RSS 2.0 FeedAmtrak: Slower Than A Bus, More Expensive Than Flying
by Brad WarbianyIn Mike’s post about Amtrak, it was suggested in the comments that if we lost passenger rail, we’d be stuck with buses.
So what? They’re far cheaper than Amtrak, and they’ll often get there faster! I wrote the below post back in April 2006 (so the costs might not be up to date), and added a little below this.
—————
The railroads are tremendously important to this country for shipping goods, but there are much easier and cheaper ways to travel as a passenger.
As a quick test, I looked up train fare from Atlanta to Chicago. Since I regularly travel there to see family, I wanted to see how it compared to airfare. Well, Amtrak doesn’t run a direct route between the two. So a round-trip ticket cost about $380, with a stop each way in Washington, DC. And due to the extra time of those trips, the total travel time was about 30 hours each way.
Compare that to an airline flight. The same trip, by air, costs about $200 and takes about 2 hours each way. Hell, to get to Chicago is only about a 11-12 hour DRIVE, and wouldn’t cost more than about $100 in gas each way. I even checked Greyhound, and it was about a 15-hour trip, at a cost of $130 round-trip.
Of course, I’m sure I can be accused of cherry-picking the data with an Atlanta -> Chicago trip. I’m sure some other routes are more competitive in cost. In all honesty, it was simply the first choice I thought of, as it’s two major cities I’m familiar with for both auto and air travel. But if you’re going to offer intercity travel, without any direct service between the largest city in the Southeast and the largest city in the Midwest, aren’t you shooting yourself in the foot?
It’s very simple. For any long trip, it’s much more worthwhile to fly. For shorter trips, though, it might be profitable and convenient… IN WHICH CASE PRIVATE ENTERPRISE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT. And where rail lines aren’t available, bus service is.
There is absolutely no reason that American taxpayers need to continue wasting money on passenger rail service. If Amtrak can’t get themselves to profitability, it’s time for them to disappear.
—————
In addition, I tried to run a different experiment. Going 1-way from Atlanta to Los Angeles, Amtrak’s cheapest route takes 74 hours, and came in at $382, traveling through Washington, DC and Chicago, IL in the process. Greyhound takes about 47 hours, and costs $120. By choosing Greyhound, you save an entire day of travel time and over $250.
Lest you think I’m deliberately choosing Atlanta, I decided to pick a one-way trip between Chicago and Los Angeles, one of the few routes where the rail lines are direct. Surely rail is cheaper and much faster than bus service, right? Amtrak is 43 hours, $218. Greyhound is 44 hours, $120. You burn an extra hour (assuming Amtrak is on time, which is rare), and save nearly $100.
Greyhound is more flexible and cheaper than Amtrak. The infrastructure they roll on (the roads) allows for much more freedom of route service than the rail. On most routes, Greyhound will provide more competitive prices and actually get you there faster than Amtrak.
Why do we continue throwing money after passenger rail?
I think the system should be revamped. We should transfer the system to more efficient modern rail technology and use faster trains. I would prefer to spend $20 – 30 extra dollars on train ticket from Boston to New York if the travel time was much faster (say 200mph train faster). Trains are more spacious and comfortable then airplanes and buses.
Comment by Adam — March 19, 2007 @ 2:38 pmInterestingly enough, the only portion of Amtrak is in the black is the Northeast corridor (Washington to Boston and all places in between). The Acela used to be very fast compared to normal regional trains but they had to slow it down due to engineering / equipment problems. Yet it’s still very expensive (to take the Acela from DC to NYC roundtrip is almost double to triple the typical airplane fare), and yet also takes twice the time. Amtrak has its perks, aware to anyone whose traveled on Amtrak knows its nice to be able to get to the train station 5 minutes before departure and still catch one’s train. But apart from that, it appears to be an antiquated, inefficient system propped up by federal cash.
Comment by alec — March 19, 2007 @ 2:43 pmI have to say, I LOVE taking the train. I mostly take it from Philadelphia to Baltimore and Washington, D.C., where the train is actually faster than driving–it’s about 70 minutes from PHL to BAL by train; about 110 minutes by car.
