A pretty good, short primer. Read the whole thing here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/08/economist-explains-18
The Economist explains: Why don't Americans ride trains?
- Thread starter CHamilton
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
the_traveler
Engineer
Well, you can't blame me. Who else rides a train from KIN to PHL via LAX? :huh: (I have to make up for the ones that don't ride trains! :giggle: )
RichardK
Service Attendant
With the skeletal network of Amtrak, you just cannot go many places, except for the NEC, upper Midwest, and California.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Some simple reasons for me to not ride Amtrak:
1. Too expensive.
2. Not enough trains, both routes and frequency.
1. Too expensive.
2. Not enough trains, both routes and frequency.
Alexandria Nick
Lead Service Attendant
But when you really look at it, Amtrak wasn't even a glimmer in anyone's eye and people weren't sure what to make of that Hitler guy (hint: he turns out to be a bad egg) when a lot of passenger service was already getting cut.
I'm reasonably sure my home town in western PA lost passenger service on all three railroads before WWII.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Which home town? Does this include interurban service, since many interurbans ran in Western Pennsylvania?
Where there are trains, for the post part, Americans do ride trains. And where more trains are provided, more ride trains. Really, the question shouldn't be "why don't Americans ride trains?" but rather "Why aren't there more passengers trains in the US for Americans to ride?" (Or something more elegant than that.)
the_traveler
Engineer
I'll agree with #1 & #2, but I do have a problem with #3.
While it is true that I live on the NEC so there are ads for Acela, I'm not counting that. I have seen national advertisement campaigns for Amtrak on TV. One such is "The Train Has Arrived", which includes kids playing with toys of planes, cars, etc... and includes lines like "$4 (or $5) a gallon (for gas)" and "... You're 15th in line for takeoff". It then shows a model train going into a tunnel. When it comes out, the shot is of a Superliner, and the VoiceOver says "The Train Has Arrived!"
This was not a local airing commercial (no Superliners on the NEC), but was on a national program (like maybe the World Series or such). I admit there have been very few national ad campaigns, but there have been some.
BTW: I hardly watch TV (3-4 hours a week is very high), yet I have seen these national ad campaigns!
I wonder about point 3 from the perspective of: most people even if they saw ads, wouldn't understand the fly Amtrak experience - I'm not sure that can be conveyed... so, even if there were ads, I'm not sure they'd connect, ie, flying Amtrak is unrelated to flying any of the flying cattlecars. Also related: today's Amtrak is so different from the Amtrak of the 1980s - the point being, even if somebody had Amtrak experience from then, and they saw ads, they'd not understand today's Amtrak (experience - complete with lounge lizards ;-) ). I suspect the best way to get ridership up, is to offer $50 (or some affordable number like that) ride anywhere you want in 24 hours, and then see if they don't come back for more.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
I disgree with #2. Speed is not really a massive problem with Amtrak, since the slowest Amtrak trains still get filled up. Russian trains are really slow too, but they are still popular. Indian trains aren't much faster. The difference their trains have is that it's cheaper, goes to more places, and runs more frequently. So I think you should add high prices and take out the speed problem.
sentinal
Train Attendant
I dont think Amtrak has had regular advertising since the 1980's when you had the old "all aboard Amtrak, all aboard"
Part of the regular problem i hear from people i know who wont take the train. is "it takes too long, why 2 days when i can fly there in 4 hours" too much of a rush and hurry today. I show them pictures I have taken on the train. They think they are beautiful. But do not want to take the time. I cant get them to understand that they train ride is part of the experience of seeing our country . Even my Ex gf who said she supported train travel. but has never ridden it. and wont.
I think another reason people wont. is there are places where you get no cell phone coverage. and "OMG I am not connected to the net. my life it over!!!!" People today also cant seem to be unplugged from the world for a few hours. with out dying
Part of the regular problem i hear from people i know who wont take the train. is "it takes too long, why 2 days when i can fly there in 4 hours" too much of a rush and hurry today. I show them pictures I have taken on the train. They think they are beautiful. But do not want to take the time. I cant get them to understand that they train ride is part of the experience of seeing our country . Even my Ex gf who said she supported train travel. but has never ridden it. and wont.
I think another reason people wont. is there are places where you get no cell phone coverage. and "OMG I am not connected to the net. my life it over!!!!" People today also cant seem to be unplugged from the world for a few hours. with out dying
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
Not enough routes because not enough money because not enough riders because not enough routes because not enough money because not enough riders because....
