The real reason American passenger trains are so bad

Vox ^ | June 12, 2015 | Matthew Yglesias

[SamAdams76]

You must mean LIRR to Penn Station, unless you also hopped the subway from there to Grand Central. But yes, it’s expensive. It costs $33 a round trip from Westport, CT to Grand Central and I don’t save a whole lot with the monthly pass as I only go in about three days a week. They know it’s mostly business people taking those trains so they take advantage.

I’m thinking private ownership and operation will drive those prices down a bit.

[bray]

Trains are like cars only slower and less flexible. Why would anyone not fly if they have to get somewhere quick.

Pray America is waking

[Theoria]

Thanks for that.

[Teacher317]

Why trains aren't more popular in the US:

1. Planes cost about the same ($340 by plane for Denver to Indianapolis, $277 for train)
2. Driving is faster (trains must make many stops... Denver to Indianapolis takes 19 hours by train, 16 hours by car, 10 hours by plane including security and travel to and from airport.)
3. Driving is cheaper ($200 in gas, 80 gal, is 2400 mi at 30 mpg highway... more than enough for Denver to Indianapolis and back)
4. When driving, you have transportation at your destination if you drive. Most American locations don't have much public transportation, and taxis can get expensive fast here.
5. Trains do not run to every location. If you need to go to a smaller city, like Tulsa OK, you still have to get a ride there from Oklahoma City OK... almost 2 hours of driving. And the only Amtrak path into OKC is from Dallas. If you're coming from north of OK, you're adding many more miles and hours and dollars to your trip.
6. There are many states that have ZERO Amtrak stops. MICHIGAN has none. ME, VT, NH, DE, WY, and SD have none as well. Only one stop in ID, KY, and TN. There are no stops in major cities like Houston, Las Vegas, or Detroit.
7. Americans prefer private transportation instead of group transportation. Buses and subways have poor reputations in America. Planes are cleaner and more reliable, and less prone to criminal elements, and thus are the preferred method for long trips.

Is that not enough?

[RandallFlagg]

Your autonomous SUV could get the same job done as the train.

But, where would I put the bar?

[Graybeard58]

Willie Green’s last train conversation with JimRob, 10/14/2010:

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:williegreen/index?brevity=full;tab=comments

Then the big zot!

[Paladin2]

In the center console. Not too much room for cocktail waitresses though.

[piytar]

TWP (Thread Winning Post)

[Kickass Conservative]

Of course they love Trains. What better way to get the Conservatives / Republicans to the Camps than by Rail?

It worked for the Germans.

[piytar]

I’d actually like to. Enjoyed train rides in Europe. Problem is, Amtrack even with fedgov subsidies is almost expensive as flying.

Why? Because they are fedgov run and therefor massively inefficient. This also answers the question posited by the article.

[piytar]

Oh, and by inefficient, I mean CORRUPT.

[BobL]

I guess that I’ll parse this:

“The May Amtrak derailment outside of Philadelphia put the sorry state of passenger rail in the United States briefly back on the public agenda, leaving many people wondering not just about the specifics of the crash but about the more general issue — how is it that a rich and powerful country that was a pioneer in railroad adoption in the 19th century has such terrible trains?”

Easy, let a NUTCASE drive the train. The train was PERFECTLY FINE, but no train can take a curve at twice its rated speed.

“One question...is why Northeast Corridor passenger rail service is so much slower than the first-rate systems found in France, Spain, China, and Japan.”

Because the stations are much closer - if you’re 30 miles between stations, it doesn’t make much sense to try to go 200 mph. And anyway, Amtrak’s fastest trains on that route do just fine, they pretty damn fast.

“The second question, which will have bedeviled anyone who’s ever been a tourist in Europe, is why passenger rail outside of the Northeast Corridor is so unimaginably awful.”

Outside of the Northeast Corridor, we are not packed NEARLY AS DENSE as Europe (or China, or Japan). It is a LONG WAY between cities and often over pretty rugged terrain...so not so great for trains. We also LED THE WORLD in airplane travel, Europe is still trying to catch up. We have big airports with excellent supporting infrastructure. Also people NEED CARS because most business does not take place in the cities anymore, at least here - when you get off an airplane you’re not in the middle of downtown, you’re next to 24 hour car rental joints and can drive to where you’re going.

“Last but by no means least, there’s the question of why the richest and most powerful empire the world has ever known can’t build itself a first-rate national, truly high-speed rail network along Chinese lines.”

Easy one, because 47 PERCENT OF AMERICANS are leeching off the government. End that, and there would be plenty of money for your precious trains - but it is YOUR SIDE that refuses to end it.

2) “Why are trains outside of the Northeast so unbelievably awful? For example, if you want to go from Washington, DC, to Pittsburg 250 miles away, you are looking at either a four-hour car trip or a seven-hour-and-43-minute Amtrak ride. Megabus offers a slightly faster journey with two trips per day and charges $10 to $15, while Amtrak’s fares start at $50.”

Seems like upgrading and beefing up freeway speeds would be the answer then. If Megabus is MAKING MONEY at $10 to $15 for that run and Amtrak is LOSING MONEY at $50, then there is a problem here. Why is Amtrak even making the run? They are slower and more expensive.

“3) Why don’t we build a state-of-the-art high-speed rail network?”

Because Megabus can make the run for $10 to $15. A high speed rail make it 2 hours quicker, but is it worth $20 BILLION, just for that line - when airplane will still beat the train, and people can now board airplanes very quickly with TSA Pre-Check.

“The rail skeptics at the Cato Institute extrapolated from what California is spending on its high-speed rail project to conclude that a full system price tag could be around $1 trillion.”

Call them “rail skeptics” but building a new Interstate Highway system from scratch would also cost that much, if not more. It simply costs a BOATLOAD OF MONEY to build something that extensive.

“Since California has above-average construction costs, that’s almost certainly too high. It’s also not the case that we couldn’t afford to drop hundreds of billions on new passenger rail infrastructure over the next two or three decades. That’s about what the United States spent invading Iraq, and a high-speed rail network would be more useful than that.”

Actually the Iraq money is NOW SPENT...it’s no longer an “rail OR Iraq”, the money is GONE (and sadly, with your president pulling out of there, that money is not totally wasted). So move on here. Now if we want to talk future spending - how about cutting the Food Stamp budget by 50% - that would free-up $40 Billion per year and you could have your stupid train system in 25 years...and maybe some of those Food Stamp deadbeats would help build it, but I really doubt it.

“The real problem is that even among the set of people who are interested in the idea of a multibillion-dollar transportation infrastructure investment, intercity passenger rail just isn’t that compelling a priority.”

Correct, congratulations.

“Under the circumstances, new urban transit seems much more likely to be heavily used than new intercity trains.”

I guess, if one has a LOVE AFFAIR with trains - but buses generally make A LOT MORE SENSE, particularly if you upgrade the roads they travel on.

“What is true is that faster trains could offer a green alternative to plane flights between close-together cities — Seattle and Portland, or Dallas and Houston, for example.”

I haven’t seen studies that show trains are “greener”, particularly after you spend a TRILLION dollars tearing up the land. Ever seen what comes out of the stack of a Grader?

“But even though plane flights are very polluting, they only add up to a modest 2.2 percent or so of total American carbon emissions.

Actually just under 2%, but who’s counting.

“And of course for many journeys — Phoenix to Boston or Houston to Seattle — trains aren’t a very plausible substitute anyway. So from an environmental perspective, too, massive rail expansion just doesn’t look like a particularly compelling priority.”

He is starting to catch on here, thankfully. No train WILL EVER compete with air service if the distance is over 1500 miles or so. Not even close. Trains may go fast, maybe 300 mph, but they will stop on the way, and that kills their average speed.

[Olog-hai]

The government was involved in the mass “civil aviation” industry from its start; not so passenger rail. Not very “flexible” to have to drive to an airport, if one compares to a high-speed train whose station is more or less within the city center; and it’s thanks to the same federal government that private railroads cannot operate such trains anymore.

Woodrow Wilson “loved” railroads so much that he nationalized them all during WWI, as the USRA (US Railroad Administration). After he was gone, though, the railroads had to (and did) revert to private hands. But that was the beginning of the damage.

[Olog-hai]

Correction; meant to post “Class 1” instead of “Class 5”. There are three classifications of railroad companies, according to volume of traffic moved per year.

I got mixed up with track classifications by accident; Class 5 track permits (with appropriate signaling) 90 mph top speed passenger trains and 80 mph top speed for certain types of freight trains.

[Sherman Logan]

And you can load a family of five into the car and transport them all for about the same price.

[SkyPilot]

Amtrak has an official proposal to upgrade the region for true high-speed rail, but the price tag is $117 billion and many observers fear cost overruns.

$117 Billion?!

For train tracks?

Let's be honest - most of that "estimate" is kickbacks, union greed, and corruption.

This is 19th century technology with an upgrade for "high speed." I rode the European system for several years - this is not a rocket-ship-to-Mars technology. Advanced, yes, but nothing should cost $117 Billion. These cars and engines are even available for sale by other nation's!

Everything costs too much to build today because of state corruption, union corruption, and greed.

The "Big Dig" in Boston was Billions over cost - because once the corrupt construction unions got the program started, they hit the state and the Feds up for Billions more.

[TBP]

The real reason American passenger trains are so bad: GOVERNMENT!!!

[twyn1]

My husband and I travel by train quite often, especially when we visit our son in D.C. Sure beats the horrendous traffic from Philly, through Baltimore and then the dreaded beltway! Once we’re there, we use his vehicle or take the metro. We’ve had a few minor delays here and there but it’s always been pleasant and quite relaxing, esp. in the quiet car or business class. We also took the sleeper car all the way down to Alabama and back, found it to be a very cool experience! (alltho’ we would spring for the more expensive larger cabin if we did that again in the future. I’ve heard plenty of horror stories, but my own experiences have been just fine.

[Hot Tabasco]

Last but by no means least, there's the question...that's never been asked and that is why anyone who has the availability of an automobile, with the freedom to drive whenever and wherever they wish, would ever consider having to rely on a train...........;.

[pfflier]

Notice most of the discussion is about the "Northeast Corridor". To the residents there, that is the center of the universe.

People from there who visit us in the southwest are amazed and totally ignorant of, the distance between cities. They are stupified that we use cars and drive ourselves on trips up to two or three hours just to accomplish some errand. What no take out or delivery for dinner?

Seriously, I had a relative from Rochester NY fly in and think we could pick them up in Dallas in an hour or so if we drove from Arizona.