What is it going to take besides lots of money for the railroads (Amtrak) to be at all competitive against the airlines. How fast does a train need to travel and how much service will it take to be competive.
Short fast trains into Airport Hubs in distances of 200 miles or less.
Now the next question can Amtrak compete with Greyhound?[:)]
Unfortunately, we can’t compare air vs. rail in the US to the same in Europe or Japan. Probably the only areas that would compare would be the Northeast Corridor and the Capitol Corridor, where population centers are close together, like they are overseas. Commuter rail CAN compete with commuter air in these corridors because they are, in most cases, faster. Airports are located outside town, due to the land needed for approach and runways, Rail stations and terminals are usually downtown, removing the need to commute from the airport to downtown. Commuter air is close to, if not at, saturation because of the limits of the air traffic control system (which, by the way, is tax supported). Commuter rail has capacity for expansion, but would require funding for more train sets and signalling system upgrades, something that the current, short sighted administration seems to be against doing. Maybe if the railroads consumed more oil and paid off the white house cronies…
I aint riding Greyhound ever again. Dont get me started on the reasons.
True high speed that serves airports, attractions and urban areas that are tied with regional commuter services that also includes light rail or subway will help alot.
But the Aircraft reigns supreme for the dollars on longer hauls.
I could:
Drive Little Rock to Washington (2 days) Gas and hotel @400 round trip
Amtrack (Change trains at Chicago) almost 2 days At least $400 round trip
Greyhound (Too long without sleep) Not worth any amount of money
Airline Approx $400 round trip twice a day several times a week. and need about 3 hours to do the trip.
So If im gonna spend 400.00 to make the trip give or take a little… High Speed Rail is going to have to get close to the airline in terms of speed for the same amount of money.
That will be very tough considering the terrain between Arkansas and Maryland.
I suspect that travelers dont want to “Travel” they want to be there ASAP!
The way things look now, I think I would be a Moller Skycar owner able to make the trip in good weather for less than a day.
I basically agree, but why should it be up to the Federal government to fund the short haul and commuter rail. These are local needs, not national. In California the State and local goverments have a large roll in passenger rail funding (both capitol improvements[^] and subsidizing fares[V]) . Other States and localities should do the same.
As I understand it, the FAA will be deciding next March about approving the Eclipse 520, a small, fuel efficient jet that will fly 420mph. It’s to be mass-produced, and several air taxi companies are in the works that will use it to offer non-hub, point-to-point service attractive to business travelers - a prime market.
I think there’s enough momentum that trains will continue to move the commuter masses twice a day. Amtrak is a political football. Aviation is going to be supported by the government because it’s important to the future of the US in the world.
In addition to its current problems, soon a new type of airplane – “very light jets” – which is slightly larger than a private airplane but has a new generation of miniaturized jet engine and can fly at 400 mph, will compete with Amtrak. Small airplanes can now have avionics that only commercial passenger jets of 25 years ago had. These planes are cheap, about $1.5 million apiece. Even the NY Times has started to notice:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/19/national/19jet.html?
Instead of affecting the airlines, VLJs are a potential Amtrak killer. The VLJs will serve areas that Amtrak does not serve and cannot ever serve and can serve them directly. I think you’ll see politicians, especially those whose districts aren’t served by Amtrak, lining up behind such a concept. Time is not on the side of Amtrak’s long-distance trains.
For rail to be competitive with air, what we need is a system similar to that built 100 years ago. Most train riders make intermediate stops in all the smaller towns & cities in the Corridor. Think elapsed time & not distance.
Take Chicago-Milwaukee as an example. Don’t forget the north suburbs, like Evanson, etc, and Kenosha & other cities. Perhaps a modern Electroliner could cover the 90 miles in less than an hour. Other trains make stops, adding a few minutes to the trip. Offer fast, frequent daily service. Get the chamber of commerce & business involved. Attract high dollar fares with high value service. From this base, perhaps 2 trains a day could be extended into Green Bay or Madison. I’m sure you could get some Bear fans to get tickest for the annual Packer game, with the reverse true for games in Chicago.
THe competition isn’t air, especially in short corridors. THe real competition is to get people out of their cars. A fast, all weather, safe system may allow families to park their SUV’s at the station. THe Interstates are clogged & can’t be expanded further.
Another key may be with state DOT’s to get some of the freight off the highway. anything to help ease congestion.
Put a set of wings on all Loco’s???