And, I ENJOY the trip! I nap, snack, read, get up and walk around, sometimes even talk to people. And I arrive at the train station just a couple of minutes before the train departure.
Amtrak ain’t perfect — believe me, I wish our rail situation in this country were as good as rail elsewhere. But to fix our system, we better advice than just withdrawing federal money. Don’t forget that the road system and the airline system are both heavily subsidized by federal, state, and local governments. And Greyhound is fighting for its life.
Comment by JAY — March 19, 2007 @ 3:08 pmThe NE corridor (Portland ME, Boston, Providence, NY, DC, Phila) is fast and economically competitive, because of the population density and high-speed ACELA. It might be a bit slower than the plane, but the train stations are usually in the heart of downtown, while the airports are a longer distance.
In the rest of the country, the most viable routes are probably the frequently travelled medium-distance routes such as Chicago to St. Louis or such.
Overall, though, I think 9/11 showed the necessity of maintaining all three legs of our “transportation tripod”.
Comment by Kickstand — March 19, 2007 @ 3:21 pmAgree that Bus is cheapest way to go – I compared
bus/plane/train/car rental on a few routes
two or three years ago, and bus won.
So I took a bus Little Rock to NM, and then
NM to NC, which worked out OK. However:
1. Theft and crime is a real problem on the bus -
people were robbed on the rides I took.
Being a big man helped – small single women may
not feel as safe.
2. Sleeping on a bus is tough for some – bring
pillows, eye covers, etc.
3. Transfers are not a lot of fun either –
especially the night time ones where you
are wating around like a zombie in some inner
city terminal like Memphis.
– happy trails – Andy
Comment by Andy — March 19, 2007 @ 3:21 pmWe all pay federal and state taxes to maintain and police the highway infrastructure. We also pay indirectly for the pollution and traffic jams generated by private cars.
Comment by Harvey S. Cohen — March 19, 2007 @ 3:37 pmIf someone tells you that trains should be strictly private enterprise, they’re just saying they want *their* preferred transportation to be the only one that’s subsidized.
Let’s not forget weather issues – I just took the train from NYC to DC comfortably and on-time while travelers using other methods were scrambling to deal with dangerous road conditions and cancelled flights. We need rail, and I don’t doubt the system may need to be tweaked in places, but eliminating funding for Amtrak is just silly.
Comment by td — March 19, 2007 @ 3:44 pmLet’s try this fare – Baltimore to Somerville, New Jersey. Amtrak – $80, 2.5 hours. Greyhound – $120, 8.5 hours (sometime’s it’s 13). Airplane – Somerville has an airport?! Amtrak has its advantages. I still wish it were VASTLY cheaper. I also don’t understand why Greyhound needs SO MUCH TIME even with the transfer in Philly.
As a student in Baltimore with family in Jersey, it’s a pain in the ass trying to get home by anything BUT amtrak. I really wish it were cheaper though… If I owned a car, I could make it there and back on $50 for two tanks of gas.
Comment by James — March 19, 2007 @ 3:44 pmMy brother is on a bus RIGHT NOW. He’s going from Brattleboro, VT to Chicago. The bus will take 45 hours for the trip, he has to change buses 4 times including layovers in Buffalo and Cleveland that each exceed 6 hours. The fare is $114.00. Had he taken Amtrak he would have used two trains and the trip would have taken about 30 hours including the layover. Has the author of this drivel even BEEN on a bus in the last 5 years? I really doubt it.
Comment by PJ Clark — March 19, 2007 @ 4:14 pmI’ll also add — as someone that spent 8 hours on a bus from DC to NYC on Friday due to weather — that spending a long time on a bus is almost intolerable.
Comment by alec — March 19, 2007 @ 4:33 pmHarvey, that is incorrect. For example, I am a strong advocate for privatizing railroads. I also decry the road-socialism in this country. I want to see the roads privatized too. Let I-90 and I-95 compete with I-84. Let I-90 compete with I-80!
