Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Rolling toward a resurgence in train travel

Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:44 AM EDT
business, travel, only-on-msnbc-com, service, train, rail, amtrak, rob-lovitt-columns, lynchburg, northeast-regional
msnbc.com News — Rob Lovitt, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com

**ADVANCE FOR WEEKEND EDITIONS, SEPT. 8-9 -- FILE** A southbound Amtrak passenger train passes new four-armed safety gates installed near Sherman, Ill., in a Sept. 13, 2006 file photo. The gates stand ready along a 126-mile stretch of track now upgraded to whisk passenger trains about 30 miles an hour faster from Springfield, Ill., to Joliet, Ill., trimming up to 45 minutes off the trip between Chicago and Illinois' capital. Illinois has sunk about $80 million into track and crossing improvements over a decade, but has finished less than half of a planned high-speed route from Chicago to St. Louis that would shave 90 minutes off the current 5 1/2-hour train ride. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

Advertise | AdChoices

— Seems the airlines aren’t the only ones suffering from a decline in business travel.

Last week, Amtrak announced that 27.2 million passengers rode its trains during the previous 12 months, a drop of 5.4 percent attributed primarily to a decline in business travel along the busy Northeast Corridor.

Nevertheless, the numbers represent the second-highest passenger load in Amtrak history, and proponents of rail travel maintain that even more people would ride the rails if service were more convenient.

In fact, while dozens of proposed projects await the awarding of $8 billion in potential funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a few are already on track. Here’s a look at the latest developments:

Virginia: Northeast Regional service
If there’s a test case for the second coming of U.S. train travel, it’s now rolling out of Lynchburg, Va., every morning at 7:38. As the newest addition to Amtrak’s Northeast Regional service, it offers a second daily train to Washington, D.C. (and beyond) and the first service to originate in Lynchburg.

The service is a joint partnership between Amtrak and the state, which contributed $17.2 million to fund the three-year pilot project. With stops in Charlottesville, Culpeper, Manassas and Alexandria, it arrives in Washington, D.C., at 11:20 a.m., a trip of about 3:40.

The idea, says Jennifer Pickett, chief of policy and communication for the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation, is to ease congestion in the busy Route 29 corridor. Projected ridership is 51,000 passengers the first year, she says, “but the anecdotal evidence is that it’s doing pretty well and that we may be exceeding our goal.”

The service, says Pickett, should prove especially popular with the thousands of students who attend college along the route, as well as leisure and business travelers heading to Washington: “If you travel by car, [Washington] is a minimum of four hours, so the train is definitely car-competitive. And if you want to go all the way to New York, you can be there before 3:30 in the afternoon.”

Regular one-way fares are $38 between Lynchburg and Washington, D.C., and $88 between Lynchburg and New York, with 25 percent off select fares for travel through December 16.

Washington: Amtrak Cascades
Meanwhile, rail fans in the other Washington are celebrating the belated arrival of a second train between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C. Originally scheduled to start in 2008, the service kicked off August 19 and will run as a test program through the duration of the Winter Olympics in February.

The additional Seattle–Vancouver connection is only part of it; equally important, the train makes it possible for the first time to ride the rails between Portland, Ore., and Vancouver in a single day. (Previously, travelers from Portland had to overnight in Seattle or complete the trip by bus.)

According to Vickie Sheehan, spokesperson for the Washington State Department of Transportation, the new service is not only seeing steadily increasing ridership, but also providing a bump to the original run: “We’re finding that when you increase frequency, people will ride more because they’ve got that flexibility. With only one trip up and one back, it was hard to do day trips.”

Increased frequency is also the focus of Washington’s application for ARRA funding, which would permit boosting Seattle–Portland service from four roundtrips per day to eight. With that, says Sheehan, “we’ll be able to attract business travelers and compete directly with the airlines.”

For now, regular one-way fares are $35 between Seattle and Vancouver and $46 between Portland and Vancouver, with 25 percent off select fares if bought before December 31 for travel through January 31.

