Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really hope this happens. It's not going to make money (and as a public utility, that's ok) but it would be cheaper to build than most other lines and is the perfect distance for HSR, with growing demand.
More broadly, HSR is way better than airplane for short trips (under 300 miles). Amtrak needs to focus on building out HSR trunk routes that meet that spec (e.g. Chicago-Detroit, Florida east coast corridor, Houston-Dallas, Dallas-San Antonio, Atlanta-Miami, Vegas-LA) and expand from there.
Amtrak has very high mode shares in the Northeast Corridor, especially between Philadelphia and New York. An argument could be made that its nationwide service is underutilized (though I think it would be better utilized if certain modest improvements were made), but there is a huge demand for its regional service in the Northeast.
Page 9 gives mode shares for various sub-markets within the Northeast Corridor.
Keep in mind, in those locations there is viable mass transit and the destinations; subways, plus regional rail in the form of Metro North, LIRR, NJ Transit and SEPTA. This is also true in Washington, DC and to a lesser extent Boston. This illustrates the necessity of solving the "last mile" problem. In most locations solving that problem makes little sense.
More broadly, HSR is way better than airplane for short trips (under 300 miles). Amtrak needs to focus on building out HSR trunk routes that meet that spec (e.g. Chicago-Detroit, Florida east coast corridor, Houston-Dallas, Dallas-San Antonio, Atlanta-Miami, Vegas-LA) and expand from there.
With air travel meltdowns caused by periodic computer system failures or in more frequent cases, weather-related delays and cancellations, travelers face significant and costly disruption to their lives. It is unfortunate that most Americans don't have a viable optional mode of travel, other than personal automobiles.
Keep in mind, in those locations there is viable mass transit and the destinations; subways, plus regional rail in the form of Metro North, LIRR, NJ Transit and SEPTA. This is also true in Washington, DC and to a lesser extent Boston. This illustrates the necessity of solving the "last mile" problem. In most locations solving that problem makes little sense.
Again, airports have precisely the same “last mile†problem.
Trains and planes are both used for business and vacations (ever hear of a sleeper car?), so the whole air travel is more of a pre-planned event argument doesn’t hold up.
Since we're talking about the US here, Amtrak doesn't get remotely the heavy traffic and use that our roads do. Roads are used to transport everything from airplane parts to avocados to Amazon packages to people.
Amtrak transports empty train cars and employees and adds nothing of value to our economy. Comparing roads with Amtrak is ludicrous. Amtrak is a failure and has been a failure for 50 years. Get over it.
Railroads in general transport virtually everything that highways do, and far more efficiently in terms of energy and land use.
And those Amtrak trains are more full than you might think. They often run at capacity even out here in the middle.
Just because Amtrak isn’t great doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be more demand for passenger rail if it were better.
For whatever reason we seem to have no problem with increasingly wide, clogged, and crumbling roads over better options.
Again, airports have precisely the same “last mile†problem.
Trains and planes are both used for business and vacations (ever hear of a sleeper car?), so the whole air travel is more of a pre-planned event argument doesn’t hold up.
Airports are differently located than train terminals and major stations. At JFK for example, the A train is the only one that's fairly close and unless you are headed to New York's far West side it really doesn't help. The express "Train to the Plane" service on the A tracks was abandoned for lack of use. There is a light-rail shuttle to Jamaica Station in Queens. This is where the analogy I have made of an "audition for the gong show" comes in since it is not really convenient to subways, and the LIRR is its own bag of joys. The trains run frequently in rush hour, but other times not really. Thus, the solution at Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal (Grand Central Station is a post office) to the "last mile" problem is a walk to subways of less than 100 yards, airports do not have such a user-friendly alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sub
Railroads in general transport virtually everything that highways do, and far more efficiently in terms of energy and land use.
And those Amtrak trains are more full than you might think. They often run at capacity even out here in the middle.
Just because Amtrak isn’t great doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be more demand for passenger rail if it were better.
For whatever reason we seem to have no problem with increasingly wide, clogged, and crumbling roads over better options.
AMTRAK is great in the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-DC corridor. The trains are often full. My wife and her stepmother took the train from West Palm to New York, see Great Train Escape - Or Getting Relative Out of Crooked Rehab Facility, and her experience was not so great. The train face a lengthy delay, over six hours, because it was stuck behind a disabled freight train just short of DC. I suspect that line is a money-losing sieve.
There are suitable public transportation alternatives to solve the "last mile" problem. Why is that not a problem in Europe or anywhere else that has a high usage of passenger rail? There are serious shortcomings in secure long-term parking at major Amtrak stations.
The two obvious problems outside the urban corridors are time scheduling and routing. Ridership would not be the problem if the trains ran on time, were frequent enough that you could make reasonable connections, and went to places people need to go. How do you fix that? For one thing, you have dedicated passenger rail lines not dependent on freight companies. You utilize short haul trains out from central hubs to smaller cities. You connect the hubs in a reasonable manner. You schedule multiple trips per day. You may not need a 15-car passenger train several times a day if a two or three car commuter-style train does the trick. High-speed rail is not needed out in the middle of the country if decent standard rail service is provided. That is not happening now.
There have been some potential improvements over the last few years with new equipment and some route expansions. A high-speed train (@110 mph) now connects Chicago and St. Louis. We see encouraging plans for rail and route improvements, but these are plans.
Airports are differently located than train terminals and major stations. At JFK for example, the A train is the only one that's fairly close and unless you are headed to New York's far West side it really doesn't help. The express "Train to the Plane" service on the A tracks was abandoned for lack of use. There is a light-rail shuttle to Jamaica Station in Queens. This is where the analogy I have made of an "audition for the gong show" comes in since it is not really convenient to subways, and the LIRR is its own bag of joys. The trains run frequently in rush hour, but other times not really. Thus, the solution at Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal (Grand Central Station is a post office) to the "last mile" problem is a walk to subways of less than 100 yards, airports do not have such a user-friendly alternative.
AMTRAK is great in the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-DC corridor. The trains are often full. My wife and her stepmother took the train from West Palm to New York, see Great Train Escape - Or Getting Relative Out of Crooked Rehab Facility, and her experience was not so great. The train face a lengthy delay, over six hours, because it was stuck behind a disabled freight train just short of DC. I suspect that line is a money-losing sieve.
You just made a great argument for why the train stations are even better than airports when it comes to the last mile. Great.
Long distance trains do lose money which is probably why most people in this thread so far have been in agreement that Amtrak should concentrate on shorter major city corridors. Plus, there should be some ability for Amtrak to fine or extract something from host freight railroads for when the host railroad's fail to maintain track or create massive scheduling conflicts which are both very common. Right now, all that happens is that Amtrak scolds them and tries to publicly shame them because there's no teeth in enforcing these agreements. That should and does need to change though I think that's a (necessary) stopgap measure. I think what Amtrak should build off of is expanded publicly owned commuter rail lines owned by local agencies and then Amtrak working out agreements to coordinate these things and potentially buying or bridging tracks / right-of-way connecting those corridors among major cities.
It's time to start investing in HSR. Any improvements to existing lines should be upgrading tracks and eliminating at grade crossings. The Northeast Corridor needs legitimate HSR, and Amtrack already has the lines in place. Other projects like California HSR, Texas HSR, and LA to Vegas are being planned by other entities. Amtrack should be upgrading their busiest line to HSR.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
