So far, the 2018 budget will drop about $1billion in Amtrak subsidies, effectively killing cross-country rail service. Shorter runs like Boston-NYC-DC will probably continue, but it will likely no longer be possible to get from San Francisco to Chicago or Chicago to DC by train.
That leaves us with cars, buses and airplanes.
Seems to me like passenger rail ought to be part of the mix. Are there ways that it could be improved to make it appealing and self-sustaining? Or is long-distance train travel something that needs to just fade away for good? Because once these lines get cut, there is no getting them back.
I don’t care one way or another about intercity regular-speed rail service anywhere except directly on the Atlantic Coast and Northeast, where it probably could be viable because of the population density. Everywhere else, I think it needs high speed rail to be viable. Few people will want to go cross country if the trip will take multiple days, and that long a trip is expensive in labor as well.
Another thing that seems small but might induce me personally is renovations to their stations, which are still in cramped downtown areas with little parking. If they could institute park and ride areas, then I would consider train travel in lieu of long-distance driving or plane flights.
I think these long distance routes should sell travel packages. I live in Portland, ME and we have an Amtrak line that goes to Boston. You can buy packages through Amtrak that include train fare, tickets to sports events or concerts, and hotels. There are also packages available for travelers coming from Boston to NH or Maine.
A cross country train service should have a lot of opportunites to do something like this.
Selling packages like this in addition to regular fares can bring in a lot of revenue.
I’d like to see U.S. transportation infrastructure be made more modern and efficient, and I think trains can be a part of that, but I wouldn’t be heartbroken to see money-losing routes lose their subsidy. I find this rather curious to be coming from Trump, though. I wonder if he’d subsidize Amtrak if he could require them to use steam trains, powered by all that coal he wants to keep digging.
I like the history and romance of train travel. There were grand stations built in every city and town, and I’m sorry I never got to see Pennsylvania Station in NYC. Passenger rail was an economic power and a boon to travelers in its day, but, like coal mining, we shouldn’t keep doing it just for reasons of nostalgia. The future belongs to those who see it coming and take hold of it with both hands.
My worry is that someone like Trump wants to abandon the technology of the 1930s to replace it with that of the 1960s. Does his vision for infrastructure go any further than just “more gasoline, more buses, more single-occupant cars”? I’d like to see us planning ahead. Passenger rail works in some places, like the northeast. We should preserve rights-of-way and zoning for those places where it’s likely to be competitive with changes in demographics and technology.
The passenger service may be going away, but that doesn’t mean the rails are. I’ve read that part of the reason Amtrak service is so bad is that, for the most part, they don’t own the tracks. In most of the country, they have to operate on tracks owned by freight companies, and they’re the lowest priority. I think the freight business is quite healthy, so the rails should still be around.
I would say almost the opposite. The fastest Amtrak trains are on the Boston-NYC-Washington line, and its market share has gone up considerably since that service was introduced. (I found conflicting cites on whether it operates at a profit.) On the other hand, I don’t think even 200mph trains would get many riders going coast-to-coast; planes would still be much faster.
However, it’s wrong to think of a train route only in terms of its end points. Boston-NYC and NYC-Washington are attractive routes in terms of time and cost compared to flying. Boston-Washington probably not so much, even though it’s the same train. I could see a service like NYC-Milwaukee being a viable high-speed line someday; not because of all the New Yorkers who want to go to Milwaukee, but because of the closer, densely-populated cities along the way.
Yeah, that would be my question as well. How many people actually use the services being cut, and are the numbers using it worth the expense of a billion dollars a year to subsidize the system? If we are talking about millions of people using it each year, then I suppose it might be worth it…or might be worth just raising the rate a couple bucks to lower the subsidy. If we are talking a few 10’s of thousands then it’s probably not worth continuing the subsidy. Anyone know what we are talking about here wrt use?
It’s not quite cross country, but I’ve taken the Coast Starlight from S.F. To L.A. several times. It’s cheaper than the plane, and more comfortable too.
One problem with “cross-country train service” is, it’s considerably slow. It takes, what, 5 hours to fly from San Francisco to Boston? In those same five hours, you can take Amtrak from San Francisco to…Lake Tahoe, about 200 miles away. (That’s right; the train averages about 40 miles an hour.) The fact that there are two mountain ranges between most of the west coast and most of the midwest has something to do with it.
I’ve ridden the western side several times, but I consider the trip itself to be the part I like. I didn’t take the train to go somewhere - I took the train in order to take the train.
As much as I enjoy it, I can understand some people might not like the expenditure of what, for this customer at least, is a very expensive excursion train.
I do. But I am kind of strange. In the summer, the run I typically take is nearly full, and I have seen Amish people every year. Yes, a 40+hour trip could be replaced by ten hours of flight (including layover, security and getting to and from the airport), but I can spare the time, I find the train comfortable, I can carry nail clippers and more 3oz of liquid with me and the station I use at the other end is in a small town. Also, if you have ever bought a plane ticket online, you cannot compare prices, because once to check another carrier, if it costs more, making you go back to the first carrier, when you get back the price has gone up. Amtrak fares are rock-steady.
In the winter, I believe the long runs are mostly light on passengers, so that is a big place where they lose money. But if the long runs had something like TGVs, multiple runs per day (so that they could alternate stopping at the smaller stations) and a couple more routes, train travel could compete with air travel. Cutting a trip like mine to 20 hours would certainly make it more appealing to more people.
The double-deckers they run in the west usually have a lounge car with very big windows upstairs – not quite the same as a dome car, but still quite a decent view.
It takes about three days to cross the US by train. I’ve done it a few times, and it is a glorious experience compared to the perpetual shambling damnation that is air travel. On the other hand, if you fly it only takes one day.
By the way, “cross-country service” doesn’t necessarily mean people travel cross-country. It just means people can travel from any point along the line to any other point.
#/media/File:Superliner_I_Lounge_upper.jpg){kind=link}
#/media/File:Sante_Fe_Railroad_El_Capitan.JPG){kind=link}