I was looking up different ways to get to different places by comparing airlines, and then when I decided to look up Amtrak as an option I was shocked. For example, Amtrak from Lafayette to Seattle costs $319 and takes two days. While by air from Indy to Seattle costs $242 and takes one day. So why would anyone take the train when it is cheaper and faster to go by air? :confused:
For the exact same reason why I take U.S. and state routes, even though it's significantly slower and will cost me an extra night or two in a hotel/motel/campground.
I've been to Vancouver from Montreal on VIA Rail (Canada's Amtrak) and it took four days and cost me over $800 (I was taking advantage of a half-rate promotion, too;) in first class. I have no regrets. None. (There are cheaper classes, though)
I came back on Air Canada. Damn, was it ever boring.
Nearly half of the times I've been to New York City, it was on Amtrak (the rest was by car). For the same price as the bus, you can actually get up and walk over to the Café Car, sit down, plug your laptop in and check Facebook or AARoads (on a flaky cellular connection, I must say) with a coffee, salad or hamburger in front of you and a window on the scenic Lake Champlain or Hudson River next to you. It's at the expense of a few hours (mostly due to a customs stop and a CPR track that needs rehab), but in the end, I think it's much, much better than sitting in a cramped bus.
One rationale can be where you're going and for how long. Ms1995hoo and I regularly use the Auto Train for the trip home from Florida after driving down. It runs between Sanford, Florida, and Lorton, Virginia. The latter station is about eight miles from our house; the Sanford depot is a tad over an hour from where Ms1995hoo's sister lives. Our next trip will be Christmas week. The cheapest roundtrip airfare I can find (DCA to MCO) is around $425 per person, plus then we'd have to rent a car for the week. So it'd be at least $1000 for us to fly, and in the summer the rental car would cost that much more for a two-week trip. The Auto Train typically runs us a bit under $400 for the two of us plus the car, which includes a 10% AAA discount and a $300 discount obtained using American Express Membership Reward points. We also have our own car for the entire trip, we don't have to put up with the TSA, we can pack whatever we want (we just lock it all in the trunk of the car, lock out the remote trunk release, and give them the valet key), they serve dinner, and we bring a bottle of wine with us. At Christmastime we can also bring pretty much whatever we want in terms of Christmas presents for relatives.
So while it would take a bit over two hours by air versus 17.5 hours on the train (not counting time spent driving to the airport/train station, checking in, etc., in either case), the time factor is not the only one to be considered. It would also be marginally cheaper to drive both ways, but the drive takes a day and a half since we're not going to make it 860 miles in a single day. The train is an overnight ride, so we have half a day in Florida and then the next morning we're home.
Other reasons people might take the train:
–Not in a particular hurry
–Want to do something different
–Afraid to fly
–Don't like to fly
–Can't fly for whatever reason (medical; on the no-fly list; flights are full)
–Don't like dealing with the TSA
–No TSA liquid policy
–Train aficionado (just as people on this forum refer to "roadgeeks," there are people interested in trains in the same way)
In the Northeast Corridor, lots of business travellers take Amtrak between DC, Philadelphia, New York, New Haven, and Boston. From DC to New York, even though the plane is faster in terms of the actual time spent in transit (i.e., takeoff to touchdown), it can be every bit as fast to take the Acela Express as it is to take the air shuttles once you factor in airport security time, time spent waiting on the tarmac, the inevitable taxiing from LaGuardia to JFK (just kidding, but it feels like that!), and the hassle of getting from LaGuardia into the city (Amtrak drops you at Penn Station, which is at 34th Street and 7th Avenue and has the IRT directly underneath, whereas LaGuardia has no subway connections and is out in Queens). The same is not true of DC to Boston due to the greater distance.
Another consideration might be connections. My wife went to a convention in Hartford a year or two ago and took Amtrak–she took one train to New Haven and then another to Hartford. It worked out to be a lot easier than trying to fly into Hartford would have been and she didn't have to rent a car.
For the average person, though, cross-continent travel by Amtrak is not worthwhile unless you're doing it specifically for the rail experience. Another issue that often arises with Amtrak outside the Northeast Corridor is that the freight companies own the actual tracks, and the railroad equivalent of air traffic control normally gives the freight trains priority. (I remember my first trip on the Auto Train when it took TWO HOURS from Lorton to Richmond due to all the freight and commuter rail traffic. Thankfully, that's never happened again.)
^One more for your list of reasons:
-You have a Sheldon in your traveling group :) (that's a whole different league of train aficionado)
If money is no object, traveling with a roomete has to be fun. It's like having a small motel room that moves with you.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 03:56:03 PM
If money is no object, traveling with a roomete has to be fun. It's like having a small motel room that moves with you.
Depends on whether you're alone or with another person. The "roomette" is quite small for two people, as on the Superliner it measures 3'6" wide by 6'6" long. You sit facing each other and when you want to stretch out you have to avoid kicking each other. The "Superliner Bedroom" is far more comfortable since it measures 6'6" wide by 7'6" long. In the bedroom you can actually stand up and move around a little. There's also more room when you need to get up during the night (the bedroom has an in-room private toilet; the roomette does not, so in the roomette you have to stand in a space a little less than one foot wide to pull on some clothes to head down the hall to the toilet if you need to go during the night). The roomette would be ideal for one adult riding alone or for an adult riding with a child.
We used to get the roomette but two years ago we decided to try the bedroom because on that particular trip it actually worked out to be cheaper, I guess due to the "fare bucket" system where the roomettes were more in demand. We've booked the bedroom on every trip since then, even when it costs more. It's that much more comfortable. (We would still go for the roomette over coach class, however. Some people say part of the rail experience is riding in coach class and meeting new people and so on. Fair enough, but you're also at the mercy of those other people, so if you get mobile-phone users in the middle of the night, snorers, farters, movie-watchers, etc., you aren't going to get much sleep.)