I don’t think rail can compete with air travel. I do think Amtrak could be “reinvented”. Let me explain. With proper backing and marketing it could be a successful venture. I think a return to Streamliner type trains would be a good start. Let’s face it, Amtrak trains are UGLY! Properly advertised as a classy, luxurious mode of travel I think business could pick up substantially. Retro luxury rail travel, an American vacation adventure. You know, focus on the strengths of rail travel. TV and radio ads, the works…
Probably when people get tired of coming 3 hours earlier to get security screened for 1hour plane trip and jet fuel cost about $10 a gallon.
Brent
But they will need a second SUV at the destination to get to where they are really going[;)].
Three hours? I suppose it happens but I don’t think it is the rule anymore. For example, just today I flew out of Orlando. I arrived at the airport at 6:20am. It was busy but I was still able to re-arrange my travel to go stand-by on an earlier flight, check baggage and fly out, on-time at 7:40am.
Last week, I flew out of Dallas from the time I arrived at the rental car return desk, took the bus to the terminal, checked and went through security to the gate a total of 25 minutes passed.
In Buffalo the week before we arrived at the airport late 8:45am but were still able to get on board a 9:10am flight (admittedly thanks to having pre-printed boarding passes and no luggage to check).
I agree. I fly out of Laguardia, supposedly one of the most congested airports in the US. Compared to pre-9/11 I’ve only have had to tack on about 25 more minutes. I consider that pretty reasonable. I still prefer the Metroliner to Boston or Washington, however. Nothing that I’ve seen here changes my mind that the future of their long-haul routes is pretty dire and getting worse.
Will not ever happen as everyone except daily commuters prefers air travel. You can’t get them out of the car and you ain’t gonna get’em out of a plane.
Everybody has made good points. Air travel is here to stay, although some of the woes the airlines seem to be expressing sound a lot like railroads had in the 50’s. “The cost of operating is too high.” “Not enough people go there.” “Why should we have two pilots AND a flight engineer?”
Here’s another example. I get a week off in July. I’d like to go to Washington, DC from my home here in Georgia. I could take my wife’s Honda up and park it next to the sorry excuse for an AMTRAK station in Atlanta. That’s an hour and a half drive… oops, forgot all the construction going on around Hotlanta. Leave the car there for a week? Ummmm…no.
Never mind. I’m a gonna take the train. The train departs Atlanta at 6PM, if it’s on time… which it probably won’t be. With any kind of luck, I get to spend the night on the train… admittedly much more comfortable than a Greyhound bus (and you can sleep on them- your body will give in to sleep deprivation after about 24 hours.) I get into Washington about 18 hours later, God willing and CSX yields the right of way. 3/4’s of a day down. I’ll spend another 18 hours coming back to Atlanta. That’s a day and a half… and a drive at either end.
I can reach the Atlanta airport easily, either by shuttle bus, or drive myself. I don’t worry about leaving my car in an unguarded parking lot at the airport. Three hours later I am in Washington, DC. It’s also cheaper for me to fly than to take the train… and the airlines are a little more conscientious about being on time.
Remember, it was Jim Hill who said this about passenger service:“It is like the male teat. It is neither functional or ornamental.”
Erik
Ever sleep in your car? I have slept in rental cars and showered at the YMCA…You can rent a car now one way from Cleveland to Chicago one way for 60.00. Americans are too pampered to rough it…
Amtrak will never be able to compete with the airlines unless they are able to operate like they do. The NEC maintains decent schedules because the track they use are dedicated to passenger train traffic only. Vertually all other Amtrak trains have to share the tracks with slower freight trains.
Jet Freighters have essentially the same performance as passenger airlines and thus are able to use the same runways and flight paths. General Aviation (slower planes are restricted to different runways and flight paths. When a plane experiences a late departure, it is not forced to fly behind a slower plane and thus set back its’ next arrival time even further in the manner an Amtrak train is delayed by other traffic using the same line.
Amtrak has to either be able to run on its own tracks or share them only with frieght trains able to operate at the same speeds such as the Chunnel trains do.
I don’t ever see it being anywhere close to as popular as air, because the US is too big. Even if you had a high speed line on a relatively short route, like LA to SF, the train would still have to make numerous stops to placate the people that want to go to destinations in-between. That would waste more time, and so the planes would still be faster. Plus, when they can barely keep the system they have running, I don’t see them spending the kind of money it would take to build anything like what Europe or Japan has.
Commuter lines… That’s different. I think those will only continue to increase.
Dave
-DPD Productions - Featuring the NEW TrainTenna LP Gain RR Scanner Antenna-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/