Pajamas Media

159 Comments

1. Whitehall:

Trains will ever retain two passenger markets – the neurotic and the obese.

The first are too afraid of flying that they’ll eat the time. The second eat so much that they don’t fit in airline seats.

I hate to agree with the conclusion, as I too love train travel, but long distance rail travel is a hobby, not a business option. I would note that compartment prices are per compartment so a couple or a family traveling together could have a lower per-passenger rate.

Besides, anyone ever made love in a train?

Jun 24, 2008 - 11:46 am 2. Joe:

Well, my wife and I traveled on the train for our honeymoon ….

Amtrak doesn’t however reliably provide the level of service, to make that kind of travel a market for most people. You have to leave a lot of slack in your schedule, because they do not run on time. Service may be spotty, the trip tends to be a adventure in of itself. But when you are alone with your love in a private cabin the luggage the redcap left on the platform may not matter.

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:11 pm 3. Quick:

Your point is well taken that American-scale distances make intercontinental train travel impractical. But the speed of the vehicle is not the only limiting factor.

The time involved in driving to the airport, parking, security, layovers, weather delays and cancellation, waiting for luggage, etc., are also significant. For shorter or medium distances, they’re much longer than actual air time.

Admittedly, train travel involves many of the same delays. Plus, the current Amtrak schedule seems more political than efficient. It seems to stop at every town with more than 7 residents, including dogs. It’s going to lose money anyway, so who cares, right?

Using your figures, the Denver-New York train averages just 18 miles/hour. The Denver-New York flight averages less than 91 miles/hour. A more extensive, efficient network could bring the rail time to within shouting distance of the air time.

That may not help you much in Denver–Denver is pretty far from other major cities–but it might make medium distance train travel competitive–say, from Chicago to New York.

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:19 pm 4. ParisParamus:

I agree with your assertions; still, we could do a lot better with trains in the suburbs and exurbs, and even in densely populated inter-city corridors. OR, if we can’t, we should at least give it a serious try, and not the quarter-hearted try we have until now.

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:20 pm 5. Brian:

An excellent article that I happen to agree with completely. Passenger rail only makes sense between cities that are within 300 miles or so. Plus the cost to start from scratch or even upgrade current passenger rail corridors is tremendous, in the multi-billions of dollars.

I wouldn’t agree though that freight is in that great of shape. Serious bottlenecks exist all over the system that are driving up shipping costs. CSX and UP are making strides to upgrade key routes as is NS but as the price of fuel goes up, more and more truck loads are being switched to rail. That makes long distance passenger rail even harder to make work.

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:32 pm 6. TomJW:

If train travel is to be competitive, let it dump the unprofitable lines and destinations. If it is only profitable in the northeast, then that’s the only place it can serve.

Believing it is a good idea we should support in any way, shape or form is a waste of resources. The NY/DC run could be the backbone of reborn passenger line. Then let it expand from there.

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:38 pm 7. Don Ciccio:

Yes, but why not build TGVs for routes that can be profitable like Washington-NY, NY-Boston, even NY-Chicago? And let airlines handle the long distance flights!

Jun 24, 2008 - 12:45 pm 8. Charlie (Colorado):

Quick, my plane travel times include to/from the airport and security check time, assuming you start downtown in each case. Figuring out what the average mph is didn’t occur to me; those numbers are awful.

I agree with most everyone else that there are a few inter-city lines that do make sense — the east coast corridor for sure; NY-Chicago I think is *barely* potentially competitive, although Megan at one point (after I turned in this article) suggested a more straight-line route than what a current NY-Chicago train would take. That makes it look a lot more competitive, but neglects the cost of buying more than 1200 miles of right-of-way.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:05 pm 9. Why Trains Won’t Work | Explorations:

[...] new post on [...]

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:09 pm 10. Colin:

Yes, but…
What about a decent passenger rail system that services regions? Persumably such a system could be planned to be more efficent than the current (non) service of greyhound?

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:21 pm 11. jay:

Who says we need to have a national rail service?

Couldn’t we improve our transportation infrastructure if we built high speech connections between highly traveled corridors?

IE: Boston-NYC-Philly-Baltimore-DC-Richmond

Charlotte-Atlanta-Birmingham

LA-San Diego-San Francisco

Austin-Dallas

Build connections between closely located large cities in dense areas and then slowly expand.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:23 pm 12. Amphipolis:

My daughter was able to commute to her summer job by train. It cost her employer less than a parking pass. She loved it – until the train was over an hour late.

Freedom is a wonderful thing.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:23 pm 13. KenB:

The article makes sense, and I suspect it’s correct. That still leaves the northeast and a few other niche markets. A niche not often considered outside Texas is the Texas Triangle: Dallas to San Antonio to Houston to Dallas.

Southwest Airlines doesn’t want to see that exploited. And the infrastructure costs would be huge.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:31 pm 14. Nahanni:

You want to see rail travel work in this country?

Take it out of the hands of the federal government.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:32 pm 15. jt:

I’ve been taking trains from Boston to NY, on and off, for more than 30 years. In that time, there’s been a huge investment in technology, the roadbed, the cars, etc. But the net savings in time (and this is only for the higher-priced express trains) is maybe half an hour. It turns out that the route is so twisty that even the fastest trains can only run fast on a few stretches of track. To get serious speed, Amtrack would have to buy hundreds of miles of new right-of-way–mostly prime shoreline real estate in Connecticut. Never happen.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:35 pm 16. Vermont Woodchuck:

No, excise taxes are not needed. Simply stop subsidizing the airlines. Make them pay for their security, pay for the ATC’s and pay for the air rights like the RR’s have to for track right of way. Why not make them pay for the terminals and move general aviation to smaller airports near convenient railroad stations for the trip to the city.

Putting the airlines on the same footing as the trains as to operating outlays changes the dynamic quickly.

Rail travel is so far more dignified. I too grew up with grandparents and uncles who drove Baldwins and Consolidateds.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:39 pm 17. Marco:

While I understand why you picked it (I think) Denver doesn’t seem to me the best destination to use when trying to figure out where trains could be a good substitute.

The data on this page seem to be 2006, but it’s difficult to tell:

http://airlines.ws/airline-routes.htm

Of the top ten, the following could be profitable, I think:

New York–Boston
New York–Washington D.C.

While a couple others would be marginal, maybe:

New York–Chicago
New York–Atlanta

And no-frills versions of

New York–Orlando
New York–Ft. Lauderdale
New York–Miami

would be good for seniors and others not in a big hurry.

But the rail trip from Honolulu to Kahului, Maui (bridge or tunnel?) would be really cool, doncha think?

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:46 pm 18. miles:

If trains offered unrestricted smoking, top-shelf liquor at bargain prices, and Myrna Loys patrolling the aisles, I’d never see the inside of a plane again.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:49 pm 19. Mike_K:

With rising fuel costs the north-south routes may be more realistic even on the West Coast. I use the train into Los Angeles from Orange County, about 6 miles. Part of the problem when you start discussing commuter rail is the politics. For example, Los Angeles has been spending billions on a combined light rail and subway system but the system does not serve Los Angeles Airport ! Why ? Apparently, when it was being designed, the taxi and shuttle bus companies placed some very strategic campaign contributions.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:51 pm 20. Alexander D. Mitchell IV:

Mr. Martin unfortunately left out another factor in the equations: The rail networks in the countries usually held up as prime examples of excellent rail service–Japan, Germany, France, Britain, etc.–are heavily subsidized by their respective governments, to the tune of billions of dollars a year (much higher than the per-capita cost of Amtrak per citizen). Although the formerly nationalized passenger and freight rail companies that used to prevail have been broken up as part of the European Union agreements, the actual rail infrastructures themselves–tunnels, tracks, bridges, etc.–are still considered national infrastructure, just like our Interstate highways and air traffic control network (but not the railroads, for the most part) in the USA. To make the playing field completely fair in comparing “us vs. them” would involve “nationalizing” America’s 140,000+ route-miles of track. Given how much our nation already neglects the interstate highways, bridges, and other infrastructure, do we really want them maintaining the railroads?

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:52 pm 21. will:

Sadly, I agree with you Charlie. The real flaw in the Amtrak system is that it tries to be a national system; and Air has that beat for urgent travel, and cars for less urgent travel.

Regional rail, with interconnections to airports, should be the goal.
Think Denver north to Cheyenne and south to Albuquerque. Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin and New Orleans grouped together. Likewise St. Louis, KC, Chicago. The Northeastern corridor. Make it easy to fly into a big regional airport (like DIA, DFW, O’Hare) and get onto a train going to your final destination.

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:52 pm 22. TW Andrews:

This is a point that I try to make to my wife (who grew up in Basel, and who I met while I was living there) frequently. She complains vigorously that public transportation in the US is terrible. She’s not wrong, but connecting the US via rail networks is just a different class of problem than doing it for Switzerland.

And even Europe is not as connected via as many people might think. To go from Seville, Spain to Berlin, Germany is 30+ hours. That’s only about 1300km, or 780 miles. No one except Americans studying abroad would ever use a train to go to Seville from Berlin. That’s what EasyJet is for.

If you move into Eastern Europe to get distances comparable to the US, it becomes even sillier to think of the train as a viable form of long distance transport. Mostly when people talk about trains through Europe, they’re referring to a handful of densely populated, geographically small countries and regions (England, Benelux, southern Scandinavia, France, Germany, Switzerland, northern Italy, and perhaps Spain, though I guess that far more people arrive in Spain via plane than via train). That’s not nothing, but those countries/regions hardly constitute all of Europe.

All that said, the US could do more to build rail infrastructure where it makes sense. I’d love to see top-notch rail networks here on the East coast, in the Bay Area, the Great Lakes / Midwest (Toronto + Detroit + Chicago + Cinnci + Indy + Pittsburg), and wherever in the south it makes sense. But connecting these networks with anything more than the occasional passenger train would be foolishness (though it would make bloody good sense to have train stations WHERE YOU CAN GET THE FAST TRAIN right in the airports like many European airports do), and places like Denver and Salt Lake City aren’t ever going to be touched with regular train service. They’re just too far from everything (much to my family’s chagrin, who keep pushing me to move back to Ft. Collins).

Jun 24, 2008 - 1:54 pm 23. The Monk:

My wife and I greatly enjoyed taking the train all over central Japan. But that just reinforces Charlie’s point — Tokyo-Osaka is only slightly farther than NYC-DC and even taking a bullet train the whole length of its longest routes (Tokyo-Fukuoka) is only a four-plus hour ride. Train travel is a viable alternative to airplanes in smaller countries and for discrete routes only. It has to be well-run, unlike Amtrak. In Japan, you can basically set your watch by the Japan Rail schedule. And it has to be convenient — in New York and Boston, the hassle of going to the airport makes the Acela more attractive.

It would be great if California could set up its proposed high-speed rail system, if Texas had high-speed trains connecting Dallas to Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin and Houston, if the upper midwest had high-speed rail (St. Louis-Chicago, Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis, Chicago-Detroit). But the US is fundamentally a car and plane culture; until the train operators can construct and run high-speed rail lines at a profit, trying to increase the train travel by Americans will be a fruitless enterprise.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:00 pm 24. Not a Yank:

Department of Transportation once did a study of the real cost of travel, imputing in the travel cost the value of time from origination to destination. The idea was to identify how best to allocate transportation funds. As it turned out passenger rail travel is viable only where distances are short and population density is high. e.g. the New England Washington Corridor. Elsewhere either the distance or the population density makes it uneconomical.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:03 pm 25. Big Mike:

Northeast isn’t the only place to invest in trains. Consider also the Pacific coast — San Diego to LA, LA to Santa Barbara or San Francisco or San Jose, and on up to Seattle. Scenery beats the ugly, run down warehouse districts on the Amtrak route north from DC.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:05 pm 26. Vance:

Rail is great, when conditions allow. Population density is just one thing. Distances, terrain, access to right-of-way…and in America, environmental issues. Can you imagine the hassles involved with getting clearances through multiple states and over tens of thousands of separate “ecosystems”…? I have serious doubts it could even be done.
When the Japanese government owned the subways and railways, it was losing three trillion (yes, trillion) yen a year. They’ve been privatized and now show a profit.
If passenger rail can’t make money, it shouldn’t be subsidized as a form of performance art. If it can make money, then someone would build it. I don’t see anyone building it…..

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:06 pm 27. Marshall:

Los Angeles has been spending billions on a combined light rail and subway system but the system does not serve Los Angeles Airport !

I call it (tongue in cheek) “the conspiracy of the taxi cab drivers”.
In general, light rails and subways do not serve airports. I don’t know why.

San Diego? No. Los Angeles ? No. San Jose? No. Oakland? No (there’s a shuttle bus to the BART, though). San Francisco (Yes, but it took 30 years to build it). Chicago? No. Boston? No. (but it’s close – and there’s a shuttle). JFK? No. BWI? No (but there’s a shuttle). Washington (National yes, Dulles no). [ These are just airports that I have first-hand knowledge of).

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:06 pm 28. Mark:

One or more private companies running high speed trains between Washington and Boston would put most of the short haul airlines out of that market — making the airport experience for the long haul travellers much more pleasant. The government will never be able to do it. AMTRAK is a jobs program/subsidy program for a corrupt and disfunctional political class.

American freight carriers are private — that’s why our freight lines are world class and profitable.

