Amtrak vs Flying

Gilbert B Norman wrote:should naivete such as NARP's "vision" ever move forth, there will be no appreciable change from the 99%. I highly doubt if the typical family in my affluent Chicago suburb is going to head to Union Station rather than O'Hare (or in some cases, load up and put the DVD's in the SUV's player - but it seems like most families I know fly to their Winter and Spring vacation destinations) to start their vacation travels - they're just not.

Eeeeeeasy, now.

Life does not begin and end at a single Chicago suburb. Cities are being revitalized, and that will likely continue (gas prices have rather abruptly stopped their free fall, at least around here). As I have stated, when I lived within walking distance of my local station, it was truly more convenient to do one-nighters on the train than to take a red-eye flight (though cost was a different story), and more people will likely live closer to these downtown stations in the future. The three itineraries I remember were Baltimore-Savannah, Baltimore-Boston, and Baltimore-Atlanta. That is not the railfan in me talking, it is simply a reasonable preference. Don't believe me? I took a good friend of mine, who couldn't have cared less if Amtrak even existed, on the Atlanta trip, and he liked it very much (though he still doesn't believe me when I remind him it was ~14 hours; ah, sleepers). Is this two-person example scientific? Perhaps not, but it's no worse than the "I don't take long distance trains, so no one else should, either" argument that seems to pop up monthly around here.

I have no problem noting that today's chronically undependable, under-equipped sleeper trains are difficult to justify. And I'm not suggesting that NARP's thick-magic-marker plan remotely resembles even my railfan-side's "vision." Finally, I'm not saying that better overnight trains are "the way of the future," with packed, 20-car monsters running in two sections all over the country, hauling 35% of all travelers. I simply believe that with some investment, they could fill a small, but important niche market in the future.

x-press wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:should naivete such as NARP's "vision" ever move forth, there will be no appreciable change from the 99%. I highly doubt if the typical family in my affluent Chicago suburb is going to head to Union Station rather than O'Hare (or in some cases, load up and put the DVD's in the SUV's player - but it seems like most families I know fly to their Winter and Spring vacation destinations) to start their vacation travels - they're just not.

Eeeeeeasy, now.

Life does not begin and end at a single Chicago suburb. Cities are being revitalized, and that will likely continue (gas prices have rather abruptly stopped their free fall, at least around here). As I have stated, when I lived within walking distance of my local station, it was truly more convenient to do one-nighters on the train than to take a red-eye flight (though cost was a different story), and more people will likely live closer to these downtown stations in the future. The three itineraries I remember were Baltimore-Savannah, Baltimore-Boston, and Baltimore-Atlanta. That is not the railfan in me talking, it is simply a reasonable preference. Don't believe me? I took a good friend of mine, who couldn't have cared less if Amtrak even existed, on the Atlanta trip, and he liked it very much (though he still doesn't believe me when I remind him it was ~14 hours; ah, sleepers). Is this two-person example scientific? Perhaps not, but it's no worse than the "I don't take long distance trains, so no one else should, either" argument that seems to pop up monthly around here.

I have no problem noting that today's chronically undependable, under-equipped sleeper trains are difficult to justify. And I'm not suggesting that NARP's thick-magic-marker plan remotely resembles even my railfan-side's "vision." Finally, I'm not saying that better overnight trains are "the way of the future," with packed, 20-car monsters running in two sections all over the country, hauling 35% of all travelers. I simply believe that with some investment, they could fill a small, but important niche market in the future.

All good points but I still consider it speculative to say that people are more likely to live near downtown rail stations in the future. Baltimore Penn, being in a somewhat residential area, is not very representative of most other situations.

The ideological question has always been... why should taxpayers shell out 40 to 50% of an LD passenger's ticket price when alternatives usually exist that cost taxpayers little if anything? Yes, I know there's been a constant debate about whether air travel is subsidized or not but any reasonable person would have to admit that if all of the various government taxes and fees that are added on to an air ticket don't cover the true system costs, at least it comes quite close.

Let's concentrate the available money for rail transport to better meeting needs that rail can best meet. Going from New York to LA or something like that certainly isn't one of them. Further, I don't see how the NARP (all three of them?) can have a relevant voice until they, too, start focusing on what rail can best do. Until then they just look like selfish pork-grabbers.

MudLake wrote:Yes, I know there's been a constant debate about whether air travel is subsidized or not but any reasonable person would have to admit that if all of the various government taxes and fees that are added on to an air ticket don't cover the true system costs, at least it comes quite close.

Let's concentrate the available money for rail transport to better meeting needs that rail can best meet. Going from New York to LA or something like that certainly isn't one of them. Further, I don't see how the NARP (all three of them?) can have a relevant voice until they, too, start focusing on what rail can best do. Until then they just look like selfish pork-grabbers.