I don't have any good pictures of either room type because it's hard to manage it due to the space design. A fisheye lens would do the job, but I don't own one.
Edited to add: Even though they're not ideal, here are two pictures. The first is half a roomette. I assume everyone is familiar with the size of an ordinary newspaper, so that gives a sense of the width of the room when you're seated. To the left is another half the room that's pretty much exactly the same as what you see here but in reverse. The table folds out from the wall to the left of that bottle of water. (Really, even though for two adults it's a bit cramped, they've done a very good job of using every square centimetre of space. But you see why I mean it's ideal for one adult.) The second picture is looking into a Superliner Bedroom from the door. The diagonal thing behind me is the upper bunk, which folds down. There is another seat to my right (the viewer's left) across from the lavatory door–the in-room toilet is behind the wall to the camera's left. The first of these pictures is from June 2011, the second is from December 2012.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FFloridaJune2011896_zps95cf7798.jpg&hash=7d64879502acf136d477e01fe75dbfe695956031)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fc378%2F1995hoo%2FChristmas2012b150_zpsda4708fb.jpg&hash=61f03d157d5f09074b3937c52c6173d392891e10)
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 04:17:14 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 03:56:03 PM
If money is no object, traveling with a roomete has to be fun. It's like having a small motel room that moves with you.
Depends on whether you're alone or with another person. The "roomette" is quite small for two people, as on the Superliner it measures 3'6" wide by 6'6" long. You sit facing each other and when you want to stretch out you have to avoid kicking each other. The "Superliner Bedroom" is far more comfortable since it measures 6'6" wide by 7'6" long. In the bedroom you can actually stand up and move around a little. There's also more room when you need to get up during the night (the bedroom has an in-room private toilet; the roomette does not, so in the roomette you have to stand in a space a little less than one foot wide to pull on some clothes to head down the hall to the toilet if you need to go during the night). The roomette would be ideal for one adult riding alone or for an adult riding with a child.
We used to get the roomette but two years ago we decided to try the bedroom because on that particular trip it actually worked out to be cheaper, I guess due to the "fare bucket" system where the roomettes were more in demand. We've booked the bedroom on every trip since then, even when it costs more. It's that much more comfortable. (We would still go for the roomette over coach class, however. Some people say part of the rail experience is riding in coach class and meeting new people and so on. Fair enough, but you're also at the mercy of those other people, so if you get mobile-phone users in the middle of the night, snorers, farters, movie-watchers, etc., you aren't going to get much sleep.)
I don't have any good pictures of either room type because it's hard to manage it due to the space design. A fisheye lens would do the job, but I don't own one.
When I took the train from Fayetteville, NC to Ft. Lauderdale, FL, I had to deal with a passed out drunk man who got on at the Florence, SC stop. When you "meet people," you're just as likely to meet someone you don't want to meet.
I would LOVE to take a long train trip alone in a roomette though. I could venture out as needed to the dining car and meet people. Unfortunately, money is an object for me.
I've also done Fayetteville, NC to Boston. My two experiences taught me that long distance rail in coach is less than ideal.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 04:22:13 PM
When I took the train from Fayetteville, NC to Ft. Lauderdale, FL, I had to deal with a passed out drunk man who got on at the Florence, SC stop. When you "meet people," you're just as likely to meet someone you don't want to meet.
I would LOVE to take a long train trip alone in a roomette though. I could venture out as needed to the dining car and meet people. Unfortunately, money is an object for me.
I've also done Fayetteville, NC to Boston. My two experiences taught me that long distance rail in coach is less than ideal.
Heh. I was riding back from New York on the Northeast Regional one year on St. Patrick's Day (I had been up there on business, but since I was footing the bill and wasn't in a hurry I took the slow train instead of the Metroliner). Some fairly drunk guys got on in Philadelphia and proceeded to have a belching contest. At least they got off the train in Wilmington.
I suppose better a belching contest than a farting contest.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 04:27:05 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 04:22:13 PM
When I took the train from Fayetteville, NC to Ft. Lauderdale, FL, I had to deal with a passed out drunk man who got on at the Florence, SC stop. When you "meet people," you're just as likely to meet someone you don't want to meet.
I would LOVE to take a long train trip alone in a roomette though. I could venture out as needed to the dining car and meet people. Unfortunately, money is an object for me.
I've also done Fayetteville, NC to Boston. My two experiences taught me that long distance rail in coach is less than ideal.
Heh. I was riding back from New York on the Northeast Regional one year on St. Patrick's Day (I had been up there on business, but since I was footing the bill and wasn't in a hurry I took the slow train instead of the Metroliner). Some fairly drunk guys got on in Philadelphia and proceeded to have a belching contest. At least they got off the train in Wilmington.
I suppose better a belching contest than a farting contest.
I surprisingly didn't encounter any memorable crazies on the Northeastern leg of my trip. My biggest complaint about the DC - Boston leg though was the lack of scenery to appreciate.
The most memorable part of the southern leg of the trip though was having the dining car ask me why I was traveling from North Carolina to Boston by TRAIN.
As recently as the late 1990s, Amtrak in the Northeast was a viable alternative to the bus. Then three things happened: the electrification/speed increase of Amtrak, the entry into the bus market of the Chinese companies, and the steep increase in gas prices. Amtrak prices went up, and bus prices went way down. The two no longer competed for many of the same passengers. Instead, Amtrak began to compete in the price bracket of the airlines, whose prices had also gone up. The buses filled up with $15 fare-payers since driving became much more expensive than that, and the $100 Amtrak fares didn't offer enough additional advantage for all that extra cost.
One important difference that has swayed me on several recent work trips: the Amtrak station is typically in the heart of the city, whereas the airport can be 20 miles away. On three such recent trips (from NYC to Providence, to DC, and to Toronto) I was able to walk easily from the station, with my luggage, directly to my hotel (never mind the torrential downpour in Providence), or at least grab a short, easy transit connection.