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Duh, what's the big deal? I've ridden trains (and buses) for hours and days on end. It didn't feel like that long after all. I don't care if I'm disconnected, I'd rather be out riding then browsing the net. That's why I have a lot of black periods when I just totally disappear from the forum and then suddenly comes back. No big deal. These guys will get what I mean when they've taken LD ground transport at least once.
Last edited by a moderator:
Outside of an occasional Amtrak California ad out here I can't remember the last time I saw a national ad campaign by Amtrak. Amtrak definitely advertises on the NEC (even in sports venues including an ad on the boards at MSG for Ranger games). When I lived back east I used to see Amtrak commercials and newspaper ads with some level of frequency.
I can agree with the speed issue as well. I have a lot of business in the LA area. including time at the airport I can be in LA in about 3-3.5 hours by plane. On Amtrak the trip can range from around 8 to 14 hours depending on which way I go. Just based on cost it is generally cheaper to take the train then drive. However, since I generally do a same day return usually with my business in the morning Amtrak is out unless I leave the night before and try to sleep while traveling which for me is very difficult to do. Thus on that route I usually fly. Now if I am still doing this and alive when/if/should the CalHSR begins operating then I would probably switch to that due to time saved traveling from the city to the airport.
Then again if I was still doing the NYC-DC traveling I would take the train as it is faster door to door (even with the LIRR connection) then trekking to LGA to fly to DC. Also frequency of service is much better on the NEC than out here.
I can agree with the speed issue as well. I have a lot of business in the LA area. including time at the airport I can be in LA in about 3-3.5 hours by plane. On Amtrak the trip can range from around 8 to 14 hours depending on which way I go. Just based on cost it is generally cheaper to take the train then drive. However, since I generally do a same day return usually with my business in the morning Amtrak is out unless I leave the night before and try to sleep while traveling which for me is very difficult to do. Thus on that route I usually fly. Now if I am still doing this and alive when/if/should the CalHSR begins operating then I would probably switch to that due to time saved traveling from the city to the airport.
Then again if I was still doing the NYC-DC traveling I would take the train as it is faster door to door (even with the LIRR connection) then trekking to LGA to fly to DC. Also frequency of service is much better on the NEC than out here.
sentinal
Train Attendant
I agree with you Swadian. for some of us its not a big deal. But to a lot of people in our world today. its a huge imaginary deal. my niece for example lives on her I phone. And if there is the threat of her losing her phone for any reason. oh god you might as well be sending her off to some deserted Island. and even my ex gf was always checking email. twitter, facebook, you name it. I for one can live with out today's technology. Most people in the USA can not imagine a world with out having some gadget in there hand to keep connected. They can not just sit back relax and look out the window, as i do when i am on the train.
Maybe a sad statement about how lonely their lives really are?? ... personally I'm with you - enjoy being on the train, with cell phone powered down and packed away.
Alexandria Nick
Lead Service Attendant
Butler.
B&LE, B&O, and PRR all had passenger service at one point and there were two interurbans.
PRR ended service in 1938.
Turns out B&O straggled on until 1955 with a single train.
B&LE also made it to 1955, but they were never really a passenger line in the first place.
The interurban lines, which merged at some point, went out in 1931.
Swadian Hardcore
Engineer
Thanks, great info! I've found Butler on the map, great to match with some old rail maps to see what was going on back then.
I've seen Amtrak Virginia do some advertising work...mainly around Richmond (billboards along I-64 and, I believe, I-95), but also Norfolk now.
On the main topic, Americans don't ride trains because they often fail a three-part test:
-Speed: The train should be at least drive-time competitive (i.e. average speeds in the 60-70 MPH range).'
-Reliability: The timetable has to actually mean something.
-Convenience of schedule: You need enough frequencies that a trip is not primarily dictated by potentially awkward train times. I'd split this into two tiers: One at 4-5x daily trains and another at 8-10x daily trains.
The NEC proper notwithstanding, outside of a few places (RVR-WAS, NYP-ALB, PHL-HAR, SAN-LAX-SBA, and an indefinite chunk of the area around the Capitol Corridor in Northern CA) you don't get to the upper tier of #3. You've got some more places at the lower tier, but these are often hobbled by a failure to fill in certain times (i.e. there's no train to get you from SEA-PDX or vice-versa before 1100/1200; STL-CHI is better, but CHI-STL is worse), which restricts the utility of trains for various kinds of trips. There are also too many places where trains are either slow or where, pardon my language, the timetable generally hasn't counted for [bLEEP]. Hampton Roads actually suffers on both of the latter counts: All too often, Amtrak trains get parked somewhere around Richmond when coming in, and what was an on-time train ends up 30-60 minutes late.