I strongly suspect that the end result would be cleaner, less crowded, better maintained and safer roads, which would be paid for by those who actually use them rather than by all and sundry.
Comment by tarran — March 19, 2007 @ 4:40 pmThis argument comes up again and again and consistently neglects federal subsidies for air travel and highways. Please click above link for more comparative funding statistics:
U.S. Department of Transportation Funding, 2002:
Comment by Ethan — March 19, 2007 @ 4:55 pm$32,300,000,000 Highways
$14,000,000,000 Aviation/ airports
$ 5,000,000,000 Mass transit
$ 4,000,000,000 Maritime
$ 521,000,000 Amtrak
$60,000,000,000 TOTAL USDOT BUDGET
While the example you chose is true, you can not base a decision to end an entire transportation system because it does not meet your one need. The system certainly needs to be revamped, the dependency on freight companies to share tracks causes many headaches. However, along the corridor it is the best travel option, as well as in remote locations like the northwest or southwest where there are not any other good options.
Comment by Robert Korn — March 19, 2007 @ 5:03 pmThe reason Amtrack is expensive is so that business class travellers and the upper middle class will be able to have a non-flight option that does not get them anywhere NEAR poor people.
Sure, buses are cheap … that is THE PROBLEM. Greyhound is synonymous with a welfare agency on wheels. Don’t wanna rub elbows and be immersed int he aroma of the lower classes? Amtrack is subsidized non-flight transportation for the leisure class.
Comment by Sadly — March 19, 2007 @ 5:04 pmIt’s interesting that no one seriously talks about privatizing highways (like Interstates).
After all, those roads are the epitome of socialism for capitalists: a free infrastructure provided gratuitously by the State for capitalists to make money (hauling stuff, selling cars, cas, etc.).
It’s interesting to note that whenever anyone talks about privatizing roads, the converstation quickly drifts on another topic…
But the best is that one can go look elsewhere for privatized highways. To France. Yes, France, usually not a parangon of private entreprise, has privatized highways.
And the tolls are murderous… It’s notmal: private profits are expensive…
Comment by Jean Naimard — March 19, 2007 @ 5:10 pmWho said airlines, buses and trains are not subsidized? They all are to some degree. I have been in the railroad industry, not Amtrak, almost all my life. I cannot name you one railroad company that wants to operate passenger service. I hear a lot of talk from the anti-Amtrak crowd about all the companies that want a crack at operating passenger trains. Please tell me what companies and the name of one freight railroad that will let them operate on their tracks. I am waiting!
Comment by Neil — March 19, 2007 @ 5:16 pmExcellent point, Neil. One dirty little secret we DON’T seem to be discussing here whilst bashing rail travel (and, apparently, trains in general) is how heavily the airlines and airports are subsidized by the local, state, and federal governments, while Amtrak, which paradoxically has no control over the rails it travels on, is constantly told it must “pay its own way.” Nevermind that when the airlines were new, a sizable portion of the taxes the RAILROADS paid went to subsidize what would eventually put their passenger service off the track (read “The Milwaukee Road, 1928-1985″ by Scribbins).
I recall at least TWO airlines that were at the brink of or already in bankruptcy on September 10, 2001. A few days after the 11th, they went crying to the feds that they can’t remain solvent, and what they’re providing is in the “national interest,” and PRESTO! instant handout.
If we’re going to be scrutinizing Amtrak to the n-th degree, then it is time to forcibly remove the airlines from the federal teat as well. If they go belly-up, then obviously their business model is flawed. At that point, you can either let bigger, more solvent airlines buy them out, or nationalize them (like the Feds did to the railroads during WWI, look up United States Railroad Administration) and be done with it.
Comment by Joe — March 19, 2007 @ 5:40 pmI think the lack of state intervention is the problem in the US, it’s the same with mobile phone companies. In the EU the governments intervened and settled on one protocol for all companies to use. Now you can swap between them as you wish to shop around for lower prices, and you get much cheaper and better coverage with any provider than with the US providers who were left alone to come up with different protocols, and don’t allow swapping networks without stiff penalties.