Granted, for these itineraries the time and price are much more competitive with air travel than with long-distance trips. But in general, the reasons I prefer rail travel over air, in addition to simply the experience of rail itself, are:
–No worries about the weight of my luggage. (There is technically a limit, but nobody checks it.)
–No airport security hassle. (There is sometimes a security check at Penn Station or Union Station, but they're perfunctory by comparison.)
–No seatbelt sign keeping you in your seat when you most need to use the bathroom.
–Many bathrooms. If one's occupied, there's a whole train's worth of other ones.
–Free wifi and electric outlets at your seat. I can fire up the mapping/GPS system of my choice and follow along the whole trip on an iPad.
–Quiet cars on some trains. (Though frankly, sometimes it's more stressful to constantly fret about whether somebody is or might violate that rule. I'm often even more comfortable chilling in the cafe car.)
Outside of the northeast corridor (where, IMHO, those living there via fares or STATE taxes should pay) the answer to the question is the same as "why do people take week long cruises in the Caribbean that end up in the same US city they started in?
Because it isn't transport. It is recreation. It is a bunch of old people on the Nostalgia Limited.
Simply put, Amtrak is NOT a valid transportation alternative when contrasted to cars, buses, planes, and such. It is a form of recreation, like the American Queen or the Disney monorail or a horse drawn carriage around the local park.
Quote from: 1995hoo on July 17, 2014, 04:17:14 PM
Some people say part of the rail experience is riding in coach class and meeting new people and so on. Fair enough, but you're also at the mercy of those other people, so if you get mobile-phone users in the middle of the night, snorers, farters, movie-watchers, etc., you aren't going to get much sleep.)
This in and of itself could be a justification for taking a train. The one time I ended up riding the Acela, I had a nice-looking young lady sit down next to me and we had a nice conversation for much of the trip (she got off at MetroPark, I was heading to NY Penn). It turned out she had a boyfriend but had that not been the case, an exchange of phone numbers would likely have occurred.
This sort of thing will not happen when you drive places.
Nor will it happen as readily when flying since airlines will see to it that a plane does not take off unless it is almost full, and people are crammed in close enough together that no conversation can possibly occur without several other passengers overhearing it. On a Sunday afternoon the Acela car I was sitting in had less than half of the seats occupied and there was much more space between them than in coach class on an airplane. Much more hospitable environment for striking up a conversation.
I may be wrong but aren't there people who commute from the Seacoast area of New Hampshire to Boston via the Downeaster?
Regarding Duke87's comment–
Heh. I got on a Southwest flight at Midway once before I met my wife and, due to the "open seating" coupled with the flight being a continuation of a flight coming in from St. Louis, I looked around for a decent-looking woman. A few minutes after I sat down, the woman next to me called me by name. Turned out she was a high school classmate and we hadn't seen each other since we graduated. She was by then married and pregnant (the latter didn't show), but we had a great time catching up all the way to BWI. (She had been good-looking in high school, too.)
Amtrak also has good discounts. I got to ride 30 days for free as a reward for using Amtrak several times.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 04:22:13 PM
When you "meet people," you're just as likely to meet someone you don't want to meet.
This statement is true is you find 50% of people you meet objectionable. I don't think that's true for me, but I tend to be a fairly sociable guy (all this internetting notwithstanding).
Quote from: SP Cook on July 17, 2014, 08:12:14 PM
Outside of the northeast corridor (where, IMHO, those living there via fares or STATE taxes should pay) the answer to the question is the same as "why do people take week long cruises in the Caribbean that end up in the same US city they started in?
Because it isn't transport. It is recreation. It is a bunch of old people on the Nostalgia Limited.
Simply put, Amtrak is NOT a valid transportation alternative when contrasted to cars, buses, planes, and such. It is a form of recreation, like the American Queen or the Disney monorail or a horse drawn carriage around the local park.
I'd be fine with just the Northeast paying for the Northeast Corridor, but only if the Northeast Corridor stops subsidizing the rest of the system.
Amtrak is bad transportation as currently construed. It never properly moved into the business development phase of its existence and built up the useful short runs like we have up here. This is in part because Senator Whatsisname would not approve Amtrak funding if his state's sole (unprofitable, long-distance) route is eliminated.
If this means Amtrak should be fully privatized to free it of politics, great. If that means killing long routes, fine. But it's silly to ignore the potential in downtown-to-downtown runs of a few hours based on the tourist trains outside urban areas. Let Disney run those trains, and let Amtrak do the things that it can be successful at, unencumbered by politics.
A private passenger rail system would probably only be good for the eastern seaboard. The Northeast would prosper very well and the Southeast has a decently well developed rail system so it could eventually do well.
The Midwest and West might struggle to make a profit with passenger rail though.
My brother (who lives smack-dab in the middle of Kentucky's "Golden Triangle") has to travel to DC fairly regularly for work.
He has taken Amtrak a few times and has enjoyed the ride, when the train fit his schedule. He found that the fares were cheaper than a plane ticket at times, and he'd have to drive to either Cincinnati or Louisville to catch the plane, so it's just as easy to drive to Cincinnati to catch the train.
The route is rather scenic. It follows the Ohio River to the Ashland-Huntington area, then through the Teays Valley to Charleston, then along the Kanawha and New rivers (and through the New River Gorge), then through the mountains and into the Shenandoah Valley. I think the route goes through Charlottesville and Culpeper as well. There's a station only a couple of blocks from the hotel he frequently has to go to for his meetings and conferences.
I'd like to ride that route, but there's like a two-day turnaround for a round trip.