And do not rule out a New York to Chicago route. The old 20th century limited used to make the “water level” run (up the Hudson, along the Erie canal and under the lakes) in something like 20 hours. I believe the record was 18 — with steam traction!

Say all in, a route of about 1200 miles at 240 mph — that’s 5 hours non-stop. It could be economical — tho it is a longer term proposition. It would have to be an extention of a series of high speed lines radiating from NYC.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:08 pm 29. Ken:

It is much cheaper to send cargo by train than by air. How come it is more expensive to move a person a given number of miles by train? I’m sure that the figures quoted are accurate, but something seems fishy.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:08 pm 30. Barry D:

I currently live in San Diego, was born in LA and grew up in Orange County.

There’s a simple but serious problem with rail travel in a place like California: I can hop a train from San Diego to Los Angeles now. But so what? Chances are, getting off the train station “in LA” doesn’t mean I’m within 20 miles of where I want/need to be.

This is even a problem with light rail. The (not so justifiably) renowned San Diego Trolley would actually deliver me to my office. However, I’d need to go about 3 miles to get to the nearest station from my house. That’s too far to walk in a reasonable amount of time, a bit too far for ultralight alternative transport like a Razor Scooter, and involves a few really dangerous areas for bicycling including some busy, narrow streets and a major freeway onramp. Furthermore, the Trolley only allows one bicycle per car, so during busy commute times I may or may not be able to board with a bike. Once I’ve driven a car to the trolley station, I might as well drive the whole way — which is what I do.

This same problem scales up to longer-distance rail travel.

Western cities in the US tend to be megalopolises. European cities were built during the Middle Ages — some, like Vienna, with defined boundaries that have never changed. Being “somewhere in LA” doesn’t help you much, usually.

The only thing I could see that might make sense between large California metro areas would be some sort of transport like a “land ferry”, where you could drive your car onto it, get shuttled relatively rapidly to your general destination, and finish your trip in your car.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:16 pm 31. John Adams:

The problem is Amtrak. Lease Amtrak to a private operator. Service would be better and the tax payers would not be on the hook for losses.

Leasing works for highways, and it will work for Amtrak.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:17 pm 32. Joel:

A missing point in the Denver to anywhere costs; the gate monopoly that United holds over the airport.
United was screaming about near insolvency a few years back, trying to panic the locals, when the reality of a United bancruptcy would have resulted in more carriers, better service, a few more jobs, and lower fares out of the area.
United has been raping Denver passengers for far too long. It is time for that bloated buzzard to stop flying.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:18 pm 33. Menlo Bob:

I’d like to suggest two other examples of the problem 1. a world train 2. downtown airports.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:26 pm 34. Roger L Simon:

Charlie, alas, you’re are totally right – although I will do anything possible to take a train over a plane.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:29 pm 35. Robert:

I commute once a month from Milwaukee to Phoenix, a distance of about 1500 miles.

By air, it takes 3 to 3.5 hours flying time each way (depending on winds), plus perhaps two hours on either end for travel to the airport, security, etc. A round trip then comes to a total of 3.5+3.5+2+2 = 11 hours total.

I too like trains, and if I could do these trips in, let’s say, even one day each way, I’d probably do it — so long as the price were the same as flying or nearly so. (Fares are now running about $350 round trip.)

But realistically I don’t see these two modes becoming even approximately equal.

As in so many things, looking to Europe for examples of how to do things here just isn’t sensible.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:29 pm 36. cathyf:

The giant-city-to-giant-city comparison is also a bit misleading… Several years ago, my husband and some colleagues needed to go to a meeting in New Orleans. The colleagues departed home at 4am, to drive 1 hour to the nearest airport with commercial service, and when they arrived discovered that their 7am flight was cancelled. The airport isn’t a hub, so when they caught the next flight out, they missed their connection. They arrived at their hotel 18 hours after leaving home. My husband took the City of New Orleans, which was on time. 17 hours, and the price of the roomette included a lovely breakfast and lunch…

If you live in Denver and fly United, you can get most anywhere in one hop. If you are going from one podunk town to another, you easily need 2 or 3 hops, plus an hour or two drive at each ends.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:31 pm 37. Menlo Bob:

Marshall: both Chicago airports have subway lines that allow easy and frequent access. The San Francisco BART to the airport requires a change of trains and the purchase of a new ticket–stupid implementation.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:32 pm 38. Parkes:

I just checked your route on Amtrak, and you should be able to make the trip from Denver to NYC in less than 40 hours. And if we had 200 mph trains, that would be about 20 hours, which is very comparable to a plane.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:33 pm 39. Carl Pham:

Something else you might have mentioned: if high-speed trains were to compete nationwide for travel, you’d need to crisscross the entire country with fantastically expensive infrastructure: those beautifully gently curved and banked, ground smooth every night by special equipment TGV tracks, plus the high-tension power lines to power the trains. The cost and construction time would dwarf that required for the construction of the Interstate system, which it would essentially replace.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:38 pm 40. Jim Harrington:

Uhm, Marshall

Just visiting from Instapundit, but …

Both airports in Chicago have regular ‘light rail’ [mixed subway and elevated] service to downtown. O’Hare has had it for something going on 30 years. Midway’s opened a few years back.

I’m not sure what Chicago airport you’re thinking of.

Jim H.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:38 pm 41. Barry D:

One more note as a San Diegan…

The railroad (light rail and Amtrak/commuter rights-of-way are parallel in this area) goes RIGHT BY the airport, but does not serve it.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=san+diego+airport&ie=UTF8&ll=32.728772,-117.181935&spn=0.023827,0.037251&z=15

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:39 pm 42. Larry J:

No, excise taxes are not needed. Simply stop subsidizing the airlines. Make them pay for their security, pay for the ATC’s and pay for the air rights like the RR’s have to for track right of way. Why not make them pay for the terminals and move general aviation to smaller airports near convenient railroad stations for the trip to the city.

I suppose you have not heard of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. There are a host of taxes on air travel including per seat, per segment, and per gallon of fuel taxes. Many if not most commercial airports also charge landing fees and other charges. General aviation aircraft less than business jets (and even most of them) avoid those airports for that reason.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:39 pm 43. Ben:

I disagree with your argument. Yes, traveling from Denver to NYC by train is nuts – that’s the equivalent of traveling from Paris to Moscow by rail. But if trains can work in the Northeast on a regional basis, there is no reason they can’t work in other parts of the country on a regional basis. If affordable, convenient, and reliable train travel were available from Denver to other Mountain West cities, many people would probably use it instead of driving. The hassles of flying just aren’t worth it for regional trips, since the time wasted at the airport is the same no matter where you are going.

So that brings us to cost. One reason Amtrak is so expensive is that no one uses it, thus driving up per-passenger costs. Limited routes, bad service, and unreliability all contribute to this. But what if those problems were solved? Would people travel by rail then? Yeah, I think so, especially with $4-per-gallon gas. It’s the difference between the New York subway and Atlanta’s MARTA trains. MARTA has only two lines, so most of the city can not be reached by rail. Therefore, most Atlantans don’t use it. But you can pretty much get anywhere in New York, thus the subway is very popular.

Same with Eurail — you can take a train from anywhere to anywhere, and count on it being reasonably affordable and reliable. Otherwise, Europeans would eschew their trains, too.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:40 pm 44. Tolbert:

A number of individuals have expressed interest in Amtrak’s long distance lines, Richard Branson among them. Even then it would be a premium service and not commuter based.

The chief problems with Amtrak are the high cost of its unionized workforce and byzantine workrules limitations as well as its many layers of bureaucratic management.

Indeed Amtrak is a example of the need to kill the patient in order to save him.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:40 pm 45. Michael in Seattle:

Yep yep. Front Range commuter rail makes sense. Hell, the proposed DIA to Vail route is brilliant. Most Western US metro areas can service actual need with regional rail. Ft. Collins to Denver to The Springs. Phoenix to Tucson. Vancouver to Seattle to Portland.

But once you get out of these clusters there is a whole lot of track to lay to minimal return. And you have to realize that once you a bumping scale from local commuter to regional commuter you are directly competing with the regional puddle jumpers: the JetBlues and the Horizons. Had anyone done a cost study at that level?

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:40 pm 46. Eric W.:

Did someone say NY to Chicago could be profitable? Take out Google Maps and use the “terrain” feature. Guess what it would cost to build an arrow straight right of way across the mountains of Pennsylvania? Ok, that’s 300 miles of the 800 mile route. Now plow through the suburbs of NJ and figure out the cost of that 60 mile stretch.

Politically, you can’t build the line through NJ. You just can’t. All those enviro. and NIMBY enabling laws and procedures that you love? Guess what, they kill rail projects just as easily as highway and airport projects. You can’t add a concrete rail tie in NJ without going through a generation of lawsuits and studies and after it’s all over, you lose anyway.

Te amount of cash you’d have to lay out to get through PA alone would doom the project. And why would PA want it? Are you planning any stops between Scranton and Youngstown? If not, what’s in it for PA?

There is no way you could do this, God couldn’t do it. The idea that there is some COST Effective way to do it is delusional.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:42 pm 47. ColoComment:

I, too, live in Denver. In 1988 or so, I took my two children via Amtrak to San Francisco (1 and 1/2 days on train each way) – the train ride was supposed to be part of the vacation fun. (Hint: it gets old very fast.)

The opportunity cost of using Amtrak to go anywhere from Denver is astronomical.

That’s why I heartily RESENT my tax dollars going to subsidize Amtrak in the Northeast, which is the only place Amtrak presently makes any sense at all. I feel as though I’m throwing those dollars down a dark and bottomless black hole.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:43 pm 48. Michael:

Perhaps Megan means we should have world-class service from DC to Philly to NYC to Boston. I think we would too if Amtrak was privatized (and not subsidizing unprofitable lines to the west).

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:44 pm 49. Eric W.:

Did someone say that 20 hours from Denver to NYC is “comparable to a plane”? Unless you think NYC is the airport code for Sydney, Australia, let me disabuse you of the idea that 20 hours is similar in time to 4.5 hours.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:45 pm 50. Electoral Map Daily Compass « The Electoral Map:

[...] GEOGRAPHY: Why trains don’t work in America [Pajamas Media]. [...]

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:47 pm 51. Patrick1:

I would be curious to see if anyone would bid on Amtrak if it were put up for bid and taken from the feds. Then you may see a similar system set up to that of the airlines.

The welfare state makes sure the trains don’t crash into each other and maintains the stations and that is it.

I agree in a country the size of ours the chance of national rail is remote unless there are technological advances and the driving down of costs of “bullet” type trains.

But I would sure like to see what a Sam Walton or FedEX type person could do with our rail system.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:48 pm 52. VRWC:

Actually, there is train service to JFK now. The AirTrain connects all terminals to either the LIRR thru Jamaica Queens Station or to the NYC Subway system via the A train at Howard Beach on the Far Rockaway line.

Newark has the same kind of thing going thru NJ Transit.

Barry D is exactly right about Amtrak San Diego to LA. It is useless unless you are going downtown or to Anaheim.

Why they didn’t extend the San Diego Trolley to the airport I have no idea other than the powers that be here have always wanted a new airport.

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:52 pm 53. PaulB:

Transcontiental train trips will only work for tourists. There is an inter-city market, as many have suggested, in certain areas. The biggest untapped market in my opinion is the short haul to the major airports. Airlines are cutting back big time on these small cities. Montgomery is losing a third of its service, so those folks will have to drive 2 hrs to Birmingham. We drive regularly either 90 mi’s to B’ham, or 2 hours to Atlanta – how about trains that take you right to the airports? Actually let the airlines invest – maybe they could turn a profit! It would replace those nightmarish commuter/puddle jumpers. Tucson to Phoenix is a great example. Do you drive, and fight traffic or go the airport and fight the thermals, only to miss your flight because your puddle jumper is such a low priority. The integration of the two systems can generate money. Who wants to make money? Raise your hands!!

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:57 pm 54. Sigivald:

That is one thing I notice Europeans seem to forget about the US (and Americans not realise about Europe) – the vast size difference.

For instance, my usual winter vacation involves a drive from Portland to Phoenix and back.

That’s about the same distance (one way) as from London to Moscow – and it’s just over half the distance from Portland to New York City. (Which is itself about the distance from London to the middle of Kazakhstan.)

Jun 24, 2008 - 2:58 pm 55. PaulB:

You can board the MARTA in the Atlanta airport, right inside the terminal. Its way easier then getting out to the rental cars, or looking for the big buses to the downtown hotels. Of course, riding public transportation can come with its on issues, especially if you are wearing your “Hi, I am here for a convention and I am clueless” outfit.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:01 pm 56. Nerdie McSweatervest:

Coupla summers ago, took the family on the Empire Builder from Fargo, ND (about a 200-mile drive from where I live in South Dakota) to Seattle. Fabulous way to spend some time; not so great if you really need to get anywhere from here any time soon.

This summer, we’re driving across South Dakota to the Black Hills. We’re not even leaving the state, and we’ll go about twice the distance that NY is from DC.