In Europe, you can go from Berlin to Paris in a few hours on a 250 kmph train, the same state intervention to ensure that customers get fair deals and progress isn’t held up.
Comment by Johnathon — March 19, 2007 @ 5:55 pmThe railways built America to what it is today, not the roads and not the airlines. And I figure that there will be a massive buildout of the railway network again. Rails can operate on pretty much anything: coal, diesel, nuclear, gas, wind, solar etc…
An 18-wheeler is a horrible way for long distance freight transport, but its good for small (upto 200 miles), but we see it being used for 5,000 mile transport from NY to LA.
If you have a big city you need all three!
Comment by Amit Kulkarni — March 19, 2007 @ 6:10 pmMy wife and daughter recently took an Amtrak trip through snowy territory. We didn’t feel safe with them driving the route and a bus would have been UNBEARABLE with a toddler. I’m very thankful that the train was available. My daughter had a great time with no fussing, just playing games and watching the scenery. If bus or car were our only option, they would not have traveled at all due to reasons of safety and sanity. Period.
Comment by AJ — March 19, 2007 @ 6:38 pmIt really depends on from where and to where you’re going. If you can’t afford airfare for a long-distance trip, you should be prepared to endure some sort of discomfort.
It’s very pretty and convenient to say, “This fare is better than that and therefore the Amtrak isn’t a good option,” but practical knowledge of the difference between a bus trip and a train trip is much more important for decisions like these.
I’ve used Greyhound and Amtrak countless times each and I would rather take the latter any day of the week. Only in the most dire of circumstances would I even consider getting on one of those damn buses again.
Comment by Josh McGuirk — March 19, 2007 @ 7:34 pmOh Pleassse..
What the author fails to take into consideration is the real life scenarios that travelers must cope with.
Air: quick, pricey, long lead time. Changes are costly and as of yesterday can trap you on a plane for 12 hours with no exit possible. only good for long distances
Train: same time as driving, more room, twice the price of gas, ticket good for a year
Bus: same time/price as driving, less room. less fun.
Now a cross country trip by rail or bus is out of the question unless you have no other choice. I travel from DC to LA by air regularly for $250. the trip is almost unbearable in coach even for 7 hours (+2 for prep time). I could not imagine it by train or bus. I’d rather blow strangers for the cash to buy a plane ticket.
Now moving to more local travel with trips under 300 miles (family, friends, vacation, jobs..) trains make a great deal. Most normal routes have trains running at regular times and you can walk onto the train seconds before it leaves, sit in a larger then business class seat, have a power outlet and a crappy meal all while walking around and changing your seat at your convenience. You will pay 2x the price of gas if you drove it yourself, but then you’d be tired and you still have to deal with parking.
I would counter your assessment with a typical east coast travel from DC to NY.
By plane, its about $150 and 1.5 hours. But you have +2 hours of pre flight security + travel costs (parking or taxi). Oh, last minute purchase? that’ll be a searching, thank you very much.
by Train it’s 5 hours and no pre travel security + travel costs and it’s about $100.
so far the longer travel time is the only minus (but you get a much bigger seat and more creature comforts). but add into the equation that I can miss my train, and my ticket is good for ANY train going to my destination for 365 days with absolutely no hassle and I’ll take the train over air travel any day. As a family man who travels between DC and Boston weekly for jobs, fun, family, I’ve done the real life traveling and Amtrak rocks! It’s worth the extra price/time to have no TSA idiots bothering you. Wait till gas hits $5 a gal, and then you’ll be singing light rail virtues.
Air travel has had all the fun legislated out of it anyway.
Comment by fasterdogs — March 19, 2007 @ 9:20 pmThis argument is flawed, taxpayers are already shelling out tons of money in road subsidies as well as airline subsidies. Why should Amtrak have to stand on its own? None of the other transportation modes you have mentioned could operate at those prices without subsidies.
You are comparing apples to oranges here… not to mention the fact that if you had even been on a long bus ride you would never advocate taking the bus.
Comment by Aron — March 19, 2007 @ 9:35 pmI’m an American. I grew up in the 80s taking taking from Florida up to New York State to visit family. I also took a train (indirectly) from NYC to Portland, Oregon back in 2005. I loved the experience. But at the time I was just coming back from living in Thailand for 3 years prior to that. On my NYC – Portland trip I had all the time in the world to spare, so it made no difference to me.
Now after visiting countries like Japan and Taiwan that both have super-fast trains that operate regularly… I find that American REALLY needs a train system like the ones in Japan and Taiwan.
Normally, a bus from Kaohsiung (in the south of Taiwan) to the capital, Taipei, can take 6 hours. On a high-speed train it takes only about 1.5 hours. The bus costs about $21 USD roundtrip, and the high-speed train costs aboutr $40 USD one-way, however, I really think it’s worth it. These trains are new, safe, and give a major sense of pride to cities that have one of these high-speed stations. This is the ground-transportation of the future – today. Unfortunately, the U.S is missing out…. Big time.
I love trains.
Comment by Shaun Apple — March 19, 2007 @ 10:25 pmI see you idiots are at it again. I would appear that the majority of the folks who read your post are for MORE/better passenger rail or at least acknowledge its place in our transportation picture. Find something else to cry about. I pay for your roads and airports just like you pay for my Amtrak. Deal with it.
Comment by mark — March 19, 2007 @ 10:26 pmSo the argument for Amtrak essentially boils down to: the government makes plenty of bad choices so what’s one more? Genius.
In fact we should never begin or attempt to fix wasteful spending until we can fix everything precisely simultaneously.
Thanks for all the excellent and incisive commentary.
Comment by Morgan — March 20, 2007 @ 12:24 amI’ve often wondered about taking those cheap vans that run from chinatown to chinatown in various urban areas. Does anyone have a good link to info on those?
Comment by TikiLoungeLizard — March 20, 2007 @ 12:51 amAnd Morgan basically sums up what my response was going to be. As myself, Brad, and others have said repeatedly, I don’t think anyone here particularly supports the use of government subsidies in the air industry either.
Man, this is getting to the point where there needs to be a Godwin’s Law-esqe statement regarding Amtrak. It’s a pretty standard template: someone questions whether Amtrak should be receiving government funds. Responses then focus on a) the fact that the airlines take government money too, b) the rest of the world has high speed trains, so we should too, c) I use Amtrak to get to small town “____”, and without Amtrak I would have to, horror of horrors, DRIVE there, and d) trains are just darn cool, so the American taxpayer needs to keep them around, because we all pay for all the other modes of transportation.
Comment by mike — March 20, 2007 @ 12:53 amAutomobile travel is also heavily subsidized with human lives. There are approximately 40,000 deaths due to automobile “accidents” in the U.S each year. Many of the deaths are young people.
I used quotes on the word accidents above because most of the “accidents” are not really accidents. Perhaps a tree falls on a car or two, each year, or a boulder. Those are accidents. Most of the deaths are caused by unsafe roads, unsafe drivers, or unsafe cars. If we were to pay the money to prevent those deaths, the cost of driving would be way too high.
Comment by Brian — March 20, 2007 @ 1:40 amThere’s also the commuter Amtrak rail to consider: Capitol Corridor and whatever the East Coast Equivalent is. I don’t know about that one, but CC at least uses no federal subsidies or local subsidies, and only $23 million in state subsidies. BART (San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit – light rail) gets WAY more than that from drivers going across the various bridges. And of course since the bridges are all highways and freeways, they get way more money from the state and Federal governments.
Even with the monthly pass, the CC is still more expensive than driving, for me, but not by much. It costs me $7-10/day in gas on average. With the monthly pass, it’s ~$14 a day. I’d say $4 is worth not having to commute 100 miles/day on poor-condition heavily-congested freeway, which BTW, is subsidized far more than CC. I can sleep on the train down to work, and read or play computer games on the way back. Completely worth it. Yes, it takes longer. I don’t care. I like it. It’s enjoyable. It’s safe; I can leave my laptop bag at my seat when I go to get some food from the diner, and I know it will be there when I get back. I can’t even say that for a plane. There’s more legroom than first class, and a quiet car with a minimum of auditory ineterruptions. It has utility for me that traditional commuting does not, and it’s subsidized less. What’s not to like?
Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on the long-distance bus hauls, but I do know Amtrak is MUCH faster than driving, and much more comfortable than flying. I imagine it’s significantly better than bus service as well. All at a tiny fraction of the subsidy cost.
Go after the dragon first, then worry about the mosquito.
Comment by Dan D. — March 20, 2007 @ 2:19 amHave you actually traveled by bus and rail? Amtrek is by far the most comfortable way to travel. Buses are cramped, bumpy, and generally unpleasant. Planes, you get lost luggage, security screenings, and crap like that. They’re also cramped in coach. Amtrek is comfortable, and you can actually get work done on the train. For longer routes, air makes more sense, but to hop down from NYC to Boston, Amtrek is not much slower than bus or flying (flying requires check-in and luggage pick-up, and hellish route to airport, so actually ends up quite slow).
I’d agree that it’d be nice to let private enterprise solve the problem — the problem is that’s not what your suggesting. Cars, buses, and presumably planes are very heavily subsidized. The government pays for the road system. In Boston, the government sells parking spaces for $20/year (the lease for that much land would be a few thousand dollars per year).
When you cut subsidies to cars, you can cut subsidies to trains. Until then, asking unsubsidized trains to compete with heavily subsidized cars is hypocritical.
Comment by Peter — March 20, 2007 @ 3:52 amI recently took the Downeaster train from my hometown of Saco, Maine to Boston. The cost was about the same as for a bus (~20$) – but the ride was more comfortable, with roomier seats. I also would have had to drive to Portland first to take a bus. It certainly would have been quicker to drive myself (what I usually do) – but being able to relax and read a book on the trip is preferable to the stress of driving on the highway.
For shorter trips, travel by train is preferable to bus, car, or plane in my opinion. And as many others have already pointed out here, all these forms of transportation are heavily subsidized, so I don’t see the point of picking on Amtrak. I only wish there were high-speed bullet trains crisscrossing the country here as in Europe – I would probably never fly again if the prices were comparable.
Comment by Matt B — March 20, 2007 @ 8:22 amImagine a one lane road where the semi behind you can force you off the road. That’s the situation with rail lines in the united states. Having multiple rails would allow trains to pass and give passenger trains.
Basically, the best way to get between Wash D.C. and Boston (or at least New York) is by train – city center to city center, it’s faster than flying.
Compare rail, buses, and flying in Japan and Europe – that’s comparing the method of travel versus the level of subsidy.
Comment by G — March 20, 2007 @ 8:43 amRail funding seems to have gotten a lot of press lately and there seems to be a lot of buzz about providing funding to states so they can develop highly traveled rail corridors instead of just shoveling money into a national rail system. To have fast and frequent trains outside of the northeast can show the rest of the country that people will ride the trains. You can write to your Congressional delegation in support of the needed rail investments at http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/rail_bill_clone
Comment by digihawk — March 20, 2007 @ 9:05 amOne factor that is left out of your consideration is that rail is a parallel form of transit. Without rail service the transportation system is more vulnerable to disruption and delay. It doesn’t take much to cause the air transportation system to spiral into complete chaos, and buses run on roads that are increasingly congested.
I personally don’t mind tax money going to Amtrak, although it would probably be better in the long run if there were competition in the rail system. Of course, for the rail system to compete on a level playing field with other forms of transportation not only would either government subsidies for roads and rail be eliminated, but rail funding should probably be increased massively over the short term to make up for about 60 years of underfunding.
Some of the problems with Amtrak are due to well-intentioned government regulation that produces a heavy burden on Amtrak’s operations.
Also you compared fares for your trip, but did you actually take the trip. The conditions on long bus trips are frequently terrible. If you were to ride the bus a cross country trip, I think you might be less likely to compare the three methods.