As for me, if I need to go to DC, I'll drive. I don't fly, and even if I did, I'm 90 minutes from the nearest commercial airport (Lexington) and another 90 minutes from airports from which fares are cheaper (Louisville or Cincy). An hour and a half of driving will have me almost to West Virginia, and that's before you count the time to park, haul yourself to the terminal, get the TSA anal probe, board the plane, fly through Detroit or Charlotte or Atlanta or Pittsburgh and maybe even change planes, get to DC, rent a car or hail a cab, and then get to your destination. DC is only 8 to 8 1/2 hours by car from here so it's a no-brainer for me to drive instead of fly.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2014, 10:54:35 PM
My brother (who lives smack-dab in the middle of Kentucky's "Golden Triangle") has to travel to DC fairly regularly for work.
He has taken Amtrak a few times and has enjoyed the ride, when the train fit his schedule. He found that the fares were cheaper than a plane ticket at times, and he'd have to drive to either Cincinnati or Louisville to catch the plane, so it's just as easy to drive to Cincinnati to catch the train.
The route is rather scenic. It follows the Ohio River to the Ashland-Huntington area, then through the Teays Valley to Charleston, then along the Kanawha and New rivers (and through the New River Gorge), then through the mountains and into the Shenandoah Valley. I think the route goes through Charlottesville and Culpeper as well. There's a station only a couple of blocks from the hotel he frequently has to go to for his meetings and conferences.
I'd like to ride that route, but there's like a two-day turnaround for a round trip.
As for me, if I need to go to DC, I'll drive. I don't fly, and even if I did, I'm 90 minutes from the nearest commercial airport (Lexington) and another 90 minutes from airports from which fares are cheaper (Louisville or Cincy). An hour and a half of driving will have me almost to West Virginia, and that's before you count the time to park, haul yourself to the terminal, get the TSA anal probe, board the plane, fly through Detroit or Charlotte or Atlanta or Pittsburgh and maybe even change planes, get to DC, rent a car or hail a cab, and then get to your destination. DC is only 8 to 8 1/2 hours by car from here so it's a no-brainer for me to drive instead of fly.
This.
People who fly short distances confuse me. And when I say short distances I mean flights like Boston-New York, Detroit-Chicago, Charlotte-Atlanta, Richmond-RDU.
If I didn't feel like driving, a bus or train would be better than flying. At least, I can bring my own snacks on those.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 09:52:39 PM
A private passenger rail system would probably only be good for the eastern seaboard. The Northeast would prosper very well and the Southeast has a decently well developed rail system so it could eventually do well.
The Midwest and West might struggle to make a profit with passenger rail though.
According to 2103 ridership figures the three California intra-state routes were all in the top six.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_routes
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/AmtrakRoutes
The second link shows that if routes over 800 miles were eliminated, Amtrak would make a profit. Yes, the two Northeast lines are making that happen, but quite a few of the other lines are running very close to break-even. It's the real long-haul lines that are sucking the dollars.
I wonder if there's a comparable study for airlines...aren't they (or weren't they) subsidized to serve smaller/more remote cities? Do they have routes they fly that might lose money but help them provide comprehensive service, which is offset by more popular/profitable routes?
That said, I do agree that long-distance passenger rail is a romantic notion, but not very practical; but short and medium-haul passenger rail can absolutely be a viable alternative, especially to planes.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 17, 2014, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 09:52:39 PM
A private passenger rail system would probably only be good for the eastern seaboard. The Northeast would prosper very well and the Southeast has a decently well developed rail system so it could eventually do well.
The Midwest and West might struggle to make a profit with passenger rail though.
According to 2103 ridership figures the three California intra-state routes were all in the top six.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Amtrak_routes
http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/AmtrakRoutes
The second link shows that if routes over 800 miles were eliminated, Amtrak would make a profit. Yes, the two Northeast lines are making that happen, but quite a few of the other lines are running very close to break-even. It's the real long-haul lines that are sucking the dollars.
I wonder if there's a comparable study for airlines...aren't they (or weren't they) subsidized to serve smaller/more remote cities? Do they have routes they fly that might lose money but help them provide comprehensive service, which is offset by more popular/profitable routes?
That said, I do agree that long-distance passenger rail is a romantic notion, but not very practical; but short and medium-haul passenger rail can absolutely be a viable alternative, especially to planes.
Smaller airports receive a subsidy from the federal government. I remember during the sequester that there were fears that some of the smaller, regional airports would have to shutdown.
The free market would indicate that rail is better for short distances whereas flights are better for long distances. But people are impatient and would pay for the perception of getting there faster (when as belkin pointed out, they usually don't).
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 11:00:34 PM
This.
People who fly short distances confuse me. And when I say short distances I mean flights like Boston-New York, Detroit-Chicago, Charlotte-Atlanta, Richmond-RDU.
If I didn't feel like driving, a bus or train would be better than flying. At least, I can bring my own snacks on those.
Some people are frequent fliers for business and figure they might as well fly on those trips because they get perks when they do.
Other people just really don't like driving, and find the plane to be preferable to a bus or train.
To be fair, if you've already removed driving from consideration, it may well be more convenient to fly than to take a bus or train in some of these cases. I went to a business event in the northern suburbs of Boston once. Most people flew there from New York since it was legitimately faster than taking the train (especially since the company would not pay for Acela tickets, only standard NE regional). And since the destination was in the suburbs, getting a cab ride from Logan airport was easier than getting a cab ride from South Station.
I of course insisted on driving and took one other person with me. The people flying got there faster than us by about an hour, but I easily lost that amount of time having to pick my other coworker up and then making a detour to trade cars with my father. And then we got stuck in rush hour traffic on 128. No traffic and no detours we would have beat the people flying there. But that requires being willing to drive.
When I drove to Syracuse for work, the folks in the office there thought I was nuts for making that 4 1/2 hour drive, since they were insistent that flying was simply less stressful and more convenient. A few weeks later they had to come to New York for work... and they all ended up having to scramble and leave the meeting early because their flight home got cancelled and they were bumped onto an earlier plane. I remember commenting to them "so, you still think flying is more convenient, eh?"