Trains just plain don’t make sense in some places.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:04 pm 57. Patrick1:

Then again with Amtrak’s safety record we may want to scrap the whole thing and start over.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:04 pm 58. Brian Lutz:

Given the fact that the unelected transit bureaucrats around here can’t find a way to run a commuter line between Seattle, Tacoma and Everett without subsidizing 85% of the cost per passenger, and the busses around here aren’t much better. I think I saw a figure showing that passenger fares cover only 8% of operating costs for the busses here. I’m not sure I’d trust anyone in this state to run train service. Of course, they’re dropping billions into light rail lines now that will probably require the same ridiculous subsidies to operate. It seems to be more a matter of the principle involved (forcing people out of their cars) than it is about providing efficient transit.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:06 pm 59. Eric W.:

Patrick1: The cost of bullet trains in the northeast corridor, where they actually make some sense, is a political issue. The people who idly sit at their desks and wish to conjure up highspeed rail, are the same people who would freak out if the government actually decided to build the system. Such a system requires a separate, dedicated, straight right of way through some of the most litigous and pseudo-environmentalist communities in the United States. We have Acela trains that right now are capable of hitting 150 mph, but travel at 70 mph through winding, congested commuter right of ways in MA, CT, NY and NJ. The problem of putting highspeed rail on that corridor is solely the political problem of obtaining a right of way, nothing more, nothing less. Under current political conditions it is impossible.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:07 pm 60. JohnMc:

First I think there is something missing in the calculations — required stayover cost. All the majors now have a 1 day layover requirement. So that cost for hotel and meals has to be included in the trip cost for airline use. No it won’t close the gap; not by a long shot.

As to what should we do? 1) regional routes that can be traversed in 24 hour to major metro centers should be encouraged. There are many more than just the NE corridor. 2) Better interlink between airports and rail should be developed. Being able to do continental spans by air and short hops by rail probably is a better option. 3) The money we would spend on high speed national rail would be better spent on a nationwide 1Gb broadband network. Fostered by Acts similiar to the railroad act of the 1840s that spurred rail expansion. Pushing bits saves fuel like no other option available.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:11 pm 61. John Adams:

Lease Amtrak to a private operator. Service will be better, and tax payers will be off the hook for operating losses.

John Adams

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:13 pm 62. David:

Forgot to mention there should be another regional market in Florida.

So that’s:
1) NE corridor
2) SE corridor (Atlanta, SC, RTP in NC, etc)
3) Texas Triangle
4) Great Lakes (Chicago-Milwaukee is always packed already, surprisingly so is Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-St. Louis)
5) West Coast parts (suffering same right-of-way cost issues, but Seattle-Portland, SF-Sacramento -already packed), Sacramento-LA, LA-SD)

The rest of the country ain’t populated enough.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:15 pm 63. Patrick1:

Since the Gospel of Global Warming is about taking us out of our cars and using old technology to get around, such as horse and wagon.

Is it not possible that this religion will make trains required transportation regardless of how expensive or impractical they may be?

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:15 pm 64. Mark Shanks:

Rail works in local and regional service for runs of less than 200 miles…. or 300 miles if one allows for high-speed rail. It simply can’t compete with continential length aircraft travel for cost or practicality.

This limits it’s practicality in the US to places where there are fairly high densities of populous cities along the routes or at discrete end-points. The Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington DC and a spiderweb of lines centered on Chicago are the most obvious possibilities. The current California HSR boondoggle misses that while the Bay Area & Southern Calif. could both use regional services…there’s almost nothing but Fresno to generate traffic in the 300+ miles of railroad between the fringes of these two urban areas.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:18 pm 65. Sarge:

The RIGHT way to do this, is dedicated express-plan light rail to airports less than an hour’s ride outside of city limits, and encorporate the rail into the airport security — screen bags & passengers en-route on the train, so the transit time is not wasted. It gets the airplanes out of the city centers, but makes them more accessible (based on actual time involved).

Gets the best of both worlds; rail’s ease of boarding & good short-distance efficiency, with air’s long-distance reach. & it unjams that expensive air terminal space.

Of course, politically, the cab, shuttle, limo, and city airports commissars are not willing to release their stanglehold on travel, so it’ll never happen. makes good engineering sense, though.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:18 pm 66. AnnieB:

Trains are NOT transportation – trains are VACATION.

If the people running Amtrak would take a lesson from those running cruise lines, there would be NO problem with the profitability of the American passenger rail system.

Think about it. Boats are no longer the fastest or least expensive way to get from point A to point B – and more and bigger ships are built every year. More and more people take cruises. And the majority of those cruises are to ‘nowhere’. Well, practically nowhere. About 20% of the passengers on the last cruise I took never set foot off the boat. The rest took the offered ‘excursions’ or went into town for dinner and drinks and shopping. But NO ONE was on the boat BECAUSE they wanted to end up in the various port cities. Those were just more amusements, just like the shows and casino and music and disco. The reason to be on the ship was to BE ON THE SHIP. Period.

I would LOVE to take more train trips. The cabins are smaller than a cruise ship, but they are comfortable enough and you have the advantage of GREAT scenery and the chance to visit far more interesting cities along the way. Plus there is no passport hassle. The train lines just need to improve the food ( the bar service is already excellent – and the staff is far superior to the ship staff, even given a higher crew-to-passenger ratio ) and connect better with hotels and excursion companies at the prime destinations. There are currently long ‘layovers’ with nothing to do that could be converted to profit and entertainment by offering ( though private companies ) city tours and dining options. OH – and more cabins would help. The trains are always sold out at the prime travel times.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:26 pm 67. Eric W.:

Light rail to airports will not break cabs business. There is no conspiracy of cab drivers to limit rail access to airports. Have you ever tried to go from your home to an airport with luggage and a couple kids on the way to a trip? Do you think it’s convenient to travel that way. There is rail to the airport in NYC, Chicago and other places, and about 1% of travellers use it. Rail is great if you are traveling to a point near a station, you aren’t carrying much and don’t have kids with you. Otherwise it’s much less convenient than driving to the plane in your own car or a cab.

If rail travel was a more luxurious, less stressful way to get around, then the politicians and elites who hector us to use it would be photographed getting around that way every once in a while. I’ve never once seen George Soros on the JFK airtrain, and I’ve been looking out for him, believe me…

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:30 pm 68. KevinF:

This article’s correct, except that “distance” is only half the equation. It’s really people-per-distance (population density) on all scales in the U.S. that is the problem, outside the northern half of the East Coast. Even in a seemingly reasonable regional corridor like Austin to Dallas, there really is far too much distance to cover and far too few travelers who actually need to make that particular trip — it simply is not comparable to the traveler density of corridors in Europe or Japan.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:32 pm 69. Kay:

“TomJW:

If train travel is to be competitive, let it dump the unprofitable lines and destinations. If it is only profitable in the northeast, then that’s the only place it can serve.

Believing it is a good idea we should support in any way, shape or form is a waste of resources. The NY/DC run could be the backbone of reborn passenger line. Then let it expand from there.”

You can also dump/revise the flight hub system as well, as its often cheaper to fly twice the distance with two connecting flights then one-way service in the current system. The NY/DC run is PERFECT for the model of train travel in the US and is often competitive with flying after delays in checkin/out is figured in. There is also the fabulous Autotrain that runs from VA to FL and you bring your car along. I live right near the Lorton Va autotrain hub and it gets a lot of traffic. A couple other routes could be considered for that too if the price is right.

Jun 24, 2008 - 3:39 pm 70. Largin Testin:

I don’t know what you are smoking buddy , but if it takes 90 hours to go from Denver to New York you are averaging 18 miles per hour, ( freights can hit 75-80mph easy). Ergo if that French train went 200 miles per hour the 1625 miles from Denver to New York would take 8. something hours not 45. You are obviously routing that train through Mongolia to pad your stats, or including a three day layover in las Vegas.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:04 pm 71. Tim in TX:

There are certainly *regions* within the US where some form of travel by railed vehicle works fine. The DC Metro comes to mind, for example.

Otherwise, for me and just about everyone I know my age, it becomes a simple question of which mode of transport best matches our required time, money, and annoyance factor – and what we need to take with us and/or do when we get there.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:09 pm 72. Mark Webster:

For a different take on commuter rail, look into Utah’s FrontRunner (http://www.rideuta.com/projects/commuterRail/default.aspx) Build it where it makes sense.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:11 pm 73. caplight:

But compare train to automobile. My wife travels 600-700 mile trip from Kansas City to Western Ohio through Chicago all the time. The train has proved cheaper than air consistently. she’s never lost a night to a canceled train which she has with airlines. and while she is on the train she can work, read or sleep. It is the same train ride time for her as the drive. She gets there rested and loves the trip and the people.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:18 pm 74. The Snob:

I see a lot of people talking about regional intercity service and I think they’re missing the “last mile” problem as the telcos call it.

I can take the subway in NYC from Brooklyn to Penn Station, grab the Acela to Boston South Station, and walk off that onto the Red Line to Harvard Square. In fact unless you’re going well outside either city, you’re probably better off taking taxis or mass transit.

Outside the Northeast Corridor, there is usually no “there” there when you arrive from City A to City B, so you need a car to reach your destination. By the time you get through renting a car, it starts making more sense to just drive the whole distance in the first place.

Which brings this back full-circle to mass transit, which exists in places with European (forget about Asian) population density levels, and doesn’t where it would never work. Even in Europe, trains only account for 5% of inter-city travel.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:22 pm 75. Sarah:

At least in Ohio, regional rail is the new thing — the planning commissions and mayors and governor are all working (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) on a passenger rail network connecting, eventually, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Cleveland — with stops in the old (as in “we can tell you about the time Joseph Smith — or Al Capone! — came through town and stayed at THAT hotel” old) transit hubs like Bucyrus and Circleville. At the moment I think the “north central Ohio” hub is drawn on Mansfield, though Marion is identified as another likely candidate. The last four towns I mentioned all have between 10 and 60 thousand residents, by the way. Bucyrus once had over 30k and is now closer to 14k — train enthusiasts will recognize the name because they make train car cranes there. There’s lots and lots of rail sitting there, rusting. Oh, and the cities (at least Columbus) are bringing back light rail, too.

I’m also surprised no one has mentioned one of the silliest things about traveling up and down California — namely, that if you want to go from Grand Central Station in Los Angeles to the train station in Fresno, you have to spend five hours on a bus first. If I want to take the train to Chicago from here in Columbus, I have to drive or take the bus to I think Detroit first. This can contribute to the lengthened trip times on Amtrak.com — buses are slower than anything other than a single person driving the entire distance (said distance being long enough to require stopping) by herself.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:22 pm 76. AST:

I like trains, having fond memories of riding the California Zephyr across the country in my youth.

I believe that the interstate highway system has subsidized trucking and made it more competitive than railroads. In terms of CO2 emissions, railroads make more sense for passengers and freight.

Air travel is stressful, crowded and tiresome. If it were as easy to travel by train from my home to my sons’ homes, I’d be using it. There’s no good reason why it should cost more than flying, but it is, and less reliable as well.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:31 pm 77. ern:

I’ve had such bad experiences lately with airlines (very lousy service) that I’ve decided I’d take a train if my trip was pretty much anywhere on the East Coast. But you’re right–anything longer than a few days and a plane is the only way to go.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:37 pm 78. Tristan Phillips:

Largin: Let me help you with how train travel works.

First: Trains do not travel on straight, level ground. Take a look at the terrain between Denver and New York. It’s not exactly flat, and trains do very poorly on 2% and 3% grades.

Second: The run from Denver to New York is not an Express. The train will make multiple stops, all adding to the time.

Third: Switching trains. You don’t think you’ll stay on the same train the entire distance? Like plane travel long distances sometimes means layovers.

Forth: Priority. In the US nearly all, if not all, the rail is owned by the freight train companies. Which means the passenger train has a lower priority than any freight train on the line. Which means times when the passenger train sits on a side track or spur to allow a freight train to go by.

Speak up if you need more help figuring out why it takes so long.
Add them up, and 90 hours makes more sense.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:41 pm 79. Whitehall:

Californians have voted for a bond issue for high speed rail between the Bay Area and San Diego – years ago.

So why hasn’t it been done? Environmentalists.

The main route should run SF – SJ – Central Valley – LA – SD with an easy branch from Oakland over to hook up to the main line in the Central Valley. However, the San Jose to Central Valley portion would need to cut through Henry Coe State Park, a old ranch handled over to the state to avoid inheritence taxes. Actually, it’s rather ho-hum but to hear the environmentalist tell it, it is Yosemite and Yellowstone rolled into one.

Already, one can already drive from the Bay Area to Orange County, door to door, in less time than flying.

Yes, long distance rail is for tourists. Last couple of times I did Chicago to California, half the passengers in first class were European and having a great time.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:44 pm 80. Continuum:

I believe that your analysis in using current train travel times from the Amtrak schedules is open to question. Inter-city train travel is currently hindered by Amtrak routes. Those routes often do not travel the direct line that freight trains might use, but, instead they are tremendous circumnavigations. For instance, travel from Memphis to Dallas is routed through Chicago. Clearly, the direct route would travel through Little Rock and avoid a more than 1500 mile detour through Chicago. Additionally, a plane trip from Memphis to New Orleans is about 2 hours. However, if you include the requested early airport arrival time (say about 90 minutes), and the hassles of getting to and from the airports, retrieving baggage, plus the current uncomfortble accomodations within the airplane itself, the train’s 8 hour ride is extremely desirable. In the “City of New Orleans”, the train from Memphis to New Orleans, the economy seats are larger than airline first class seats. There is a dining car, observation car, and ample space to walk around. Private sleeping compartments are still cheaper than airfare and include first class meals, showers and beds. The only reason train travel is not used in the this country is because the US has not made an effort to make it so.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:51 pm 81. Response39:

You miscalculate – if you count in the cost of lodging and meals during the time you’re not flying but would have been traveling by train, it comes out almost even.