What is perhaps more astounding is that in the last 6-7 years I can count numerous routes that are up 50% or ore without any additional service or, I believe, significant speed increases. Granted, there are those (like the Surfliners) that get "stuck" for various reasons, but let's not forget that there are many lines such as the Wolverines where a "bad" year now would have been a smashing year in the middle of the last decade. Heck, even the Hoosier State is generating a modest flow of traffic...which is saying something for the mess that it is.
On the main topic, Americans don't ride trains because they often fail a three-part test:
-Speed: The train should be at least drive-time competitive (i.e. average speeds in the 60-70 MPH range).'
-Reliability: The timetable has to actually mean something.
-Convenience of schedule: You need enough frequencies that a trip is not primarily dictated by potentially awkward train times. I'd split this into two tiers: One at 4-5x daily trains and another at 8-10x daily trains.
The NEC proper notwithstanding, outside of a few places (RVR-WAS, NYP-ALB, PHL-HAR, SAN-LAX-SBA, and an indefinite chunk of the area around the Capitol Corridor in Northern CA) you don't get to the upper tier of #3. You've got some more places at the lower tier, but these are often hobbled by a failure to fill in certain times (i.e. there's no train to get you from SEA-PDX or vice-versa before 1100/1200; STL-CHI is better, but CHI-STL is worse), which restricts the utility of trains for various kinds of trips. There are also too many places where trains are either slow or where, pardon my language, the timetable generally hasn't counted for [bLEEP]. Hampton Roads actually suffers on both of the latter counts: All too often, Amtrak trains get parked somewhere around Richmond when coming in, and what was an on-time train ends up 30-60 minutes late.
What is perhaps more astounding is that in the last 6-7 years I can count numerous routes that are up 50% or ore without any additional service or, I believe, significant speed increases. Granted, there are those (like the Surfliners) that get "stuck" for various reasons, but let's not forget that there are many lines such as the Wolverines where a "bad" year now would have been a smashing year in the middle of the last decade. Heck, even the Hoosier State is generating a modest flow of traffic...which is saying something for the mess that it is.
Texan Eagle
Conductor
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,705
If members on this forum can stop judging other people's lives just because it happens to be different from their own, that would be great.
I am one of those people that you refer to as having "gadgets always on". Does that mean I have a lonely sad life? Ha, in fact its quite the opposite. I live in city A, my girlfriend lives in city B, my parents live in city C, my job gives me more paid vacation than most of America can dream of, with a caveat that I be available by cell phone if required, and I am perfectly fine with this situation because I have my cell phone and laptop with me, which means when I am on a long train ride, I can spend time chatting with my girlfriend, talk to my parents, read a book, check out news or sports scores and a gazillion other things. Do the "purists" here disapprove these things too? When you supposedly non-lonely-lives people travel by train, do you only and only look out the window from start to end? If that is the case, it is you who has a sad lonely life, not me.. but don't worry I won't judge you.
I'm talking about the average Joe. 26 hours from Chicago to ABQ is slooooow. We could drive there faster if we switched off.
Some routes aren't quite so bad. It takes us two hours to drive to Chicago if traffic behaves. The train takes around 2.5.
I wouldn't refer to talking to and checking on friends as "lonely". Some people like to be an active part of their family's and friends' lives.
Andplusalso, I read books on my phone, so while some of you think I'm glued to Facebook, I'm actually brain-deep in a crime novel because I've seen the corn fields in Illinois 93 billion times.
I am getting really, really sick and tired of being judged because I own things that plug into an outlet and actually deign to use them in the seat/room I paid hard-earned money for. It's my vacation. I'll do what I want.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
rainyday6
Guest
I think a lot of people have a thing about sharing space and lack of privacy. Buses, trains, pottys. Also, how many people consider the trip part of the vacation? The car solves both problems, it takes you right from your front door to the hotel to the parking lot at Disneyland and that's where the trip starts.
Ryan
Court Jester
A-FREAKING-MEN.
The article talks about our massive rail network, but seems to ignore the fact that passenger service isn't available over the vast majority of it. "Americans don't ride trains" is a gross oversimplification and borderline incorrect, IMO. We do ride the trains we have - the biggest single impediment to using more trains is availability.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
Siemens Caltrans/IDOT Venture design, engineering, testing and delivery (2Q 2024)- Latest: TrimetWESFan1003
-
-
-
