.
The train is said to be highway congestion relieving. Whereas buses are subject to highway congestion, trains are subject to, well, rail line congestion, which has become a problem for passenger train on long-distance runs, given the prevalence of single-tracking that makes the rail lines profitable and the volumes of coal, intermodal, and other traffic that ride the rails these days. Given the claim that freight railroads move a ton of freight 500 miles on a gallon of fuel, keeping those lines busy with freight traffic is good for the environment, and perhaps the focus should be on getting as much intermodal traffic off the Interstates and on to intermodal trains rather than trying to take up track capacity running passenger trains.
Those ticket prices are just that, prices, not costs of the respective services. Whereas it has been often stated that all modes of service involve government subsidies, the case can be made that on a passenger-mile basis, the subsidy rate required for trains is an order of magnitude higher than for the other modes.
I think the advocacy community views the bus as "why do we need this train when we already have bus service" attack on train subsidies, but bus service has diminished too. My own position is that the advocacy community should support buses as well as trains as they both provide a surface public transportation option that in many cases can be complementary, the buses serving as the "locals" feeding the "limiteds and expresses" in the form of trains. If we are ever to have an HSR network, that network will need feeder and local service that may take the form of buses.
Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees here...but I can't grasp why we "need" passenger trains today. Commuter/METRA/BART, etc sure that makes sense. What I'm stuck on is the concept of something like NYC to CHI or CHI to STL, etc. What service/market does this address that airline or bus travel doesn't? Other than the "Gee I took the train to XYZ and it was neat".
An example of 1 adult travelling from Chicago, IL to New York, NY:Chicago (Union Station, IL) to New York (Penn Station, NY NYP) via AMTRAK currently takes around 20 hours and the cost ranges from $88 to $172, depending on how 'fancy' you want to travel, but I'll use economy/coach here so $88/20 hours travel time. (Times and prices from AMTRAK's website http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak)
vs
Chicago, IL to New York, NY (Penn Station) via Greyhound takes around 23 hours and costs ~$92 if tickets purchased online or ~$105 if at the counter.(Times and prices from Greyhound's website https://www.greyhound.com/farefinder/step2.aspx)
Chicago (ORD) to New York (LGA) flying economy costs about $137 and takes about 2 hours. (Times and prices via Kayak.com http://www.kayak.com/flights/CHI-NYC/2011-03-21)
SummaryMode Price Time AMTRAK $88 20 hoursGreyhound $92.40 23 hoursAirline (many) $137 2 hours
So....why should I take a train when a bus does about the same thing for about the same price or an airline for a bit more but about 1/10th the time?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.