I think you're right about the convenience issue. Too bad we live in America and can't do anything that makes sense, lest it make us look like socialists.
But if the trains were made to be more like the airlines, then no one would want to ride the trains anymore no matter how convenient they were. To put it scientifically, airlines suck and are a massive pain in the ass, and they're all going bankrupt. I would take trains all the time if trains if trains were that bit faster and more widely available; but I don't see any reason to be optimistic that private massively-subsidized companies operating rail transport would do any better a job of customer service or anything else than the PM-SCs operating air transport have done.
(Disclaimer: The person Jack cites is an expert of sorts, and I don't know Jack.)
As I understand it, one of the main reasons Amtrak was created in the 70s was because the private railways were all busy dropping their by-then horribly unprofitable passenger services (some of them had been trying to do this for years, but the government (I think the ICC) had been denying their requests for some reason).
I know a lot has changed with the railways and freight since then (what with de-regulation and all) but I don't know if it's enough to make passenger service viable again outside of Amtrak plus whatever operates in the busier areas.
My cynical guess is that anti-Amtrak people are offended not so much by the fact that Amtrak is losing government money, but by the fact that it is losing government money that is not going directly to private individuals (who are quite adept at claiming that the money they are losing is not really governmental, but private entrepreneurial money, and that the government is only helping them out.)
the fact that it is losing government money that is not going directly to private individuals
That's also my sense, aj, but then, we're liberals.
How's the Acela service? If that works, it's a good model for the possibilities or rail, no? And I would bet that an L.A. to Vegas or L.A. to San Francisco service would be a hit. Isn't part of Amtrak's problem that it's charged with providing service to lots of routes that just don't have many passengers (which is not to say that the service isn't essential for those few; I just don't know)? Mightn't a company that runs a service for a few heavily trafficked routes do quite well?
I can't say that I know much about the Acela service, but in California I'm pretty sure the state government is moving ahead, at a glacial pace, with plans to link the SF Bay Area with LA by some kind of high speed service. Last I heard the target for getting it set up was something like 2020.
With airport delays and security, it seems like there's a real potential for traffic on that route if they can get the time down. The real problems aren't so much technology but the constant fighting in the Bay Area over which cities get stations (SF and Oakland have been battling over this one since the 1870s, and now San Jose wants in on it) and the difficulty in getting over the LA mountains (expensive tunnel vs. losing time by going around).
As for people who need to use the train over low-traffic routes: I've done a few long distance trips over Amtrak (and one over Canada's Via Rail) and I've found the ridership to consist of:
retiree tour groups monopolizing the sleepers and restaurant car;
people taking the train just for the hell of it because they know that if they ever get a real life together they won't have time to travel like this again (I'm sort of in this category, and have only traveled coach);
people who are afraid to fly (who often note that you rarely hear about survivors of plane crashes, but that people do survive train wrecks);
and people who need to go a relatively short distance (up to one night, as opposed to the three it takes to cross the country) immediately and cannot afford or are not willing to pay same-day airfares
On one trip I took, there was this guy heading from Omaha to Cleveland for a funeral and the airfare was something like 8 times what Amtrak charged. Now that I think about it, considering the fact that he was also writing a book about how God was telling him not to pay income tax, and how everything the government has done from the Lincoln presidency to 1998 (when I took the trip) has been a fraud perpetrated on the American people, it's kind of funny that he chose Amtrak.
Such interesting people you meet on the train. Hmm, maybe that would make a good subject for some blog posts.
Roundtrip Acela BOS-NYC is 3:30 hours and $200 bucks.
Greyhound is $40-55, and 4:30 hours. (Chinatown bus is cheaper)
The Delta shuttle is $300.
And you can drive down in 4:30 hours, and pay $40/day for parking in the center of Manhattan.
So I guess you could call me "anti-Amtrak" insofar as I never, ever, use it to travel. Before I had a car, I took the bus down to NYC.
Yes, we subsidize roads and airports. Do we do it to the same extent that we do amtrak, per passenger mile? That's the comparison missing from the analysis Mr. O'Toole cites.
I don't believe the answer is yes. Rather, I suspect rail is just a crappy technology for travel in a nation like America, where distances are large and a massive investment in highways has already taken place.
Maybe trains can work on the short routes: certainly rail services works for intra-city and intra-metro area commuting, as in Boston or DC. Inter-city travel, however, dosen't seem like a place where this technology makes sense.
And USAirways Boston-Long Island is just $116. I didn't know the Acela was so expensive. And I always drove that route anyway, though for some reason I remember it as a 3:30 drive. But, but...
Yes, metro-to-metro rail commuting still seems like a nice possibility, for a few reasons. First, one of the battles aj described, where the train stops, is due to one of rail's advantages: it can stop at more than one place in a large metro area. That makes it a bit slower than air, but potentially more convenient. And trains tend to be more comfortable than planes, and I have a suspicion that there are plenty of people who don't particularly like to fly--I get motion sickness really easily, and a choppy landing on even a short flight wrecks me for the day, so I'd definitely take a train if the price and time were just close to car/plane.
