Nearly every mode transport in the U.S. has received government support to get up and running. Most eventually cut the government umbilical cord. It is history; citing it is not a solution for today’s issues.
For most of my relatively short trips, i.e., under 400 miles, I drive. My car, which is a Toyota Corolla, is more convenient, dependable, and comfortable than public transport. However, I support better passenger train service in the I-35 corridor because of the congestion that has developed over the last decade. It is traffic congestion, I believe, that will cause many people to demand an alternative to traffic choked roadways.
I live in an active adult community in central Texas. It is middle class through and through. Most of my neighbors want better roads and air service. They do not even think trains.
Postwar airline travel was much more active than pre-war airline travel. On the low cost end, the multitudes of surplus C-47’s made it really easy to start a no-frills airline service (that’s how PSA got started). By 1950, the introduction of pressurized airliners (DC-6, Constellation, along with Convair and Martin twin engine) made flying “above the weather” practical.
The real boom came with jets, with the 727 and 737 making medium range flying down right cheap - in 1972, San Diego to the Bay Area was a flat $24.50.
Probably because they’ve never ridden a good train. I’m jealous of what most other first and now even some third world countries have. 300 km/h 200 mph trains that means I can do a day trip if I wanted to visit a city that would take too long to drive or even fly.
I go to an outdoor concert setting at Ravinia in Highland Park several times a year . I take Metra. Goes right to the gate. Parking lot is a mess. It overfills so then you’re taking a shuttle to remote lots. By the time parkers are on the road my train is part way home.
I have a car. Don’t use it unless I have to. Traffic is bad. Frankly the train is more convenient. And less costly.
Prewar airline travel was essentially a rounding error. I have a chart that shows it was less than a %. The auto actually overtook trains about 1925. About the same time that pax trains starting losing money. America produced 4 million cars a year in the 20s. 90% of world production.
The figure to look at as you consider American automobile production ramping up is less the number of automobiles produced per year as what is happening with the previous years’ production, trickling down until nearly everyone can afford to own a car if they can keep it running.
Adding dramatically to this: even through the Thirties, it was common practice for cars to have many engineering improvements in a given model year, but sell for a lower price. This further whipsawed resale value for ‘previously owned vehicles’.
Of course, postwar trends made older cars even cheaper – you have probably read stories of Duesenberg Js on early-50s car lots for $400. If you wanted a typical early-Fifties car for transportation, it was better than the Duesenberg for quite a number of reasons…
$24.50 was the refundable flat fare that included baggage, not the equivalent of the “wanna get away” ticket from Southwest. Compared to interstate fares at that time, this was a bargain. FWIW, Southwest pretty much copied PSA’s service but with the cost saving measure of only flying 737’s.
$24.50 works out to be a bit less than $0.06 per mile, all up driving costs were about $0.10 per mile in 1972 for an economy car.
Actually my fare included 2 free bags and while not refundable was fully returnable with a credit I could use on any Southwest route and any time and never expires. .
That was the original premise of People Express, which I thought pioneered the idea of the ‘jet DC3’ with purposefully unassigned seating: let 'em on until it’s full, send it; if anyone’s left over get another plane.
What I observed killed their business model was amusingly similar to experience with many streamlined motor trains in the mid-Thirties: increasing demand made the thought of larger vehicles look attractive. So People “invested” in 727s, which for a variety of reasons was Not A Good Idea…
You are forgetting what typical airfares were in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The airfares for intrastate air travel in California were regulated by the CPUC and were definitely lower than the interstate fares regulated by the Civil Aeronautics Board.
In 1972, PSA was mostly flying 727’s, which required three crew in the cockpit versus two in 737’s along with a lower seating capacity in the 727’s versus today’s 737’s. In the same regards long distance calling via MCI or SPRINT was a bargain, while today the incremental cost of a FaceTime call is zero for most people.
I think another item not mentioned is the fixed labor cost of a privately run passenger train vs an airliner. I was watching a Smiley Films video on the California Zephyr and they stated over the route of the train about 70-80 staff for the train with a average ridership of approx 300 or so people on a good run (I suspect Amtrak’s version you can cut the passenger count by 50%). At any rate, civilian airliner, minmal crew in comparison, less equipment and look how many RT a single plane can do in a 24 hour period? So I think the bottom line costs were cheaper for the airliner.
There was a news item in a 1968 or 69 Trains magazine about a comparison of costs for the CZ and a 707 between Chicago and Denver. The labor costs on the CZ per passenger were about equal to the total costs for the 707 per passenger.
What people forget about is this while the passenger train has higher labor costs the plane has higher fuel costs. A 737 burns 850 gallons per hour. Plus on a train you’re not shoehorned into a seat smaller than a racing seat and can get up to walk easier.
Here’s an example of the labor on a premium LD train, in this case the UP/MR City of LA.
The fuel costs don’t come close to matching labor. That’s why today it’s naive to think you can run LD trains with sleepers and all the amenities and still have affordable prices.
A more recent study by Amtrak, How do Long Distance Trains Perform Financially, which was published in 2019 or thereabouts, I believe, shows the financial outcomes for the long-distance trains compared to the NEC and State Supported Trains. It also provides insights into the costs associated with running the long-distance trains.
The study focuses on the California Zephyr as an example of the costs driven by the long-distance trains. The Zephyr requires 45 dedicated employees for its run between Emeryville and Chicago, i.e. 27 engineers/conductors, 11 on-board service employees, and 7 dedicated station employees.
If anyone wonders why the long-distance trains had a cumulative loss of more than $2.3 billion for the four years ended FY24, a look at just the labor costs is a pretty good indicator.
Anyone wanting to read the study can get a copy of it by typing the title into Google. It is worth a read, unless one is an apologist for the long-distance trains and does not want his/her faith upset.
Blockquote
A more recent study by Amtrak, How do Long Distance Trains Perform Financially, which was published in 2019 or thereabouts, I believe, shows the financial outcomes for the long-distance trains compared to the NEC and State Supported Trains. It also provides insights into the costs associated with running the long-distance trains.
The study focuses on the California Zephyr as an example of the costs driven by the long-distance trains. The Zephyr requires 45 dedicated employees for its run between Emeryville and Chicago, i.e. 27 engineers/conductors, 11 on-board service employees, and 7 dedicated station employees.
If anyone wonders why the long-distance trains had a cumulative loss of more than $2.3 billion for the four years ended FY24, a look at just the labor costs is a pretty good indicator.
Anyone wanting to read the study can get a copy of it by typing the title into Google. It is worth a read, unless one is an apologist for the long-distance trains and does not want his/her faith upset.
Blockquote
I would think that is close to accurate. Notably, Amtrak staffs LD trains less than the private railroads did, crew requirements are slightly different mandate under Federal law these days with removal of fireman. Also, Amtrak ridership is running about 2/3 to 1/2 of what private railroads generally carried with the better LD network that existed and the folks that would consider the LD train as a alternative. Service has also greatly deteriorated under Amtrak even though technology has made it better.