Besides, most train travelers aren’t trying to get somewhere fast. They want to enjoy the trip.

Jun 24, 2008 - 4:51 pm 82. Lifeofthemind:

Before the flood I took Amtrak between NY and Chicago and found it a vile experience. Then I found myself in need of transportation because of a car accident, which is another story, between Omaha and San Diego. That was when I was an Ensign after the flood but before the invention of electricity. I discovered that Amtrak west of the MIssissippi was a different and more pleasant experience. The small cars used to go through the twisty Eastern tunnel system are part of the reason that Amtrak is so unpleasant. Out west the cars are better. Back then I was able to take the Denver Rio Grande and Western Railway between Denver and Salt Lake City. It was just like train travel should be. White table cloths with Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint flirting next to me. Maybe my memory is getting hazy there. Anyway the dwarf line is gone now.

Jun 24, 2008 - 5:28 pm 83. Shawn Levasseur:

“Trains will ever retain two passenger markets – the neurotic and the obese.

The first are too afraid of flying that they’ll eat the time. The second eat so much that they don’t fit in airline seats.”

If you’re so fat you can’t fit into an airline seat, you probably aren’t getting out of the house much anyway.

Neurotics? There are all sorts of drugs that can be prescribed for such people (as fans of Tony Kornheiser’s radio show can attest.)

And there are Buses. Take the chart given here, and go to Greyhound.com.

You’ll find rates cheaper than flying, and travel times shorter than trains, for most long hauls.

Jun 24, 2008 - 5:34 pm 84. Phil Magness:

Looking at Amtrak’s profit/loss record, I would agree that the key to maintaining a rail system in the US would be to limit the routes to those areas practically served by rail which also have demonstrated a good level of ridership. If this were followed up by improving service in those areas, a modest a mount of expansion could be entertained. The political challenge is getting the votes in the Senate for this. I suspect that Amtrak keeps many routes which literally bleed money so as to maintain the votes of senators from the states involved. But if one looks at ridership, a practical rail system would have the following routes:

Northeast Corridor
One (not three) routes down to Floria from the Corridor
A Great Lakes Corridor that would spoke out to St. Louis. This corridor could eventually have one link from Cleveland back over to the Northeast Corridor and maybe spoke out to KC eventually.
A Texas Corridor that would extend up to OKC (Dallas to Oklahoma City is one of the few profitable Amtrak routes!) This Texas Triangle (Hou-SA-DFW) plus OKC could eventually go over to New Orleans and also add an OKC to KC route should a ‘phase 2′ ever become practical. This would set up a fairly national system should a Great Lakes to Northeast Corridor ever pan out.

Then, finally, a San Fran to San Diego route, with a couple of spokes inland, could also work. As a tourist attraction, one of the existing three lines across the west could also be brought on-line again as part of “phase two”. All three of the current cross-the-west lines lose big bucks, but one loses less than the other two, and there MAY be enough market for one, at least during summer and also the winter holiday season.

Such a limited system could focus on improving quality and service, which would generate more customers. I take the train from Joliet to St. Louis for business sometimes when the timetables fit my schedule, but sometimes I need to get to St. Louis earlier or leave later and so I drive. But when I can take the train it is excellent because I can work on my laptop and have quality time to think.

Now if they could only get WIFI going so that I could read Pajamas Media while I’m travelling!

Jun 24, 2008 - 5:38 pm 85. crosspatch:

I believe having an operational rail transport system is a matter of national security. Trains can be powered by electricity generated by nuclear power. We can move people and troops and freight even if someone shuts off our oil.

I think the notion of an electric airliner is a long way off.

Jun 24, 2008 - 5:53 pm 86. Charlie (Colorado):

Woodchuck: Putting the airlines on the same footing as the trains as to operating outlays changes the dynamic quickly.

Actually, it doesn’t. Look back at my figures: opportunity cost is the killer. But as has been pointed out in other comments, your assertion that airlines (and therefore passengers) aren’t paying for the system is mistaken anyway.

Marco, I picked Denver ’cause I live in Denver. Nothing deep.

Ben: I disagree with your argument.

No you’re agreeing with my argument: intercity trains with large ridership and a distance/travel time of 4-5 hours make sense; nationwide passenger train service doesn’t.

Ken: It is much cheaper to send cargo by train than by air. How come it is more expensive to move a person a given number of miles by train? I’m sure that the figures quoted are accurate, but something seems fishy.

Just consider the difference in the accommodations, Ken: if we could send passengers stacked like boxes of lettuce, nine-high, in windowless refrigerated cars with no facilities, and not care if they get sidetracked (heh) for 12 or 24 hours, then it would be a lot cheaper.

And a lot like airline travel, except longer.

John: First I think there is something missing in the calculations — required stayover cost. All the majors now have a 1 day layover requirement. So that cost for hotel and meals has to be included in the trip cost for airline use. No it won’t close the gap; not by a long shot.

John, there’s a lag of several days to a couple weeks between when I submit an article and when it’s published; I tend to write things that aren’t very time sensitive. In this case, the required stopover thing came around since I submitted the article, but I think you’re misunderstanding the “required stopover” thing: it’s not that you can’t get a flight without the weekend stopover, it’s that they won’t sell you the cheapest ticket without a stopover. I just popped over to Frontier’s site and looked at the pessimal schedule: flying Denver-La Guardia tomorrow, returning tomorrow night. The highest fare was leaving just past midnight on a red-eye, returning at about 5PM, arriving about 8PM — which is a horrible trip, I’ve done it a couple of times — and costs $850. Still less than half the price of a roomette, and not much more than the price of the coach seat on the train.

Continuum: (Q? Is that you? Anyway…) I believe that your analysis in using current train travel times from the Amtrak schedules is open to question. Inter-city train travel is currently hindered by Amtrak routes. Those routes often do not travel the direct line that freight trains might use, but, instead they are tremendous circumnavigations.

You bet — if I had used, say, Denver to Miami I could have made it look lots worse. But I didn’t. I wonder why?

Response39: You miscalculate – if you count in the cost of lodging and meals during the time you’re not flying but would have been traveling by train, it comes out almost even.

You’re missing the point. Most travel is done by people — like me, traveling on business — who want to be somewhere, not for the romance of travel in itself. If I go to NYC on business, my employer is paying me to be in New York, not for time in the moving hotel, no matter how pleasant. See above about how much I like trains — if I could work a scam that let me travel in a roomette for four or five days to do a couple days work in NYC, I’d be Amtrak’s most traveled passenger. On my usual trip, the time I would spend traveling by train is spent in my own office, and sleeping in my own bed.

General comment: on travel times: remember that I’m quoting travel times in all cases for round trips. The 90 hours for NYC is a round trip, with a 4-5 hour wait in Chicago for connections.

Jun 24, 2008 - 6:41 pm 87. JimT:

I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this has been covered already, but it is certainly possible to use rail for efficient travel over distances greater than 300 miles. In my youth I used to stand on the platform at Grand Central Station and watch them roll out the red carpet for the arrival of the Twentieth Century Limited. Overnight between Chicago and New York City is very doable, if you can get the track up to some reasonable standard and can persuade the people running the thing to keep to the schedule.

It may not be possible for distances much greater than 1000 miles, but for those distances I’d rather take the train. For anything under 500 miles I drive. It’s so much better than flying the cost doesn’t even come into it, and the time is getting to be more and more of a wash, at least out here in the west where everyone passes you if you’re going as slow as 80. Elapsed time Salt Lake City to Boise is about 6 hours at the speed limit, 5 if you keep up with traffic.

Jun 24, 2008 - 6:48 pm 88. Jim Rockford:

I agree with Crosspatch, and I’ll add that airlines abusive policies (anyone fly recently) and security restrictions make the train attractive. As a matter of national security, it’s wise for us to maintain a parallel train system to the over-burdened and fairly rickety itself flying system.

Even better, it will put lots of people to work, and soak up unemployment.

TGV-style trains yeah will require crushing Enviros, but we can cite AGW as the “need” to replace flying with lower CO2 train systems. This again gives us a parallel system, redundancy in case of something bad like 9/11.

As for the West, LA-OC to Vegas, and LA-OC to Salt Lake City would be a godsend with high speed trains. Both tourist destinations would and should help pay for the system. We could probably do a LA-OC to Vail/Aspen or Santa Fe. We do need to replace a lot of older infrastructure, Back East probably needs a lot of work. Tell the NIMBY’s Al Gore wants them to shut up.

Jun 24, 2008 - 6:49 pm 89. SFC SKI:

I also spent years in Europe, and I really enjoyed using the train. I agree that the distances for intercontinental rail in the US are too great, but I can’t understand why there is not more regional rail.

It’s very much a Catch-22 situation, IMO. DC Metrorail is seeing a big increase in ridership now that gas prices are so high, but it will be years before the money from increased revenue allows them to buy more cars for those riders, or to expand lines further into the areas those riders live in.

The sad truth is, until the 1950’s many US metro areas across the country had reliable interurban rail, it was al pushed away in a wash of cheap oil and suburban development.

The Northeast is great for rail, I just wish I didn’t have to drive 2 hours to DC to catch the Acela north, trains from and to the Shenandoah Valley are few and far between, and definitely not made for business trips.

When I lived in West Texas I’d have loved to have been able to take a train from San Angelo to Dallas or San Antonio, that was 3 to 5 hours out of my life, one way!

The only way that passenger rail is going to take over is when enough people demand it, I don’t think everyone is doing that yet.

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:19 pm 90. Jack Okie:

In September, 2004, I needed to travel from Tulsa OK to Washington DC. For a lark I took Amtrak. The first leg was via bus (Greyhound) from Tulsa to Kansas City, then via train from KC to Chicago, and another train to DC. The KC to Chicago run was in daylight and a lot of fun. The train arrived in Chicago on time. Chicago to DC was another story: Widespread storms over the eastern US had disrupted Amtrak’s schedule. We departed late from Chicago; Amtrak did not load the food for the dining car so there were only a few cold sandwiches for dinner that night; and rather than arriving at noon the next day we pulled in to DC’s Union Station at 10:15 PM.

In the early afternoon, the train remained stopped at one of the stops on the route, and they announced that the engineer had worked the maximum number of hours allowed and a replacement was on the way – 45 minute delay. About 2 1/2 hours later, the train stopped again on a siding and they announced that the conductor had worked the maximum and a replacement was on the way – 1.5 hour delay. We also had to wait several times for freight traffic to use the track.

But I met some very nice people, and since I was in no hurry, I had a blast. I don’t see even the eastern corridor getting better, though, as long as Amtrak is using the freight companies’ lines. The tracks are in pretty poor shape too: We had to slow down several times because the side-to-side swaying would have been dangerous at higher speeds.

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:26 pm 91. jw:

I took the Amtrak from New York to Boston last fall, and the experience was dreadful. To get to the station after the cab had dropped me off I had to go through Madison Square Gardens. Although I had a reservation for the train, I had to wait in line to get my ticket for 45 minutes – most of the ticket counters were unoccupied. Then the train was over an hour late. It then added lateness to this so that the train scheduled for 8:30 p.m. (approximately) arrived in Boston after 2 a.m. The subway had shutdown at midnight, and there were no cabs waiting for us, and finally one gentleman called for one. A group of us stuffed into it, and I finally arrived home around 3 a.m.
The next time I use public transportation between New York and Boston, I will use the more reliable (and cheaper) bus.

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:26 pm 92. Stephen Karlson:

The value of intercity rail, as several commenters have noted, is in relatively short routes with intermediate stations that are serious origin or destinations. Boston – New Haven – New York – Philadelphia – Baltimore – Washington – Richmond qualifies, as does Minneapolis – Madison – Milwaukee – Chicago – Indianapolis – Cincinnati or St. Louis – Springfield – Chicago – Toledo – Cleveland and a few other candidates that commenters have offered. (Denver, unfortunately, is somewhat remote from other cities in such a way as to make possible a corridor network centered there.)

But going longer distances by rail is iffy. There was a plan, early in the twentieth century, to build an electric railroad permitting ten hour timings Chicago to New York. There’s history here: http://www.marymaclane.com/airline/, and my comments here: http://coldspringshops.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html#8709269772789142305 (a reaction to Megan McArdle’s thoughts.) The problem with running the most direct line Chicago to New York is that you miss other population centers that could provide short-haul traffic. Although the Germans may lay on some all-day fast trains, much of their traffic is on and off at the intermediate cities. To apply the Air Line concept to Denver-Chicago, one would really have to think carefully about intermediate traffic in or out of Omaha or the Iowa cities or the cities of western Illinois.

More on these things here: http://coldspringshops.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html#1042365847404025841

Jun 24, 2008 - 7:56 pm 93. eric taylor:

Nahanni said

“You want to see rail travel work in this country? Take it out of the hands of the federal government.”

wont work. Several reasons, first of all the eisenhower interstate highway which cost several billion dollars was proven to be a way to reduce costs and increase efficiencies of road travel. so you really do want the government to participate in building and maintaining roads, you get more than just the simple cost of the trip by building roads, you get these infrastructure multipliers too.

