Changing Driving Habits ..Implications for Rail Service

I recently relocated again, for employment reasons, to a former home, between Allentown and Reading, Penna. This area is far more caught up in the mix of changing political, social and economic trends, than might appear at first glance. Topton, where live next to the NS Reading Line, is the biirthplace and former home of Caloric kitchen ranges, but the company was acquired by Raytheon and relocation and offshoring becan over twenty years ago. A substantial portion of the farmland remains under the management of old order Amish, but the distributuion warehouses and suburban developments are taking more land, and the displaced locals are buying neglected farmland in outlying counties. And the area is also home to the Rodale Press ...the people who bring you Prevention magazine.

There are implications here for transportation concerns as well. Since a substantial portion of the population is younger than the national average, or indisposed toward the automobile for religious or ideological reasons, bicycles are common for most of the year; the area is home to one of America's few economically-successful velodromes. So it's not particularly suprising that a few of the vehicles referenced by the link below have shown up in town.

http://www.google.com/search?q=smart+ca ... d=0CF8QsAQ

And in my own musings on these ideas, it occurred to me: that while I've probably driven more than a million miles (some for employment reasons) in my lifetime, I have not undertaken a journey of more than 100 muiles from my home base in nearly four years, primarily due to economic considerations. And my own choice of "wheels" has been impelled repeastedly toward efficiency; Galaxie, to Granada, to Fairmont, to Tempo, to my present Ford Focus.

The point I'm trying to raise here is that our personal transportation habits have changed far more over the past forty years than would be immediately acknowledged. The biggest "driving" factoos, the emancipation of women and the increased diversity of the workforce. while they further demonstrate the indispensability of the personal vehicle, do not relate to the supposed American worship of (mechanical) horsepower.

Which again brings me to the point that these conflicting trends .... the need for decentralized passenger transportation and freight distribution, vs an increasing (and primal) pressure for energy efficiency, might one day soon spark serious concern over the highway damage and safety concerns of the largest trucks. If this were to come about, it would have to arise from a "grass-roots"/innocent victim lobbying effort similar to that against drunken driving.

The issue is nowhere near as clear-cut and irreconciable as the motor-carrier lobbyists would have us believe; Tractor-trailer rigs, for example, often hande multiple deliveries which could be divided among smaller vehicles with relatively little loss of efficiency. The reorientation of relay points and/or local distribution outlets is another possibility. For an industry which completely re-invented itself in the post-deregulation years 1977-1985, a return to 40-foot / 60000 GVW standards shouldn't be an impossibility, and the trade-off of excluding small personal autos from the expressways shouldn't be "off the table" if the motor carriers acknowledge (and pay for) their full share of the wear and tear.

Finallty, while out of necessity, my post has been centered upon the implications for freight transportation, it must also be noted that the decreased comfort implied by those much smaller vehicles also can be a strong factor in steering the consumer toward rail-based alternatives for increasingly-shorter distances. Given sufficient time, this strategy, working from the bottom upward, would likely find greater public acceptance than a grandiose HSR plan imposed from the top down.

First of all, the so-called SMART car has been a sales disaster - so bad that Mercedes has had to purchase the American sales network back from Penske. Looking at the dismal fuel economy for such a small car, it's clear that the MCC Smart isn't a harbinger of the future but a failed business venture. If cars that are 3 sizes larger are more efficient and cost competitive, I don't see a future for ridiculous minicars. Your Ford Focus probably represents the size, comfort and performance of a mainstream car in the coming decades. By all appearances, C-segment cars such as the Prius or Civic Hybrid are more efficient that B or A-segment cars. So, while vehicles may shrink, you don't have to worry about 2-seat minicars.

Second, if you haven't traveled more than 100 miles from home in the last 4 years due to economic considerations, you most likely weren't in the market for business travel oriented high speed rail. Using the Acela as an example, HSR fares aren't inexpensive.

Lastly, motorcarriers already pay a disproportionate share of fuel taxes. I also don't see the point in limiting trailers to 40 feet. There's nothing inherently wrong with a 53 foot trailer. Transhipment into smaller delivery vehicles for delivery also doesn't make any sense, since you'd loose more in labor costs from handling the cargo than you'd gain in terms of fuel economy.

As a postscript, public support for HSR will be the greatest in regions where passenger rail is already competitive or dominant - which basically limits the concept to the current NE Corridor.

While the intent of the originator to discuss passenger rail transportation or transportation in general is not eminently clear, it appears that this potentially interesting topic is to stand at this forum.

By no means am I predicting the demise of the motor carrier industry, I do believe the days of long hauls in direct competition with railroads are over. The economics are simply not there to support it; all one need do is view a container train and observe how the array of well known national motor carriers with trailers aboard is ever increasing.

Local and short distance shipments will remain as a core business for the industry; long haul shipments will be there in which direct and expedited point to point delivery is needed - and rates reflecting the premium nature of the service. For example, to get whatever the "must have toy" this year is to be on the shelves at Wally World by "day after Thanx', the "pump could be primed' with trailer loads being assembled at an aerial port after air transport from Asia then sent directly and admittedly more expediently than any rail movement to their distribution centers - and some maybe even direct to the big box outlets. As the "pipeline" starts to flow, the transition to ocean and rail will occur.

$5/ga is making a new world in transportation out there ; I sincerely hope the railroad industry will be up to the task. Wall Street (as well as this author) seems to be placing their bets they will.

disclaimer: author holds long positions CSX KSU NSC UNP - all are YTD S&P "outperform"

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: Second, if you haven't traveled more than 100 miles from home in the last 4 years due to economic considerations, you most likely weren't in the market for business travel oriented high speed rail. Using the Acela as an example, HSR fares aren't inexpensive.