I love those "I told you so" moments. :) But I don't think any of them have changed their minds, since they've already decided they simply don't like driving long distances.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2014, 10:54:35 PM
The route is rather scenic. It follows the Ohio River to the Ashland-Huntington area, then through the Teays Valley to Charleston, then along the Kanawha and New rivers (and through the New River Gorge), then through the mountains and into the Shenandoah Valley. I think the route goes through Charlottesville and Culpeper as well.
I'd like to ride that route, but there's like a two-day turnaround for a round trip.
The route you describe is Amtrak's Cardinal, its single most money losing route. As you might suspect, Amtrak is required to run it by federal law. Since it has another route between DC and Chicago, via Pittsburgh, which it can run every day and which is over 2 hours shorter, no one going from DC to Chicago is going to take it. So it must depend on people that catch it along the way. Meaning more or less, Cincinnati, Indy, and Charleston. Hardly much of a market. A GAO study a few years ago said that they could buy everybody who rode it a free airline ticket and lose less money.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 17, 2014, 11:25:59 PM
Smaller airports receive a subsidy from the federal government. I remember during the sequester that there were fears that some of the smaller, regional airports would have to shutdown.
A better statement would be "the smallest" rather than "smaller". The EAS program subsidizes airlines, not airports, that fly to 117 listed airports (there is a seperate program for Alaska) which had air service in 1979, but which cannot support it in a free market environment. Generally one or two flights per day. The problem with that program is that it tries to freeze the world in 1979, ignoring the fact that population shifts, completion of highways, and better service at nearby airports render this program unneeded in at least 2/3rds of its places. Here in WV, all of the EAS airports are within 70 miles of interstate driving of a non EAS airport with far better service.
I've never taken Amtrak, although it's not for the lack of trying. I would have to drive to a station, which I have both 30th Street in Philly & Wilmington within a half hour. My most likely destinations would be Baltimore or DC. But by the time I've timed my driving to the station at a specific time to catch a specific train, I probably would've been at or near my destination anyway. And most likely I would still have to catch a cab or have a decent walk to get where I need to go in Baltimore. At least in DC I would have the option of the Metro from the train station.
When I go up to NYC, I generally drive to Hamilton or even Metropark and take NJ Transit from there. Amtrak is, at best, 3x the cost. I've looked up if I can get from my home near Philly to NYC solely on mass transit: I can, after about a mile's walk from my house, but I would have to leave NYC no later than 730 or 800pm in order to catch NJ Transit's Riverline train, which stops running at 10pm weeknights.
Going to Florida, another potential destionation, is even worse: When looking at round-trip rates, the base fare is often times higher than a flight, timetable options are more limited, and it probably involves an overnight trip. If I want to get a roomette or somthing, the price goes up so much I'll be spending more for that one night's rest than I will for an entire week's stay at a hotel. And not a Red Roof Inn, but a decent Marriott/Hilton type property.
Aside from all of that, some of it may be unrealistic expectations. We often look at other countries with their 300mph high speed rail systems. Except they aren't going 300 mph...even 200 mph is faster than most (Oh, they're going 300. 300 kmph, not 300 mph). And the average size of those other countries is about the same size at Pennsylvania, where the majority of people live in or near the city. In the US here, because of our extensive road network, people are more spread out. So when people complain that we don't have decent transit options here, it's often times due to their own making. They live a mile back in their large development, and wonder why they can't get their local mass transit agency to give them a bus stop a half-mile away.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2014, 08:44:06 AM
In the US here, because of our extensive road network, people are more spread out. So when people complain that we don't have decent transit options here, it's often times due to their own making. They live a mile back in their large development, and wonder why they can't get their local mass transit agency to give them a bus stop a half-mile away.
No, it's not due to our large road network. We were spread out well before that, and well before the Model T. People lived, at one time, on 160 acres out in the middle of nowhere with the nearest town being 10, 20, 30 miles away. We've always been far more spread out than Europe, and even today, the demographics speak to this. You can go for miles upon miles through the middle of the country, even in an eastern state like Illinois and have small towns spread out away from anything else.
Some of these long distance routes are needed to make Amtrak have any semblance of usefulness at all outside the Northeast.
Only one route serves Oklahoma City: the Heartland Flyer, OKC to Fort Worth. That's it. To go anywhere else requires the Texas Eagle. That being said, system deficiencies still make getting anywhere from OKC pointlessly roundabout–Kansas City via Fort Worth and St Louis, Omaha via Fort Worth, St Louis, and Chicago, and so on.
I'd like to see routes from OKC to Tulsa and Kansas City. True, OKC-Tulsa is only 90 minutes by car, but it would be nice to be able to visit the city without driving. Unfortunately, transit in OKC is terrible (don't know about Tulsa, but I can't see it being any different) so once you get to your destination that might make things dicey as to actually doing anything useful on your trip.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 18, 2014, 01:26:04 PM
Some of these long distance routes are needed to make Amtrak have any semblance of usefulness at all outside the Northeast.
Only one route serves Oklahoma City: the Heartland Flyer, OKC to Fort Worth. That's it. To go anywhere else requires the Texas Eagle. That being said, system deficiencies still make getting anywhere from OKC pointlessly roundabout–Kansas City via Fort Worth and St Louis, Omaha via Fort Worth, St Louis, and Chicago, and so on.
I'd like to see routes from OKC to Tulsa and Kansas City. True, OKC-Tulsa is only 90 minutes by car, but it would be nice to be able to visit the city without driving. Unfortunately, transit in OKC is terrible (don't know about Tulsa, but I can't see it being any different) so once you get to your destination that might make things dicey as to actually doing anything useful on your trip.
Amtrak doesn't seem to be very good at building NEW tracks. Their Northeast tracks were all essentially inherited from now defunct railroad companies.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 18, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
Amtrak doesn't seem to be very good at building NEW tracks. All their tracks were all essentially inherited from now defunct railroad companies.