Ohio: 3C ‘Quick Start’ service
The three Cs stand for Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati; the “Quick Start” refers to the goal of offering medium-speed (up to 79 miles per hour) service in 2011 or 2012 and high-speed service later, and the idea is to bring train travel back to an area where the last passenger trains ran in 1971.

“Sixty percent of Ohio’s population lives within 15 miles of the corridor,” says Stu Nicholson, public information officer for the Ohio Rail Development Commission. “That’s more than 6 million people.” Of those, a recent Amtrak study suggested nearly 500,000 people a year would ride the rails if the service were available.

“If,” of course, is the operative term as the proposed service is contingent on $564 million in ARRA funding, which puts it in competition with projects in California, Florida and 20 other states. The Federal Railroad Administration is expected to announce its selections some time this winter.

In the meantime, rail proponents are convinced the time is right for a return to regular and wide-ranging train travel. “Oil prices are creeping back up, and people are paying more attention now than they used to,” says Nicholson. “It’s like getting stung by a bee — you don’t forget that.”

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Rob Lovitt's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (15)
Jimmys CrackhornDeleted
Kelcy

The problem for long haul trains to replace airplanes is availability and cost. i have looked at train travel every time I have planned a major trip for the entire family of five...especially when they were little. I had a great train experience when I was six which I remember to this day (at 50+). However, coming from the CO/NE/ND areas everything moves through Chicago even if you are headed to DC or to FL. The layovers are long in Chicago to boot. And the travel for five is considerably more than on a plane. Getting a sleeping arrangement is ridiculously expensive for a family. Quite frankly without that as an incentive then the notion of staying in a chair, reclining or not, makes it a prohibitive notion for me. Why would I take two days when I can suffer through six hours (between flying and the airports). Further analysis of train versus car makes it just as expensive to drive (gas + hotels along the way) but you get to sleep at night. And it still takes you two to three days. Yes, harder on the bottom but the sleep is an important factor.

Before trains replace planes they will need to make them more competitive with driving (cost, sleeping, without long layovers, more direct routes). I don't see that happening anytime soon let alone in my lifetime.

  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:13 PM EDT
Anotheropinion

This August my family and I took the train from Portland Oregon to Chicago then a few hours later caught another train to Boston Mass. We then took the same route back to Portland. We thought it was a wonderful eperience. I compared airline costs and the train round tip tickets cost a lot less.

We had a wonderful time as we could see a lot of country and we enjoyed dinning in the dinning car. We enjoyed being able to bring on board luggage without paying extra like the airlines are now charging. We each had two carry ons of up to 50 lbs each. We enjoyed being able to get up and walk to the observation car, ply cards at a table. Have snacks. Some of which we brought with us.

Enjoyed taking lots of pictures. Chicago layover was not bad. We found there is a lot to see in Chicago and wished we had spend more time there.

I am hopeful that Amtrak will be given more money by the Fed and States to expand their services. If more people ride this will probably happen. Airline travel which as also be subsidized by government is just getting more and more expensive as they keep adding on more and more fees for everything but the air you breath. Hey that might be next!

I'll admit train travel is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. If your in a big fat hurry or of necessity you got to be someone where quick the train is not your cup of tea. But it only took us 3 days to cross the USA from Oregon to Massachusettes. Not bad. And I would never of endured that trip by car.

Also you do have to get your train legs. There is a lot of rock'n and roll'n on these old rails. But if improvements come they will be able to lay down the tracks for high speed and smoother ride. I see they are already talking about doing that in some areas.

As for sleeping on the train. We didn't do the sleeper car this time but we might next time. But we did find that if you have a nice drink before bed time it seemed to help a whole lot as the seats were not bad - a bit larger than most airlines an reclined futher back. Again I know that is not something everyone will or can do but for those that can it seems to be pretty relaxing.

So as for me and my family. We are now train freaks. We really like to ride the rail. I think it might get better cause the airlines is really becoming too expensive most of the time. Greater ridership of trains can help give them the kind of bottom line that will eanable them to get more financinal investment from Fed and State and that will make it easier for them to increase routes and frequency of operations and make improvements. So if you haven't considered the train travel yet -check it out.