Acela is a bad example. Acela is designed as a premium service for the well-to-do crowd rather than as actual HSR transportation. In the rest of the world, HSR is generally the norm for rail transportation between two cities and it's not exclusive to just business travelers.

trainmaster611 wrote: Acela is a bad example. Acela is designed as a premium service for the well-to-do crowd rather than as actual HSR transportation. In the rest of the world, HSR is generally the norm for rail transportation between two cities and it's not exclusive to just business travelers.

What? The Acela's key market is the business traveler who wants to arrive as quick as possible without the hassle of flying.
.

Cadet57 wrote:

trainmaster611 wrote: Acela is a bad example. Acela is designed as a premium service for the well-to-do crowd rather than as actual HSR transportation. In the rest of the world, HSR is generally the norm for rail transportation between two cities and it's not exclusive to just business travelers.

What? The Acela's key market is the business traveler who wants to arrive as quick as possible without the hassle of flying.
.

I think we're actually in agreement. When I say well-to-do, I mean it's geared towards the upper-middle class and upper class. You're never going to see, let's say an IT worker or an accountant taking the Acela because the pricing is so ludicrous compared to an NEC Regional or the Bolt Bus. They don't even have coach class on the Acela.

To clarify things a bit more, one of the points I'm trying to draw out from the original post is that the market for transportation, both passenger and freight, for-hire and personal, is becoming increasingly diverse, and several segments of that market (i. e''s: truckers vus suburban commuters and rail freight vs passenger) are coming into contact, and conflict more often.This is going to create some new opprtunities, but the rail sector is, by its very nature, both slow and costly to adapt. Still, nost of the really important and successful innovations tend to "come out of left field".

I cited the "Smart" car as an example precisely because it is an extreme case. -- the leading edge of a pursuit of both economy and personal control of mobility, which is not dependent upon government sanction, and which coud come into direct cofrontatiton with the private freight sector's push for larger, heavier vehicles --- pretty much a paralell to the freight vs. passenger conflict on some rail lines.

Please continue, gentlemen.

trainmaster611 wrote:

Cadet57 wrote:

trainmaster611 wrote: Acela is a bad example. Acela is designed as a premium service for the well-to-do crowd rather than as actual HSR transportation. In the rest of the world, HSR is generally the norm for rail transportation between two cities and it's not exclusive to just business travelers.

What? The Acela's key market is the business traveler who wants to arrive as quick as possible without the hassle of flying.
.

I think we're actually in agreement. When I say well-to-do, I mean it's geared towards the upper-middle class and upper class. You're never going to see, let's say an IT worker or an accountant taking the Acela because the pricing is so ludicrous compared to an NEC Regional or the Bolt Bus. They don't even have coach class on the Acela.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to quote the fares, but a quick look at a BOS-NYP trip tomorrow morning yields an Acela fare about $45 more than COACH on the Regional.

2nd tricks "less than 100 mile trips " , are probably more the norm , rather than the exception . i would be surprised if more than 10 % of Auto trips are more than 100 miles . i wouldnt be surprised if less than 5% were . Same statistics for trips with more than 2 occupants in the car .
So here is the market for amtrak . people who downsize their car to suit their daily commute / shopping / lesuire trip , and use public transport for the occasional longer trip . or a combo of train / plane , and a rental car at the destination .
I wonder how many smart cars would fit on the auto train ???
I dont actually like smart cars , i would rather be on a motorbike . i do own two 1998 prius's ( first model , never meant to leave Japan , 10 year battery onto its 13 th year ) , and recomend a hybrid to anyone . the space of a meduim size car , the economy of a "smart car " .

Aside from the places where states pay Amtrak, is commuter rail really something they do?

What specifically is being proposed in the first post?

There is commuter bus service between Allentown and NYC, and plenty of other local public transportation options there.

Railroads have tried to get trucks to pay more user fees for highways, with some success.

Despite John Waynes (usual) negative statements, Smart cars have one major advantage - they are easy to find a place to park them. As a refugee from Redneckistan I have standing to say "Anywhere worth living, it's hard to find a parking place". I'm looking for a new car, and find myself pacing off the length of anything I like.

I'd love the option of taking a train on a trip, but I also love the utility of my Jeep. No reason those concepts have to be mutually exclusive. Amtrak is flawed, but the price point, the fact that I sometimes travel alone to Chicago and points east, and the scenery all make it reasonable. Additional frequencies, WiFi, and more reliable service would make intercity rail very attractive - a faster trip would just be a bonus. I'll drive when I have enough people in the car to make it cost-effective, when I'm going off the rail network, or when I just feel like driving.

For short-distance trips, the same holds true with transit vs. automotive commuting, but that's a topic for another subforum.

spent 2.5 hours sitting on the turnpike yesterday because of an accident near mp 124. we gladly would have taken amtrak if A) it wasn't $100 each and/or B) wasn't 7h40m once a day. as it turns out it would have been better to be on the train but really, the trip should be more like 5.5 hrs three times a day.

Attempting to translate Mr. Suburban Station's immediate "A Google a day" message that was likely posted using some electronic plaything.

It appears he was delayed traveling on the Pennsylvania Turnpike at Mile 124, which is between Sommerset and Bedford, by a collision incident. He would have preferred to take The Pennsylvanian but with a fare in the $100 range and a 7hr 40min trip from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, he chose to use private auto.

Will Dennis Miller be offering me a prize?