FTFY
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2014, 01:57:33 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 18, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
Amtrak doesn't seem to be very good at building NEW tracks. All their tracks were all essentially inherited from now defunct railroad companies.
FTFY
Amtrak only owns track in the Northeast. All other track is on rails owned by active (not defunct) railroad companies.
Quote from: Brandon on July 18, 2014, 02:16:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2014, 01:57:33 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 18, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
Amtrak doesn't seem to be very good at building NEW tracks. All their tracks were all essentially inherited from now defunct railroad companies.
FTFY
Amtrak only owns track in the Northeast. All other track is on rails owned by active (not defunct) railroad companies.
Yes, that's true, but the entire system runs on track meant to serve the needs of the 1940s and before, mostly laid by defunct railroads. (I'm assuming not too much new track was laid down between the Second World War and the birth of Amtrak.) Amtrak doesn't build new track because there is no vision for a future beyond the placeholder company it is today.
I rode once, because coach was so much cheaper than renting a car. Seat was comfortable and very wide, so there was a comfortable distance between me and my "seatmate," enough that I didn't feel like he was "in my personal space." Seat reclined to several positions without breaking the next passenger's computer or knees. Each seat has an electrical outlet, individual light & a/c vent. Amtrak staff were courteous and helpful; no TSA "security theater" hassle. Travel time for 200-ish miles was equivalent to the freeway at that time due to freeway construction delays at the time; otherwise it would have been a little longer but not that much; there are sometimes delays on the rail related to freight rail on the same tracks but I did not experience it. I brought lots of stuff to pass the time but I don't think I got out a single book. The windows are wide so easy to look at scenery even from an aisle seat; there are cars designed for viewing with panoramic windows.
It had not occurred to me how much road-geeking was possible from the train but I had so much fun finding the many old alignments, old bridges and odd & unexpected road/rail crossings that I hope to take more train trips with road-geeking and scenery-watching as my primary objective.
Well if someone has a plane phobia, train would be better. I've been meaning to do a train ride to like Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, or even out to Denver
The problem with many of the Amtrak's longer daily routes is that for some towns, the train arrives & departs at a not-so-decent time. The train times are in the dead of night. You can't work a train around every city's daytime schedule. So while Chicagoans have the the prime times for trains arriving and departing, other good-sized cities like Cleveland or Salt Lake City get stuck with red-eye schedules where there are limited services before or after you catch a train in those cities.
My town is fortunate -- the eastbound train comes through around 10 AM, while the westbound train passes through around 4 PM.
I regularly ride Amtrak for trips to New York, Washington, and points in between. The highway traffic is nasty; the trip is short enough that the train is competitive with flying, it's cheap, and I can usually get some work done while on board.
Before I got access to TSA Pre-Check, Amtrak was theoretically on my preferred mode of travel for long distance trips IF driving wasn't a viable option, and if scheduling permitted; I object to the virtual-strip-searches enough that I would only agree to fly only if driving or taking the train was prohibitively impractical. (And if TSA Pre-Check quits working pretty well at keeping me out of the milimeter wave machines, I'll return to that stance.)
On a couple of trips to California, I had the opportunity to fly into Sacramento, visit family, and then take Amtrak into the Bay Area, and that worked out well. I imagine that scattered around the country, there are other examples of Amtrak providing decent regional service.
In college, I used to ride the City of New Orleans overnight between Memphis and Champaign, IL, to get to/from school. I was a poor college student, mostly didn't have a car...so it made sense. I road coach, and boy did you meet an interesting slice of life.
I think the long-distance overnight trains are interesting as "experiences", and I don't doubt there are some people in relatively unique circumstance for whom such trains are the most logical manner of transport... but for most other people, I would imagine that Amtrak is mostly an anachronism when it comes to mode of long-distance travel.
With regards to the long distance routes.... they are a means of traveling for low-income individuals who cannot afford to buy a plane ticket, and whose car might not be in good enough shape to put a lot of miles on it. Alternatively, for the smalltown stations, they are a means of traveling for people who maybe could afford a plane ticket but don't live near a major airport.
If I lived in Minot, North Dakota, and wanted to go to see family in Minneapolis, but I didn't trust my car to reliably make the trip, Amtrak would be a way of making it happen when it might not otherwise be practical.
The problem is that because these towns are small, the number of people described is small, and thus the route can't be profitable.
Poor folk: I would be interested to see the figures on that. Personally, I think poor people travel inter-regionally on Greyhound. It is less expensive than Amtrak, and has a far more extensive route map, and is designed for that market segment. Overlay the route maps and teh bus is just far superior, and the prices are far less. I would think that Amtrak's economic statistics skew towards middle class recreational travelers, mostly old folk.
Tracks: Outside of a small part of the northeast, Amtrak has nothing to do with the ROW. They are a guest of the freight railroads. That was the deal when if was founded. The RRs got to get out of the passenger business, and Amtrak got to use their tracks. The freight RRs spend billions on upgrading their ROW every year and it is of world class quality.
Quote from: SP Cook on July 20, 2014, 07:32:35 AM
Poor folk: I would be interested to see the figures on that. Personally, I think poor people travel inter-regionally on Greyhound. It is less expensive than Amtrak, and has a far more extensive route map, and is designed for that market segment. Overlay the route maps and teh bus is just far superior, and the prices are far less. I would think that Amtrak's economic statistics skew towards middle class recreational travelers, mostly old folk.
Tracks: Outside of a small part of the northeast, Amtrak has nothing to do with the ROW. They are a guest of the freight railroads. That was the deal when if was founded. The RRs got to get out of the passenger business, and Amtrak got to use their tracks. The freight RRs spend billions on upgrading their ROW every year and it is of world class quality.