And I'm not sure the technology is so crappy. Again, I don't know much, but aren't trains in Japan and Europe much faster than even the Acela? Maybe Chicago-Orlando will never be a profitable train route, but there are many many shorter routes where I'd think trains could serve.
Ogged--As I said, I don't know much, but I also get the sense that trains elsewhere are faster. A Swiss friend was astonished that trains here are slower than cars.
People in the UK seemed to be very fond of BritRail before it was privatized. Since then it's been a complete nightmare, I gather. I wouldn't mind seeing the US airline industry turning into pre-privatization BritRail--under the current gov't it'd be a disaster, but under the current gov't it won't happen either.
Trains Grand Vitesse (TGV) travel up to 300km/h. That's...180mph, I think. Not all trains in Europe are of that speed, of course. Still, it beats the hell out of driving. You can relax, read a book, nap, meet new people, etc.. Overnight trains are brilliant ways of travelling...hop on, go to bed, arrive in the morning, not having lost any time to travelling. And you can take a substantial amount of luggage.
I love the idea of trains. But I do share baa's concerns, as well. I can see how they would be feasable along the coasts, but I'm unsure about us red states. One thing though: you'd be talking about a lot of job creation. And I'm sure it would increase tourism, another economic benefit. I would at least like to see an investigation into what its cost/benefit ratio would prospectively be.
Would anyone object to just tearing out the Interstates altogether and putting in rail lines instead? I doubt anyone would miss I-80/94 through the Gary area, for instance -- I have been avoiding that son of a bitch for the past six years, sometimes by very elaborate means. Then you'd get the job-creation benefits of tearing out the interstates together with the job-creation benefits of building the rail lines. This is a political winner, I think.
It would destroy the romance of the road! The small towns that depend on highway traffic for their survival! Would you prefer to be cooped up in a car, borne forward with no control and no stops unappointed by the Central Planning Organisation, leaps between bestandings that are forbidden, alienated from the country around you, or to feel under your (hobnailed and booted? Yes, even so, if need be) foot the steady flowing of gasoline in your automobile, advancing at your own pace, free to know those whom you would otherwise pass by?
The Straight Story & Two-Lane Blacktop would become incomprehensible curios to your children's children, and what would become of the People's Coastal Highway?
I don't know how tongue-in-cheek Ben is being, but that's exactly right. The open road is more than just a road. Anyway Adam, I think you're kidding about the "political winner" part, because people would flip if you wanted to get rid of the interstates.
I remember this story on NPR about how Greyhound was shutting down some rural routes, and all the reporter wanted to talk about was the romance of the road, etc. All her interviewees wanted to talk about was, "How the fuck am I going to get out of this shithole now?"
In any case, my ridiculous idea is to put trains where the interstates currently are, so all towns currently serviced by the interstates would be serviced by trains. Ben Wolfson is disproven, decisively.
Ben W's point is spot on. We have a road infrastucture that supports point to point, flexible travel. Flexibility rocks, as does getting *exactly* to the place you want to go, not 15-45 minutes away.
Intercity train service seems like a solution in search of a problem. Is air travel so bad? Is driving or busing it from NYC to Boson so unpleasant? Maybe trains could be cost-effective competitors, but this isn't a malaria vaccine we are talking about here. The erotic affection mass transit often inspires is baffling. Is this an aesthetic response to overconsumption (small is beautiful), environmentalism, or what? Transportation is a tool, not a value. Pollution is bad, traffic is bad, inefficiency is bad. But here's the ultimate unrenewable resource: my life. I just want the transport that get me there cheap and fast. Is that so wrong?
Adam--If you have a route that will take me from Pittsburgh to Milwaukee while avoiding that stretch, let me know posthaste.
baa--Yeah, air travel is that bad. Right now it's about half an hour to the airport, two hours early arrival before takeoff, half an hour from the airport, plus all the delays and the risk they'll lose your luggage or leave you sitting on the runway a couple hours before taking off, or, as recently happened to someone I know, cheerfully announe that the plane needs fixed but they have to get it to Pittsburgh to fix it anyway so they'll just fly the broken plane with you on it. I find myself avoiding flying as much as possible (also, my domestic partner doesn't like to fly). Driving isn't always so hot either--see my question to Adam, and did I mention my trip here went through the Dec. 23 blizzard? That was exhausting. Plus environmentalism and traffic-avoidance are non-trivial benefits. Trains ain't gonna replace cars or planes (if you want to get from Salt Lake City to anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, you gots to fly), but it might be worth looking into whether they could be another means of transport that gets us there cheap and fast--in some alternate universe where this is politically feasible (as Michael points out, ain't gonna play in the red states).
As for American mythos: Was Jimmie Rodgers the Singing Driver?
I haven't taken Amtrak because it's not significantly cheaper than flying (and it often doesn't go near my destinations), but MW is correct: flying has turned into such a profoundly shitty experience that I'm starting to refigure my cost-benefit analysis.
Here's the thing: in FY2003, Amtrak "lost" about 1.3 billion dollars. Or, looking at it another way, it cost 1.3 billion dollars to keep our national rail system operating. That's about 9% of the FAA's budget and about 1/8 of the airline industry losses in 2004. It's the average amount spent on each of the four largest urban loops here in North Carolina. It's about the same as the annual federal subsidy to the timber industry, used primarily to build logging roads. It's what we spend every week occupying Iraq.