The other two NARP members and I have a question for you; If the various government taxes and fees added to an air ticket come close to paying for the true system costs, why does the government appropriate around $17 billion dollars of taxpayer money to air travel?

Nasadowsk wrote: * I didn't other with NJT or Amtrak anyway - there's NO up to date information around the airport for connecting trains, and in my experience, both are useless during the rush. Not knowing when or if a train was going to arrive, I hopped a ride with my traveling buddy, how was driving back up to Bergen county - he dumped me at Newark Penn, where I got PATH to NYC.

As others have said, there is information on trains to NYP and ticket kiosks at the escalators to the AirTrain. By the time your driving buddy got you to Newark Penn, you could have been getting on your LIRR train in NYP. I've traveled around the world to many airports that have rail links and the service at EWR is very good. I make regular trips to Bergen County, NJ and use the train from EWR instead of driving. That guy did you a BIG favor by dropping you off at Newark Penn. He could have been halfway home on the Turnpike by the time he got you to downtown Newark.

As far as the off topic remarks on the long wait for checked baggage, this is very typical at EWR, along with frequent delays. It has one of the worst on time records of any US airport. It has lots of traffic and only three runways. Unless there are strong east-west winds, runway 11/29 is rarely used.

Getting back on topic, I chose Amtrak over flying for a trip from LAX to ABQ. Here were my options:

Hotel, one night in LA $100
Dinner in LA $ 40
Shuttle to LAX $ 6
Breakfast $ 10
Fly LAX to ABQ $140
Shuttle from ABQ $ 11
Total: $267

Southwest Chief LAX to ABQ
Roomette w/meals $212

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I was in no mood for an "adventure" which simply is what any long distance Amtrak or auto trip represents. ..... Within twenty minutes of arrival at KPBI, Hertz had given me a bus ride to their facility and "put me in the driver's seat", from which i doubled back to the cell phone waiting area for my Sister's call saying she had arrived from KLGA.

Now in all fairness, I should acknowledge that for four days "down below', there was no need whatever for any checking of baggage (and paying the $25 pop for so doing). I have long subscribed to the maxim of "if you can't carry it, don't bring it", and for the journey, which did include going out to Dinner at upscale restaurants each evening but on the other hand recognizing the considerably relaxed dress codes of contemporary society, an over the shoulder Samsonite bag along with a "tote' bag as my "personal' (in TSAese) bag, there was nothing I missed not having on the journey. That of course reduced my 'hold time' at both KORD and KPBI.

Finally, allow me to again note LD rail travel IS an option that I consider whenever making a journey, but it must be convenient to my travel needs and I must be "in the mood', which in view of 'all the stuff on the plate', was simply not the case with this journey. Nothing whatever has occurred to have me modify my long standing "more positives than negatives' overall evaluation of Amtrak travel.

I'll say it again, ride a day in a fatman's body and then tell me what's more comfortable, esp. when using the restroom...I was on a small plane once, the bathroom was basically a closet.

F40CFan wrote:

MudLake wrote:Yes, I know there's been a constant debate about whether air travel is subsidized or not but any reasonable person would have to admit that if all of the various government taxes and fees that are added on to an air ticket don't cover the true system costs, at least it comes quite close.

Let's concentrate the available money for rail transport to better meeting needs that rail can best meet. Going from New York to LA or something like that certainly isn't one of them. Further, I don't see how the NARP (all three of them?) can have a relevant voice until they, too, start focusing on what rail can best do. Until then they just look like selfish pork-grabbers.

The other two NARP members and I have a question for you; If the various government taxes and fees added to an air ticket come close to paying for the true system costs, why does the government appropriate around $17 billion dollars of taxpayer money to air travel?

Last I saw, it was $14.6 billion but where do you think most of that money comes from? (answer: users)

Maybe this graph will adequately demonstrate relative subsidies:

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_sub ... re_02.html

Let's face it, it is not an "either/or" issue. While I will not be disappointed if I never step foot on an airplane again in my life, I realize that there are times when flying is absolutely necessary. "Long distance" rail travel should not be in the same category as shorter distance "regional" rail travel. I am one who realizes that there is not likely to be any significant change long distance rail travel other than perhaps more capacity and a couple of new routes. That being said, I expect some real changes in regional rail travel (distances of 500 miles or less). Those shorter trips absolutely can be competitive with driving or flying. Clearly, to make that happen, there needs to be some creative thinking about new or upgraded, dedicated rights of way for passenger trains.