Comment by Jeff — March 20, 2007 @ 9:28 amto bolser fasterdogs argument, the train from DC to NY takes only about 3 hours instead of 5…
Comment by matt — March 20, 2007 @ 3:00 pmThank you Morgan, for your insightful and useful contribution to the discussion.
Your amazing observations will, no doubt, immensely contribute towards an equitable solution to the on-going issue of who does and who does not get a free pass at US taxpayer subsidization.
I am in awe of your staggering brilliance.
Comment by Joe — March 20, 2007 @ 7:25 pmSome historical perspective would be useful in this discussion. Way long ago, almost before living memory, back in the post WW2 “streamliner” era the private railroads made a good start on developing high speed rail for this country. The equivalent of many billions of dollars in todays shrivelled dollars was invested in new train sets, improved tracks etc. Some diesel locomotives were geared for 120 mph running, and quite rarely, actually did go that fast.
However the project didn’t get very far. In the mid 50’s Trains magazine published an article entitled “Who Shot the Passenger Train.” Interest in passeger trains and the capital available to devlop them rapidly vanished as the Interstate highway system and cheap air travel
rapidly developed in the 50’s and 60’s. By 1971 when Amtrak was set up with the thought of running a very small network for just a few more years, the game was almost over.
There is no reason to think that running short range 100 to 300 mile trains is incompatible with also having longer distance trains. Over a distance of a thousand miles or so people get on and off at many places, usually quite a turnover of travellers takes place. So part of a long route is actually a short route and vice versa.
As for profitability it is the long distance Amtrak trains which are the least money losing. The Northeast Corridor only seem profitable if you ignore the enormous expenses of rails stations etc. It’s actually a black hole for money losses compared to the Western trains like the Empire builder.
An interesting discussion and one likely to go on for some time I’d guess.
Svensker
Comment by Robert van Wormer — March 23, 2007 @ 2:06 pmActually, the Milwaukee Road routinely ran in the 110+ mph range, and often went above 120mph; the tracks between Chicago and Minneapolis were upgraded for that very purpose. The first “Hiawatha” steam locomotives were “intended, by the road’s admission, to cruise at 100 mph and reach 120 mph.” (Scribbins, “The Hiawatha Story”). Now this was steam, and it was still before WWII.
With the upgrade to diesel power, the Milwaukee was able to both maintain that speed and add several more cars to the trainset (the photo on page 120 of “The Hiawatha Story” shows a grade crossing with a sign stating “STOP – LOOK – TRAINS PASS 100MPH”), which, by 1964, had been reduced to 90mph. And while the land-speed record for a reciprocating steam locomotive is held by LNE’s “Sir Nigel Gresley,” an A4 Pacific (126mph, 1938, light trainset + dynamometer car, on relatively flat track), the Milwaukee’s passenger trains exceeded 100mph on a DAILY basis for many years (“The Milwaukee Road Hiawathas,” Gruber & Solomon).
I rode the “Hiawatha” from Milwaukee to downtown Chicago about 15 years ago. The train was cleared for 79mph, but by the conductor’s own admission, we were well in excess of that. As we crossed the junction between I90 and I94 at 7:40am, it was six lanes of parking lot.
If rail passenger service is THAT unprofitable, why do Chicago’s Metra plans include eventually extending all the way to Rockford, IL, and why, wherever they put in a station stop along the line, does both the value of property go up and/or lots of condos spring up? Clearly, there IS a demand for alternative transportation that is fast, efficient, convenient, and on-time. If the Class I’s (BNSF, NS, CSX, UP, and CN) would give Amtrak the #1 status THEY AGREED TO GIVE IT, Amtrak would be able to compete on a more level playing field.
Instead, we have the pResident’s campaign donors making sure Amtrak doesn’t cut into their chow time at the government’s trough, and doesn’t get compensated when they break the promise they made to allow passenger rail travel on their lines, UNENCUMBERED.
Comment by Joe — March 24, 2007 @ 10:13 am[...] in price. So even though I have a soft spot for train rides, I do agree with the author of this post that perhaps train has no business in [...]
Pingback by TravelJo! deliciously hot travel deals, tips and products » Blog Archive » Death of Amtrak? — March 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pm