Whenever I've taken Amtrak, I noticed that most of the "poor" people that I encountered seemed to only get on for a couple of stops and were off. The richer people were the ones who were taking it for any appreciable distance.
And Megabus is starting to under price Greyhound. I saw a bus ticket from Fayetteville, NC to Atlanta, GA for $5 last week.
I last rode Amtrak (Southwest Chief, Newton to Garden City) in 1984. That is the same year I also last rode a local bus in Wichita. I have never ridden an intercity bus with an origin or destination in Wichita, although I have ridden long-distance trains, commuter trains, local buses, and intercity buses in other places. The one time I took a sleeper service was between Lisbon and Cáceres on the Lisbon-Madrid overnight train in June 2010.
In general, I feel trains work better in western Europe and Japan than in North America because the former regions have more world cities in close proximity. However, North America does have regions where large city pairs are geographically close together and interurban rail could work much better than it does now, not just in the Northeast and along the California coast, but also in places like the Texas Triangle (Dallas-Houston-Austin-San Antonio) for which a "Texas TGV" has been proposed, Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Tampa-Orlando, Toronto-Ottawa-Montréal, etc.
A crucial obstacle to such developments, especially in the US, is the balkanization of local transit, which impedes the provision of suitable interfaces between local networks and interurban systems. San Francisco is a classic example: Muni, AC Transit, BART, and Golden Gate Transit don't really interoperate with each other, and Jack London Square doesn't afford anywhere near the same ease of transfer from Caltrain to a local transit system that, say, a London terminus station offers between the railway and either the Underground or London local buses. Even the Philadelphia to New York segment of the DC-Boston megalopolis is another example--in that area you are dealing with SEPTA, NJ Transit, NYC MTA, and umpteen local bus systems, although transfer between interurban and shorter-distance services at union stations is significantly more streamlined than in urban California.
Plus there is the same obstacle as there is to roads (maybe worse): new ROW is not easy to put together.
Airlines are also an obstacle to high speed rail. The "Texas TGV" plan fizzled in part because it was pushed as being potentially profitable, and then Southwest Airlines threatened to undercut it and turn it into a money pit.
The same thing has basically already happened in Europe: you can take a high speed rail train for intercity travel if you want, but plane tickets are usually cheaper than train tickets for any trip that the trains can conveniently serve. The airlines want people to prefer to fly when they travel, and thus they don't want intercity trains to be too successful. And they are willing to operate some routes at a loss in order to achieve this goal.
So, if you want a high speed rail line to really be successful, you also need a regulatory leash on the airline industry that prevents them from skewing their pricing against it.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 20, 2014, 03:40:49 PM
So, if you want a high speed rail line to really be successful, you also need a regulatory leash on the airline industry that prevents them from skewing their pricing against it.
If the consumer benefits in the long run (from cheaper travel from Point A to Point B) then leave well enough alone.
Quote from: billtm on July 17, 2014, 02:41:23 PM
I was looking up different ways to get to different places by comparing airlines, and then when I decided to look up Amtrak as an option I was shocked. For example, Amtrak from Lafayette to Seattle costs $319 and takes two days. While by air from Indy to Seattle costs $242 and takes one day. So why would anyone take the train when it is cheaper and faster to go by air? :confused:
Once upon a time, Amtrak ran through the streets of downtown Lafayette and United Express and Northwest Airlink served the Purdue Airport (that time being ca. 1995), and the IND airport was a little shorter trip from Lafayette than it is now, out I-70 a couple miles from 465. How times have changed. :P
I've used the Northeast Corridor Amtrak for trips like Boston-Wilmington Del. for which it made a lot of sense, but my experience pricing trips from Lafayette on Amtrak to desired destinations never worked out. Either uneconomical or took way too long. For the right destinations, it would have been OK but not for where I was trying to go.
I live in New Britain, CT, about 9 miles southwest of Hartford. We get limited service with Greyhound and Peter Pan innercity busses. I'm not sure how this will change once the New Britain to Hartford Busway opens next year. That roadway won't be used by these busses. The downtown New Britain terminus will be about 2 blocks northeast of where Greyhound and Peter Pan stop now. I just wish they could move G/PP into the new Busway lot instead. Oh well!
Amtrak serves New Britain...sort of. The closest station is in the Kensington section of Berlin. We get service from the shuttle trains between New Haven and Springfield, MA. They're supposed to upgrade and dual track this stretch soon. Work with fiber optic cables, etc. was installed on the bridge in Berlin over Farmington Avenue (CT Route 372) this past spring.
Bradley International Airport (BDL) is in Windsor Locks, CT, roughly 20 miles to my north. When I made flights in 2009 and 2010, I took the CT Transit #41 bus [Might have been "P" back then] to Central Row in downtown Hartford, then walked half a block north to Main and Asylum Streets to catch the connecting Bradley Flyer bus. The problem with this set-up is obvious: The #41 bus does not run on Sundays. In those cases, I would've had to deal with Union Station (Amtrak/Greyhound/Peter Pan) several blocks to the west on Asylum Street. The new Busway wouldn't exactly fix the problem, since it's Hartford terminus would also be Union Station.
As for Amtrak, the farthest I've ever been in one direction is Washington DC's Union Station (yet only to Springfield, MA heading northbound). The farthest I've been with flight one way (by mileage) would be Tampa in 2009. I've only flown to the Central Time Zone twice (Chicago and Nashville).
Quote from: hbelkins on July 20, 2014, 08:30:02 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 20, 2014, 03:40:49 PM
So, if you want a high speed rail line to really be successful, you also need a regulatory leash on the airline industry that prevents them from skewing their pricing against it.
If the consumer benefits in the long run (from cheaper travel from Point A to Point B) then leave well enough alone.
The consumer doesn't benefit when threats from an airline (read: lobbying) prevent infrastructure from being built.