Now, on the other hand, railways have had almost no subsidies. Airlines, by the way have had huge subsidies, for the same reasons. Cities know that developing infrastructures like good airports brings economic productivity to the entire reasons, so it makes sense for cities, states and the national government to work towards building airport infrastructures.

Every year, we spend billions for airlines and automobiles and trucks and almost nothing on rails. We are talking about spending billions on airlines and road transportation vs millions for the railiways.

It just makes sense to subsidize the railways to much greater extent. Gasoline and diesel prices keep going up and railways have been, will be and have always been the most efficient way to transport people and goods in america.

I have a feeling if we subsidized railways to the extent we subsidize our highways and airports, railways would be the cheapest transportation option in america.

Of course, for the past 90 years Detroit has successfully lobbied against any support for the railroads, not only that, cities and states have taxed railways for revenue (while subsidizing roads and airports). Gasoline and diesel prices will continue to go up. The federal government should support the railways to a greater extent and drop support for the less useful highways. We spend around $600 per driver per year on our highways, as people continue to have to cut back on driving due to high oil prices, we need to step down the highway subsidizes and build back our rail systems.

Jun 24, 2008 - 8:00 pm 94. lee:

Barry D from San Diego is right. If you have to take the train from SD to Santa Ana because you have no car, chances are someone you know have to pick you up from the station and take you to your final destination, which could be additional 15-20 minutes. Like he says, you can ride and train and stop at LA, but it doesn’t mean you’d be where you want to be.

Now in countries like S.Korea or Japan (relatively small countries for sure), you can ride a train, get off at Seoul or Shinjuku, and WALK home from there. Or catch a bus. Filling up an empty tank at South Korea is supposed to be 100+ plus dollars, I imagine it’s more expensive now. But Koreans have a viable alternative to driving cars at their own expense.

Jun 24, 2008 - 8:14 pm 95. seeker:

ARE YOU ALL FOOL? YOU COULD HARDLY ALLOW THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO PUT THAT FENCE…

NOT YOU WANT TRAINS?

DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH EASEMENT BATTLES WILL RESULT FROM THIS TYPE OF PROJECT BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IDEOLOGY AND SELFISHNESS OF OTHERS?

IN THE END, YOU WILL BLAME YOUR PRESIDENT.

GIVE US A BREAK PLEASE.

Jun 24, 2008 - 8:20 pm 96. cathyf:

Another little factoid is that when Amtrak figures the cost per passenger mile for this or that train, they include pension costs. If they shut down all of the trains, then the retired people will still be collecting their pensions, so the costs won’t go to zero. (And cost per mile will be infinite, since that’s what happens when you divide by zero…) If they shut down some of the routes, then there will be fewer routes left to spread the pension costs over, so those “profitable” lines will turn into “loss” routes.

Jun 24, 2008 - 9:12 pm 97. Darren:

Here on the West Coast, the land of Interstate 5, I refuse to believe that there a car-train from LA to Seattle wouldn’t be a great idea. You know, just like they have in Europe–you load your car up, put it on the train, go to bed, and when you wake up, you’re at your destination–with your very own car! Can’t have too many stops, though; I’m thinking San Diego, LA area, SF/Sacramento (would probably have to stop in Lathrop, in striking distance of each), Portland, and Seattle.

I contacted Amtrak about this. Their response? “Oh, that wouldn’t work.”

Of course it won’t work, when you’re a government-assisted monopoly. Why *would* you do anything differently?

In the meantime, all those cars continue to drive along Interstate 5….

Jun 24, 2008 - 9:18 pm 98. cathyf:

I once went from Florence, SC to NYC by plane and it took 14 hours. The train only ever took 12. And then there was the time that we sat at LaGuardia for six hours as our flight was delayed over and over by weather. As we took off, I was convinced that the plane was going to be torn apart in the high winds — in a storm where the folks on the train were simply cozy. One Christmas day we drove from Chicago to Pittsburgh — an 8-hour trip that took 12 hours in a scary snowstorm. The next year, we pulled out of Chicago in the blizzard, listening to the radio telling us that the first 1200 people stranded at O’Hare were getting cots and blankets, and the other 2000 were outta luck.

Not to mention my colleagues who were scheduled to fly home from a business meeting on Sept 12, 2001. There the flight time was measured in weeks…

Jun 24, 2008 - 9:31 pm 99. Mowog:

I hate commuting by train in Tokyo, for it is sheer hell, especially when everyone’s all sweaty and stinky in summer. Otherwise train travel in Japan can be pleasant, but it’s not cheap. I’ve thought of taking the overnight train from Tokyo up to Sapporo but it’s 17 hours at ¥32,500 (about $300). Maybe this summer.

Jun 24, 2008 - 9:53 pm 100. rk:

Mr. Martin’s analysis is totally correct. And, I think, identifies a piece of critical thinking that the liberal/left in this country generally miss.

On CSPAN a couple of weeks ago, I saw this lib/left planner-type woman from Florida saying to a congressional hearing committee that the future should be in intra-city rail.

The mind boggles.

Mr. Martin starts the process of unwinding this canard, and the comments on scaling from a European size system push it over the goal-line.

Actually, this kind of thinking is not of the future anyway. It is old-old school national planning that the lib/left can never let go. It is their first and last answer.

Real businesses have learned lessons about centralization and people-system interface over the last 70 years. The lib/left never will. Such a pity.

Jun 24, 2008 - 10:09 pm 101. Corky Boyd:

The reason light rail has difficulty gaining access to airports isn’t because of any “taxi lobby”. The reason is becuase the airport authorities or county/city governments that run airports don’t want them.

A major source of income comes from parking revenues and taxi/executive car contracts. Even off site parking lots have to pay a fee to pick up and drop passengers. It isn’t just the airport’s revenues, it’s campaign contributions to county executives that come from protected taxi/executive car contractors.

I just love the Air Train at JFK. I used to take the Metro to National (now Reagan) and Bart was great for getting to Oakland.

The problem with rail whether it is light rail or AMTRAK, is it goes where it wants to go, which is not necessarily where you want to go. It is very inflexible.

Jun 24, 2008 - 10:12 pm 102. John Moore:

I am amazed that people, especially out west, thing trains are a solution to anything.

Someone recommended a route between Phoenix and Tucson. I live in the Phoenix metroplex, and one of my coworkers commutes 55 miles each way, all within the metroplex. Phoenix and Tucson are projected to collide in 10 years.

In other words, you have to drive so far to get to the train station that you might as well go the rest of the way by car.

None of this has stopped our local elites from cramming light rail down our throats, putting in a line that connects the anemic downtown Phoenix (why would anyone go there?) to the University in Tempe (now that’s gotta be a popular route). Oh, at the cost of billions in taxes, of course.

Trains are neat. I used them in Europe. But one day when living in Paris, about noon, we decided to go out for a drive. By evening we were at the Czeck border. In Arizona, that wouldn’t have gotten us halfway across the state!

The US is big, and the farther west, the lower the density even in the widely separated big cities.

Jun 24, 2008 - 10:31 pm 103. michaelyi:

“I refuse to believe that there a car-train from LA to Seattle wouldn’t be a great idea,” says Darren. Well, how about refusing to believe in gravity and then flying yourself to Seattle from LA by flapping your arms, Darren? Great idea, huh?

The few folks commenting here, such as Darren, who’ve expressed fantasies of a fast rail line that includes routes across hundreds of miles spotted by small towns and very few cities of size, say between San Francisco and Seattle or Los Angeles and San José, just don’t know what they’re talking about. Unfortunately, this fall they may be joined by thousands of Californians who’ll likely vote for billions of dollars of more state indebtedness to indulge in such fantasies. (Don’t ask how our six billion dollar embryonic stem cell and cloning boondoggle is working out for us. Aargh!)

Passenger trains are a 19th century solution to our 21st century transportation needs. Real smart for the state that includes Silicon Valley, huh? Sheesh!

Jun 24, 2008 - 11:54 pm 104. OmegaPaladin:

The Midwest has some workable intercity lines – Chicago to Milwaukee is fast and fairly cheap, also a lot more comfortable. Trains beat Greyhound by a mile.

They also could take over for tourist travel out West – much better than packing the minivan.

Jun 24, 2008 - 11:59 pm 105. Dan:

Most of those who are pro-train in this country realize that for extreme long distance travel, trains do not make sense. The country is just too big and widespread for billions of dollars to be poured into long-distance rail.

But, trains do make a lot of sense for short or medium-range trips. The California coast and the Northeast corridor are the obvious examples, but there are a few others where vast increases in funding could make trains popular and feasible. Minneapolis-Chicago-Detroit-Toronto would be an obvious choice, as would Chicago-St. Louis, Dallas-Houston, and just about any line in New York state or New England (New York-Rochester-Buffalo-Toronto and New York-Montreal, New Haven-Springfield-Boston.)

The whole point is to have a world-class national rail carrier that runs on its own dedicated rails to coordinate all of the lines together, such as newer faster lines and the traditional slower lines that serve areas underserved by other transportation (anyone who wonders why Montana’s congressmen always support Amtrak, this is why). Think the Acela-Regional combination on the Northeast Corridor.

Plus, would a French-style high-speed line be entirely unfeasible? Say Seattle and Chicago are 2,000 miles apart, a train going 300 mph could make the trip in 7 or 8 hours downtown to downtown, not much different than the 4 hour flight combined with transportation to and from airports today. It’s worth a study to see if it could be feasible and would attract riders.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:23 am 106. Seth Holladay » Links » links for 2008-06-25:

[...] Pajamas Media » Why Trains Just Don’t Work in America (tags: transportation transit trains usa) [...]

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:32 am 107. Ariadne:

Please.

Everyone takes “airport hassle” with security and check-in for granted – which, of course, it is – while you assume that railroad travel will always be run onto the train and grab a seat. If anybody actually managed to build a working train network where it is feasible to do so, after the first terrorist attack on a high-speed train, you’ll see just the same sort of security arrangements on terminals. Ooops, just added an hour, eliminating the competitive advantage for short runs.

Jun 25, 2008 - 2:49 am 108. Patrick:

Interesting stuff…but I understand the article as primarily an argument as to why trains in America don’t work in their present state, rather than why they will never work.

The size of America is not, to my mind, a limiting factor. Russia has an intricate network of railways all across the country…and it covers 11 time zones!

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:01 am 109. mister z:

I thinkt the premise of your question is false, Charlie. No, not false, just maybe irrelevant.

When $150/barrel oil prices flow through completely into travel costs (through higher costs for airlines causing higher prices, plus bankrupt airlines & less competition also causing higher prices) who’s going to travel from Denver to Washington DC for a 1 day meeting? By train OR plane?

And what about $200/barrel oil? As fossil energy descent occurs, the frequency of long distance travel is going to nosedive. Our grandchildren will probably look back and be jealous and appalled at our extravagant mobility.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:44 am 110. Scott+:

There is one area where I think trains could make an in road to air travel that is in markets where the trip can be done overnight. I was thinking about NY to Chicago, Tucson to LA, and such. If the train was a sleeper which could be boarded early and you wake up in your destination, it might be comparable to the cost of travel and hotel. The rail cars would need to start where people board. Today to take a sleeper from Tucson to LA you are at schedule risk of a train which comes all the way across the country. Looking at the fare, I think you pay for the room to come all the way across the country even though you would only be in it Tucson to LA.

Another problem with rail travel is rental cars. This week I went from Connecticut to Philadelphia and had to take SEPTA to the airport as the rental counter was closed on Saturday. In Connecticut getting a rental car at the rail station seems to be very difficult.

One more idea to get into the mix was mentioned above, that is rail needs to connect to the airports. I could see taking a train to a larger airport as opposed to a short haul aircraft, but today except for Newark and BWI, I think most trains drop you off downtown not at the airport.

Jun 25, 2008 - 5:21 am 111. Robert:

I can echo John Moore’s comment (10:31) about the utter foolishness of Phoenix’s soon-to-debut light rail system. If you want to spend that much money on public transit, it would be far better to add more bus routes or increase frequency of service on them.

And relevant to the issues discussed here, the new light rail line doesn’t even go close to the airport — it passes roughly a mile north of Sky Harbor.

Jun 25, 2008 - 6:36 am 112. Diane:

Speaking of Russia … China and India also have massive rail systems

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:07 am 113. Larry Rasczak:

Back in the summer of 2002 I took the family on a train trip via Amtrack. It was one of the best trips we ever took…except that the train was 6 hours late one way and 5 hours late on the return trip.

It was great fun. Being in a train you HAD to relax… but the kids could get up, look out the windows, (my son spent the day looking for roadrunners) and wiggle around. You could go to the lounge car. The food was great. The only problem was the train was 6 hours late.

I tried again, in 2004. My wife was going to take my daughter (then 1 ½) and my son (8) out to see me in Florida. She and her mom showed up at the Amtrack station in Houston… there is nothing there for kids to do. After the train was 8 hours late, and no food (except for a vending machine) there was an all out passenger revolt….and I’m serious… I wasn’t there, but I’ve been told that police were actually called. In the end my wife (the revolt’s red headed leader) got a VERY reluctant refund from Amtrack, a Taxi, and a ticket on Southwest airlines. That was the end of our family’s interest in riding AMTRACK for at least a generation.