All of this needs to happen within the parameters of regional planning. Dropping a passenger rail route into the landscape is, by itself, going to be useless. Incorporating it into a regional (or state) urban management plan will work, just as the same concept has worked for highways. When people start talking this way, we can expect the usual "just say no" jibberish about "boondoggles" and "pork". Most of that stuff needs to be generally ignored (with the understanding that those complaints do usually contain some particle of truth that needs attention in the process). There were truckers who objected to the interstate highway system as merely a boondoggle to satisfy vacationers. Talk about short sighted.

It is not a case of "build it and they will come". Urban planning is more of "build it so they have to come". Cities, as we now know, must be well planned and managed. Transit is a key component in that process.

MudLake wrote: Maybe this graph will adequately demonstrate relative subsidies:

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_sub ... re_02.html

I agree with your overall point, MudLake, that rail travel will basically never compete with air for long distance travel. And that comparison of a ~6000 mile rail journey to a ~30,000 airplane route is not a equal comparison.

Rail is an excellent option (equal or better than air depending on details) for regional/corridor travel, but for cross-country type situations, its a niche for fans who have a lax schedule, not a serious option for the average family or business traveler who has time limitations and doesn't consider the trip part of the vacation (note: this doesn't mean LD routes aren't important, but more so for people traveling for part of their length, not end-to-end).

However, I'm not sure that 'passenger miles' is the best metric. Of course that will benefit those that modes that travel further distances over those that go shorter.
(Note: highway is very low due to the do-it-yourself cost and effort factors - there's no need to subsidize cars & operators, individuals pay for that themselves)

A question of cost per passenger (rather than passenger-mile) might be another interesting data point, and arguably more relevant. I wouldn't be surprised if air was still lower, but I feel it would be another important graph.

Give me a direct flight from either Myrtle Beach or Wilmington, NC to Baltimore for $49 and I'll take it. But there are no direct flgihts and even the 1 stops that go to Charlotte first are more expensive. So for me the train works.

My comparison was not intended to compare air vs. rail for the two trips in terms of mileage, but to illustrate that for similar travel times, the train is a preferred option. Doing a day or two on a train is nothing compared to 15 hours on a plane.

I also agree that rail travel won't compete with air travel for long distances, and there's no reason there should be any competition. That doesn't mean that there should be no LD network though.

FatNoah wrote:Doing a day or two on a train is nothing compared to 15 hours on a plane.

13 hours 30 minutes Dallas to Seoul

14 hours 30 minutes Seoul to Atlanta

I can easily attest to what Mr Noah states.

BTW: Coach seats on international flights are just as tight and cramped in my estimation as most domestic flights.

All true, but how does 14 hours on a plane compare to five days on a steamer?

I've done the JFK - Bangkok run (in business class) and 18 hours in a chair is still 18 hours in a chair, even if it's a Barcalounger. But planes are absolutely indispensible for getting places in a reasonable time. And they're often cheaper than Amtrak. I'm flying to Manchester (NH) in April and driving from there to Vermont, because Southwest wanted only about half Amtrak's price, and I can leave Saturday morning rather than spending all day Friday on the train.

Some of us have a high time value.

I'll respect if this material is killed, but could Amtrak even consider such a revenue source?

I don't think so, and I somehow think this overseas low fare airline will "scuttle' this one;

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 9064.story

"Buddy can you spare a Quid?"

O'Leary is the main spokesmouth of the airline. He has a tendency to mouth off abuse of his potential customers whom clearly he despises. Nothing would induce me to get into one of his planes. Later today another spokesman implied he was just flying a balloon, and that the airline had no intention of charging for that function.

They already charge extra for baggage, food and drink and some other things. Their low fares are probably not as low as they seem. However, as far as I know they are still profitable and may well live longer than many of their imitators, quite a few of whom have ceased in the last year.

For any European destination I would take the train or the ferry.

FatNoah wrote:My comparison was not intended to compare air vs. rail for the two trips in terms of mileage, but to illustrate that for similar travel times, the train is a preferred option. Doing a day or two on a train is nothing compared to 15 hours on a plane.

Yes, but its still a false choice. No one has ever face the decision "gee, should I go NY to Atlanta on a train or NY to Seoul on a plane?" Rather the choice in question is "should I go NY to Atlanta on a plane with a 2.5 hour flight plus airport check-in & security time, or NY to Atlanta on a train in 15 hours?" Train accommodations are much nicer and the travel is much more interesting, but their competition is still limited to regional service.

I also agree that rail travel won't compete with air travel for long distances, and there's no reason there should be any competition. That doesn't mean that there should be no LD network though.

I agreed, the LD trains are perfectly useful for people going part of the route, and for rail fans who enjoy the experience.