Charlie Martin (who lives in Colorado) looks at why passenger trains can't compete with airlines as they do in Europe. The answer is simple arithmetic -- long distance trains take much too long:
I can imagine taking the train to New York on vacation, because I am a train nut and the trip would be fun in itself. But let's think about this as a business trip: taking the train would not only cost about 1.5 times as much -- or four times as much with a compartment, and I'm just sure I'd be all set to go right to work in New York after two full days in a coach seat -- but it consumes four working days in travel time. I can manage a one-day business trip by plane, but a one-day trip to New York by train is a five-day trip. Subsidies won't help: counting in the lost time, Amtrak would have to pay me $4,000 to make up for the time difference. The travel time difference is so large that Amtrak couldn't compete if train tickets were free.
So why are trains so popular in Europe? Simple: Europe is smaller. My Basel to Paris trip is 250 miles; Denver to New York is 1,625 miles. Why is Amtrak popular in the Northeast? Because, here we go, the distances are comparable to Europe: Washington, DC, to New York is 203 miles.
I can certainly understand why it would be ridiculous for anyone but a sentimentalist (or a couple on a honeymoon) to take the train from Denver to New York. Even with all the glitches and hassles, flying is so far superior that it's almost a no-brainer.
But to fly from Philadelphia to New York (something that was once routine) would be an act of insanity these days. Because of runway congestion and bureaucratic inefficiency, planes rarely take off on time from Philadelphia. As to landing on time in New York, you might have better luck winning at the Atlantic City crap tables. And that doesn't include the hour and a half you have to set aside to get past security and onto the plane. Or the often-impossible airport parking. To call it "insanity" is no exaggeration.
Even flying to Chicago is so iffy that depending on the circumstances, you'd often be better off driving. When I drove to the Midwest during the recent series of thunderstorms, I remember thinking how impossible it would have been to fly. On several occasions when I have tried to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago, I have ended up having to drive home because of weather-related flight cancellations and try the next day. I always end up thinking that had I known in advance about the cancellations, I could have gotten there faster by driving.
Taking the train to Chicago, though, is not as reasonable an option as driving. If you look at these Amtrak schedules, the listed time durations range from 17 to 27 hours, but each listed time period has an asterisk with this ominous message:
Approximate duration does not include layovers.
Who wants layovers? Not I.
Even considering all the grim options, flying to Chicago still seems like the best of the worst.
The last time I went to New York, I tried a newer line called Megabus.Com. Despite having to go through New York's rush hour, they got us there nearly ontime, and the late night return trip was a snap -- even in pouring rain. These are slick new buses equipped with WiFi, and they even showed a DVD of one of the Narnia Chronicles (I was a bit too tired to watch fantasy, but I'm sure it helped my dreams while I slept....)
Best of all the Megabus costs $12.00 round trip. That's much, much cheaper than Amtrak's prices for the same trip, which range from $86.00 to $278.00.
It's even cheaper (and faster) than driving, because not only do you have the fuel costs, but there are whopping bridge tolls with long waits, and have you ever tried parking? In New York? Hah! You could sleep overnight in the average Motel 6 for less. The fastest way for me to drive to New York is to drive to Newark, park there, and take a local train across the bridge to New York Penn Station. But even then, the parking is $11.00, then the train fare is another $8.00. So the bus saves $7.00, and spares you the aggravation of two long and aggravating drives on the New Jersey Turnpike (something best used only by seasoned portal-travelers in Being John Malkovich).
In any case, getting from point A to point B is no fun unless you make it fun, and the best way to do that is by attempting to beat the system through economic navigation. Thank God we still have the free market system, which still allows (for now, at least) new companies like Megabus to appear out of nowhere and offer genuine services to human beings.
But if you think things are bad now, just wait till the carbon footprint people (a subdivision of the infernal "they" class that wants to run our lives) get their dirty mitts on every last aspect of what remains of our ability to simply get from point A to point B.