Trains are much more pleasant to ride than aircraft, ESPECIALLY if you have kids… and they have a great many advantages over driving. Except for cruise ships (which are forbidden by law from going to two U.S. Ports in a row, thus killing a GREAT way for vacationing families to get to Florida…) they are the ONLY form of transportation where a kid can get up and move around and wiggle and go downstairs to the lounge… or where Mom or Dad can sit down for meal that does not come from a paper box, or a drink. Yes they are slower, but they have neither the TSA nor the stockyard like feel that air travel has now, and people will pay money (and time) to avoid that. As far as VACATION travel goes There is a serious market niche there to be filled. The only problem is that AMTRACK has the management skills of an unusually deaf brick. Their trains are late, and don’t take you where you want to go (both of which are important things in a train). They are so inconvenient to use, they make the airlines (complete with TSA) look good by comparison.

You have an excellent point about the impracticality for work related travel, but I’d like to point out two things. First with a decent wi/fi connection (if planes can wi/fi why can’t trains) and a laptop one could work on the trip. Secondly it might be better to compare air travel to what a train schedule from 1948 or 1949, in terms of travel time. AMTRACK is a management disaster, but up untill the 1950s or 1960s trains DID work for buisness travel. Google Maps says the Denver to New York Run is “1,778 mi – about 1 day 3 hours”. I suspect trians could, (and in the past probably did) cover that distance in a lot less time when they were competently managed.

Lastly you were charitable in picking the Denver to NYC route. AMTRACK’s routing is terrible and I suspect travel time could be cut if it were sane. Your Denver to NY route was direct, but for me to take the family to Colorado to see my Mom, I would have to go from Houston to either New Orleans (change trains) and then Chicago (change trains), and from there to Colorado, OR go from Houston to L.A. (change trains) then to San Francisco (change trains), then to Colorado! That takes the whole vacation just to get there!

I suspect that passenger trains could work in America… they did in the past… but they would need to be free of the union rules, the ridiculious AMTRACK, and have priority of track use over freight rail trains.

Jun 25, 2008 - 8:53 am 114. Skookumchuk:

A point regarding the miserable schedules and low on-time performance of Amtrak’s long distance trains. Over the past 25 years, mainline rail freight volumes have been trending strongly upward, first with the massive growth of container traffic between West Coast ports and the Midwest and East, second with increased movements of coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and elsewhere, third with a surge in agricultural exports and recently with increased domestic ethanol traffic, and finally with movements of grains to Mexico and manufactured goods and autos moving north to the US. All this phenomenal growth is more or less out of the public eye. Railroads within the NAFTA countries are engaged in massive infrastructure building to alleviate the resulting congestion at major choke points, again out of the public eye, but congestion is likely to be a problem in several areas for years to come. It isn’t just the Amtrak train that you are riding that is slowed due to traffic – the trains of Panasonic TVs from Asia and the Ford pickups coming from Mexico by rail are experiencing it, too.

One virtually unnoticed aspect of all this is how good the Mexican freight railroads have become in the past 10 years – on some routes, the equals of those in the US and Canada.

But expecting long distance Amtrak trains to be unaffected by this mess is simply not realistic.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:19 am 115. Charlie (Colorado):

Patrick: The size of America is not, to my mind, a limiting factor. Russia has an intricate network of railways all across the country…and it covers 11 time zones!

Oh, Patrick, do the arithmetic. And look up how long it takes to get from Moscow to, say, Vladivostok, by train.

Dan: The whole point is to have a world-class national rail carrier that runs on its own dedicated rails to coordinate all of the lines together, such as newer faster lines and the traditional slower lines that serve areas underserved by other transportation (anyone who wonders why Montana’s congressmen always support Amtrak, this is why). Think the Acela-Regional combination on the Northeast Corridor.

I just want to know why? If, as I think the analysis shows, inter-city rail is only feasible in areas with really high population density and short distances (someone pointed out population density above, and the insight is correct, although I think that’s a dual to the short distance thing: if population density is high, the places people want to go will tend to be close together too) then what do you get from having a national system? Other than higher costs (have to pay for the “national” layer) and less flexibility?

Regional rail for the Illinois coast, or the Northeast Corridor? Makes sense. The Pacific coast, with an autotrain, maybe. I see no possibility that a nationwide system can work out; insisting on one just means those of us in the middle get screwed to pay for the coasts.

Plus, would a French-style high-speed line be entirely unfeasible? Say Seattle and Chicago are 2,000 miles apart, a train going 300 mph could make the trip in 7 or 8 hours downtown to downtown, not much different than the 4 hour flight combined with transportation to and from airports today. It’s worth a study to see if it could be feasible and would attract riders.

Well, first you’ve got to catch your rabbit. There are no feasible, operational 300 mph trains around, just some promising prototypes. Say you get the train. Then you have to buy a right of way, which means buying up land through all the populated areas west of Chicago. It won’t go in a straight line — trains have severe limits on the grades they can handle — so it’s more than 2000 miles, and with safety and other demands, you’ll probably average a third to a half a square mile per mile of route. So you’ve got to buy up perhaps a thousand square miles, 640,000 acres, some of which is in major metro areas. Then TGV trackage costs around $20 million per mile. My back of the envelope says that’s going to be around $45 billion. We’re talking about an investment in the neighborhood of what it costs to build a whole new airline like United, and we want it to pay for itself on one intercity line.

Ain’t gonna happen.

Mr Z: When $150/barrel oil prices flow through completely into travel costs (through higher costs for airlines causing higher prices, plus bankrupt airlines & less competition also causing higher prices) who’s going to travel from Denver to Washington DC for a 1 day meeting? By train OR plane?

Once again, this is amenable to examination by using arithmetic. I think the thing that will cut back on one day meetings (which I hate anyway) is better telecom — when I can have a video conference from my living room using my iMac, iSight camera, and cable modem, I don’t need to do as many one day trips. None the less, I get stuck with them occasionally. Why? Because sometimes you need to meet in person, even today. Back when I did consulting, a day of my time cost in the neighborhood of $3000 (which, sadly, I didn’t get to keep myself.) A lot of good lawyers would charge you $5000 or more. If I had to forgo a billable day (or two, or three) it got very expensive indeed.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:11 am 116. Tolbert:

I am flying next week to Minneapolis

Let’s compare.

Atlanta to Minneapolis via Amtrak

Atlanta to Washington D.C. 13hrs 49 minutes + 6hr wait for next train
Washington D.C. to Chicago 17hrs 35 minutes + 5hr 30 min wait for next train
Chicago to Minneapolis 8hrs 16 minutes

Total travel time approximately 40 hrs

Price one-way $397.00 seat only

Atlanta to Minneapolis

2hr 31 min, arrive 1 hour early at gate + 1 hour travel time to airport + 30 minutes misc

Total travel time approximately 5 hours.

Price one way $119.00 (yes that is not a misprint, to $300 – coach no advance)

There is no way under any of the most optimistic of scenarios that this route will be serviceable by anything but air.

Jun 25, 2008 - 10:28 am 117. Jim:

I think rail service would work well in Florida, if a private company ran it rather than the incompetent Government. Fom the capital city of Tallahassee to Pensacola or to Jacksonville (both university towns) is about the same distance—around 200 miles either direction.

To West Palm Beach/Miami via Jacksonville, around 450 miles. Orlando even closer, Tampa about the same. If Orlando was a ‘hub’ city (as Disney wants), it could work out very well.

So maybe not national, but inner-state-wide services would be great.

Jim

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:34 am 118. Vermando:

Not sure that’s really an argument anyone is making, and certainly not Ms. McArdle. Nobody serious about this stuff proposes making trains the main means of travel between NYC and Houston. Rather, the point people make is that, nationwide, most of the population lives in a local or regional market within which high-speed rail would make sense.

So, a train from Houston to NYC would be foolish, but a train from Houston to Dallas or New Orleans is smart.

It is the same thing in Europe, by the way, where discount airlines have destroyed much of the market for long-distance trains. That market existed there for longer because the distances were shorter, but also because people there get driver’s licenses when they are older, so Spring Break to Florida by car became Spring Break to Italy by train.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:39 am 119. tbk:

Europe isn’t really smaller. But not all Europeans travel Moscow – Paris. Just like not all Americans travel Denver – New York. A lot of cities have plenty of destinations around that can be reached by train within the same day, or in an overnight trip (for the business traveller there seems to be a 4-hour limit for the whole trip, door to door ….) Or they could be reached in that time, if there were any trains. So if you just take the transcontinental distances, you’re not getting the whole picture.

Jun 25, 2008 - 11:56 am 120. Ed:

It’s going to be ridiculous to take a train from Denver to NYC even with high speed trains. What makes more sense is to build an extensive urban system that makes it easy to get to and from the Denver airports–something like the German U-Bahn–and then to expand between relatively close cities–like the German S-Bahn. Rail has a place along side of air travel.

Jun 25, 2008 - 12:44 pm 121. Charlie (Colorado):

Um, tbk, London->Istanbul: 1555 miles. New York->San Diego: 2437 miles. Europe really is smaller, and western Europe really is comparable to New England. Ed, I agree about the trains — I love to go to Frankfurt with carry-on only; I’m through customs, on the U-bahn, and in the Hauptbahnhof before most of my plane-mates have picked up their luggage. I wish we could do that in Denver, but our light rail is costing upwards of $60 million a mile… it seems unlikely that’s going to be economical.

Jun 25, 2008 - 3:51 pm 122. Ben:

Marshall: Boston has changed – behold, our newest public transportation wonder: http://www.mbta.com/schedules_and_maps/subway/lines/?route=SILVER . The Silver line is really comprised of fancy buses, but they have dedicated underground tunnels at various parts of the city, including out to the airport.

Jun 25, 2008 - 4:36 pm 123. Gozer the Carpathian:

I’m a train guy too. (My dad works for BNSF and used to work for AMTRAK for a few years) I’m pretty much in total agreement that the uS is just too bloody big in a lot of ways for a national rail line. Regional ones are good in some areas though, but have you seen how hard it is to START a new line?

Here in high desert we’re STILL (I believe we started 10 years ago) to get a dedicated passanger line from LA to Las Vegas since that’d free up some of the traffic off of I-15. Yet the political bickering, the land costs, and everything else has kept this project at a standstill.

Now for me the best compromise between Airplanes and Trains is Jet Blimps. I’m serious! Imagine being able to fly to your destination at maybe twice the time it takes a normal jet to get there, but in the comfort and stretchability of a train or cruise ship? Now if we’d only get these buggers to work.

Jun 25, 2008 - 6:32 pm 124. Charlie (Colorado):

Now for me the best compromise between Airplanes and Trains is Jet Blimps. I’m serious! Imagine being able to fly to your destination at maybe twice the time it takes a normal jet to get there, but in the comfort and stretchability of a train or cruise ship? Now if we’d only get these buggers to work.

Dude, I’m there. Where do I buy the ticket?

Jun 25, 2008 - 7:22 pm 125. Bill Perron:

WOW !!!! Sure are a lot of comments on this train subject. For three and a half years 1997 to the middle of 2000 AMTRAK had magicians on all the Coast Starlight runs from L. A. to Seattle and back. I was one of the original magicians hired and worked thru till the end of the “experiment” I knew most of the other entertainers because most of us were from L. A. We really worked to bring entertainment to the passangers and make thier trips fun. AMTRAK got thousands of letters saying what a great idea it was, now they had something for the whole family to enjoy on their trip. Ridership increased 27% because of us. AMTRAK in it’s infinite wisdom decided to let us all go, I have heard a few reasons as to why, and all of them ridiculous. But that is what happens to a government funded entity, if it makes a profit, destroy it. It really is sad because we were the one shinning star in the AMTRAK universe.

Jun 25, 2008 - 7:33 pm 126. Genifer:

One other point I haven’t seen anyone bring up is the obscene delays inherent in Amtrak service that make it equally unmarketable.
I took the train from Seattle to LA a few years ago & by the time we had hit Portland, the train was already 6 HOURS LATE!!! This was because the freight trains who owned the rails have priority. I asked one of the train staff why we were sitting in the Rockies for 5 hours. What she told me was that the train tracks are owned by the freight lines (in this case Burlington Northern) and therefore, their trains have priority & Amtrak trains need to wait. I don’t know if this was accurate but I do know that on a 3-day trip to Illinois, my trains were running late 70% of the time. So we would also need to make Amtrak more time-effective. Whether this would mean a separate rail line or combining passenger & freight service I don’t know.

Jun 25, 2008 - 9:47 pm 127. James Greenidge:

I’m no civil engineer, but outside of tunnel-boring a 1500 mph “subway” railroad under the nation that would bee-line to cities hyper-fast (but no scenery, but you likely wouldn’t miss it), maybe a ready solution would be to piggy-back Acela-plus type rail into the Interstate Highway System. Most IHS routes are more or less bee-lines between cities, and rail construction shouldn’t cost more more than renovating old rail lines (imagine resurrecting a long dead rail line to Albany on the WEST side of the Hudson River on IS 87!) Most ISH have more than adequate “shoulder” or center divider room, the right-of-way problem is pretty much nil, almost unlimited future expansion/connections, and most ISH seem to have the gradual curves and gradients conducive to a Acela+ rail system. Yes, yes, the political, lobbyist (and state ego) problems are bone crushing, but ironically I think you can work out a workable mutually benefiting and creative solutions out of the box (maybe like rail to a destination and switching to the cars on the IS for local interests or whatever). Just a study couldn’t hurt and the pay-offs could be impressive.

