Do travelers really prefer air/auto to rail?
Lisa
Several posters here have claimed aviation and highways deserve our tax
subsidies because that is the public's choice of mode, and that Amtrak
should make it on its own because people don't want it.
That's the most ridiculous argument I ever heard.
Say football team "A" always wins over "B" because it cheats. Does that
make it a better football team? Aviation and highways cheat on Amtrak,
so we can't say they're better or preferred.
It's true Amtrak fares are very high and service not especially
convenient for many people. As a result, people don't use it as much as
they would under better conditions. But the real question is--how
would Amtrak fare under a _fair marketplace_?
Amtrak has invested well in the Northeast Corridor Metroliners, and as a
result captured a good deal of the businessperson market, stealing it
away from the air shuttles.
Many long distance Amtrak trains are constantly sold out--Amtrak would
be carrying more passengers if it had the car and track capacity.
Passenger rail transportation has been badly screwed unfairly since the
1950s by many factors. Had it been a fair marketplace--the kind all the
free-market anti-govt deficit proponents keep harping on---then the
private railroads would have left Amtrak a much better national system.
And if Amtrak had the proper funding, it would have built more its own
tracks, paid for additional sidings and signalling on host freight lines
for greater speed and flexibility, and run more and faster trains.
Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
Adam Calvert
If this is true, why are Amtraks always full?
Steve Litkey
Lisa <hanc...@cpcn.com> wrote:
>Several posters here have claimed aviation and highways deserve our tax
>subsidies because that is the public's choice of mode, and that Amtrak
>should make it on its own because people don't want it.
Being totally rail travel "illiterate" I'll throw out a few
personal observations/comments.
First off, my only real viable experience with traveling by rail is
the Algoma Central's (now WC) Agawa Canyon rail trip. Even though
being 200 miles round trip it seems to me it gives on a taste of rail
travel. Speeds are at 50+ MPH for sustained periods and meals are
served on one and many times two dinner cars. After taking this trip
several years ago I came to the conclusion there would be no better,
more enjoyable, relaxing, pampered way to travel than that of by
rail! Are these NOT the reasons one takes a vacation? Or is it to
deplete ones wallet/credit card balance at "fun" places such as
Disneyworld? For the business traveler, long travel routes by rail, I
would think, are very unappealing, and may be unacceptable from a
cost/time standpoint.
We up here in Wisconsin are dying to once again have rail travel
as one of our alternatives. But with govenment subsidising the
"other" modes of travel and many other political reasons, this may be
nothing more than a pipe dream to us!
bul...@usa.pipeline.com
Charles P. Hobbs
mdm...@ibm.net wrote:
>I>travel is the general roominess of the trains.
>>
>>One of the biggest problems with Amtrak, especially Amtrak's long haul
>>western trains is the lack of access to rental cars. When you make a
>>rental car reservation, they always ask you what flight you're arriving
>>on. Try making a reservation and renting a car after arriving on
>>Amtrak.
I know that San Diego and Los Angeles have rental cars available
at their train stations . . don't know about any place else, though.
>
>Unfortunately, some rail proponents are so savagedly anti-auto, they applaud this.
>Here in Jersey, I read groups that even oppose creating parking at the train
>station. They get appauled at the idea of people driving anywhere! I
>even read that people should bicycle to the train station.
>
These are the crusaders and true believers that believe that we should
stamp out every instance of auto use. These are the people that have
turned more folks off to considering alternative modes, than just about
anything else.
>If AMTRAK is going to survive, it should integrate itself with the rest of the
>transportation network.
If AMTRAK is going to survive, it should find a "niche" where it is
offering something that driving and flying can't. (As I understand it,
it's doing pretty well on the Northeast and certain West Coast lines,
and interest in even the long hauls is up)
Integration with other modes of transport (i.e. rental cars, local
transit, airlines) would be very helpful.
>
>Here in Jersey, Newark airport is only a few miles from the Train station, yet there
>isn't a convenient connection to the airport! (Well, AIrlink bus if you like to wait
>forever in an Urban hell like Newark).
I'd reroute some of those Airlinks to connect with the trains. It's
not rocket science.
Charles P. Hobbs
Lisa <hanc...@cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
>very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
But these systems offer fast alternatives to a congested freeway.
Amtrak,
on the other hand, is often slower than a Greyhound bus on some of
it's long haul routes.
> Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
I think most of the people taking long-haul Amtrak now are really
looking for more of a "travel experience", rather than basic
transportation. . ..
Andrew James Llwellyn Cary
Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
>
> Lisa <hanc...@cpcn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
> >very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
For Lisa- I assume you are talking about BART and the various light rail
and interurban systems in LA and Sacramento. - Everything else in
California seems to run on existing ROW.
>
> But these systems offer fast alternatives to a congested freeway.
> Amtrak,
> on the other hand, is often slower than a Greyhound bus on some of
> it's long haul routes.
> Usually much slower. I can drive to LA or Sacramento MUCH faster then I
can train there. I can fly there (including driving to and from the
airport) even faster. Unfortunately the post-war housing boom in
California built cities along highways and roads rather then railroads.
which makes a car pretty much a necessity in many areas (yeah, I know
about buses. In the bay area EVERY mass transit system (except BART)
seems to be reducing service to cut costs, this means fewer buses on
lighter travelled routes)
> > Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
>
Sure. I ride BART to San Francisco' Financial District every workday.
Beats driving all hollow. I still have to drive to the BART Station. My
commute takes about an hour each way
Curiously, my commute would have about been the same in 1880. I would
have caught the South Pacific Coast commuter and been to work in a
little over an hour. That's progress I guess....
> I think most of the people taking long-haul Amtrak now are really
> looking for more of a "travel experience", rather than basic
> transportation. . ..
--
Andrew J. L. Cary | I Reckon that the Opinions
Senior Curmudgeon | expressed here DO represent
Cary Consulting Services, Newark, CA | those of the management of
ajl...@ix.netcom.com | Cary Consulting Services
Bill McCauley
First, let me address the fundamental question raised in this posting:
Speaking only for myself, the answer is not only no but hell no!
> Amtrak has invested well in the Northeast Corridor Metroliners, and as a
> result captured a good deal of the businessperson market, stealing it
> away from the air shuttles.
Indeed. During the snowstorms last winter, Amtrak was consistently
moving trains while the airlines were grounded. There is also the
convienience factor in the NE corridor. Trains move from city center
to city center, more or less. I can take a train from Washington, DC
to NYC and have a cheap cab ride to my hotel. Flying in to an airport
puts me on the outskirts of most cities. Then, I have a long cab ride
through heavy traffic, etc.
> Many long distance Amtrak trains are constantly sold out--Amtrak would
> be carrying more passengers if it had the car and track capacity.
If I could, I'd travel by train much more often. While on the train, I
can look out the window, stretch out, etc. Personally, I find train
travel much less stressful than air travel. If Amtrak offered more
business oriented services, I'd be delighted. One of the plusses about
Amtrak is that I can plug my laptop computer in to the train power
systems. One of the minuses is that access to data networks is harder
on trains than on planes. (Many airliners now offer a place to connect
up your laptop and be online. Although expensive, these services do
offer a means of being in touch.) Another plus about Amtrak is that I
can make cellular calls which are vastly cheaper than the Airphone
systems used on aircraft.
> Passenger rail transportation has been badly screwed unfairly since the
> 1950s by many factors. Had it been a fair marketplace--the kind all the
> free-market anti-govt deficit proponents keep harping on---then the
> private railroads would have left Amtrak a much better national system.
> And if Amtrak had the proper funding, it would have built more its own
> tracks, paid for additional sidings and signalling on host freight lines
> for greater speed and flexibility, and run more and faster trains.
In my opinion, the demand for rail travel changed markedly between the
50s and today. The novelty of airliners was significant, and the
railroads didn't market their services correctly. My grandmother
always took the train on her trips, until her departure of the Super
Chief was canceled one summery LA evening. The Santa Fe people didn't
offer reasonable alternatives. So, she hauled herself out to LAX, and
bought a plane ticket. She became so entranced by air travel that I
don't believe she ever boarded another train.
Times change, people change, circumstances and surroundings change.
We're seeing these changes accelerate today in unimaginable ways.
For a variety of reasons, train travel is rising in popularity. The
service on the airlines is horrible. Nothing is worse than being
wedged in the coach section of a totally full airplane, which then
experiences delays. On most long haul trains, you don't feel crowded
even when the train is totally full. Plus, you don't have to fasten
your seatbelt (like it is going to do you any good anyway) and can get
up and move around any time. There are lounge cars where you can go
socialize with people from all over.
I have flown in excess of two million miles on airlines. During my
time in the air, I've watched the quality of service on the airlines
diminish markedly. The service provided by the airlines is no longer
anything to get excited about. One of the biggest plusses about train
travel is the general roominess of the trains.
One of the biggest problems with Amtrak, especially Amtrak's long haul
western trains is the lack of access to rental cars. When you make a
rental car reservation, they always ask you what flight you're arriving
on. Try making a reservation and renting a car after arriving on
Amtrak.
> Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
> very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
> Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
Speaking as a car loving Californian, I'd garage my car and always use
one of the rail alternatives for commuting, if possible. Traffic in
this state is awful and worsening. When I use BART or CalTrain, I can
get work done while I'm on my way somewhere. I can talk on my cell
phone safely. I can switch on my laptop and answer my e-mail and do
other things as well. I can read. None of these things is possible
while driving. Even though you can often walk faster than you can
drive through heavy traffic, driving, especially in traffic requires
concentration. The productivity lost to traffic conditions is mind
numbing.
The problem with public transit, especially here in the Bay Area, is
the very poor level of interconnectedness between various modes of
transit. Try and find a bus whose schedule is coordinated with the
arrival of a BART train. For that matter, try and find your way up to
the right bus! If you take the same route every day, I'm sure you can
get a routine down. Interagency coordination and cooperation is
non-existant.
The only reason people use the airlines is that it is cheap and there
are a lot of flights. The motto of the seasoned air traveler is "Time
to spare, travel by air." If there were alternatives to air travel,
count me in. Given the level of investment, the airlines aren't
racking up the profits.
My fundamental problem in using Amtrak for business travel in the west
is that the frequency of trains is to low. Heck, I'd always use
something like the Starlite between the Bay Area and LA if there were
an evening departure. How else can you get a good night's sleep and
wake up at your destination? The food quality and variety on Amtrak is
better than the airlines, even in first class. Plus, you can't get off
the airplane in San Luis and hit the taco truck at the station! The
morning departure times of #11 are great for getting to the train, but
I waste a day. Add a second train, departing in the evening, with lots
of sleepers, and I'll bet it would gain rapid acceptance.
Yes, I know I'm preaching to the choir here. Don't know if Amtrak
people read this group or not.
One question I've had is whether the UP has ever considered re-entering
the passenger business? I can certainly see several sides to the
issue, but I simply don't understand the economics well enough to reach
a conclusion. The railroads near me seem busy but not overwhelmed.
The question is whether the incremental revenue from adding passenger
service would offset the associated costs.
Clearly, passenger train travel will never return to the halcyon days
of the past. The question is, with the skies feeling so crowded, is
there room for a competitive alternative on rails? My hunch is that on
selected routes, passenger trains are a viable alternative to freeways,
airlines and buses. Major portions of the capital investment already
exist in the form of the rails. With incremental capital outlays, can
anyone make money hauling people in addition to freight?
Regards,
Bill McCauley
Carl Henderson
On 28 Jul 1996, Bill McCauley wrote:
> One of the biggest problems with Amtrak, especially Amtrak's long haul
> western trains is the lack of access to rental cars. When you make a
> rental car reservation, they always ask you what flight you're arriving
> on. Try making a reservation and renting a car after arriving on
> Amtrak.
This is not always difficult. I have rented a car right in Washington
(D.C.) Union Station. In fact, both National and Budget have offices
there. I was amused when they asked my flight number for renting a car at
Union Station. Turns out some people avoid an extra "airport tax(?)" by
renting the car away from the airport.
I believe Los Angeles Union Station also has a rental car booth in the
station.
In other cases the rental car companies have downtown locations and are
happy to provide pickup/dropoff service to the train station. This has
worked for me in Seattle and Dallas. Sure, it's not as quick as having a
rental car counter in the station, but it is pretty convenient.
Carl
Carl Henderson
Electron Microbeam Analysis Laboratory
University of Michigan
2005 C.C. Little Bldg.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063 USA
--------------------------------
(313) 936-1550 (voice)
(313) 763-4690 (FAX)
che...@umich.edu (e-mail)
--------------------------------
Douglas B. Smith
And Smitty adds his $.02 worth:
Semi-frequently, I work as a conductor or a collector on Metra
suburban trains, mostly on the North Line between Kenosha and Chicago.
Mostly, I work in Milwaukee in Butler Yard, and Milwaukee is also my
board location. It never ceases to amaze me that people are willing to
drive into Chicago. First off, the highways are packed to capacity,
leaving just enough room for the Richard Petty wannabes. Second,
parking is extremely expensive and sometimes hard to find. Third, the
cost of car payments, fuel, maintenance, insurance, tolls, and general
peace of mind cannot be lower than the cost of a monthly Metra pass. I
can't imagine going into Chicago by any other way.
Going to Milwaukee is just the same, except I have no other option
except to drive. It's a 48-mile, one-way trip to the yard, going up
I-94/894 and US-45. Again, the highways are usually packed, unless I'm
going up at some wee hour of the morning for an unusual reason (getting
called for a road job; I'm on a yard board). I've learned to put up
with it, but I don't like it. I'd give my eyeteeth to be able to jump
on a North Shore Line train and switch to a TMER&L or Milwaukee
Electric train when I got there. Unfortunately, those days are years
in the past.
The poster who noted that post-WWII housing is located near streets
and highways, not rail lines, hit it right on the head. We began a
love affair with the automobile in the 1920's and 1930's which (IMHO)
climaxed in the late 1960's. Business and industry convinced us that
the automobile was the way to go. The auto's convenience couldn't be
beaten, and gasoline was cheap and plentiful. Streetcar lines and
interurban railways were dying, superceded by the more flexible bus.
Communities were planned with rubber-tired vehicles as the main mode of
transport. Bus companies didn't have to figure in route maintenance,
other than perhaps the occasional refurbishment of bus stops. The first
gasoline shortage in the early 1970's was a signal that our
relationship with the auto was going sour. We attempted to correct our
troubles by going to smaller automobiles; more fuel efficient, we
thought. But our population has continued to increase, with a
corresponding increase in new drivers as our kids turn sixteen.
Currently, we have about tapped out space resources for
construction of new freeways in urban areas. Gasoline is much more
expensive, albeit not as expensive as other parts of the world. Plus,
we import the larger portion of our crude oil for refining into motor
fuels and even though we only have a fraction of the world's
population, we use more petroleum resources than any other nation.
Automobile accidents kill a probable average of 50,000 people yearly.
And burning fossil fuels in our motor vehicles is choking out the
greenery that our very lives depend on. I might mention that the cost
of crude petroleum just went up again. I believe the most current
payment was 19 more young lives. BTW, take this piece of information
from a Gulf War veteran.
I'm not condoning total elimination of the automobile, nor of the
truck or bus. But our dependence on them is like that of a junkie on
heroin. They make us feel good, but they're slowly killing us. Unlike
heroin usage, however, I believe we can strike a certain medium that
will be beneficial. Let's face it, it's hard to go grocery shopping on
the bus. It's tough to take a recreational drive out in the country,
especially if the bus line doesn't go there. There are certain uses
for private vehicles that public transport will never replace. But we
need to be responsible enough to provide ourselves with alternatives to
driving and to recognize and choose which mode is better for whichever
situation we find ourselves in. Good public transportation is a
necessity, not an option.
Finally, I might mention the differences between the downtown areas
of Chicago and Milwaukee. Both cities used to have architectural
monuments of passenger stations. Chicago tore down most of its depot
buildings, but retained the train service. Milwaukee relocated its
service to an inconvenient location across the river from downtown,
with a resulting decay in patronage. Downtown Chicago is vibrant and
alive, with many business firms, retail stores, and restaurants, not to
forget a vibrant tourism business. Downtown Milwaukee is largely dead.
While neither city has street railways anymore, Chicago still has the
El. Currently, the only train service between Chicago and Milwaukee is
along the CP/Soo Line (ex-Milwaukee Road), with six Amtrak Hiawatha
trains each way per day. Yes, it is a far cry from 100 mph
streamliners. North of Kenosha on UP's ex-C&NW lines, towns such as
Racine and Cudahy still have stations, but the hearts of their towns
are in trouble. The "400" service once provided is only a memory. And
the North Shore Line and TMER&L faded from the scene years ago. Ted
Buehler in Provo, Utah, mentioned the fact that he is a Latter Day
Saint (Mormon), which I am, too. One of the things we believe in is
that the earth will be restored to its paradisical glory. Speaking
strictly for myself, paradise will have to include interurbans,
streetcars, and streamlined trains (and roundhouses full of steamers,
too). :)
Just my opinion........
Smitty
mdm...@ibm.net
I>travel is the general roominess of the trains.
>
>One of the biggest problems with Amtrak, especially Amtrak's long haul
>western trains is the lack of access to rental cars. When you make a
>rental car reservation, they always ask you what flight you're arriving
>on. Try making a reservation and renting a car after arriving on
>Amtrak.
Unfortunately, some rail proponents are so savagedly anti-auto, they applaud this.
Here in Jersey, I read groups that even oppose creating parking at the train
station. They get appauled at the idea of people driving anywhere! I
even read that people should bicycle to the train station.
If AMTRAK is going to survive, it should integrate itself with the rest of the
transportation network. AIr connections (like the fact that AMTRAK stops
at BWI in Maryland), car rentals, and other connections could make AMTRAK
a definite alternative to those evil "puddle jumpers" that the regional airliners
fly.
Here in Jersey, Newark airport is only a few miles from the Train station, yet there
isn't a convenient connection to the airport! (Well, AIrlink bus if you like to wait
forever in an Urban hell like Newark).
Matt Mason, Hoboken, N.J.
Lisa
Rent-a-car (the big three) are very close to Chicago's Union Station.
Charles P. Hobbs
hanc...@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote:
>Rent-a-car (the big three) are very close to Chicago's Union Station.
How close (i.e. can you get from the station to the car rental place
without fear?)
Charles P. Hobbs
Andrew James Llwellyn Cary <ajl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> But these systems offer fast alternatives to a congested freeway.
>> Amtrak,
>> on the other hand, is often slower than a Greyhound bus on some of
>> it's long haul routes.
>> Usually much slower. I can drive to LA or Sacramento MUCH faster then I
>can train there.
In an old (ca. 1988 or so) California Amtrak brochure, the San Joaquin
trip (Bakersfield-Bay Area). is touted as being "one hour faster than
driving because you don't have to stop to refuel" . . .
That's great for travel to Bakersfield, or any of the other Central
Valley cities. But travel to Los Angeles entails a 2.5 hour bus trip
from Bakersfield, or, perhaps in the near future, an additional 5-6
hours twisting through Tehachapi Pass. Both cost time.
Lisa
Per Smitty's post (and others)
I fully realize automobiles and airplanes are an integral part of our
transportation network and will continue to be so.
But what I think would be good for the U.S. would be shifting the ratio
somewhat back to rail. More trains, better trains, serving more
locations--building a better critical mass so people won't have to use
their car as much---fewer trips and less mileage.
When I arrived in Chicago, I had to rent a car for the remainder of my
trip to Madison since no trains go there and the wait too long for a
bus. If Madison got _good_ connecting service (no long wait!) I'd stay
on the train, and be one less car jamming Chicago highways.
Basically, I advocate car and air users to pay their true fair share of
costs, including their enormous land appetite. I suspect the increased
security for air passengers will be paid for taxpayers, not air
passengers. The massive cost of rebuilding the air traffic control
system should be spread out to the airlines. The railroads pooled to
build Union Stations and joint interlockings, no reason the airlines
can't do likewise.
From a planning perspective, today's popular spread out suburbs are a
bad idea. People who work in the suburban office parks have to get into
their cars at lunch time to get food, a greeting card, etc. Ridiculous.
John Timm
hanc...@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote:
>
> Per Smitty's post (and others)
>
> I fully realize automobiles and airplanes are an integral part of our
> transportation network and will continue to be so.
>
> But what I think would be good for the U.S. would be shifting the ratio
> somewhat back to rail. More trains, better trains, serving more
> locations--building a better critical mass so people won't have to use
> their car as much---fewer trips and less mileage.
>
> When I arrived in Chicago, I had to rent a car for the remainder of my
> trip to Madison since no trains go there and the wait too long for a
> bus. If Madison got _good_ connecting service (no long wait!) I'd stay
> on the train, and be one less car jamming Chicago highways.
>
any money running them. If they could, do you think for a moment that
someone would not jump at the chance to rent the tracks and build the
necessary facilities along the way???
> Basically, I advocate car and air users to pay their true fair share of
> costs, including their enormous land appetite. I suspect the increased
> security for air passengers will be paid for taxpayers, not air
> passengers. The massive cost of rebuilding the air traffic control
> system should be spread out to the airlines. The railroads pooled to
> build Union Stations and joint interlockings, no reason the airlines
> can't do likewise.
>
Where do you get this "land appetite" stuff? Huge as some are, the
cities of the world take up only 1.3% of its land surface area.
Highways (including access roads and structures) are mere threads
compared to what surrounds them. Don't believe me? Go up in a plane
and see for yourself.
> From a planning perspective, today's popular spread out suburbs are a
> bad idea. People who work in the suburban office parks have to get into
> their cars at lunch time to get food, a greeting card, etc. Ridiculous.
Ridiculous to you perhaps, Lisa, but not to those of us who like the
freedom of movement (and choice) that only the private automobile can
provide.
As for the notion that "spread out suburbs" are bad, there are lots of
reasons, both social and economic, that contributed to the growth of
suburbs. If living in the city were not crowded and expensive (as well
as often downright dangerous), more people would be living in the
city. Unfortunately, places like Chicago still drive people away with
totally unjustifiable tax burdens and bad government. (And for that
matter,look at the mess Washington D.C. is in. There are "for sale"
signs everywhere and for good reason).
I'm thankful we still have freedom of choice in the matter because
frankly I don't want some "planner" like you telling me where I really
ought to live, let alone how to get from place to place.
John Timm
Loren Petrich
In article <4th65s$u...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
<10407...@compuserve.com> wrote:
[rental cars at train stations...]
>Unfortunately, some rail proponents are so savagedly anti-auto, they applaud this.
>Here in Jersey, I read groups that even oppose creating parking at the train
>station. They get appauled at the idea of people driving anywhere! I
>even read that people should bicycle to the train station.
On the other side of the continent, the *exact* same thing
happens with regards to BART -- some transit advocates are vehemently
against all its park-and-ride space and the parking garages at several
of its stations.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Lisa
Per John Timm's post....
Boy, they would love you in my town.
My town used to be a tiny borough in the country. When the interstate
came, it and the surrounding area got very built up. Specifically...
As to land appetite--the interstate interchanges are now overcrowded and
need to be expanded (from "diamond" to "clover leaf"). Further, the
roads serving the interchanges must be widened. In specific terms tou
s, this is a major land grab. Some people will lose their homes. Other
people will get a highway ramp next to their bedroom window. Our
property taxes will go up because formerly taxable land is now tax
exempt. I've seen the aerial shots, and the interstate and
interchanges soak up a huge amount of land!
As to John's comment that the automobile provides "freedom of movement
and choice"....maybe in the middle of Wyoming. I certainly don't feel
very "free" sitting in a traffic jam. It's certainly not something I
choose. And I find myself sitting in more and more jams in places where
you don't expect them. In contrast, when there's a good train
available, I zip fast and comfortably to my destination.
As to his last line...I am not a planner. John can drive around to his
heart's content. Just don't ask me to subsidize his fun through my
taxes.
Kevin Standlee
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> writes:
>
> >> Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
> >> very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
> >> Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
>
> Actually, they're incredibly unsuccessful from an economic standpoint.
> Trains like MetroLink have spent hundreds of millions to remove 3,000
> or so daily riders from their cars -- it would have been cheaper to buy
> each of those riders their own Rolls Royce. The whole plan is predicated
> on huge numbers of people riding the rails -- so where are the riders?
>
Ah, but if you did buy those Rolls-Royces, where would people drive them?
Although the subsidy sounds expensive, it is chump change compared to the
cost of building a single additional freeway lane, and a recent article
(PTJ?) points out that these trains are carrying about one freeway-lane's
worth of traffic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Kevin Standlee -> (stan...@LunaCity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
Tim O'Connor
bil...@holonet.net (Bill McCauley) wrote:
> For a variety of reasons, train travel is rising in popularity.
Not in this country. Amtrak ridership has been falling steadily now
for two years, after rising quite steadily during the 1980's and then
going up and down in the late 80's and early 90's.
Passenger Train Journal publishes Amtrak monthly ridership numbers.
The issue I got this week showed about a 20% across the board drop,
partly due to service cutbacks.
As far as share of the market, Amtrak has been declining since 1971.
Railroads handle much less than 1% of intercity travel.
> One of the biggest problems with Amtrak, especially Amtrak's long haul
> western trains is the lack of access to rental cars.
True, except in major cities. I have rented cars in Denver and Chicago,
and the rental car companies paid for the taxi to their downtown rental
locations.
>> Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
>> very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
>> Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
Actually, they're incredibly unsuccessful from an economic standpoint.
Trains like MetroLink have spent hundreds of millions to remove 3,000
or so daily riders from their cars -- it would have been cheaper to buy
each of those riders their own Rolls Royce. The whole plan is predicated
on huge numbers of people riding the rails -- so where are the riders?
In the new PTJ, they discuss California's in-fighting over the Capitols
and San Joaquins. Evidently the trains don't meet mandated minimum revenue
requirements and are being threatened with curtailment.
> The only reason people use the airlines is that it is cheap and there
> are a lot of flights.
That's a hoot!! You might as well say "The only reason people prefer a
computer to an abacus is that it's much faster and easier."
> Clearly, passenger train travel will never return to the halcyon days
> of the past.
Passenger travel by rail began to decline about 1920. During the 1920's
total rail travel declined by around 30%. During that same period, travel
by automobile went from being about 50% of rail travel to being around
800% of rail travel. In other words, the automobile increased people's
mobility -- it was an empowering technology. Air travel has done the same
thing -- created travel demand where none existed before.
Don't get me wrong -- I love train travel too. The old style -- hanging
out the dutch door, eating fresh food in the diner, rocking to sleep in
my bed ... but it's gone. Gone. It never was particularly efficient. The
railroads made a profit as long as they could charge more money than it
cost to provide the service. When subsidized highways and airlines began
to compete, railroads lost the traffic.
Many people who love trains think that investment will make train travel
CHEAPER -- it will NOT. And trains will always lose money unless they can
charge a realistic rate -- which they cannot do as long as long as our
society continues to subsidize (indirectly, mostly) autos and airplanes.
But -- if people had to pay what it REALLY cost to travel, they wouldn't
travel as much as they do. They would find jobs near a bus stop, they'd
shop at the corner grocer, etc. And they would HATE it.
Give it up! Let's bury the long distance passenger train, except possibly
as an excursion type of service. Isn't it enough to cherish the memory of
what once was, rather than cloud the issue with a funky, tacky Amtrak full
of surly, disgruntled employees and pathetic amenities?
Turn all those Amtrak Superliner sleepers into DayCare cars for short trips
for families in various corridors. Look at the success of businesses like
McDonalds and Chuckee-Cheese who target the kid market. Put entertainment
cars on 3-4 hour trains, keep people occupied with slot machines or video
games or movies for a few hours. That's our culture in the 1990's -- sell
to that market, or die.
Diners and sleepers and observation lounges -- what a bunch of antiquated
stuff Amtrak is tossing at the market. No wonder the public has no interest
in keeping Amtrak alive.
JeffFinch
In article <4tga9k$g...@masters0.news.internex.net>, bil...@holonet.net
(Bill McCauley) writes:
>One of the biggest problems with Amtrak, especially Amtrak's long haul
>western trains is the lack of access to rental cars. When you make a
>rental car reservation, they always ask you what flight you're arriving
>on. Try making a reservation and renting a car after arriving on
>Amtrak.
Been there, done that. We took the Lake Shore to South Bend, IN for
Memorial W.E. this past. Avis paid for our cab fare to the airport to
pick up the rental. A fellow Amtrak rider had arranged for Enterprise,
you know, the ones who will pick you up (I called them too but you have to
return the car by 5:00 or pay another day). When we returned to pick up
the rest of the family and our luggage, she told us that when she called
to check on where they were, they said, "Oh we've been paging you at the
airport." This after the person who answered her initial call asked her a
lot of questions regarding how she liked her train trip! She was still
waiting for them while we drove by the station 3 times trying to find our
way out of town.
Jeff
12 hours on the train beats 5 hours driving.
Charles P. Hobbs
Juhana Siren <jsi...@rieska.oulu.fi> wrote:
>"Charles P. Hobbs" <tra...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>Lisa <hanc...@cpcn.com> wrote:
><schnipp>
>>I think most of the people taking long-haul Amtrak now are really
>>looking for more of a "travel experience", rather than basic
>>transportation. . ..
>
>highway?
There are still other choices; the plane (also boring, unless you like
aerial views, but usually mercifully short) and the bus (same boring
highway, but at least you don't have to worry about falling asleep
at the wheel).
Most travellers, on business or other non-pleasure trips, will drive
up to 200 miles, or fly for trips longer than that.
For trips up to 200 miles, travellers might consider the train if
it provides frequent and reasonably fast service (i.e. NEC, San Diegan).
Beyond 200 miles, ground transportation of any kind is just too slow
to compete with air travel. People travelling via surface over this
distance are generally doing it for one (or more) of these reasons
a. lack of air service
b. high cost of air service
c. interest in scenery, towns, etc. along routes.
I said all that to say this:
Our rail plan ought to concentrate on (and subsidize), these shorter
routes, around and between the larger cities (SF-Sacto, LA-San Diego,
LA-Vegas, etc.)
Sufficient rolling stock should be provided for the "long haul" trains
so that they can at least break even. (This is becoming more of a
'land cruise' market, anyway). These trains also need to be scheduled
with regard to demand (i.e. perhaps two trains a day during summer or
other high season, at other times, as infrequent as three times a week).
Charles P. Hobbs
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> wrote:
Look at California: the car loving state. Yet they wised up and built
>>> very expensive rail lines from scratch and they're very successful.
>>> Yes, people WILL give up their cars given a good alternative.
>
>Actually, they're incredibly unsuccessful from an economic standpoint.
>Trains like MetroLink have spent hundreds of millions to remove 3,000
>or so daily riders from their cars -- it would have been cheaper to buy
>each of those riders their own Rolls Royce. The whole plan is predicated
>on huge numbers of people riding the rails -- so where are the riders?
>
Metrolink is doing better than that .. . total ridership is about
18,000 or so. The best line is the San Bernadino line with about 8,000
daily riders. And ridership is slowly increasing, as people's habits
change.
Still cheaper than trying to expand the freeway in the built up
urban areas. (and just for *commuter traffic* -- during the off peak
hours, most LA freeways are at full speed).
mdm...@ibm.net
> The poster who noted that post-WWII housing is located near streets
>and highways, not rail lines, hit it right on the head. We began a
>love affair with the automobile in the 1920's and 1930's which (IMHO)
>climaxed in the late 1960's. Business and industry convinced us that
>the automobile was the way to go. The auto's convenience couldn't be
>beaten, and gasoline was cheap and plentiful. Streetcar lines and
>interurban railways were dying, superceded by the more flexible bus.
>Communities were planned with rubber-tired vehicles as the main mode of
>transport. Bus companies didn't have to figure in route maintenance,
>other than perhaps the occasional refurbishment of bus stops. The first
>gasoline shortage in the early 1970's was a signal that our
>relationship with the auto was going sour.
--------------------------------------
Technically there was no shortage of oil. Places like the midwest were drowning
in the stuff. Only problem was that Federal regulations on the sale and
transport of oil made it impossible to get oil to the fuel starved cities. This is
why oil prices collasped (and a lot of the oil dependent economy of Texas and
Oklahoma) when the oil markets were deregulated in the early 1980's.
>. Gasoline is much more
>expensive, albeit not as expensive as other parts of the world. Plus,
-----------------------------------------
Actually, oil is cheaper now than during the 1950's. Real price of a gallon
of gas is less than $0.80 per gallon. The reasons prices are artificially high
is becuase of all the tax we pay on gas now.
>And burning fossil fuels in our motor vehicles is choking out th
>greenery that our very lives depend on.
-----------------------------------
Not for newer cars. Pollution levels are very low. Refineries have also
pioneered ways of removing more sulfur from fuel to make it even
cleaner (sulfur is worth money by itself). A new gasoline powered
car will burn fuel cleaner than one that burns natural gas (modern
gas engines have a lower NOx and VOC emission rate).
>of crude petroleum just went up again. I believe the most current
>payment was 19 more young lives.
----------------------------
Price went up long before what happened in Saudi Arabia. This was more likely
because producers let their inventories drop too low. Couple this with a hard
winter, increased fuel consumption (lots of Jeeps on the roads these days) and
prices go up.
> I'm not condoning total elimination of the automobile, nor of the
>truck or bus. But our dependence on them is like that of a junkie on
>heroin. They make us feel good, but they're slowly killing us. Unlike
----------------------------------
Actually these modes freed us from squalid conditions in the city and
dependence on an inflexible mode of transport (rail). Autos gave many
the mobility they needed to start new businesses, gain better jobs, live
in better homes, and generally have better lives.
>situation we find ourselves in. Good public transportation is a
>necessity, not an option.
------------------------
Unfortunately, most public transport is too inflexible to be of use. Plus
a lot of the money that has been poured into public transport has been
wasted. Trains can work as a mode of transport, but not as long as
they continue to be managed they way they are today.
>forget a vibrant tourism business. Downtown Milwaukee is largely dead.
-----------
Actually I found Milwaukee to be a decent city. Granted, I was their only once
early this year. It seemed in a lot better shape than the cities here in Jersey.
A lot safer too.
Matt Mason, Hoboken, N.J.
Bill McCauley
In article <4titn1$d...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
mus...@ix.netcom.com(Douglas B. Smith ) writes:
> Going to Milwaukee is just the same, except I have no other option
> except to drive. It's a 48-mile, one-way trip to the yard, going up
> I-94/894 and US-45. Again, the highways are usually packed, unless I'm
> going up at some wee hour of the morning for an unusual reason (getting
> called for a road job; I'm on a yard board). I've learned to put up
> with it, but I don't like it. I'd give my eyeteeth to be able to jump
> on a North Shore Line train and switch to a TMER&L or Milwaukee
> Electric train when I got there. Unfortunately, those days are years
> in the past.
Thanks for taking the time to write your excellent summary of passenger
service around Chicago. The history you included filled in some blanks
for me.
A couple of people clouded up and rained on me via e-mail about trains
taking away their freedom of choice and other similar nonsense. For
starters, I'm not talking about forcing anyone to ride anything.
People who live outside the major metropolitan areas don't seem to
realize how inefficient freeways are. Traffic is one of the biggest
time wasters on the planet. There ought to be more choices instead of
fewer choices.
Via e-mail, I got a lot of opinion about how no one could make money
from passenger trains, how no one wanted to ride them and so forth. So
far, no one could cite a study, backed up by surveys or any economic
data supporting any claims either way.
Meanwhile, in the local area here (East Bay, California, Tri-Valley
area) there are a couple of projects in the works to add commuter
service over the UP main line. Apparently, funding has been obtained,
plus BART and CalTrain are interested. The UP seems to be cooperating
fully and provided cars and their E units for a couple of demonstration
runs. Freights go blasting through the area, but the line doesn't seem
that busy. With careful dispatching, there would appear to be room for
way more traffic.
The subject of how busy the freeways are seems to come up an awful lot
more these days. A lot of people I know are wondering what it takes to
get to work without driving all the way, every single day. Having a
car does provide infinite freedom and flexibility. But, a growing
segment of the population seems to truly want options to use their car
less and something else a bit more.
Change is a slow, gradual thing. But, I detect a lot of signs that the
love affair with the car in California is starting to dry up.
Regards,
Bill McCauley
bil...@holonet.net
Mark & Lisa Williams
> > or so daily riders from their cars -- it would have been cheaper to > > buy each of those riders their own Rolls Royce. The whole plan is
> > predicated on huge numbers of people riding the rails -- so where are the riders?
> >
> Ah, but if you did buy those Rolls-Royces, where would people drive them? Although the subsidy sounds expensive, it is chump change compared to the cost of building a single additional freeway lane, and a recent article PTJ?) points out that these trains are carrying about one freeway-lane's worth of traffic.
>
Additionally, there are other costs called externalities which must be
considered before any blanket statement that cars are less costly:
The increased cost of emissions-based health effects from these "3000"
cars; the costs associated with time lost to gridlock; and the costs
that would be borne by the L.A. basin's population and businesses if
they are not successful in meeting the federal Clean Air Act standards
by the year 2010. The costs associated with the control of emissions
from stationary sources - businesses - is orders of magnitude greater
than the costs associated with the control of emissions from mobile
sources - cars.
Lisa
Several people suggest that long haul trains are a "land cruise"
I disagree. Having travelled on various Amtrak long haul trains, they
consist of people going from place to another, not out on a "cruise".
To me, a "cruise" is where the travel conveyance itself is the main
reason for travel, not the ultimate destination. People who take
Carribean cruises basically go out in a circle--they don't really care
what ports of call are made---their interest is in the boat ride itself,
which is loaded with many vacation services.
In contrast, people on Amtrak are rarely out _mainly_ to ride the
train--they have a reason to reach their destination. They are going
someplace, and have chosen the train to take them there.
I don't buy the "land cruise" argument at all, and suggest it be
Tim O'Connor
stan...@LunaCity.com (Kevin Standlee) wrote:
> and a recent article (PTJ?) points out that these trains are carrying
> about one freeway-lane's worth of traffic.
I've heard that before, but someone on the net (Dennis McClendon?) who
knows about LA freeways pointed out that each lane of one of the major
LA freeways transports about 20,000 people a day -- or roughly 6 times
what Metrolink is carrying on its busiest route.
I understand what you mean: the incremental cost of highway capacity has
become incredible. However, my argument was addressed to the actual usage
rather than the theoretical usage: what is the per-passenger cost for the
highway vs. the railroad, including all infrastructure costs? In the case
of Metrolink, I think the highway wins. (In the case of the MBTA in Boston
and probably Metra in Chicago, the railroad is more cost efficient.) The
problem is that LA residents still disdain the train -- or the fact that
older cities like Boston and Chicago have giant "downtown" areas and huge
numbers of people converge on those areas every day. Cities like Houston
and Los Angeles are an urban planning nightmare -- there is no "center".
Jim Matthews
In article <4tk5lu$3...@news1.netzone.com>, amir...@netzone.com says...
>
>Where do you get this "land appetite" stuff? Huge as some are, the
>cities of the world take up only 1.3% of its land surface area.
>Highways (including access roads and structures) are mere threads
>compared to what surrounds them. Don't believe me? Go up in a plane
>and see for yourself.
Consider the growth of Chicagoland between 1970 and 1990 (these numbers are
from my porous memory, so correct me if they are wrong): population for the
Chicago area increased by less than 5%, but land use increased by about
75%!
Jim
Michael Kimura
Tim O'Connor wrote:
>
> stan...@LunaCity.com (Kevin Standlee) wrote:
>
> > and a recent article (PTJ?) points out that these trains are carrying
> > about one freeway-lane's worth of traffic.
>
> I've heard that before, but someone on the net (Dennis McClendon?) who
> knows about LA freeways pointed out that each lane of one of the major
> LA freeways transports about 20,000 people a day -- or roughly 6 times
> what Metrolink is carrying on its busiest route.
Actually, the July 96 Passenger Train Journal article said that Metrolink
trains are carrying 3 1/3 peak-hour lanes of freeway traffic into LA
Union Station. That's based on 7,500 riders into LA Union Station which
they estimate at 6,000 vehicles. The design goal of most freeway's is
1,500 cars per lane during peak hour. California freeways have a
capacity of about 1,800 cars per lane during peak hour (Level F).
Mike Kimura
Loren Petrich
In article <4tm318$m...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>,
<10407...@compuserve.com> wrote:
[A whole lot of stuff, like blaming Federal regulation for oil
shortages in the cities during the 1970's oil shocks...]
There are two questions to be raised: 1. was there enough
oil-transportation infrastructure? (pipelines can't appear overnight, and
they may not have seemed necessary when the oil could arrive from abroad)
2. would the oil in Texas have been enough for all those places with gas
lines? I'd prefer looking there rather than that Politically Correct
scapegoat.
[On cars, trucks, and buses as Bad Things...]
>Actually these modes freed us from squalid conditions in the city and
>dependence on an inflexible mode of transport (rail). Autos gave many
>the mobility they needed to start new businesses, gain better jobs, live
>in better homes, and generally have better lives.
I've yet to see any real evidence for that fairy-tale view. In the
first place, the first suburbs were made possibly by *rail* -- streetcars
and commuter trains. One could live in some pseudo-rural fake small town
called a suburb and ride to work on a train. Most of the old streetcars
and many of the old commuter trains have been replaced by buses or are now
gone, but there has been a minor revival of both in recent years.
Also, I've managed to do quite well in my automotively-challenged
life. If I can do it, why can't you people do it?
>>situation we find ourselves in. Good public transportation is a
>>necessity, not an option.
>Unfortunately, most public transport is too inflexible to be of use. ...
I would not endorse a stereotype like that; I find public transit
to be *very* useful; I can read as a I travel, which I cannot do when
driving a car. And if I want a personal set of wheels, I can always ride
a bike, which can go aboard a bus or train (at least some of those :-).
Loren Petrich
In article <4tlr23$b...@info-server.bbn.com>,
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> wrote:
[California trains...]
>Actually, they're incredibly unsuccessful from an economic standpoint.
>Trains like MetroLink have spent hundreds of millions to remove 3,000
>or so daily riders from their cars -- it would have been cheaper to buy
>each of those riders their own Rolls Royce. ...
More like 18,000 and increasing. I'm not sure how much Metrolink
has cost so far, but if it is $200 million, that's $10,000/person. And
how much would equivalent freeway lanes cost???
>In the new PTJ, they discuss California's in-fighting over the Capitols
>and San Joaquins. Evidently the trains don't meet mandated minimum revenue
>requirements and are being threatened with curtailment.
I've seen that about the Capitols, but not about the San
Joaquins. I think the problem with the Capitols is their midday service
-- not many riders. In the mornings and evenings, the Capitols do attract
a sizable day-tripper ridership, especially Bay Area to Sacramento and
back. If I had my say, the Capitols would be 1 in the morning and 1 in
the evening, perhaps expanded to 2 in the morning and 2 in the evening.
>Give it up! Let's bury the long distance passenger train, except possibly
>as an excursion type of service. ...
Actually, the market is surprisingly good for land cruises; IMO,
Amtrak ought to make its long-distance trains into land-cruise trains, if
they are not effectively such trains already.
For the more time-sensitive sorts of travel, trains can compete
if they are sufficiently fast. Consider the French TGV and other European
and Japanese high-speed trains. Even the US's NEC service, at least
between Washington and NYC. They all compete rather respectably with the
airlines.
Matthew Mitchell
In article <4totju$1...@info-server.bbn.com>,
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> wrote:
>stan...@LunaCity.com (Kevin Standlee) wrote:
>
>> and a recent article (PTJ?) points out that these trains are carrying
>> about one freeway-lane's worth of traffic.
>
>I've heard that before, but someone on the net (Dennis McClendon?) who
>knows about LA freeways pointed out that each lane of one of the major
>LA freeways transports about 20,000 people a day -- or roughly 6 times
>what Metrolink is carrying on its busiest route.
I can't speak about L.A. but if everyone who rode SEPTA to downtown
Philadelphia drove a car instead, you would need to _triple_ the highway
lanes entering the city.
/_\ Matthew Mitchell, Newsletter Editor
/[ ]\ Delaware Valley Association of Railroad Passengers
/ | \ PO Box 7505, Philadelphia PA 19101-7505
/ _|_ \ voice: 215-673-6445-message box 3, fax 215-885-7448
--------- http://www.libertynet.org/~dvarp
Tim O'Connor
Michael Kimura <m...@mass.es.hac.com> wrote:
> Actually, the July 96 Passenger Train Journal article said that Metrolink
> trains are carrying 3 1/3 peak-hour lanes of freeway traffic into LA
> Union Station. That's based on 7,500 riders into LA Union Station which
> they estimate at 6,000 vehicles.
Ok, assuming PTJ numbers are accurate (I suspect some bias) ... you could
accomplish the same thing with 200 buses. If one lane can handle 1,000 bus
trips per hour, then the buses could handle Metrolink's load (spread out
over 3 routes?) with just 1/5 of one lane -- or about 1/15 of one lane on
each of the 3 routes. The total investment -- about $50 million, instead
of 20 times that for the railroad solution.
The problem is that there are too few "point to point" commuter buses --
these would be nearly as fast as automobiles, faster than trains (when you
take into account getting from home to train), and could greatly reduce the
the load on highways. Most commuters disdain ordinary city buses because
they stop, and stop, and stop, and ... take forever to get anywhere.
James H. Haynes
In article <petrichD...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Also, I've managed to do quite well in my automotively-challenged
>life. If I can do it, why can't you people do it?
>
Uh, how big is your farm? and how far from town?
Rail transport may indeed have done for cities and suburbs; but as you travel
across the country you see thousands of farms and small villages where rail
transit is totally irrelevant. The automobile (and truck) freed all those
people from dependence on horses and mules.
Charles P. Hobbs
hanc...@cpcn.com (Lisa) wrote:
>Several people suggest that long haul trains are a "land cruise"
>
>
>I disagree. Having travelled on various Amtrak long haul trains, they
>consist of people going from place to another, not out on a "cruise".
>
>To me, a "cruise" is where the travel conveyance itself is the main
>reason for travel, not the ultimate destination.
In my experience, most people travelling want to get wherever they're
going as fast as possible, and are not horribly interested in
conveyances in general.
Most of the people going to the trouble to reserve and ride on an
Amtrak long haul train are most likely looking for something that
an airplane can't provide (scenery, perhaps a more relaxing ride,
etc.)
>In contrast, people on Amtrak are rarely out _mainly_ to ride the
>train--they have a reason to reach their destination. They are going
>someplace, and have chosen the train to take them there.
>
But again, why choose a train over an airplane, or even a bus (I'm
not saying any particular mode is *bad*, hell, I've ridden them all
in the course of a single vacation trip).
Rich403
In article <4tk5lu$3...@news1.netzone.com>, John Timm
<amir...@netzone.com> writes:
>I'm thankful we still have freedom of choice in the matter because
>frankly I don't want some "planner" like you telling me where I really
>ought to live, let alone how to get from place to place.
Well. let's see here. What's wrong this statement.
1. Freedom of choice-- we can only choose what our wallets will allow. If
I can make enough money I can live in the suburbs, if not then I'm forced
to seek cheaper living accomadations, usually in the city. If I'm lucky
enough to have been born into the suburbs, then I might also have enough
luck to maintain a lifestyle that keeps me there. There is no choice here.
It is simply a question of economics. Do I have the money? or not!
2. I don't want some "planner" ... telling me where I really ought to
live-- planners have already told you where to live. The suburbs are very
extensivelly planned, and thought out to some degree. (Not all of the
plans are fully implemented.) And with the redevelopement of the cities
occuring in the last few decades, lots of planning has been going on in
places where real thought had not been put before. There are very strict
zoning laws in places and in many areas, it is decided that people ought
to live in one place & not another.
3.let alone how to get from place to place. - already have.see above.
Planners have decided from the '30s onward that you and I would get about
in automobiles. They were really fascinated by the new fangled air travel
and decided that it was neat. You and I would love to travel by air. We
should keep the air travel public controlled, it is the air that we
breathe afterall. So the government should build & maintain airports.
No, planners from the '30s onward seemed to have the heads in some other
place. They were not fascinated by 19th century technology. But most
rightfully so, they did not think that it needed assistance. The thought
that railroads would be in the poor shape that they are today was
inconceivable in 1946. The thought that light rail would not last was
inconceivable in 1937. So they did not push for more rail activity
because there was enough of it already!! Later on, from the late '50s
through to now, transportation planners have only looked for immediate
answers to immediate problems and only looking at problems within their
jurisdiction. The only national plan was presented by the Army to solve
the problem of mobilization, build big freeways between every National
Guard Armory capable of carrying heavy military loads. This is known as
the Interstate Highway System. The railroads were left alone. They seemed
kinda healthy at the time. Besides, they got all kinds of government help
in the last part of the 19th century, now it was time for something else.
Well,..... the future is never what a committee planned it to be, and
definitely not what some planners in 1934 thought -"200 mph monorail
freight trains connecting every major city on the continent by the year
1960", & other laughable pipe dreams.
Now it is time for the pendulum to swing back from the highways and
flyways and for a truly intergrated transportation system to take shape.
And in answer to the original quest of this thread, NO people do not
prefer one mode over the other for the particulars. They prefer the mode
that does the job, whatever it may be. Given a fair shake, rail would be a
choice of many, if not most.
The one thing I don't understand is the animosity the many people, like
John Timm here. shows towards rail travel. I can understand being upset
with Amtrak, but not with the concept of rail travel. What gives??
Richard A. Likins
in Oakland, CA
within sight of the UP and down(SP).
David Bolthouse
jmat...@wncwabash.com (Jim Matthews) wrote:
>
>In article <4tk5lu$3...@news1.netzone.com>, amir...@netzone.com says...
>>
>>Where do you get this "land appetite" stuff?
>
are
>from my porous memory, so correct me if they are wrong): population for
the
>Chicago area increased by less than 5%, but land use increased by about
>75%!
>
>Jim
Land use is influenced by many things; parking lots, strip-style shopping
centers. These, of course, are required by planners. Mostly, though, it
is influenced by the fact that it is cheaper to buy and use more land
than to build upward. Our quality of life is lowered by that cheapness,
but many people confuse a profusion of money with quality of life.
Regards, David L. Bolthouse
David Bolthouse
As a frequent traveller, using all modes of transportation, I can tell
you what I prefer.
1) High speed rail for trips of four hours or under. At 130 - 150 mph
average speed, including station stops, that would work out to about 500
to 600 miles.
2) Air (specifically business or first class) for longer trips. Coach
seats, as currently used by most airlines (31 inches or less between
seats), are a health hazard, in my opinion. I can't get off a long
flight without lower back pain if I'm flying coach.
3) Commuter rail or subway for trips within a city, wherever possible.
4) Auto. The last resort. It's expensive, bothersome, and not nearly
as relaxing as public transport can be.
Public transport (including high speed rail) in Europe is a joy compared
with the US. If our system were as good as, say, the Swiss system, we
wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead of having drivers "flip
the bird" at each other in traffic, we'd be reading our newspapers.
Regards, David L. Bolthouse
Robert Heller
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com>,
In a message on 1 Aug 1996 00:26:38 GMT, wrote :
TO> stan...@LunaCity.com (Kevin Standlee) wrote:
TO>
TO> > and a recent article (PTJ?) points out that these trains are carrying
TO> > about one freeway-lane's worth of traffic.
TO>
TO> I've heard that before, but someone on the net (Dennis McClendon?) who
TO> knows about LA freeways pointed out that each lane of one of the major
TO> LA freeways transports about 20,000 people a day -- or roughly 6 times
TO> what Metrolink is carrying on its busiest route.
TO>
TO> I understand what you mean: the incremental cost of highway capacity has
TO> become incredible. However, my argument was addressed to the actual usage
TO> rather than the theoretical usage: what is the per-passenger cost for the
TO> highway vs. the railroad, including all infrastructure costs? In the case
TO> of Metrolink, I think the highway wins. (In the case of the MBTA in Boston
TO> and probably Metra in Chicago, the railroad is more cost efficient.) The
TO> problem is that LA residents still disdain the train -- or the fact that
TO> older cities like Boston and Chicago have giant "downtown" areas and huge
TO> numbers of people converge on those areas every day. Cities like Houston
TO> and Los Angeles are an urban planning nightmare -- there is no "center".
TO>
TO>
Most of the "older" cities are more "vertical" -- that is less horizontal real
estate, but as many (or more) people and a lot less room for parking and roads.
Also, many older cities were designed and built with mass transit in mind and
have had a continuous mass transit presence. LA for a while had no mass transit
except busses, so things generally become much more car-oriented. And LA has
more horizontal real estate available.
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: Hel...@CS.UMass.EDU
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller ||FidoNet: 1:321/153
http://netmar.com/mall/shops/heller /\
Matthew Mitchell
In article <4ttpkd$h...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>,
hay...@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) wrote:
>
>Rail transport may indeed have done for cities and suburbs; but as you travel
>across the country you see thousands of farms and small villages where rail
>transit is totally irrelevant. The automobile (and truck) freed all those
>people from dependence on horses and mules.
And the economic synergy of cities would not have been possible without
rail transit. It takes all kinds.
Matthew Mitchell
In article <4ttlrr$h...@info-server.bbn.com>,
Tim O'Connor <toco...@bbn.com> wrote:
>The problem is that there are too few "point to point" commuter buses --
>these would be nearly as fast as automobiles, faster than trains (when you
>take into account getting from home to train), and could greatly reduce the
>the load on highways. Most commuters disdain ordinary city buses because
>they stop, and stop, and stop, and ... take forever to get anywhere.
It's not just stops and travel time which cause people to prefer rail over
buses. About five years ago I collected survey data from people in the
Drexel Hill and Ardmore suburbs of Philadelphia. Drexel Hill has parallel
bus and rail services two to four long blocks apart depending on location.
The trolley and the 111 bus were about equal in number of stops and the bus
might even have been faster from some points, and equal in most. Yet
people _walked_ past_a_bus_stop to take the trolley.
Jack Jackson
Tim O'Connor wrote:
>
<snip>...
>
> Ok, assuming PTJ numbers are accurate (I suspect some bias) ... you could
> accomplish the same thing with 200 buses. If one lane can handle 1,000 bus
> trips per hour, then the buses could handle Metrolink's load (spread out
> over 3 routes?) with just 1/5 of one lane -- or about 1/15 of one lane on
> each of the 3 routes. The total investment -- about $50 million, instead
> of 20 times that for the railroad solution.
>
> these would be nearly as fast as automobiles, faster than trains (when you
> take into account getting from home to train), and could greatly reduce the
> the load on highways. Most commuters disdain ordinary city buses because
> they stop, and stop, and stop, and ... take forever to get anywhere.
A bigger problem I believe is that fewer people would ride buses as
compared to trains. One can't just assume that even if a point-to-point
bus line starts or ends closer to a commuter's destination that that
commuter will want to ride the bus. I know I am biased but I think that
commuters would prefer to ride a train over a bus bacause physical and
psychological comfort levels are higher on the train for one reason and
there are probably more. I repeat that I have absoultely no objective
evidence to support this. Just overheard conversations and personal
feelings.
What does anybody else think?
Lisa
A train is more comfortable than a bus because a train is a lot bigger.
A typical rail car is 10'6" (126") wide, while a bus is 102".
A train also allows some ability to move around (though this isn't as
important on a commuter train.)
Trains can go faster--many commuter trains run at 100mph, while the best
a bus can do is 65, traffic permitting.
Douglas B. Smith
In <4u0ekd$o...@kernighan.cs.umass.edu> hel...@cs.umass.edu (Robert
Heller) writes:
>LA for a while had no mass transit except busses, so things generally
become much more car-oriented.
And Smitty says:
I'm assuming you're speaking of the "while" after the demise of the
Pacific Electric, the LA Street Railways, and other traction companies
that operated in the area. Or are these things before your time?
HartBE
Advantages of a bus:
1) The bus frees the passenger from driving on this trip
2) Allows the passenger to read instead of paying attention to the road.
3) Does not require tracks to run on. Just public roads.
4) No speeding tickets
Disadvantages of a bus:
1) The bus uses the same road that an automobile uses and therefore is
prone to the same delays. Speed is therefore not as fast as an
automobile.
2) Frequent stops adding additional delay.
3) Some walking may be required.
Advantages of a car:
1) Point to point transporation. No walking required.
2) Operate on YOUR schedule.
3) Can go anywhere there is a public road.
Disadvantages of a car:
1) Not everyone with a licence knows how to operate one safely.
2) Prone to delay due to numerous factors
a) improper maintainence
b) traffic jams
c) driver fatigue
3) Constant attention to the road required for safe operation.
Advantages of a train:
1) See America's beauty
2) Freedom from traffic jams and other drivers
3) No speeding tickets
Disadvantages of a train:
1) Very limited in places you can go
2) Operates on THEIR schedule
3) requires tracks
4) slow because of numerous station stops
Advantages of a plane
1) requires no road or track
2) fastest form of transporation
Disadvantage of a plane
1) drops like a piece of lead if the engine fails or wings fall off, with
high probablity of death if this occurs.
2) motion sickness
3) cramped
4) Not convienent. Few commercial airports requiring more use of the
automobile to reach the plane.
What is best? There is no easy answer to this.
I prefer a car when I am in a hurry to get to a near place
I prefer a train for trips through metropolitan areas and for a trip that
would take a car 1.5 to 8 hours
I prefer a bus to take me from the home to the train and train to work
I prefer a plane for trips that would take a train or more than 8 hours
only if I am in a hurry.
I perfer a train if I am on vacation instead of a plane.
Robert Heller
Jack Jackson <jj...@aracnet.com>,
In a message on Sun, 04 Aug 1996 10:39:00 -0700, wrote :
JJ> Tim O'Connor wrote:
JJ> >
JJ> <snip>...
JJ> >
JJ> > Ok, assuming PTJ numbers are accurate (I suspect some bias) ... you could
JJ> > accomplish the same thing with 200 buses. If one lane can handle 1,000 bus
JJ> > trips per hour, then the buses could handle Metrolink's load (spread out
JJ> > over 3 routes?) with just 1/5 of one lane -- or about 1/15 of one lane on
JJ> > each of the 3 routes. The total investment -- about $50 million, instead
JJ> > of 20 times that for the railroad solution.
JJ> >
JJ> > The problem is that there are too few "point to point" commuter buses --
JJ> > these would be nearly as fast as automobiles, faster than trains (when you
JJ> > take into account getting from home to train), and could greatly reduce the
JJ> > the load on highways. Most commuters disdain ordinary city buses because
JJ> > they stop, and stop, and stop, and ... take forever to get anywhere.
JJ>
JJ> A bigger problem I believe is that fewer people would ride buses as
JJ> compared to trains. One can't just assume that even if a point-to-point
JJ> bus line starts or ends closer to a commuter's destination that that
JJ> commuter will want to ride the bus. I know I am biased but I think that
JJ> commuters would prefer to ride a train over a bus bacause physical and
JJ> psychological comfort levels are higher on the train for one reason and
JJ> there are probably more. I repeat that I have absoultely no objective
JJ> evidence to support this. Just overheard conversations and personal
JJ> feelings.
JJ>
JJ> What does anybody else think?
JJ>
JJ>
Trains have a *much* smoother ride than a bus. Hell, a train over jointed rail
is smother than a bus over new asphalt! When ever a bus changes lanes it
sways. And highways commonly have steeper grades and curves than most railroads
would even consider. This virtually insures that the bus ride has lots and lots
of random up and down and side to side motion.
I have a (very slight) tendency towards motion sickness. It effectively means
that I cannot read while riding a bus (or car). Reading on a train is no
problem. Given the nature of motion sickness, I suspect that commuters who are
traveling to work want to at least read the newspaper, if not various sorts of
business related reading material. I suspect that most people would be
uncomfortable reading on a bus. Also busses has a tendency to be much more
crowded -- standing room only is something that is common for busses, and less
so for commuter rail.
Robert Heller
mus...@ix.netcom.com(Douglas B. Smith ),
In a message on 5 Aug 1996 01:23:11 GMT, wrote :
DBS> In <4u0ekd$o...@kernighan.cs.umass.edu> hel...@cs.umass.edu (Robert
DBS> Heller) writes:
DBS>
DBS> >LA for a while had no mass transit except busses, so things generally
DBS> become much more car-oriented.
DBS>
DBS> And Smitty says:
DBS>
DBS> I'm assuming you're speaking of the "while" after the demise of the
DBS> Pacific Electric, the LA Street Railways, and other traction companies
DBS> that operated in the area. Or are these things before your time?
DBS>
Yes, the "while" was after the demise of the streetcars (thanks to GMC,
Firestone Tire, and Standard Oil Of Ca.). Yes, I do know some history.
Robert Heller
har...@aol.com (HartBE),
In a message on 6 Aug 1996 04:55:52 -0400, wrote :
H> Advantages of a bus:
H> 1) The bus frees the passenger from driving on this trip
H> 2) Allows the passenger to read instead of paying attention to the road.
Maybe. I know *I* can't read while riding the bus -- motion sickness.
H> 3) Does not require tracks to run on. Just public roads.
H> 4) No speeding tickets
H>
H> Disadvantages of a bus:
H> 1) The bus uses the same road that an automobile uses and therefore is
H> prone to the same delays. Speed is therefore not as fast as an
H> automobile.
H> 2) Frequent stops adding additional delay.
H> 3) Some walking may be required.
!! walking is good exercise!
H>
H> Advantages of a car:
H> 1) Point to point transporation. No walking required.
H> 2) Operate on YOUR schedule.
H> 3) Can go anywhere there is a public road.
H>
H> Disadvantages of a car:
H> 1) Not everyone with a licence knows how to operate one safely.
H> 2) Prone to delay due to numerous factors
H> a) improper maintainence
H> b) traffic jams
H> c) driver fatigue
H> 3) Constant attention to the road required for safe operation.
++ 4) expensive to own, maintain, and operate.
H>
H> Advantages of a train:
H> 1) See America's beauty
H> 2) Freedom from traffic jams and other drivers
H> 3) No speeding tickets
++ 4) Allows the passenger to read. Or sleep, or eat...
H>
H> Disadvantages of a train:
H> 1) Very limited in places you can go
H> 2) Operates on THEIR schedule
?? no different for planes or busses
H> 3) requires tracks
H> 4) slow because of numerous station stops
?? no worse than bus.
Charles P. Hobbs
hel...@cs.umass.edu (Robert Heller) wrote:
> mus...@ix.netcom.com(Douglas B. Smith ),
> In a message on 5 Aug 1996 01:23:11 GMT, wrote :
>
>DBS> In <4u0ekd$o...@kernighan.cs.umass.edu> hel...@cs.umass.edu (Robert
>DBS> Heller) writes:
>DBS>
>DBS> >LA for a while had no mass transit except busses, so things generally
>DBS> become much more car-oriented.
>DBS>
>DBS> And Smitty says:
>DBS>
>DBS> I'm assuming you're speaking of the "while" after the demise of the
>DBS> Pacific Electric, the LA Street Railways, and other traction companies
>DBS> that operated in the area. Or are these things before your time?
>DBS>
>
>Yes, the "while" was after the demise of the streetcars (thanks to GMC,
>Firestone Tire, and Standard Oil Of Ca.). Yes, I do know some history.
>
National City Lines (the holding company in question) bought one of the
LA streetcar systems (LA Railway, the "Yellow Cars") and replaced them
with buses because the streetcars were becoming too expensive to
operate. (This was in the days when all of a transit system's revenues
came out of the farebox; there were no governmental subsidies)
Even so, they only had control of the LA system from 1945 to 1958 or so,
and there were at least four streetcar lines left after that (the
most productive). These were removed by the governmental agency, LAMTA,
around 1963.
The Pacific Electric Red Cars, on the other hand, were operated by
Southern Pacific, not NCL. NCL had no influence over their operation.
Robert Bonomi
>
>> Actually, the July 96 Passenger Train Journal article said that Metrolink
>> trains are carrying 3 1/3 peak-hour lanes of freeway traffic into LA
>> Union Station. That's based on 7,500 riders into LA Union Station which
>> they estimate at 6,000 vehicles.
>
Lane capacity is about right. Typical 'uncongested' multi-lane limited-access
roadway can move somewhere around 1,000-1,100 vehicles/hour, w/o impact on
transit time. You're getting a little degradation by around 1250 vehicles,
'noticable' by 1500, 'major' by 1750 (e.g., 50+% increase in transit time),
and 'linear parking-lot' conditions if you try and cram around 2000 vehic-
les/lane/hr. I've got no idea as to the accuracy of ridership numbers.
>accomplish the same thing with 200 buses. If one lane can handle 1,000 bus
For traffic-flow analysis, a 'big vehicle', eg semi or full-size bus is
rated at between 3 and 4 'cars'. Medium-size 'straight truck', eg. a
24-footer, is about 2. In a 'mixed-use' lane, 200 bus-type vehicles/hr
will consume about 50% of the lane capacity.
>trips per hour, then the buses could handle Metrolink's load (spread out
>over 3 routes?) with just 1/5 of one lane -- or about 1/15 of one lane on
>each of the 3 routes.
Real-world, at least 1/2 lane, or 1/6 lane over each of 3 routes. Next
step, find the road with that much 'excess' capacity. Otherwise, you're
going to have to _build_ an entire extra lane.
> The total investment -- about $50 million, instead
>of 20 times that for the railroad solution.
Your $50 mil. looks about right for _acquisition_ and outfitting of
the fleet, _period_. You need an additional approximately TWO ACRES
of land just to have a place to store them at night, and, if you're
doing _honest_ cost-accounting, you'll include the cost of building
that additional 3x 1/6 lanes of capacity, since I _very_much_ doubt
you'll find that much 'excess capacity' at rush hour on any main route.
And you are -not- removing even *ONE* vehicle from the roadway, so you
cannot claim any capacity is being 'freed up'.
There's also about $10 million/year in recurring cost, just for the bus-
drivers, not to mention the additional supervisory personnel, additional
maint. workers, spare parts inventory, etc., etc., ad nauseum. These
'operating' costs are going to be an order of magnitude, or more, greater
for said bus fleet, due primarily to the -much- larger number of vehicles
involved. Fuel cost, cost of tires, etc, all factor to the -detriment-
of a bus fleet.
For most transit systems, the operating cost, over the life of the system
ends up being -much- higher than the acquisition cost. It makes *good*
economic sense to spend more on acquisition, if it reduces operating
cost.
>
>The problem is that there are too few "point to point" commuter buses --
>these would be nearly as fast as automobiles, faster than trains (when you
>take into account getting from home to train), and could greatly reduce the
>the load on highways. Most commuters disdain ordinary city buses because
>they stop, and stop, and stop, and ... take forever to get anywhere.
I just want to be sure I understand this. The bus, running point-to-point
between a couple of 'stations' is going to be faster than the train, in
part because you count the time getting from home to the train station,
but not to get to the bus station. What's the bus gonna do, stop every
block or two, like any 'ordinary city bus'?