Our cherished constitutional right to travel will become infinitely more challenging.
posted by Eric on 06.25.08 at 10:12 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6850
Comments
I took the train from Denver to Layfayette IN last year. Yes it took longer than flying, yes it was not on time. But it was cheaper than flying (would have to rent a car or have my friend pick me up in Chicago or Indianapolis) and much much cheaper than driving - and yes faster. AND the trip was relaxing, no crowded seating, decent food (and the prices weren't bad. No rush really. I plan on doing it again this year.
My brother ( in NM) and I might even take the train to DC. Better and cheaper than driving and I still think cheaper than air. Time is not an issue since we are retired. Relax a little.
LYNNDH · June 25, 2008 11:40 AM
I much prefer trains to planes, and wish they really were a viable alternative to air travel. At least in cases where the trip was part of the point of traveling.
Another reason passenger train travel is so minimal is that after WWII the railroads made a decision to configure themselves towards freight hauling, not passengers. Except where there are dedicated lines for passenger trains (commuter trains, especially) the rail system in the US is designed for relatively low speed transport of heavy weight cargo. You can't build a bullet train and run it on most rail systems in this country, at least not at bullet train speeds.
Steve Skubinna · June 25, 2008 01:36 PM
"...to fly from Philadelphia to New York (something that was once routine)..."
Small nit, not intended to contest your larger point: flying between Philly and NYC was never "routine" except in the sense that certain trunk routes did so as part of a longer route NYC-PHI-BAL-WAS and then onward to points west and south. There would have been little or no local passenger traffic on the NYC-PHI flight segment.
David Hecht · June 25, 2008 04:21 PM
Another reason passenger train travel is so minimal is that after WWII the railroads made a decision to configure themselves towards freight hauling, not passengers.
That's not true. After WWII the railroads were in pretty good financial shape. Hell finally froze over and even the Erie paid a dividend. The RRs purchased alot of new passenger equipment in the late 40's early 50's only to see their market share decline dramatically as airplanes and interstate highways came online in the late 50's.
Also, the regulatory nightmare known as the ICC made any changes to their operations difficult.
"the rail system in the US is designed for relatively low speed transport of heavy weight cargo."
BNSF's hotshot trains LA to Chi run at 70+ mph
Anonymous · June 25, 2008 05:10 PM
As long as smoking is prohibited on all common carriers, one quarter to one third of travelers will opt to drive.
What do you bet they'll be outlawing smoking in private automobiles next? There will be some rationalization--studies!--that proves smokers have more accidents than non-smokers because of their fumbling for cigarettes and matches. Of course, we won't make a crime out of all other fumbling, such as switching music media and munching Singularity Sprout Sandwiches, but when was fairness a feature of progressive ideology?
Brett · June 26, 2008 08:11 AM
Okay, Wikipedia is not authoritative, but this article strongly suggests (explicitly so) that post WWII, US railroads concentrated on freight vs passengers, to the extent that the feds creating AMTRAK was the only salvation for the latter:
This is perhaps more authoritative, the last page is the most explicit in stating US railroads moved towards freight hauling at the expense of passengers postwar:
This article does mention the many new passenger cars ordered by railroads postwar, ironically against the background of severly declining passenger traffic. It also discusses the railroads' own deemphasis on passenger travel in favor of freight.
Brett, your smoking rationale fails to explain why people still fly, which is also a nonsmoking environment. Further, passenger rail travel had gone so far into the toilet by 1970 that the federal government established Amtrak to permit the railroads to exit the passenger business - well before smoking became a politically incorrect sin against Gaia - or whomever the nannies worship.
In most cases, serious passenger rail would need dedicated rights-of-way. Freight lines are mostly too congested (which is a *good* thing, because it reduces truck traffic) and most lines aren't configured for very high speeds.
But good luck getting such lines built, in an era where any construction effort whatsoever is held up for years by "activists" of various types.
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I took the train from Denver to Layfayette IN last year. Yes it took longer than flying, yes it was not on time. But it was cheaper than flying (would have to rent a car or have my friend pick me up in Chicago or Indianapolis) and much much cheaper than driving - and yes faster. AND the trip was relaxing, no crowded seating, decent food (and the prices weren't bad. No rush really. I plan on doing it again this year.
My brother ( in NM) and I might even take the train to DC. Better and cheaper than driving and I still think cheaper than air. Time is not an issue since we are retired. Relax a little.