James Greenidge

Jun 26, 2008 - 5:08 am 128. Stephen Karlson:

In the case of the Connecticut Turnpike, the bee-line is a never-built railroad right of way. The New Haven had carefully purchased parcels of land to straighten out its twisty coastal line north of New Haven. One management, to raise money, sold the land to the highway commission. Yes, the railroad did get to haul the gravel traffic for construction.

In much of the country, the Interstate is curvier and hillier than a railroad would permit, cars and corporate-welfare-recipient trucks having tighter turning circles and greater power-to-weight ratios than trains.

On the other hand, the Interstates are clapped out. Perhaps there is a political compromise in which new highways (this insistence on rebuilding under traffic is ridiculous) have rail rights of way in the median strips. The rights of way would work best if designed for passenger and intermodal freight (less variance in train speeds.)

Jun 26, 2008 - 7:58 am 129. It’ll Never Be Me | ninme:

[...] PJM – Why Trains Just Don’t Work in America, by Charlie Martin [...]

Jun 26, 2008 - 9:14 am 130. Ken Brown:

In its present condition passenger travel coast to coast in the USA is certainly not practical except for vacations. However shorter trips up and down the coasts and between cities in the middle of the country make sense IF AMTRAC WOULD SCHEDULE THEIR TRAINS CORRECTLY. Expanded AutoTrain service also makes sense. You said technology would not help however utilizing more efficient computer scheduling of train traffic would speed things along as would a major upgrade of the AMTRAC web site. (Just try to schedule a passenger trip on their website!! Impossible!)

What the USA needs is significant improvement in both passenger and freight train services. We already subsidize trucking industry (a truck only pays about 1/3 of what it cost to maintain the roads and bridges they damage). Also trucking is less fuel efficient than rail roads. It makes sense to improve both the rail lines infrastructure, and make the scheduling train efficient in order to best utilize a combination of rail/trucks cargo handling and passenger traffic. While we currently do this to some degree, it is not enough. Just look at north south interstates like I-95 with all the trucks jamming and destroying the road day and night. Most of those long haul trucks should be piggy backed onto rail cars. Passenger cars would be safer, and the highway infrastructure would last longer and be easier to maintain.

Currently a prospective rail passenger is faced with few passenger routes, train web sites that are difficult to impossible to use, delays due to all too frequent stops and side railing for freight trains, poor accommodations on many trains, and high costs. Every one of these issues could be solved, but not as long as the oil and auto industries have our congress in their pockets. However, energy is going to be the most important driving force over the next decades. Trains can and should be a part of the solution to our growing energy crisis.

Jun 26, 2008 - 11:35 am 131. Joshua Skolnick:

In 1934 (!) the Burlington Route Zephyr made the 1015 mile trip from Denver to Chicago in 13 hours and 5 minutes. This included stops along the way. At this speed, train service from Denver to NYC should realistically be about 25 hours, not the ridiculous 60 hours described by the author of this article. At that speed, it is faster than driving and competitive with air travel requiring an overnight stay. It is shameful that our rail system has declined over the level of service that it had in the depths of the Depression. That is why the author of this article is so down on railroad travel. However, his piece is assuming that the travel trends that have occurred until recently will continue under a business as usual scenario.

We already are seeing signs that the current auto/truck/airtravel transportation paradigm is unraveling as a result of global peak oil. Vehicle miles traveled in the US are declining. Airlines are cutting back and some of the smaller ones have gone out of business. Over the road trucking, particularly among independent operators, is being driven to the wall.

Our railroad system will need to be rebuilt if we have any hope of reasonably priced and available intercity travel, as the airlines have enough trouble with $4.00/gal. gas, let alone $10.00 a gallon. They are already slashing their schedules and hiking rates rapidly.

As for rebuilding railroads, I agree with the commenter above that many interstate highways, with their extremely wide rights of way, should integrate a railroad corridor within them. That eliminates the expense of land acquisition and condemnation. Eventually, as oil runs out and we need further efficiencies, many road miles may need to be converted to rail, as it is far more efficient and less requiring of fossil fuels (read asphalt) for its construction and maintenance. Car travel may eventually be reduced to localized and specialty travel, based on neighborhood electric vehicles and high efficiency cars fueled by biodiesel.

Jun 26, 2008 - 5:49 pm 132. Charlie (Colorado):

Joshua: At this speed, train service from Denver to NYC should realistically be about 25 hours, not the ridiculous 60 hours described by the author of this article.

Um, I said 45 hours, not 60, actually. And to compare with my measures, you would be better to double that, as I have round-trip times. So you then have a 50-hour travel time. That means you reduce it to a solid two lost work days, instead of four — certainly better, but factor in opportunity cost and now you have a situation where the train would only have to pay me $2000 instead of $4000 to be economically viable.

As I noted above in another response, this idea of a “required overnight stay” is being misunderstood: it’s only a requirement to get the lowest fares, not an absolute requirement, and it really doesn’t have anything much to do with the fuel cost per se: it takes as much fuel to fly back after a Saturday night stay as it does returning the same day. So what is really happening is it’s a way for the airlines to force you to share the opportunity cost savings; the fare difference is less than a lost work day for a lot of business travelers, and not a lot more than the cost of an overnight in New York City.

“Global peak oil” isn’t an issue and isn’t going to be for a long time, even assuming Tom Gold wasn’t right. There’s lots, trillions of barrels of available oil at $100/bbl; well-known but politically inaccessible offshore oil, oil shale here in Colorado, tar sands in Canada, and we’re seeing regular wells being opened up again. The current “energy crisis”, like the last one, is a political crisis, not “peak oil.” Medium term, there are exciting things happening with both fission and fusion power, as well as biofuels; long before fossil fuels run out, they’ll no longer be fuels, just interesting feedstocks for some chemical processes. But that’s another article.

Jun 27, 2008 - 6:21 am 133. Jim:

A simple solution:

Give the contract to Disney. They will have a monorail constructed and running between Disney World in Florida and Disney Land in California in record time. And it will run ON TIME, too.

Eventually, they will connect the rest of the country with Aneheim and Orlando as the operational ‘hubs’. Their “Mickey Mouse” operation would be better than the ‘Mickey Mouse operation’ we have now.

Jun 27, 2008 - 8:03 am 134. Joshua Skolnick:

Charlie,

Is it really necessary or desirable, given the extreme environmental costs and expense, of extracting the last available drops of petroleum from the most remote locations so that we can continue our extravagant and wasteful lifestyle of McMansions, 10 mpg SUVs, so we can hold down the price of oil? The costs of petroleum, if you include externalities such as war, spills and waste, pollution, accidents, policing infrastructure and other ills associated with the car/truck/plane transportation paradigm should rightly be around $15.00 per gallon if the vehicle user were to bear the full cost of the product. And this is despite your denial of peak oil. If we had continued with the energy initiatives of Jimmy Carter, perhaps we might not be in such a fix today.

Please note that oil broke through the $142 barrier today and that the airlines get it, even if you don’t. In my backyard, for example, United is discontinuing its four flights a day from Chicago to Palm Beach, Florida. Even the CEO of GM has stated high energy prices are here to stay.

World Oil production, despite doubling of oil prices since 2005, has been flat over the past three years, according to the Energy Information Administration. An excellent quick summary of the data showing that biofuels, tar sands and unexplored reserves will not save us from having to change was written by Gail Tverberg at the Oil Drum which has several editors involved in the oil industry and does a better job in following the latest oil production statistics than the mainstream media, who, due to their advertisers in the auto, airline, travel, trucking and oil industries, have a vested interest in trying to perpetuate the status quo transportation system for as long as possible, another symptom of a crumbling empire.

As for the rail timings I cited, please remember these were 1934 numbers with an average train speed (including stops) of 78 mph. If we sped up train service to that of the Shinkansen or the TGV, the time would be cut nearly in half, with your Denver-NYC trip cut to approximately 13 hours. Aircraft would be best relegated to trips longer than this or transoceanic travel. As for wasted work time on the train, there is such a thing as quiet cars and WiFi, which the Europeans have implemented. You could actually get a lot done on the train with more comfort than the sardine can airplane and it’s degrading Checkpoint Charlie security measures and without the dead time of driving.

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:20 am 135. Jim:

Drilling locally / alternate production methods (shale oil) may not solve things permanently, but it will buy us time to get off foreign oil reserves and to develop alternate forms of energy / transportation. And at $142 a barrel, we can make money that stays in this country, rather than sending it to countries that tolerate our money while hating us behind our backs.

Jim

Jun 27, 2008 - 11:51 am 136. Ken Mitchell:

West Coast Trains:

I live in Sacramento, CA. Whenever I need to visit San Francisco on business, I can either:

1. Drive 2.5 hours (no traffic; up to 4 hours with heavy traffic) with a $3 bridge toll and attempt to find scarce, expensive parking in the city, or;

2. Take the “Capital Corridor” Amtrak train (about $20) plus a $5 BART ticket. Total time 4-5 hours, but I can sleep for a lot of that.

I agree; trains are cost-effective for up to about 500 miles, depending on the personal and dignity cost you assign to the “security kabuki” at most airports.

And it is literally cheaper to drive than fly for routes like Sacramento to Los Angeles, and (with security delays) takes only about 2 hours longer.

Jun 28, 2008 - 9:04 pm 137. Dave:

So does anyone know this?

If I wanted to go on a Hunting trip,
Could I bring my Contractor Box down to Union Station in Portland, Full of Guns,Ammunition Camping Gear, Honda Generator and Gasoline and just have it and Myself deposited In the middle of the Blue Mountains somewhere near Granite, Oregon? My Grandfather was able to have Freight Delivered this way. He had a piece of Land that was 40 Miles from the Rail Line and they just offloaded his Freight at the Closest point to the Trail.

Jun 28, 2008 - 9:17 pm 138. polthereal:

What a misleading argument! Of course passenger rail doesn’t make sense when you’re talking continental distances. But what about all of those shorter distances between cities–the kinds of trips that represent the majority of our travel, period?

High-speed passenger rail would be decisively cheaper and faster than flying for such inter-city trips. What’s more, it’d be cheaper and faster than driving in a car, so it’d get plenty of customers who want to ditch the mind-numbing interstate roll as well as the stupidity of airport shoe-X-rays.

And there are dozens of major inter-city routes that would make sense: not just the Northeast corridor (all the way from Boston to Richmond), but up and down the East Coast itself (Raleigh to Atlanta; Atlanta to Orlando and Miami), the entire Pacific Coast, the Midwest, intra-Texas, the Gulf Coast, the Mountain West (Denver to the Southwest, and within the Southwest), and more.

This type of rail doesn’t exist because we don’t support it as a society. $4/gallon a gas might finally start to change that.

Jun 30, 2008 - 12:03 pm 139. polthereal:

By the way, the Southest High-Speed Rail Corridor (SEHSR) is in the planning stages and will run from DC down to Raleigh and on to Charlotte (with eventual routes to Atlanta and Jacksonville, FL). The SEHSR only needs average speeds of about 85 mph to meet or beat car and flight times/costs between hubs (but not between ends of the corridor, such as Atlanta to DC). It would serve both freight and passenger services.

This despite relatively low population denisities in several areas (b/t Raleigh and Richmond, and through much of SC).

Regional rail will work!
http://www.sehsr.org

Jun 30, 2008 - 12:56 pm 140. cptime:

The Bay Area to Denver summer train trip is not to be missed. See the Sierras on the way to Reno. As night comes on, the train speeds across Nevada. Perfect for a roomette. Early morning breakfast in the dinning car and its scenic Utah.
By afternoon…you’re passing thru the massive Rockies, the Eisenhower tunnel. It’s early evening and suddenly you’ve come through, the Mountains fall away..and your looking out at hundreds of miles of flatness toward Kansas. Like a map but real. Denver twinkles below as the train makes giant ‘S’es down to the city. My teen read his 1st novel on the trip. I am so thankful we had that trip together.

Jul 1, 2008 - 10:38 pm 141. Charlie (Colorado):

What a misleading argument! Of course passenger rail doesn’t make sense when you’re talking continental distances.

Dude, that is my argument. I specifically said regional trains might make sense, and in particular I pointed out that the Washington-NYC trip was a better choice than a plane.

Jul 2, 2008 - 9:30 am 142. Bugs:

Back in the early 90s I rode Amtrak from DC to Atlanta and back – just for the novelty. It was not a pleasant experience. Passenger areas were tatty and crowded, sleeping compartment was hot, cramped and done in plastic and stainless steel. It was sort of like spending twelve hours in a school cafeteria while suffering from insomnia and motion sickness. It’s what you would expect from a government-subsidized operation. It feels institutional.

Despite the problems with the airline industry, I’ve been flying ever since and have had no regrets.

Jul 3, 2008 - 12:40 pm 143. link 788 | Molrak.com:

[...] Pajamas Media » Why Trains Just Don’t Work in America [...]