If that's all it costs to maintain our national rail system, it's a bargain.
Matt, you forgot layover times and delayed flights. Those can cause seemingly-endless hours in airports, I'd venture that most of us have experienced them.
baa, talking about life as an unrenewable resource is one of my arguments for trains. I would rather spend 8 hours travel time reading or chatting than driving. Buses work for this, too, and I've traveled long distances via bus. Train is much nicer. And as for lack of flexibility...bus and cab systems worked for me in Europe. Or, if you have visions of traveling by train to and from University, and thus your two homes, it should be no problem to have friends/family pick you up.
And I think trains have more romance than cars. The supreme individuality of motor transport is unfortunate, in my humble opinion. It becomes tragic when the single transport weighs 6000lbs. Trains are more communal. And it really is, as far as I'm concerned, the most comfortable way to travel. If I have the choice between a long train ride at $100, and a plane ride much faster and at 1/3 the price (it can happen in Europe!), it's a difficult decision for me.
The erotic affection mass transit often inspires is baffling.
Um, unless you're talking about serial gropers on buses and subways, this statement has me a bit baffled. Of course we're all familiar with the whole train goes in a tunnel symbolism, but I find it difficult to believe that cars aren't more eroticized than mass transit.
That's very early arrival Matt. Come an hour early -- it will be fine. I fly frequently for work (coach, thank you), and I don't see the problems everyone here sees. Flights are usually on time, you can read a book, and just looking out the window, your favored with a magnificent sight 99% of all humans who have every lived never were lucky enough to experience.
Driving, I agree is a bummer solo.
I guess I'd just like to know what intercity rail would need to do to disqualify itself? I agree with Apostropher that in the realm of crazy government subsidies, Amtrak would hardly be the first I would cut. But when does our patience run out? In 2050, when we're all flying point-to-point on fan wing airplanes will I still have to hear about how train service between Boston and New York should be given more chances?
Till recently I agreed with you about early arrival, but I arrived an hour and a half early for my 7:30 am flight to the Eastern APA and didn't make the gate until most of the passengers had boarded. On my return flight I again saw security lines out the door, almost to the moving walkway that takes you to the parking garage. Admittedly this was flying out of Pittsburgh, where USAir is about as fucked-up as possible.
But that leads me to my other point: The airlines are doing very, very badly. I'm perfectly willing to admit that building up inter-city rail may not be a good idea. I don't know *anything* about the economics. But the fact that Amtrak isn't doing well--when we're nickel-and-diming it--doesn't prove much. Apostropher's point I think isn't that it's cheap--it's that the government isn't putting as much money into trains as into other forms of transport, including cars and planes. So no wonder trains aren't as convenient or as cheap to the ticket buyer.
I'm really as I say unsure about whether investing in rail is a good idea. But I do wonder whether someone in the 50s might have said--should we invest so much money in highways, in a very large country where we already have a perfectly good railroad infrastructure in place?
[Is there any way we can get bphd to start talking dirty so this thread can hit 100?]
I just want the transport that get me there cheap and fast. Is that so wrong?
will I still have to hear about how train service between Boston and New York should be given more chances?
er...baa? What's with the victimized attitude? Anyway, we're not "in search of a problem," but merely floating ideas that might make travel better. And call me a skeptic of flying point to point predictions.
When you say "before" that means either that you aren't having sex in a train bathroom now or that you are. I forget which.
(Um, for the benefit of anyone I don't know reading this thread and forming snap judgments about my character, I was alluding to comment 56 here. And everything else goes by the board when we're trying to push an Unfogged thread over the top, right?)
The bathroom? How plebeian. On the long-distance trains the bedrooms can be hired for day segments of the journey.
Amtrak, however, might not be the best solution to the intercity passenger transportation problem. It is a creature of Congress, and those rural district representatives have to have something in order to vote for a token corridor service Richmond-Portland (with somewhat more frequent service Washington-Boston) as well as the Santa Barbara-San Diego, Portland-Seattle, and Chicago area services.
There's an interesting puzzle shaping up in the Great Lakes, with the possible extension of Metra (commuter authority) service into Racine and Milwaukee, in competition with the Amtrak service that uses a different route between Milwaukee and Chicago.
The solution might involve selling the long-distance service to cruise train operators.
I don't feel victimized, I am just trying to understand what it will take for this idea to die. Let's stipulate the following: amtrack is subsidized at two orders of magnitude higher per passenger mile than cars/buses or trains. Nonetheless, it's not competitive even over short routes like Boston-NYC. Further, no private company can be found that wants to invest in a inter-city rail line, even for the most profitable routes. Will we then let amtrak go?
My experience with air travel seems to be *nothing like* what you guys experience. Yes there are delays, yes 9/11 security sucks, but I haven't found it a particularly great hassle.
Last, I do think there's a weird aesthetic response against cars and buses. Cars are great, because of flexibility, privacy, and the sunk infrastructure that enables point-to-point travel. Mass transit enthusiasts are discount these virtues.
Even with the competition, the Amtrak route from Chicago to Milw is the most-travelled route in the entire system. And it's incredibly convenient and rarely late -- I know this from picking someone up and dropping her off every week or so for several months.
Is it time to start a national debate about whether airline security measures have become excessive?
And baa, I regard all time spent in a car as lost time. This may be partly due to my disproportionate preference for reading over listening to the radio.
I tend to agree that almost all time driving a car is lost time, especially when alone, but being a passenger in a car can be, in scenic areas, not all that different than being on a train. Of course, my perspective is from someone who reads, but more often likes to just look out the windows and try to see and remember as much as possible.
But for that a plane is only enjoyable when it's clear, and over land. Hours of clouds, empty water, and bad movies are never enjoyable. Only the obvious convenience of speed makes it worthwhile.
Regional railroads are great. NJTransit was ridiculously easy, nearly always on time (although sometimes it might have left a little bit early), and conventient. Now imagine if broadband over powerlines could provide wifi into a train as it went across a state. Connect those state rails to neighboring states, adn you've got a great business proposition. People can work on the train, surf the net on the train, watch porn on the train, have sex on the train...
Of course, you'll have to improve train security. Listen, security may get out of hand and merely be an incompetent show, but if it stops 50% of the attacks, that's good right?
Hours of clouds, empty water, and bad movies are never enjoyable
to which cm responded:
Hmmm, you'll have to tell us more about the train alternative to those trans-atlantic flights.
I was speaking more generally. You don't need a train alternative to be able to not enjoy trans-Atlantic flights; that's something anyone can do (except possibly baa). That said, I should have added, that the obvious convenience of speed and, um, being able to fly over water makes flying worthwhile.
I've never been on a ship longer than about 12 hours - and that was during the day, and land (usually islands) was visible most of the time, so I don't know if a trans-Atlantic ship ride would drive me insane. I know flying does.
But the best train route to Europe goes through Alaska and Siberia. Anyone want to search for investors?
Before they successfully lay the trans-Atlantic cable, a company actually started work on making that a telegraph route.
Matt Weiner suggests "People in the UK seemed to be very fond of BritRail before it was privatized. Since then it's been a complete nightmare, I gather. "
Which is half-true. Since privatisation there are much higher subsidies, and the sort of foolishness where if there are two routes, one direct and one involving changes, the direct route is sometimes cheaper but takes longer, but before privatisation there were just as many crashes, similarly due to inept maintenance, and passenger numbers have been rising consistently for the last 5 years, so it's not all bad. InterCity trains from London to the North are invariably packed, and they run a lot more frequently than they used to.
Wrong thread. Also, I want to note that this phrase from my earlier comment: " (hobnailed and booted? Yes, even so, if need be)" is an example of the device known as holberon proteron.
Pretty to think so, huh?
Posted by Jack O'Toole | Link to this comment | 01- 3-05 6:05 PM
I think you're right about the convenience issue. Too bad we live in America and can't do anything that makes sense, lest it make us look like socialists.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 3-05 9:04 PM
But if the trains were made to be more like the airlines, then no one would want to ride the trains anymore no matter how convenient they were. To put it scientifically, airlines suck and are a massive pain in the ass, and they're all going bankrupt. I would take trains all the time if trains if trains were that bit faster and more widely available; but I don't see any reason to be optimistic that private massively-subsidized companies operating rail transport would do any better a job of customer service or anything else than the PM-SCs operating air transport have done.
(Disclaimer: The person Jack cites is an expert of sorts, and I don't know Jack.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 3-05 10:26 PM
As I understand it, one of the main reasons Amtrak was created in the 70s was because the private railways were all busy dropping their by-then horribly unprofitable passenger services (some of them had been trying to do this for years, but the government (I think the ICC) had been denying their requests for some reason).
I know a lot has changed with the railways and freight since then (what with de-regulation and all) but I don't know if it's enough to make passenger service viable again outside of Amtrak plus whatever operates in the busier areas.
My cynical guess is that anti-Amtrak people are offended not so much by the fact that Amtrak is losing government money, but by the fact that it is losing government money that is not going directly to private individuals (who are quite adept at claiming that the money they are losing is not really governmental, but private entrepreneurial money, and that the government is only helping them out.)
That's the American way.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01- 3-05 11:30 PM
the fact that it is losing government money that is not going directly to private individuals
That's also my sense, aj, but then, we're liberals.
How's the Acela service? If that works, it's a good model for the possibilities or rail, no? And I would bet that an L.A. to Vegas or L.A. to San Francisco service would be a hit. Isn't part of Amtrak's problem that it's charged with providing service to lots of routes that just don't have many passengers (which is not to say that the service isn't essential for those few; I just don't know)? Mightn't a company that runs a service for a few heavily trafficked routes do quite well?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 12:29 AM
I can't say that I know much about the Acela service, but in California I'm pretty sure the state government is moving ahead, at a glacial pace, with plans to link the SF Bay Area with LA by some kind of high speed service. Last I heard the target for getting it set up was something like 2020.
With airport delays and security, it seems like there's a real potential for traffic on that route if they can get the time down. The real problems aren't so much technology but the constant fighting in the Bay Area over which cities get stations (SF and Oakland have been battling over this one since the 1870s, and now San Jose wants in on it) and the difficulty in getting over the LA mountains (expensive tunnel vs. losing time by going around).
As for people who need to use the train over low-traffic routes: I've done a few long distance trips over Amtrak (and one over Canada's Via Rail) and I've found the ridership to consist of:
retiree tour groups monopolizing the sleepers and restaurant car;
people taking the train just for the hell of it because they know that if they ever get a real life together they won't have time to travel like this again (I'm sort of in this category, and have only traveled coach);
people who are afraid to fly (who often note that you rarely hear about survivors of plane crashes, but that people do survive train wrecks);
and people who need to go a relatively short distance (up to one night, as opposed to the three it takes to cross the country) immediately and cannot afford or are not willing to pay same-day airfares
On one trip I took, there was this guy heading from Omaha to Cleveland for a funeral and the airfare was something like 8 times what Amtrak charged. Now that I think about it, considering the fact that he was also writing a book about how God was telling him not to pay income tax, and how everything the government has done from the Lincoln presidency to 1998 (when I took the trip) has been a fraud perpetrated on the American people, it's kind of funny that he chose Amtrak.
Such interesting people you meet on the train. Hmm, maybe that would make a good subject for some blog posts.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 1:56 AM
Roundtrip Acela BOS-NYC is 3:30 hours and $200 bucks.
Greyhound is $40-55, and 4:30 hours. (Chinatown bus is cheaper)
The Delta shuttle is $300.
And you can drive down in 4:30 hours, and pay $40/day for parking in the center of Manhattan.
So I guess you could call me "anti-Amtrak" insofar as I never, ever, use it to travel. Before I had a car, I took the bus down to NYC.
Yes, we subsidize roads and airports. Do we do it to the same extent that we do amtrak, per passenger mile? That's the comparison missing from the analysis Mr. O'Toole cites.
I don't believe the answer is yes. Rather, I suspect rail is just a crappy technology for travel in a nation like America, where distances are large and a massive investment in highways has already taken place.
Maybe trains can work on the short routes: certainly rail services works for intra-city and intra-metro area commuting, as in Boston or DC. Inter-city travel, however, dosen't seem like a place where this technology makes sense.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 8:33 AM
And USAirways Boston-Long Island is just $116. I didn't know the Acela was so expensive. And I always drove that route anyway, though for some reason I remember it as a 3:30 drive. But, but...
Yes, metro-to-metro rail commuting still seems like a nice possibility, for a few reasons. First, one of the battles aj described, where the train stops, is due to one of rail's advantages: it can stop at more than one place in a large metro area. That makes it a bit slower than air, but potentially more convenient. And trains tend to be more comfortable than planes, and I have a suspicion that there are plenty of people who don't particularly like to fly--I get motion sickness really easily, and a choppy landing on even a short flight wrecks me for the day, so I'd definitely take a train if the price and time were just close to car/plane.
And I'm not sure the technology is so crappy. Again, I don't know much, but aren't trains in Japan and Europe much faster than even the Acela? Maybe Chicago-Orlando will never be a profitable train route, but there are many many shorter routes where I'd think trains could serve.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 11:13 AM
Ogged--As I said, I don't know much, but I also get the sense that trains elsewhere are faster. A Swiss friend was astonished that trains here are slower than cars.
People in the UK seemed to be very fond of BritRail before it was privatized. Since then it's been a complete nightmare, I gather. I wouldn't mind seeing the US airline industry turning into pre-privatization BritRail--under the current gov't it'd be a disaster, but under the current gov't it won't happen either.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 12:41 PM
Trains Grand Vitesse (TGV) travel up to 300km/h. That's...180mph, I think. Not all trains in Europe are of that speed, of course. Still, it beats the hell out of driving. You can relax, read a book, nap, meet new people, etc.. Overnight trains are brilliant ways of travelling...hop on, go to bed, arrive in the morning, not having lost any time to travelling. And you can take a substantial amount of luggage.
I love the idea of trains. But I do share baa's concerns, as well. I can see how they would be feasable along the coasts, but I'm unsure about us red states. One thing though: you'd be talking about a lot of job creation. And I'm sure it would increase tourism, another economic benefit. I would at least like to see an investigation into what its cost/benefit ratio would prospectively be.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 1:12 PM
Would anyone object to just tearing out the Interstates altogether and putting in rail lines instead? I doubt anyone would miss I-80/94 through the Gary area, for instance -- I have been avoiding that son of a bitch for the past six years, sometimes by very elaborate means. Then you'd get the job-creation benefits of tearing out the interstates together with the job-creation benefits of building the rail lines. This is a political winner, I think.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 1:21 PM
It would destroy the romance of the road! The small towns that depend on highway traffic for their survival! Would you prefer to be cooped up in a car, borne forward with no control and no stops unappointed by the Central Planning Organisation, leaps between bestandings that are forbidden, alienated from the country around you, or to feel under your (hobnailed and booted? Yes, even so, if need be) foot the steady flowing of gasoline in your automobile, advancing at your own pace, free to know those whom you would otherwise pass by?
The Straight Story & Two-Lane Blacktop would become incomprehensible curios to your children's children, and what would become of the People's Coastal Highway?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 1:44 PM
I don't know how tongue-in-cheek Ben is being, but that's exactly right. The open road is more than just a road. Anyway Adam, I think you're kidding about the "political winner" part, because people would flip if you wanted to get rid of the interstates.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 1:49 PM
I saw an opportunity for rhetorical absurdity and took it. The basic point wasn't tongue-in-cheek.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 1:54 PM
I remember this story on NPR about how Greyhound was shutting down some rural routes, and all the reporter wanted to talk about was the romance of the road, etc. All her interviewees wanted to talk about was, "How the fuck am I going to get out of this shithole now?"
In any case, my ridiculous idea is to put trains where the interstates currently are, so all towns currently serviced by the interstates would be serviced by trains. Ben Wolfson is disproven, decisively.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 2:43 PM
Other benefits of trains:
Bar Car (drinking, food)!
You can pee whenever you like!
It's just easier to appreciate scenere with the big windows..and you can stand up while doing it.
Learning that, contrary to whatever Aristotle or Kant might think, the rules of logic are different in French bureaucracy.
Being severly intimidated by hot, armed, female Austrian gendarmes only to learn that it's their way of flirting.*
some may not apply in the US
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 2:59 PM
Ben W's point is spot on. We have a road infrastucture that supports point to point, flexible travel. Flexibility rocks, as does getting *exactly* to the place you want to go, not 15-45 minutes away.
Intercity train service seems like a solution in search of a problem. Is air travel so bad? Is driving or busing it from NYC to Boson so unpleasant? Maybe trains could be cost-effective competitors, but this isn't a malaria vaccine we are talking about here. The erotic affection mass transit often inspires is baffling. Is this an aesthetic response to overconsumption (small is beautiful), environmentalism, or what? Transportation is a tool, not a value. Pollution is bad, traffic is bad, inefficiency is bad. But here's the ultimate unrenewable resource: my life. I just want the transport that get me there cheap and fast. Is that so wrong?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 4:13 PM
Adam--If you have a route that will take me from Pittsburgh to Milwaukee while avoiding that stretch, let me know posthaste.
baa--Yeah, air travel is that bad. Right now it's about half an hour to the airport, two hours early arrival before takeoff, half an hour from the airport, plus all the delays and the risk they'll lose your luggage or leave you sitting on the runway a couple hours before taking off, or, as recently happened to someone I know, cheerfully announe that the plane needs fixed but they have to get it to Pittsburgh to fix it anyway so they'll just fly the broken plane with you on it. I find myself avoiding flying as much as possible (also, my domestic partner doesn't like to fly). Driving isn't always so hot either--see my question to Adam, and did I mention my trip here went through the Dec. 23 blizzard? That was exhausting. Plus environmentalism and traffic-avoidance are non-trivial benefits. Trains ain't gonna replace cars or planes (if you want to get from Salt Lake City to anywhere in a reasonable amount of time, you gots to fly), but it might be worth looking into whether they could be another means of transport that gets us there cheap and fast--in some alternate universe where this is politically feasible (as Michael points out, ain't gonna play in the red states).
As for American mythos: Was Jimmie Rodgers the Singing Driver?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 4:44 PM
I haven't taken Amtrak because it's not significantly cheaper than flying (and it often doesn't go near my destinations), but MW is correct: flying has turned into such a profoundly shitty experience that I'm starting to refigure my cost-benefit analysis.
Here's the thing: in FY2003, Amtrak "lost" about 1.3 billion dollars. Or, looking at it another way, it cost 1.3 billion dollars to keep our national rail system operating. That's about 9% of the FAA's budget and about 1/8 of the airline industry losses in 2004. It's the average amount spent on each of the four largest urban loops here in North Carolina. It's about the same as the annual federal subsidy to the timber industry, used primarily to build logging roads. It's what we spend every week occupying Iraq.
If that's all it costs to maintain our national rail system, it's a bargain.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 6:02 PM
Matt, you forgot layover times and delayed flights. Those can cause seemingly-endless hours in airports, I'd venture that most of us have experienced them.
baa, talking about life as an unrenewable resource is one of my arguments for trains. I would rather spend 8 hours travel time reading or chatting than driving. Buses work for this, too, and I've traveled long distances via bus. Train is much nicer. And as for lack of flexibility...bus and cab systems worked for me in Europe. Or, if you have visions of traveling by train to and from University, and thus your two homes, it should be no problem to have friends/family pick you up.
And I think trains have more romance than cars. The supreme individuality of motor transport is unfortunate, in my humble opinion. It becomes tragic when the single transport weighs 6000lbs. Trains are more communal. And it really is, as far as I'm concerned, the most comfortable way to travel. If I have the choice between a long train ride at $100, and a plane ride much faster and at 1/3 the price (it can happen in Europe!), it's a difficult decision for me.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 6:05 PM
The erotic affection mass transit often inspires is baffling.
Um, unless you're talking about serial gropers on buses and subways, this statement has me a bit baffled. Of course we're all familiar with the whole train goes in a tunnel symbolism, but I find it difficult to believe that cars aren't more eroticized than mass transit.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 6:32 PM
oops, forgot to include my name on the post above
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 6:32 PM
two hours early arrival before takeoff
That's very early arrival Matt. Come an hour early -- it will be fine. I fly frequently for work (coach, thank you), and I don't see the problems everyone here sees. Flights are usually on time, you can read a book, and just looking out the window, your favored with a magnificent sight 99% of all humans who have every lived never were lucky enough to experience.
Driving, I agree is a bummer solo.
I guess I'd just like to know what intercity rail would need to do to disqualify itself? I agree with Apostropher that in the realm of crazy government subsidies, Amtrak would hardly be the first I would cut. But when does our patience run out? In 2050, when we're all flying point-to-point on fan wing airplanes will I still have to hear about how train service between Boston and New York should be given more chances?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 8:39 PM
Till recently I agreed with you about early arrival, but I arrived an hour and a half early for my 7:30 am flight to the Eastern APA and didn't make the gate until most of the passengers had boarded. On my return flight I again saw security lines out the door, almost to the moving walkway that takes you to the parking garage. Admittedly this was flying out of Pittsburgh, where USAir is about as fucked-up as possible.
But that leads me to my other point: The airlines are doing very, very badly. I'm perfectly willing to admit that building up inter-city rail may not be a good idea. I don't know *anything* about the economics. But the fact that Amtrak isn't doing well--when we're nickel-and-diming it--doesn't prove much. Apostropher's point I think isn't that it's cheap--it's that the government isn't putting as much money into trains as into other forms of transport, including cars and planes. So no wonder trains aren't as convenient or as cheap to the ticket buyer.
I'm really as I say unsure about whether investing in rail is a good idea. But I do wonder whether someone in the 50s might have said--should we invest so much money in highways, in a very large country where we already have a perfectly good railroad infrastructure in place?
[Is there any way we can get bphd to start talking dirty so this thread can hit 100?]
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 8:59 PM
I'll just rise to the occasion here and mention that I've had sex in a train bathroom before. I'm, like, part of the "several feet high" club now.
Posted by belle waring | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 9:10 PM
I just want the transport that get me there cheap and fast. Is that so wrong?
will I still have to hear about how train service between Boston and New York should be given more chances?
er...baa? What's with the victimized attitude? Anyway, we're not "in search of a problem," but merely floating ideas that might make travel better. And call me a skeptic of flying point to point predictions.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 9:10 PM
belle's hit on another advantage! sex in train bathrooms is more comfortable than sex in airplane bathrooms, or sex while driving.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 9:11 PM
Amtrack should begin an advertising campaign based around what I just wrote.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 9:13 PM
I've had sex in a train bathroom before
When you say "before" that means either that you aren't having sex in a train bathroom now or that you are. I forget which.
(Um, for the benefit of anyone I don't know reading this thread and forming snap judgments about my character, I was alluding to comment 56 here. And everything else goes by the board when we're trying to push an Unfogged thread over the top, right?)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 9:37 PM
But what about a helicopter bathroom?
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 9:54 PM
The bathroom? How plebeian. On the long-distance trains the bedrooms can be hired for day segments of the journey.
Amtrak, however, might not be the best solution to the intercity passenger transportation problem. It is a creature of Congress, and those rural district representatives have to have something in order to vote for a token corridor service Richmond-Portland (with somewhat more frequent service Washington-Boston) as well as the Santa Barbara-San Diego, Portland-Seattle, and Chicago area services.
There's an interesting puzzle shaping up in the Great Lakes, with the possible extension of Metra (commuter authority) service into Racine and Milwaukee, in competition with the Amtrak service that uses a different route between Milwaukee and Chicago.
The solution might involve selling the long-distance service to cruise train operators.
Posted by Stephen Karlson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-05 10:05 PM
Belle sez she once got busy in an Amtrak bathroom.
No two people will do it the same
Ya got it down when ya appear to be in pain
Humpin', funkin', jumpin',
jig around, shakin' ya rump,
and when the dude a chump pump points a finger like a stump
tell him step off, this isn't my stop.
The Amtrak dance, it's your chance to do the 'Trak.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 12:17 AM
I don't feel victimized, I am just trying to understand what it will take for this idea to die. Let's stipulate the following: amtrack is subsidized at two orders of magnitude higher per passenger mile than cars/buses or trains. Nonetheless, it's not competitive even over short routes like Boston-NYC. Further, no private company can be found that wants to invest in a inter-city rail line, even for the most profitable routes. Will we then let amtrak go?
My experience with air travel seems to be *nothing like* what you guys experience. Yes there are delays, yes 9/11 security sucks, but I haven't found it a particularly great hassle.
Last, I do think there's a weird aesthetic response against cars and buses. Cars are great, because of flexibility, privacy, and the sunk infrastructure that enables point-to-point travel. Mass transit enthusiasts are discount these virtues.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 8:32 AM
Even with the competition, the Amtrak route from Chicago to Milw is the most-travelled route in the entire system. And it's incredibly convenient and rarely late -- I know this from picking someone up and dropping her off every week or so for several months.
Is it time to start a national debate about whether airline security measures have become excessive?
And baa, I regard all time spent in a car as lost time. This may be partly due to my disproportionate preference for reading over listening to the radio.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 3:33 PM
Wow, now there's a difference. I love driving time, and often, when I have a whole day free, will just pick a direction and drive for hours.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 3:36 PM
I tend to agree that almost all time driving a car is lost time, especially when alone, but being a passenger in a car can be, in scenic areas, not all that different than being on a train. Of course, my perspective is from someone who reads, but more often likes to just look out the windows and try to see and remember as much as possible.
But for that a plane is only enjoyable when it's clear, and over land. Hours of clouds, empty water, and bad movies are never enjoyable. Only the obvious convenience of speed makes it worthwhile.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 5:53 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 7:20 PM
Regional railroads are great. NJTransit was ridiculously easy, nearly always on time (although sometimes it might have left a little bit early), and conventient. Now imagine if broadband over powerlines could provide wifi into a train as it went across a state. Connect those state rails to neighboring states, adn you've got a great business proposition. People can work on the train, surf the net on the train, watch porn on the train, have sex on the train...
Of course, you'll have to improve train security. Listen, security may get out of hand and merely be an incompetent show, but if it stops 50% of the attacks, that's good right?
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 7:30 PM
Hours of clouds, empty water, and bad movies are never enjoyable
Hmmm, you'll have to tell us more about the train alternative to those trans-atlantic flights.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 7:31 PM
I think it was called the QE2. or something like that.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 7:36 PM
I wrote:
Hours of clouds, empty water, and bad movies are never enjoyable
to which cm responded:
Hmmm, you'll have to tell us more about the train alternative to those trans-atlantic flights.
I was speaking more generally. You don't need a train alternative to be able to not enjoy trans-Atlantic flights; that's something anyone can do (except possibly baa). That said, I should have added, that the obvious convenience of speed and, um, being able to fly over water makes flying worthwhile.
I've never been on a ship longer than about 12 hours - and that was during the day, and land (usually islands) was visible most of the time, so I don't know if a trans-Atlantic ship ride would drive me insane. I know flying does.
But the best train route to Europe goes through Alaska and Siberia. Anyone want to search for investors?
Before they successfully lay the trans-Atlantic cable, a company actually started work on making that a telegraph route.
Posted by aj | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 7:58 PM
Loaded like a freight train
Flyin' like an aeroplane
Speedin' like a space brain
One more time tonight
I'm on the nightrain
And I'm lookin' for some
I'm on the nightrain
So's I can leave this slum
I'm on the nightrain
And I'm ready to crash an' burn
Nightrain
Bottoms up
I'm on the nightrain
Fill my cup
I'm on the nightrain
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 8:18 PM
Funny, I've been downloading Guns N' Roses this week from iTunes. But do you really think that Axl spells it "aero...?"
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 8:27 PM
Well, as I recall, he needs it to have three syllables, not two, so he might.
Have you seen this?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01- 5-05 9:39 PM
"Visually, our Axl is 280 lbs and Black, hence, "Blaxl"."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 6:11 AM
Well, it topped out at 46 (counting this I guess). We tried, Belle.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 6-05 3:31 PM
Matt Weiner suggests "People in the UK seemed to be very fond of BritRail before it was privatized. Since then it's been a complete nightmare, I gather. "
Which is half-true. Since privatisation there are much higher subsidies, and the sort of foolishness where if there are two routes, one direct and one involving changes, the direct route is sometimes cheaper but takes longer, but before privatisation there were just as many crashes, similarly due to inept maintenance, and passenger numbers have been rising consistently for the last 5 years, so it's not all bad. InterCity trains from London to the North are invariably packed, and they run a lot more frequently than they used to.
Posted by dave heasman | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 5:42 AM
This thread deserves 50.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 10:05 AM
I was really offended by Wolfson's joke-- what about you, Phil?
Posted by Ben Doon | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 10:06 AM
Yeah, I thought that was insensitive to Unfogged's Scottish readers. What a jerk.
Posted by Phil McCrevis | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 10:07 AM
Wrong thread. Also, I want to note that this phrase from my earlier comment: " (hobnailed and booted? Yes, even so, if need be)" is an example of the device known as holberon proteron.
51!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 7-05 10:08 AM
Of course, it's notas if rail travel is devoid of its own romantic charm. Perhaps I spoke too soon in 12.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-10-05 8:55 PM
That's what the last sentence of 18 was about.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-10-05 9:44 PM
Has Ben joined the "several feet high" club?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-10-05 9:53 PM
By gum, I think you've got it. Well, the last sentence of 18 wasn't about that.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-10-05 9:56 PM
Has Ben joined the "several feet high" club?
Well actually I think that to count, there have to be at least two people present in the john.
Posted by Mitch Mills | Link to this comment | 07-10-05 10:11 PM
By now this observation is trite, but Mitch pwns Ben tonite.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 07-10-05 10:59 PM
So, Matt, every time someone makes a comeback directed at me, it's pwnage? Your desperation for my downfall has never been more obvious.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:50 AM
It's more like how in elementary school, if someone liked you they'd put a frog in your shirt and run away.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 07-11-05 6:55 AM