  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:00 PM EDT
Reply
bremertonman

I would take AMTRAK from Seattle to Vancouver, BC , Portland, and with connections to the Canadian Rockies if they had some sort of parking garage for long term parking. But in large cities, parking is hourly at high rates, I live outside the city, and there is no viable parking to use an AMTRAK station for a trip for over one day. Unless you park at the airport and take a shuttle into the city to the AMTRAK station.

    Reply#3 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:21 PM EDT
    Ken-986093

    I understand, I have the same gripe as you do. If only we hadn't built our cities along cars, but with better public transportation we wouldn't be in this mess of "needing parking." Most of the other nations in the world all intra-city transportation start out from the main train station. Ask around any other place: "How do I get to the train station using the bus/tram/subway?" and you get "they all go there." Over here in contrast, no one knows because everyone drives - they immediately start giving you directions by freeway exits.

    • 1 vote
    #3.1 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:26 PM EDT
    Reply
    Ken-986093

    With the crap that airlines are putting us these days by nickel-and-diming us to death, the stupidity of TSA, the frequent delays, and decades old planes that undergo shoddy (and questionable) repairs, I'd definitely choose rail travel for reasonable distances less than 500 miles. If you think about the hassles at the airport and waiting forever for takeoff, you'd probably get there faster on high-speed rail for intercities less than 500-700 miles. Keep air travel only for midcons and transcontinental travel, but for distances between LA and SF, or Seattle and Portland, Chicago and Cinncinati, or Dallas and Houston, high-speed rail is a much better alternative to flying or driving.

    Quite frankly, I think it's pitiful that our once proud railroad industry which was the best in the world fifty years ago, has degraded into the sorry state we're in now, while the rest of the world leapt light years away from us with high-speed rail cars. And even now, Japan has plans to introduce the world's first maglev train between Tokyo and Osaka, while we still can't get Acela (which btw, is running on French technology) running at its full potential between Boston and DC.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#4 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:21 PM EDT
    fight for YOUR right

    Go for it! I don't think that mankind should be 30,000 feet up in the air.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#5 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:40 PM EDT
    nomore-889116

    As someone who was born to late, "1954", I missed the heyday of train travel, to bad, as I am still facinated with it, but one of our governments biggest mistakes, was to let the railroad infrastructure, go to waste, gas prices, airline fares, the railroads sure look good now, take some of the billions in stimulus money, and start rebuilding the passenger train routes.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#6 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:05 PM EDT
    bobsr

    When I was in the service 50 years ago I traveled mostly by train between assignments. It was great fun. I enjoyed the views, the good food and drinks in the diners and comfortable reclining chairs. Private rail companies failed to upgrade their services and lacked innovation to keep up with the competition of automobiles and airlines. The total collapse of the passenger rail business points to how inept private enterprise coupled with greed can become.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#7 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:19 PM EDT
    Shellback

    If we could sell rail right of ways and get Amtrak privatized rail could be an option.  Govt could play a role in developing low volume underserved areas or subidize track maintanenace/acquisition - as the Feds do with highways and airports,  In the end we would get beter and more efficient development.  Having ridden Amtrak many times - it sucks - an indicator of our future healthcare system

      Reply#8 - Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:15 PM EDT
      Chris-856632

      I just did the Coast Starlight (LA to Seattle) and enjoyed it. I had a roomette on CC points. The trip and food is enjoyable but the equipment is very old. Most of the cars are 30+ years old. Amtrak needs to think about upgrading equipment soon. As for the cost, every airline flight in the US would be 3 times the price if it wasn't for the massive government subsities. Amtrak is starved off a little more each year. On the train the coach price was $98 one way.

        Reply#9 - Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:31 AM EDT
        Ken-986093

        The problem is, it's not just the equipment. The infrastructure itself is outdated: diesel push and pull cars, rails owned by freight companies, non-existent timetables, extremely inefficient rail paths, bureaucratic redtape and NIMBY opposition.

