Amtrak Expansion Plan

[Rockingham Racer]

Thanks. Apparently, Amtrak believed at the time that passengers arriving on the Cape would somehow get around
using the meager public transit there; or taxis. Google maps currently shows several rental car places. I think it might be worth another try.

[Ridgefielder]

Also, do affluent people not own cars in New York - or is it much more middle class and lower? My hunch is that the rail service to the Hamptons that you described is popular because of traffic congestion rather than because people don't own cars. Many people on the train probably have cars kept in the Hamptons. The drive from Manhattan to the Hamptons in the summer can be absolutely atrocious.

I personally know of families living in NYC with annual incomes in the top 5% nationally who either don't own cars, or own one car that stays in the country. If anything, it's gotten more prevalent with the spread of things like Zipcar and the skyrocketing cost of garaging a car in Manhattan: the cheap outdoor lots that used to cover places like the old New York Central 60th Street Yards have all been bought up and covered with highrises, and space in a garage in a place like the Upper East Side can run $500-$1,000/month.

[Arlington]

Manhattan households are 76% car free
Brooklyn households are 56% car free
And these are reasonably prosperous people, by national standards
http://blog.tstc.org/2017/04/21/car-free-new-york-city/

But there's also no question that poorer households tend to be more car-free.

Even so, for the rich household, having 1 car, good for a getaway to the Hamptons or the Catskills can still mean that one household member gets "the car" and another has to make the trip by train. This is still a powerful contrast to the rest of the USA where we're converging on 1 adult == 1 car.

The Manhattan rich dudes I know have 1 car kept in the city, 1 car kept at the country/beach/mountain house, and "the family" takes the city car, full of kids and stuff, out to "the house" when the kids are not in school, while "the dad" who lives in "the apartment" joins by train (or plane) later (and "the dad" only drives a car when not in the city, and not to-from the city).

So I'd say that even the "1-car" (or only-1-car-in-the-City) households can still be considered "affluent adults without a car" at least some of the time.

[Tadman]

Good commentary. The concept of "car free" should also include 1 car, which is a totally different ball game for a big family than having 2+cars.

Honestly? I wish I was car free. In New Orleans, I did it for two years. I never did it in Chicago, but it was before uber and I had a dog. Now I'd seriously consider it. I only needed a car in western Michigan and/or Lawrence, Kansas, where a car is absolutely necessary to go farther than the little downtown.

As a guy that does okay at work, I still think cars are EXPENSIVE and totally wasteful. What else would you buy for $30k+ that is guaranteed to lose 1/3 value every year? I cheap out on cars for a good reason. That money is better spent elsewhere or saved. My politics are no secret around here, so this may come as a surprise, but I'm also a cheapskate some days and days when I think about cars are usually cheapskate days.

But we're going to see a sea change in car ownership patterns in the next decade which will influence rail travel plans.

Automakers, after fifty years otherwise, are seeking to de-content cars rather than add content.

Ride sharing is changing patterns. Perhaps electric and autonomous cars will continue to do so.

We will likely see the day where a family has 0-1 cars in mid-size cities like South Bend or Duluth, and an autonomous car subscription is the way for regular travelers to get around to school and work. If those in full time jobs and education programs have a 30 minute commute each day and that's their major travel, why pay $40k for a car that is used 1 hour a day?

[mtuandrew]

Chalk me up as another member of the one-car, two-people club. Washington DC has good transit and bus access (when it isn’t on fire) and a lot of ride-share and taxi drivers even far outside the Beltway.

Were I in Minnesota again, I might still own my own SUV or crossover and be a two-car two-person household. I doubt I’ll ever be in that situation again though, which bodes well for my use of Amtrak and other public transport options.

[bostontrainguy]

We have been a one-car two-person family for a long long time. Living in Boston I needed a car since I actually drove a trolley and ended most of my shifts after the last train left for the return trip. So I had no choice even though we lived a ten minute walk from one of the stations.

My wife on the other hand walked to a bus stop five minutes from the house for a bus that literally stopped in front of her first job and then across the street from a more recent job.

Now we have retired and moved to The Villages in Florida where most people actually drive "golf cars" to get around (don't call them carts around here). There are golf car roads all throughout this massive community. So she will probably never ever get a license!

villages.jpg (291.93 KiB) Viewed 1206 times

https://golfcartresource.com/villages-l ... ity-world/

[east point]

Have daughter and spouse + part time son live in Denver. Have one car. They are going on a long car trip. So they are renting a car instead of using their own car so they do now wear their car out..

[exvalley]

Ride sharing is changing patterns. Perhaps electric and autonomous cars will continue to do so.

I recently attended a presentation by someone who is an absolute authority on the state of autonomous vehicle technology. They said that wide scale adoption of truly autonomous cars is "decades away." We are very good at getting the vehicles to do 95% of what they need to do in ideal conditions, but it is the last five percent that is proving to be elusive - and the fact that not everyone drives in sunny California or Arizona.

If you are a fan of passenger rail, that's not necessarily bad news. Truly autonomous vehicles will open up automobile travel to many more people - at prices well below what we see today. They will also reduce the traffic congestion that makes the train an appealing alternative.

[exvalley]

But there's also no question that poorer households tend to be more car-free.

I went ahead and looked up the stats for Manhattan. The most recent I could find were from 2017.

Here is what they show:

- 76.6% of Manhattan households are car-free
- Median Household Income: $75,575
- Median Income of Households with Vehicle(s): $134,000
- Median Income of Households with No Vehicles $69,630

The fact that wealthier homes are more likely to own an automobile shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

[Suburban Station]

Amtrak launched the Cape Codder on July 3, 1986. The original schedule included four trains weekly: trains from New York to Hyannis on Friday evening (#272) and Saturday morning (#270), and trains from Hyannis to New York on Saturday (#271) and Sunday afternoon (#273).