Jul 4, 2008 - 9:20 pm 144. kabud:

CARGO trains will work

if this country will move away from oil/natural transportation fuel economy to methanol from biomass, wood, garbage:

volume of feedstock needed to produce sufficient amount of methanol is huge but manageable by cargo trains in the best possible way

There are plenty of unused rail tracks ALL OVER THE USofA-

so we have needed infrastructure, lets put it to use to keep our individual mobility on the level of cheap domestic $1 a gallon transportation in the same but slightly modified cars that we still own

Jul 8, 2008 - 10:21 pm 145. French rail company makes $1.7 billion profit in 2007 | Theblogsnews.com:

[...] or driving on short or medium distance trips for most Americans. For longer distances, trains make no sense in the U.S. from a time and cost standpoint, particularly for business travelers, for whom those [...]

Jul 13, 2008 - 4:32 pm 146. rate taking train to washington dc from cleveland:

[...] more than 30 years. …… Atlanta to washington D.C. 13hrs 49 minutes + 6hr wait for next train …http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-trains-just-dont-work-in-america/fmxwill hutchins biography thermas de panique, hot springs, chile powerpoint vba moss Music of 1962 [...]

Jul 13, 2008 - 8:21 pm 147. KJ:

Boston and Washington DC can be connected faster if it weren’t for the curves and ROWs.

The answer is simple, if you want a quick fix, turn to emergency dictatorship as the Romans did thousands of years ago.

Need intra-city high speed rail? It would be much easier to say – we’re in an emergency, we’re just going to bulldoze all these houses and lay down tracks. No bickering politics, environmental issues, whiny NIMBYs, no waiting 30+ years for study after study which gets us nowhere. It’s just STFU, we’re building it and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Why do you think China is able to build a grand airport and a nice railway with less cost and in a short amount of time? Their policy is “if it’s good for the country, everything else comes second.”

Jul 15, 2008 - 11:36 am 148. James Anderson Merritt:

As I see it, the problem with trains is the immensity and expense of the infrastructure vs. the paucity of convenience. Cars and engines are big. Train tracks require serious right-of-way. And yet, the level of convenience is small. You still must travel between a relatively few stations, and then find some way to and from those stations between your actual points of origin and destination. Most people can’t afford their own private cars — even private compartments on long-haul trips are dauntingly expensive. Finally, you must usually check any serious baggage, or at least have it delivered to your compartment via porter — which opens the possibility of misplacing or outright losing said baggage (also a legendary problem of airline flights).

Parallels are often drawn between freight rail and passenger rail, and I think that may now be appropriate. Containerization revolutionized freight transport via ship and rail. Why can’t the same idea have a similar effect on the transportation of people? I would like to see many inexpensive networks of Personal Rapid Transit in cities and counties across this nation. These 3-4 person pods would provide direct, non-stop travel from immediate walking distance of the point of origin to immediate walking distance of the destination, serving people within, say, a 20-30 mile radius of their homes and workplaces. For travel outside the local PRT service area, pods would be routed to a designated “collector stop,” where high(er) speed trains would collect local PRT pods with passengers still inside, and transport them, on flatbed-style cars, to the desired city stop. Inside the cars, people would be in control of their own environments. They could adjust the climate control, play music, watch video material, etc., just as they now can do in their personal automobiles, but with no need to pay attention to driving, to worry about traffic hassles enroute, or to arrange for parking and storage of their vehicles upon their arrival. At the destination city, the pods (each constructed according to an inter-system compatibility standard) would enter the local PRT system and transport their passengers to their respective destination stops. The different local PRT systems could cooperate between themselves to return “foreign” PRT pods to their systems of origin. Or, if the inter-system compatibility standard were extensive enough, all pods could be essentially identical, so that the only need to return “foreign” pods would be to balance the availability of pods between local systems in the cooperative.

Initially, the inter-city trains would be the normal ones we know, proceeding at the slow speeds that were already mentioned by others in this thread. For that reason, it might be necessary to make food facilities available on the PRT transport cars. And even for relatively short trips of an hour or more between cities, it would also be good to make lavatory facilities available to pod occupants during their journey. But eventually, the PRT transport cars can be attached to high-speed trains, which will cut the inter-city travel time enormously, meaning that people might bring a snack or a bag lunch with them, as they now do on a day trip by car, but would not need full meal service aboard the train. Or, if the PRT pod loading and unloading mechanism were sufficiently efficient, and another city along the route had its own PRT system, passengers could elect to have the train leave their PRT pod at that city’s collector stop; they could use the local PRT system to get around for shopping, dining, etc., and then return to the collector stop later to catch another train and continue to their ultimate destination.

The benefits for passengers would be significant:

* A growing number of people would not need to own or rent automobiles for either local or long-distance travel.
* “Transfers” would be automatically handled, and transportation “mode changes” would be unnecessary. Passengers would never need to leave their “own” pods, except to exit the system upon arrival at their destinations.
* Even a serious amount of luggage could travel with the passengers, never again getting lost.
* The interior of a PRT pod could be roomier than most personal automotive vehicles, and the interior environment would be totally under the passengers’ control, so that their personal comfort would be optimized.
* Opportunities for terrorism would be much reduced, likewise reducing the need for the maddening and probably largely ineffective “security theatre” procedures we see at the airports today. Some people (including myself) avoid air travel as much as possible, in order to avoid the delays and indignities of airport security, which long ago exceeded the tolerance level of any self-respecting passenger who had any reasonable alternatives to air travel.

As I review the description above, this sounds like a very ambitious, long-term project, requiring major commitments of time and resources, but in fact, it can proceed in easily-digestible stages. Local PRT systems could first be built to serve local needs. Then, collector cars could be designed for existing rail-systems, and collector stops added to local PRT systems at a suitable rail station. Those two developments would provide most of the benefit I foresee. But then, separate projects could create high(er) speed rail lines (or update existing lines to high-speed service), and the PRT collector cars and collector stops could be modified, as necessary, to ensure compatibility with the new infrastructure, with the final benefit being trip times between widely separated, major cities that match or improve upon comparable airliner-based trips. At each stage, significant new value would be provided to the passenger, without further stages being necessary. Improvements could be purchased and implemented only as and when they made sense, and there would be plenty of time to get the bugs out, along the way.

Jul 19, 2008 - 9:44 pm 149. James Anderson Merritt:

I just wanted to add that much of the increase in oil prices that we are seeing is due to inflation: the government has authorized far more money to circulate than needed for the dollar to remain at a stable value. With more dollars chasing the global economy’s goods and services, each dollar is worth less than before, so prices appear to rise because it takes more of the diluted dollars to equal the value of the goods and services we buy. That’s not the whole story of oil and gasoline pricing, of course, but it’s nevertheless a big factor. Without inflation, supply-demand pricing of oil would cause the prices of things that were less in demand to drop, as people bought oil instead of them. Also, people would search for lower-cost substitutes for oil. But with inflation, the prices of EVERYTHING eventually (sometimes very quickly) go up, because there is more money available to bid up those prices.

Jul 20, 2008 - 8:20 pm 150. James Anderson Merritt:

Back in 1964, three dimes would buy a gallon of gas. The 1964 Roosevelt dime was 90% silver, 10% copper. As of today’s date, the meltdown value of the silver in that dime is worth about $1.32-1.33. (See http://www.coinflation.com/coins/1946-1964-Silver-Roosevelt-Dime-Value.html) If you had three of those dimes today, you could get about $4.00 for the metal value alone, almost exactly the current average price for a gallon of unleaded gasoline. Plus or minus brief blips of speculation in oil and/or silver, this basic relationship has remained true for the past 44 years. It is important to understand that oil prices in dollars haven’t really gone up as a function of oil becoming more costly to produce or obtain — through the normal supply-and-demand market mechanisms, in other words — but rather because the dollar’s value has been steadily diluted in the past several decades by relentless inflation — like the slow leak of a tire. Middle Eastern bad guys, oil speculators, and the greedy oil companies aren’t to blame for this. Only the government is responsible for controlling the value of the dollar and how many are in circulation. Either by making honest mistakes or through deliberate manipulation of the money supply, our own government — through successive administrations of GOP and Democrat control alike — has created the current situation, but is more than happy to deflect the blame to others. If we don’t recognize the true cause and perpetrators, we will never be able to stop the slow leak and repair the damage caused so far.

Jul 21, 2008 - 1:24 pm 151. ZEUGS: Holocaust-Leugner, Bush-Mord als Computerspiel und deutsche Blogger « USA Erklärt:

[...] “Pajamas Media” schwärmt Charlie Martin aus Colorado vom deutschen Eisenbahnnetz und rechnet dann vor, warum das für die USA keine Alternative ist: I can manage a one-day business trip by plane, but [...]

Jul 29, 2008 - 3:01 pm 152. HC:

Hm…not quite right.

The german “Transrapid” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid) is able to achieve a travelling-speed of 310mph…

Denver->New York by Mag-Lev would actually take LESS time then flying (roughly 6 hours compared to 18h). AND it would be much more energy-efficient and ecologic (no kerosine needed!)

Jul 31, 2008 - 2:48 pm 153. Pajamas Media » Live From the DNC: Eyewitness to Mayhem (Day 2):

[...] finding parking downtown, even on a normal day it is probably about as fast. You might think, after my piece on trains, that I’m against public transportation. I’m not. I’m just against public [...]

Aug 26, 2008 - 12:58 pm 154. fornetti:

I do not believe this

Aug 30, 2008 - 1:28 pm 155. anon.:

Well, if America continues to government-fund airports and airlines more heavily than we fund trains (no kidding, government subsidies to air travel exceed Amtrak’s funding); if we continue to force passenger trains to exist as second-class citizens on the freight rail network, so that they can’t run on time; well, then they won’t work.

If on the other hand we acted like a normal, respectable country, passenger trains would work just fine.

Dumb dumb article: it’s wildly illogical. From the fact that trains are not currently working, he concludes that “Passenger rail is almost certainly never going to work again”. Complete non-sequiter. The lending market is not currently working. That means it will NEVER WORK AGAIN, according to this author. A bridge collapsed in Minnesota. Therefore there will NEVER BE A BRIDGE THERE AGAIN. What an idiot!

Oct 20, 2008 - 8:41 pm 156. anon.:

Now, to be much more specific, obviously trains don’t compete with air for the coveted LA to NY market.

But that’s not what train advocates are talking about, so it’s a complete nonsequiter.

There are an enormous number of close-by cities which should have good passenger rail, where it would be faster than air travel or car travel — but in most cases they don’t. The Portland,ME-Boston-NY-Philadelphia-Baltimore-DC-Richmond,VA-Raleigh/Durham,NC-Winston/Salem,NC-Charlotte,NC/Atlanta,GA markets. The San Diego-LA-San Francisco-Sacramento markets. The Minneapolis-Madison,WI-Milwaukee,WI-Chicago,IL-Gary,IN-Fort Wayne,IN-Toledo,OH-Cleveland,OH-Youngstown,OH-Pittsburgh,PA-Harrisburg,PA-Philadelphia markets. The NYC-Albany,NY-Syracuse,NY-Rochester,NY-Buffalo,NY-Niagara Falls-Toronto market. The Toronto-Windsor-Detroit-Chicago market. The Chicago-Joliet-St.Louis-Kansas City markets. And those are just off the top of my head.

When you stick the natural pairs which would be served by high-speed rail in Europe together, you find that you have a continuous network from the Midwest to the East Coast. People may still take planes from Atlanta to Minneapolis, but if they’re only travelling half that distance, they certainly wouldn’t — if we had the will to build a European-quality rail system.

Oct 20, 2008 - 8:49 pm 157. anon.:

“Did someone say that 20 hours from Denver to NYC is “comparable to a plane”? Unless you think NYC is the airport code for Sydney, Australia, let me disabuse you of the idea that 20 hours is similar in time to 4.5 hours.”

If you can get from NYC to Denver in less than 10 hours, you own a private jet. For normal people, the massive overhead at either end is significant.

Oct 20, 2008 - 8:52 pm 158. Ingemar Smith:

This comparison is worthless. It’s like comparing Betamax and Blu-Ray DVDs by the cost to produce Betamax tapes which basically aren’t in production.

Comparisons can’t be made tween systems currently dominant and systems that never saw dominance. Scale makes a huge difference as to what the price of a product or service is.

So today comparing trains, which aren’t used much with planes which are used all the time, isn’t useful for much anything besides seeing who is on what service.

To understand what I’m saying, try to estimate or imagine what it might cost to fly if the ridership were reversed. Flying wouldn’t be very economical. It prolly would be impossible for everyone but the super rich. Trains would definitely be usable if more people used them which goes back to the plan by the airlines and auto industry to derail the train industry before it could really get going. This was done deliberately. So putting it on the size of the country is ridiculous. That’s not the problem. Most people aren’t flying cross country anyhow.

Scale matters.

Oct 23, 2008 - 12:11 pm 159. Steve:

Look at New Jersey State Transit system. It is probably the best in America after NYC. 75% of the states population live with 5 miles of a rail station(11 commuter lines, all linked together). Well over 90% live with 3 miles of a bus line. The system is actually going to add 2 more rail lines in the next 5-7 years. All trains run every hour or less; 7-365 and run from 4am to 1am. Almost full day service. Trains are actually at of above capacity on a regular basis. The state is pushing smart development on towns based around public transportation. By the way travel time are very favorable to a car and train and buses have cares be on cost ever time. Ex. Furthest point on an NJTransit train is about 90/120 minute from NYC and cost $21.50 round trip. Car can take easily just as long and every toll into NYC is about $8 plus parking will be over $40 real fast.

Nov 22, 2008 - 11:46 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: