American public transports

[phongn]

Try this, Lonestar: Silver Line

[CmdrWilkens]

The Purple Line

I'm more anxious for the Silver Line, myself.

It's kinda funny because the DC Metro is a textbook case of how rail mass transit can be used in "New" Cities, especially as most of the sprawl didn't show up until the '60s.

Well I would love them finally building the extension as it would include four more stores I could visit without having to take my car.

Honestly right now the MARC and Baltimore Red Line are my biggest hopes because the Red Line is proposed to terminate about a block from where I live and I'm already a twice weekly Penn Line commuter. Basically if the expansions and projects envisioned actually go through within another decade I could literally walk down the street and be able to travel anywhere in downtonw DC or Baltimore without ever having to step in a car.


As an aside I am uncertain if the 560 station count for Amtrak includes the commuter rail stations served by the same trackage but which are not included on any route that Amtrak itself operates. For instance in Maryland, on the NEC, Amtrak stops at Aberdeen, Baltimore Penn, BWI Airport Rail, and New Carrollton (plus Union Station in DC). At the same time time MARC, which is operated under contract with Amtrak, makes additional stops at Perryville, Edgewood, Martin State Airport, West Baltimore, Halethorpe, Odenton, Bowie State and Seabrook. So even though the mid-distance trains (Regional, Vermonter, Acela, etc) don't hit those stops you can take a commuter train to a hub station and then hop on the inter-city.

[Broomstick]

In comparison the airline industry gets the use of the air traffic control system for free

Actually, EVERYONE gets ATC "for free" - actually paid for by taxes. It's like bitching that commercial trucking gets free use of the Interstate system.

gets subsidized gas

Cite, please - last I heard aviation fuel had heavy taxes. In fact, that pays for a lot of the governmental enforcement of regulations. Now, the airlines DO by the tanker-load, but that's savings from economy of scale.

reduced rates at municipal airports, etc

???? First, quite a few airports don't charge ANY aircraft for landing or take-off.

Second, all the airports I know that do charge for use of the airport either charge everyone the exact same rate, or, more commonly, charge by weight which means the airlines pay more than people like me.

I won't debate your assertion of tax breaks and I'll add in government bailouts, but, my dear, please see above. Accuracy counts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, EVERYONE gets ATC "for free" - actually paid for by taxes. It's like bitching that commercial trucking gets free use of the Interstate system.

That is actually a SERIOUS problem. Commercial trucking is ludicrously inefficient. The railroads are private, and pay their own upkeep for their own fixed infrastructure. The trucking companies are private, and... Don't. If all roads in the country were toll roads, nobody would ship via trucks. Especially since they'd suffer much higher tolls, since they rip the roads apart, and cause most of the damage that we must shell out money to repair.

???? First, quite a few airports don't charge ANY aircraft for landing or take-off.

Second, all the airports I know that do charge for use of the airport either charge everyone the exact same rate, or, more commonly, charge by weight which means the airlines pay more than people like me.

I meant in terms of rented terminal space and the cost of commercial land where they have hangars and maintenance facilities sited. Using up dozens of acres of industrial-zoned land is not cheap, but it's considerably undervalued in its use at airports.

[Broomstick]

Actually, EVERYONE gets ATC "for free" - actually paid for by taxes. It's like bitching that commercial trucking gets free use of the Interstate system.

That is actually a SERIOUS problem. Commercial trucking is ludicrously inefficient. The railroads are private, and pay their own upkeep for their own fixed infrastructure. The trucking companies are private, and... Don't. If all roads in the country were toll roads, nobody would ship via trucks. Especially since they'd suffer much higher tolls, since they rip the roads apart, and cause most of the damage that we must shell out money to repair.

Gee, maybe that's why trucks pay higher licensing fees and other fees/taxes?

The rationale behind "free" ATC is that we all benefit by the greater safety that results, meaning fewer aircraft falling out the sky and damaging people and property on the ground.

???? First, quite a few airports don't charge ANY aircraft for landing or take-off.

Second, all the airports I know that do charge for use of the airport either charge everyone the exact same rate, or, more commonly, charge by weight which means the airlines pay more than people like me.

I meant in terms of rented terminal space and the cost of commercial land where they have hangars and maintenance facilities sited. Using up dozens of acres of industrial-zoned land is not cheap, but it's considerably undervalued in its use at airports.

Um... I don't have a clue what you're saying here. Are you saying that the government somehow subsidizes hangar rental? It doesn't. If an airline was astute enough to buy some land cheap a couple decades ago I fail to see why they should be penalized for it now. Airports DO require land, as do the storage and maintenance facilities - but both railroads and roads ALSO eat up massive amounts of land, much more so, in fact, that all the airports do.

Also, the utility of such land is reduced due to being in close proximity to runways - you can't build tall, and there is a greater than average risk of a large, flaming object crashing through your roof. Or just a stray wheel or a chunk of blue ice. In addition, for safety reasons you need a buffer zone around runways - why not fill those buffers with hangars rather than, say, houses or office buildings full of vulnerable people?

At many airports - including municipal fields - the hangar space is privately owned already with no subsidies whatsoever.

So where are you getting this information from?

[K. A. Pital]

The idea that cargo rail traffic can't let Amtrak through because it's so very very busy, and that's unique to America sounds like complete and utter bullshit to me.

Instead of choosing Europe, weak on cargo freight, one could take a country with comparable annual freight statistics:

Billion tonne-kilometers:
United States: 2840.1 billion tonne-kms
Former Soviet Union: 2484.1 billion tonne-kms
China: 2055.7 billion tonne-kms
Russia: 1950.0 billion tonne-kms

Million-ton:
China: 2870 million ton
Former Soviet Union (three main republics): 2006 million ton
United States: 1775 million ton
Russia: 1402 million ton

Tonne-kilometer per capita:
Russia 12599 t-k/c
Canada 10517 t-k/c
United States 9165 t-k/c

Kilometrage:
European Union 236 656 km
United States 210 437 km
Former Soviet Union 151 729 km
Russia 92 217 km
China 76 600 km

What gives? China and Russia/FSU have similar freight rail indicators.

Now let's compare passenger traffic, in billion passenger-kms:
China 635.33 billion
Former Soviet Union 236.90 billion
Russia 173.70 billion
United States 22.50 billion

Comparably busy and comparably large freight systems (the US has around 13,5 million tonnekms moved per 1 km of track laid, the f.USSR has 16,4, Russia 21,1 and China 26,8) have a great disparity of passenger rail traffic - the US has 0,1 million pass-kms per every kilometer of rail, f.USSR - 1,5, Russia - 1,8 and China 8,2. Which means Russia and China are exploiting their tracks far more efficiently for passenger traffic than the US ever will, all whilst moving a comparable amount of cargo.

Hmm... I guess it's not a problem of conflicting rail lines, but of U.S. unwillingness to massively expand passenger rail into a pan-national network of stations. Hell, the US has so much railway track laid and yet it has a ridiculous joke of a passenger railway called "Amtrak".

[Adrian Laguna]

Commercial trucking is ludicrously inefficient. The railroads are private, and pay their own upkeep for their own fixed infrastructure. The trucking companies are private, and... Don't. If all roads in the country were toll roads, nobody would ship via trucks. Especially since they'd suffer much higher tolls, since they rip the roads apart, and cause most of the damage that we must shell out money to repair.

I hereby propose that a road maintenance tax be instituted against trucking companies. It's much cheaper than installing toll booths all over the United States, and accomplishes the same thing.

[Uraniun235]

I think the biggest issue with people not taking Amtrak up until now has been time. The Duchess mentioned a one-way train trip with six meals included; that's a two day trip, for (according to her) roughly the same price as a first-class flight which can get you there same-day. A person going on vacation therefore would be spending four days round-trip doing nothing but sitting on the train; a lot of people would resent having to burn additional vacation time (which, compared to their European counterparts, is a much rarer commodity) merely waiting to get somewhere.

Now, obviously this will be a moot point in the future, but I think it's a significant factor in explaining abysmal rail passenger rates prior to today.

I hereby propose that a road maintenance tax be instituted against trucking companies. It's much cheaper than installing toll booths all over the United States, and accomplishes the same thing.

I thought that's what the gas taxes were for.

[Flagg]

I think the biggest issue with people not taking Amtrak up until now has been time. The Duchess mentioned a one-way train trip with six meals included; that's a two day trip, for (according to her) roughly the same price as a first-class flight which can get you there same-day. A person going on vacation therefore would be spending four days round-trip doing nothing but sitting on the train; a lot of people would resent having to burn additional vacation time (which, compared to their European counterparts, is a much rarer commodity) merely waiting to get somewhere.

Now, obviously this will be a moot point in the future, but I think it's a significant factor in explaining abysmal rail passenger rates prior to today.

It's also because (according to one of my uncles) AMTRAK fucking sucks. He knew 3 people that were passengers in one of the hijacked planes that left from Logan International on 9/11 and became deathly afraid of flying due to that.

So the next time he went to visit my Grandparents in FL, he took the AMTRAK that brings your car along with you. It was so uncomfortable and took so long that he now flies again. That should tell you something. I don't remember any of the specifics, but he and my aunt and cousins were so worn out and sore from that trip that they actually chose to throw out the return tickets and drive back up to Massachusetts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, it's their fault they didn't pony up for a sleeping compartment, though I grant that the southern railroads are total shit about Amtrak, and hate it. Obviously spending 20 hours sitting in a chair with no way to stretch out and sleep is miserable. But even when running late, the service in the sleepers has been good enough that I've always considered the trip excellent. When was the last time you had a Cajun-style seared steak prepared medium rare to your specification with salad, roll, rice pilaf and vegetables and a slice of cheesecake a la mode for dessert along with a pop and infinite refills of coffee as your dinner? Complimentary to the cost of your travel? And at a full size restaurant table, with more or less as much time as you want to finish and interesting conversation with your table-mates.

[Flagg]

Well, it's their fault they didn't pony up for a sleeping compartment, though I grant that the southern railroads are total shit about Amtrak, and hate it. Obviously spending 20 hours sitting in a chair with no way to stretch out and sleep is miserable. But even when running late, the service in the sleepers has been good enough that I've always considered the trip excellent. When was the last time you had a Cajun-style seared steak prepared medium rare to your specification with salad, roll, rice pilaf and vegetables and a slice of cheesecake a la mode for dessert along with a pop and infinite refills of coffee as your dinner? Complimentary to the cost of your travel? And at a full size restaurant table, with more or less as much time as you want to finish and interesting conversation with your table-mates.

They had a sleeping car. Apparently it was a rough ride the whole way down and there were constant delays. They may have just had a bad experience on what is otherwise a decent means of travel, but I'm never taking one. I'd rather pay the same price and get from Boston to West Palm Beach in 3 hours.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, it's their fault they didn't pony up for a sleeping compartment, though I grant that the southern railroads are total shit about Amtrak, and hate it. Obviously spending 20 hours sitting in a chair with no way to stretch out and sleep is miserable. But even when running late, the service in the sleepers has been good enough that I've always considered the trip excellent. When was the last time you had a Cajun-style seared steak prepared medium rare to your specification with salad, roll, rice pilaf and vegetables and a slice of cheesecake a la mode for dessert along with a pop and infinite refills of coffee as your dinner? Complimentary to the cost of your travel? And at a full size restaurant table, with more or less as much time as you want to finish and interesting conversation with your table-mates.

They had a sleeping car. Apparently it was a rough ride the whole way down and there were constant delays. They may have just had a bad experience on what is otherwise a decent means of travel, but I'm never taking one. I'd rather pay the same price and get from Boston to West Palm Beach in 3 hours.

*shrug* I didn't sleep the first one or two times in a sleeping car, either, but you get used to the rocking motion pretty quickly, and it just doesn't bother you anymore. It's a lot better than, say, a horse-drawn wagon on the Oregon Trail. And I'd prefer it by a few orders of magnitude to being stuffed into a small half-seat on an airliner after being humiliatingly searched. As for the delays, so what? You get into Florida 3 hours later on a 21 hour trip (and Amtrak rarely runs worse than three hours later. The Western trains on well-maintained BNSF track get in early), that's a 14% delay. But you can regularly get a three hour delay on a flight--of three hours. That's a 100% delay. In terms of proportion of length of trip, Amtrak is clearly more reliable.

Anyway, most of the track is poorly maintained by the freight companies. The smoothest ride in my life and a very comfortable night's sleep was gained on one of the two major exceptions to the rule (BNSF, the other is Canadian National on the old IC trackage from New Orleans to Chicago), on the old SF transcon from New Mexico up into Chicago. We were pushing 90mph damn near the whole way and I was out like a light and slept perfectly for nine hours without waking after a dinner of lamb shanks.

[Broomstick]

About Amtrak....

I rode Amtrak frequently between Chicago and Detroit for several years, due in part to a traumatic experience on an airplane that left me afraid to fly for awhile.

There are some downsides. Trains take more time in transit, and they can certainly be delayed. For someone with motion sickness, the brevity of a flight vs. the hours on a train could be a significant factor. Many people, particularly at first, find the motion of a train interferes with sleep. On the other hand, I don't get motion sick, and I can sleep through almost anything. Since at the time I was also riding trains to work every day I was well accustomed to the motion. I believe part of the problem people have is that the motion IS unfamiliar to them, which sets them on edge (I also believe this is one reason why flying provokes anxiety - unfamiliar motion).

The only multi-hour delay I experienced involved an accident. Otherwise, the worst was 40 minutes.

One happy surprise was that the length of the total trip, that is, door-to-door, was shorter on the train, even with any high-tech whiz-bang ultraefficient bullet train technology. The train station was easier to get to (I didn't have a car, and at the time the El train didn't yet reach either Chicago airport), I could arrive just 5-10 minutes before departure instead of an hour or more, and at the other end the train station was MUCH closer to my parents house than Detroit Metro Airport was. Much less travel getting to and from the train stations, and much less waiting around. Many of my trip were during the winter, and there were far fewer weather delays because trains are the last mode of transport that will be stopped by weather (and if it's too bad for a train to get through you shouldn't be traveling) You also get more room, even in coach, although if I had a trip that lasted 24 hours or more I'd get a sleeper

This weekend I am having a visitor from Detroit who is coming out by Amtrak. Why? She ran the math and found that it would cost more in gas to drive than the cost of the ticket. She also has weather concerns and does not want to be stuck on the road in a blizzard (we've had some bad storms lately). There is also the fact that we both live much closer to train stations than to the major hub airports. I offer this as proof that Americans WILL take a train if it makes some sense.

As the price of gas goes up, taking a train will make more and more economic sense. As security delays increase at airports, and prices go up (and air travel prices MUST rise if the cost of fuel keeps doing so) taking a train will make more and more economic sense. No need for draconian measures to force the public to do this

[CmdrWilkens]

Actually, EVERYONE gets ATC "for free" - actually paid for by taxes. It's like bitching that commercial trucking gets free use of the Interstate system.

That is actually a SERIOUS problem. Commercial trucking is ludicrously inefficient. The railroads are private, and pay their own upkeep for their own fixed infrastructure. The trucking companies are private, and... Don't. If all roads in the country were toll roads, nobody would ship via trucks. Especially since they'd suffer much higher tolls, since they rip the roads apart, and cause most of the damage that we must shell out money to repair.

Gee, maybe that's why trucks pay higher licensing fees and other fees/taxes?

The rationale behind "free" ATC is that we all benefit by the greater safety that results, meaning fewer aircraft falling out the sky and damaging people and property on the ground.

I think you are missing the point Marina is making, and I agree with. Aside from liscensing and regulatory fees (which as a percentage cost of operation are much lower than infrastructure maintenance for any of the three tranposrt modes) the railroads are the only transportation mode which pays the entire cost of safe operation. The airlines are provided the ATC, and for a good reason, at public expense. Trucking companies have every state highway administration/police they pass through, again for good reason and again at public expense. In contrast all railroads must build and maintain the entirety of their signalling and safety apparatus. They also have to pay to both build and maintain the actual rail infrastructure. Airlines don't pay to build airports, though they do pay terminal fees, and trucking companies don't pay to build and maintain roads, aside from the aforementioned fees and the percentage of fuel sales that are directed into guraunteed transportation funds

What all of this amounts to in totality is that trucking and air shipment both have huge built in advantages in that their infrastructure and maintenance is PRIMARILY, not fully but primarily, paid for by public funds. Conversely rail travel and shipment is paid for almost exclusively by the carriers with the one exception being Amtrak and as a percentage of industy wide maintenance costs that's tiny.

[Broomstick]

Well, if you put it THAT way....

I wonder if that is a legacy of the railroads being granted land free by the government during the expansion phase of the system - doubt it was the case much on the east coast, but in the Midwest and West the railroads were given massive amounts of land - the right-of-ways plus tracts on either side, which they then sold off to finance the initial construction.

[Phantasee]

I remember taking the train when I went to India 11 years ago. We were going from Punjab state to a state on the other side of the country (I actually didn't know this until a couple months ago). I was alright during the day, but I vomited the first two nights. On the way back I was fine.

I really want to take a trip across Canada on Via Rail. They have an engine with an observation lounge at the front, covered with windows (might actually be a car in front of the engine, not too sure). That would be a classy way to travel.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, if you put it THAT way....

I wonder if that is a legacy of the railroads being granted land free by the government during the expansion phase of the system - doubt it was the case much on the east coast, but in the Midwest and West the railroads were given massive amounts of land - the right-of-ways plus tracts on either side, which they then sold off to finance the initial construction.

Which just makes them even with the whole eminent domain process for roads, Broomstick. But after that, they pay for all their own maintenance costs--the truckers do not, and they cause by far the most damage.

P.S. In regard to airports, I was just observing that when a public agency purchases land for an airport, it does so at depressed value, and it can, at will, charge such fees for use of sections of the airport as it sees fit for the perceived economic value of doing so. Other businesses would have to buy that land themselves, or pay market rates in renting it.

[Broomstick]

Land purchased and developed as an airport does, in fact, lose value - for one thing, once it's an airport it is very difficult to un-airport it (although not impossible). There is also the question of environmental contamination from aviation fuels and various fluids such as de-icer.

But as far as renting space at the airport for commercial purposes - rents for buildings at airports are going up, not down.

[Adrian Laguna]

I didn't sleep the first one or two times in a sleeping car, either, but you get used to the rocking motion pretty quickly, and it just doesn't bother you anymore. It's a lot better than, say, a horse-drawn wagon on the Oregon Trail.

I think it varies from person to person. I've found that sleeping on a train is a lot easier and more comfortable than sleeping on an airplane or car. I wouldn't blink at the idea of taking a two day trip on a coach seat, I'll just take a small pillow, put it on the tray, and sleep there. So long as the train doesn't crash into something and cause the tray edge to pulverize my ribs and crush my lungs, I'll be fine.

[[R_H]]

I think it varies from person to person. I've found that sleeping on a train is a lot easier and more comfortable than sleeping on an airplane or car. I wouldn't blink at the idea of taking a two day trip on a coach seat, I'll just take a small pillow, put it on the tray, and sleep there. So long as the train doesn't crash into something and cause the tray edge to pulverize my ribs and crush my lungs, I'll be fine.

I find trains much more comfortable than airplanes. I've always had problems sleeping on planes because of the lack of leg-room (especially on charter flights), a problem I don't have in trains. The only upside to airplane travel is that you have the inflight movie(s) which means that boredom is potentially less of a problem, but that's easily remediable with a protable DVD player, laptop etc.

[Aaron]

I remember taking the train when I went to India 11 years ago. We were going from Punjab state to a state on the other side of the country (I actually didn't know this until a couple months ago). I was alright during the day, but I vomited the first two nights. On the way back I was fine.

I really want to take a trip across Canada on Via Rail. They have an engine with an observation lounge at the front, covered with windows (might actually be a car in front of the engine, not too sure). That would be a classy way to travel.

Be prepared to spend a shitload of money. I just looked up the cost for a double berth sleeper car from Ottawa to Vancouver. For two adults and two children: 10K and change.

[HemlockGrey]

Amtrak is terrible for long-distance. If I wanted to go from Philadelphia to San Diego (admittedly the most extreme long-distance trip possible, but East Coast-West Coast vacations are fairly common) it'll cost me $260 and I'll have to change trains three times. Oh, and it'll take me three days. And if I want a sleeper car on my 43 hour journey from Chicago to Los Angeles I'll end up shelling out about a thousand dollars.

Or I could book a 100 dollar, 3hr flight on Southwest.

So until oil shocks or government intervention or UFO attacks makes air travel untenable, Amtrak is sort of stuck. It'd be nice to see some truly high-speed bullet-train lines laid out across the US.

[ray245]

And the funny thing is a jet plane will consume more fuel than a train at times.

[Darth Wong]

And the funny thing is a jet plane will consume more fuel than a train at times.

Thanks for that astounding news flash

[CmdrWilkens]

And the funny thing is a jet plane will consume more fuel than a train at times.

At times? While I don't know where the current 423 ton-miles per gallon of fuel came from the end of the day matter is that rail is the most efficient means of land transport available. The only method which is remotely close is surface shipment by water, truck and air are FAR behind in efficiency.