And if said infrastructure is built anyway, the consumer doesn't
really benefit from lower airline ticket prices since the resulting lack of patronage on the rail line would cause more and more of that consumer's tax dollars to have to be pumped into subsidizing it.
The point is that you have an industry which is quite comfy with having a monopoly on speedy intercity travel, and they are going to do everything they can to obstruct the possibility of an alternative coming into existence that would give them more competition. And might force them to treat their customers better if they want to stay in business. Indeed, the need to compete with high speed rail probably helps explain why Asian and European carriers offer a better customer experience than North American carriers do.
Re: TSA Security Theatre: I have actually been subjected to it at the Albany-Rensselaer station. They had actually set up a temporary checkpoint and were going through passengers' luggage (thankfully, mine was already on the train; I had only gotten off to get a snack).
I only knew 3 people who ever took Amtrak:
1) When I still lived in Illinois, my old Minnesota friend took Amtrak down for the weekend, essentially just to say he took the train once.
2) When my uncle Jerry was still alive, he would take Amtrak from suburban Chicago to here in Omaha (and he would take it to my aunt's house in Colorado as well). I couldn't see him ever flying or driving that trip. Flying would cost too much and driving would be too much work.
3) One of my coworkers took the train from Omaha to Burlington, Iowa for some family event. Of course, that doesn't work if the train between Omaha and Chicago doesn't go through Burlington.
Of course, to ever take Amtrak, you have to have the route align itself with your route perfectly. Frankly, I'd rather fly.
As a senior in high school in November, 1991, I went to Washington, DC to participate in the National Young Leaders Conference in Chevy Chase, MD. I had to catch Amtrak's Crescent in Meridian, MS. When I got to Washington Union Sta., I had to call the organizers of the conference to see who was gonna come pick me up. Come to find out, they didn't have any plans made to pick up participants from the train station....they didn't figure anyone would arrive by train. In fact, out of 360 participants, I WAS the only person who came in on the train. Due to the train's schedule, I was the 1st person to show up, and I was the very last to leave.
About 5 years later, one of my classmates youngest brothers was wanting to go to the same program, and asked me to come talk to him about my experiences at the conference. I read through his literature and the very 1st thing that I noticed was that they now had accommodations to pick students up from WSU.
It can be cool to be a trendsetter. :thumbsup:
The Hiawatha Line is the only reason I ever visited Chicago while living in Milwaukee. No construction, no finding parking, no maniacs to deal with on the Tri-State. Plus you can BYOB. My only criticism is that Union Station is a few blocks from the nearest EL stop and one time I got stuck taking that walk in the rain.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2014, 03:47:47 PM
The Hiawatha Line is the only reason I ever visited Chicago while living in Milwaukee. No construction, no finding parking, no maniacs to deal with on the Tri-State. Plus you can BYOB. My only criticism is that Union Station is a few blocks from the nearest EL stop and one time I got stuck taking that walk in the rain.
ALL of the commuter rail stations are blocks away from L stations in Chicago. Either wait for a bus or hot-foot it to get to them. Amazingly Los Angeles has a subway stop at Union Station but Chicago? nope. Grab your umbrella or just suck it up.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 20, 2014, 03:40:49 PMSo, if you want a high speed rail line to really be successful, you also need a regulatory leash on the airline industry that prevents them from skewing their pricing against it.
Good luck with that. The airline industry's been deregulated since 1978.
Quote from: SSOWorld on July 27, 2014, 05:07:17 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2014, 03:47:47 PM
The Hiawatha Line is the only reason I ever visited Chicago while living in Milwaukee. No construction, no finding parking, no maniacs to deal with on the Tri-State. Plus you can BYOB. My only criticism is that Union Station is a few blocks from the nearest EL stop and one time I got stuck taking that walk in the rain.
ALL of the commuter rail stations are blocks away from L stations in Chicago. Either wait for a bus or hot-foot it to get to them. Amazingly Los Angeles has a subway stop at Union Station but Chicago? nope. Grab your umbrella or just suck it up.
Yep. Even O'Hare and Midway have better connections to the L.
I have taken Amtrak twice and I can say it is good, but it was Northeast Regional from the NYC suburbs to Baltimore and Philly. I think Amtrak should focus on 500 mile or less corridors (IE Chicago to KC via STL, San Diego to LA to Vegas, LA to SF, Atlanta to Charlotte) where flying is awkward and some people can't drive. I have some experience on National Rail in the UK and Spain's version of TGV. Both experiences were similar to Amtrak, but National Rail in the UK reminded me of Metro North.
If Amtrak ran between Nampa(/Boise) and Portland, or even Bend, I'd probably use it quite a bit. It's an awkward distance to fly, especially to Bend because there's no direct flight, and when I'm at school I don't always have access to a car (or I'd drive most of the time). The $69 flights from Boise to Portland do come in handy though if my parents are in the area, but more options would be nice.
So, what happens when Amtrak is expecting to have about 85 paying customers board its Acela train at 30th Street Station in Philly, but no one shows up? They could:
A) Find out what's going on...which most likely means the guests were directed to the wrong track, or
B) The engineer could say screw them all, and just leave without them.
Of course, if you guessed B...you're right. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20140805_Report__Amtrak_train_to_Philly_leaves_NYC_without_passengers.html
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 04, 2014, 10:20:42 PM
So, what happens when Amtrak is expecting to have about 85 paying customers board its Acela train at 30th Street Station in Philly, but no one shows up? They could:
A) Find out what's going on...which most likely means the guests were directed to the wrong track, or
B) The engineer could say screw them all, and just leave without them.
Of course, if you guessed B...you're right. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/transportation/20140805_Report__Amtrak_train_to_Philly_leaves_NYC_without_passengers.html
From the article: "The reported snafu came just days after the railroad reported its trains have been late nearly 30 percent of the time in the last 12 months, considerably worse than the year before".
Well, at least they weren't late this time.