Why did it not continue?

It did last 10 years.

This is from Wikipedia:

Amtrak did not resume the Cape Codder for the 1997 season. The limited schedule, coupled with the fact that passengers found it difficult to navigate the Cape without an automobile, discouraged potential passengers. The service carried just 1,200 passengers in 1996, representing a 50% drop from 1995.

I do believe things have changed since 1996. WIth the CapeFlyer now running successfully, there are many transportation options once you get to the Cape.

agreed, the ferry services are fairly robust. I've taken the cape flyer and it was very convenient to walk down to the ferry terminal. a fellow passenger had brought a bike onboard and was going to bike to p-town and take the ferry back to boston (two days later). I've taken the train to new london as well to catch the block island ferry. that said, there's now robust ferry service in new bedford which might make more sense from new york and points south. perhaps hyannis would be best served by coordinated schedules and through ticketing for the cape flyer.

[gokeefe]

Guessing you mean (Wisconsin) Dells, George.

No, I intentionally gave an example across state lines ... Maine pays for service through New Hampshire and into Massachusetts without operational cost sharing from New Hampshire.

Wisconsin could just as well choose to pay for a train running through another state as they could weekend service to Wisconsin Dells. The real question then becomes feasibility and funding. If the logistics are difficult then the costs associated with this will be very high.

[Arlington]

Truly autonomous vehicles will open up automobile travel to many more people - at prices well below what we see today. They will also reduce the traffic congestion that makes the train an appealing alternative.

I agree with the first sentence so I disagree with the second.

Agree: AVs lower the human cost of driving. When costs fall, people consume more. Ergo AVs will induce people to both travel more and to shift trips from other modes to driving.

By contrast: increased demand & fixed supply == congestion (we've already seen this with Uber/Lyft in city centers). Given the political, financial, and physical barriers to adding road capacity/supply, AV-induced demand will actually make road congestion both *worse* and more tolerable & acceptable (you'll sleep or work through it) and numb the urgency of congestion relief.

The opportunity for trains comes where reliably beating congestion is still valuable: whenever you have two needs to be there that are so close together in time that a slow AV trip is unacceptable.

[mtuandrew]

No, I intentionally gave an example across state lines ... Maine pays for service through New Hampshire and into Massachusetts without operational cost sharing from New Hampshire.

Wisconsin could just as well choose to pay for a train running through another state as they could weekend service to Wisconsin Dells. The real question then becomes feasibility and funding. If the logistics are difficult then the costs associated with this will be very high.

Oh. Sorry for the misstatement!

Wisconsin will definitely be partially funding a day train to Minneapolis-St. Paul; it gets enough utility from the route segment between Kenosha and La Crosse, not to mention the connections for Wisconsin travelers to the major hubs at MSP and CHI. I still don’t think a direct DUL/SUP (not sure on Superior’s old station code, it isn’t in the Amtrak system anymore) train is the right move for Wisconsin versus Madison or Green Bay, but I suppose it’s possible because it serves a good number of Wisconsin cities along the way.

A good analogy would be a MnDOT-funded train from MSP to Winnipeg via GFK. Even though the route dodges in and out of the state, it would serve Minnesota destinations like St. Cloud, Detroit Lakes, and Crookston; it also serves metro areas that directly adjoin and include instate destinations (East Grand Forks and Moorhead.)

[gokeefe]

Truly autonomous vehicles will open up automobile travel to many more people - at prices well below what we see today. They will also reduce the traffic congestion that makes the train an appealing alternative.

I agree with the first sentence so I disagree with the second.

Agree: AVs lower the human cost of driving. When costs fall, people consume more. Ergo AVs will induce people to both travel more and to shift trips from other modes to driving.

By contrast: increased demand & fixed supply == congestion (we've already seen this with Uber/Lyft in city centers). Given the political, financial, and physical barriers to adding road capacity/supply, AV-induced demand will actually make road congestion both *worse* and more tolerable & acceptable (you'll sleep or work through it) and numb the urgency of congestion relief.

The opportunity for trains comes where reliably beating congestion is still valuable: whenever you have two needs to be there that are so close together in time that a slow AV trip is unacceptable.

I'm very much with Arlington on most of this issue. Lower costs for auto travel will induce greater demand from consumers at every income tier. Autonomous vehicles in particular have major implications for individuals with mobility issues who are currently constrained in their ability to travel. It radically alters the balance of power between passengers and the mode of travel. Think of all the senior citizens who can't drive (especially those becoming senior citizens in the next 20 years) who will not want to accept the loss of mobility.

Especially in Maine (oldest state in the country) the significance of this change is difficult to overstate.

I disagree with the idea that AVs will make congestion more acceptable to most users. I think that is likely to be a fringe benefit for some but ultimately intolerable for most.

For Amtrak this change then becomes highly significant to their business model as it appears likely that AVs will become a source of increased passenger traffic by removing barriers to access for the passengers who are most likely to consider Amtrak's lower priced conventional speed services. AVs won't be cheap forong distance travel but for "last mile" they will be far cheaper than many alternatives and more accessible as well.

[exvalley]

I disagree with the idea that AVs will make congestion more acceptable to most users. I think that is likely to be a fringe benefit for some but ultimately intolerable for most.

It's complicated. On the one hand, autonomous vehicles may increase congestion through increased presence on the roadways. For example, in Manhattan it may be cheaper to have your car drive around instead of paying to park if you are ducking into a store. On the other hand, much of our traffic congestion is present because humans engage in driving behavior that exacerbates traffic congestion. Autonomous vehicles can be programmed to operate in a way that reduces the likelihood of congestion.

This article explains some of the latter concepts: https://www.wired.com/wiredinsider/2019 ... ffic-woes/