        Diesel powered trains have the power, but they also add tremendous weight to the trains, while high-speed rail uses electrical lines to power their juice. A good human analogy would be comparing a hunky weightlifting Arnold Schwarzenegger versus a refined Kung-Fu master like Bruce Lee. They both can lift 300 pounds, but Arnold has the muscle adding to his weight so he probably doesn’t have the agileness to move fast enough compared to Bruce Lee which can do all sorts of martial arts moves in less than a blink of an eye. So the solution is to not just upgrading the equipment, but also electrifying the rail lines for high-speed rail. The problem is, that adds lots of taxpayer $$$ to thousands of miles of outdated tracks.

        Back when Acela was up and running, they actually hired some contractors from Japan and France to see what the US could do to get high speed rail in the NE Corridor. running efficiently. Consultants from Japan and France were shocked to see that there was absolutely no timetables for freight rail so that passenger rail cars can coordinate their departure and arrivals accordingly. Basically it was just let Amtrak go and freight rail go whenever they want, and when they merge, freight rail has the right of way. This is analogous to a FedEx plane departing and arriving whenever they want, owning all the taxiways, while the rest of the passenger planes circling around until FedEx feels like it. So the US gov'ts questions "why can't we have better times like you, Japan or France?" and their answer was "No @!$%#, sherlock. Your freight companies own and hog all the rail!" Great to see how our taxes are being spent on something obvious, huh?

        Outdated rail paths are another problem. One of the reasons why Acela can’t maximize its full potential is because of the curvy path that it has to take and the various NIMBY restrictions that are in place as they go through those cities. Scratch the curvy path part: high-speed rail has the ability to angle itself through tight corners – the problem is that most of the rails in that area were built in the early 20th century which weren’t made to handle tilting high-speed trains. Tunnels and bridges around that area were built for slow-moving straight up trains.

        NIMBY opposition and bureaucratic redtape also adds to time and cost to get anything done before even the first shovel is put to ground. Efficient rail paths means that they’ll have to bulldoze many homes and businesses. Ooh boy, and you know how long that’s gonna take. This is where China has the advantage: they could care less about environmental restrictions or residential homes or businesses in the way because they’re Communist: they own all the homes and businesses. If they want to build a high-speed rail, they can say sucks to be you to anything in its path and build it “for the good of society as a whole.” Advantage: they can build something and getting it running in less than ten years (no NIMBYs, just quash any opposition, disregard environmental concerns, etc. etc.). Disadvantage: sucks to be you if you happen to be in the path of the planned rail line. Doesn’t work that way over here, it takes years and years of arguing, environmental planning, negotiating with homeowners and businesses, which all adds up to cost for years and years even before the first shovel is put to ground. Just look at how long it took to build our interstate highway system. Compare that with how long it took China to get the Shanghai high-speed rail line moving from blueprint to startup stages. Not that I’m saying we should all follow China’s path, but there’s a limit to what the US could do given our democratic process.

          #9.1 - Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:32 PM EDT
          Reply
          kattlekween

          I love train travel, it's a safe way for me to travel alone. My biggest complaint with Amtrak is that they're always late, bad connections, etc. I'd like to see them expand their service in the western part of the country, too. The food is good and the personel is still nice, unlike the air lines. I haven't flown in years and don't plan on it if I don't have to.

            Reply#10 - Thu Oct 22, 2009 11:40 PM EDT
            antho2039

            I traveled the NE corridor for at least 4 years between New London & Richmond. From the stand point of time Train vs Plane, 10 hours vs anywhere from 5 to 12 depending on connections. The difference is the train ran in bad weather, where as the planes were always delayed or canceled. Pity the traveler when the plane connection was in Philly. The train however buzzed right on thru Philly. The only down side to the train was the condition of the tracks south or D.C. The train moved slow enough to give me the opportunity to look at the adjacent tracks, aside from the cracked timbers, a fair amount of spikes were less than completely driven in. Seems CSX doesn't maintain the rails as one would think. Slow moving freight apparently does not need the rails in quality shape.

            The seats are much roomier, electrical outlets at each seat, leg room, overhead space, tray tables that hold your lap top, able to walk around at your will, no assigned seating, don't like who you are sitting next to just move, no TSA lines. Whats not to like? Just dont be in a hurry :)

              Reply#11 - Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:02 AM EDT
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com