Riding train vs flying ... some questions

[JoeBas]

Yes, I'm sure Southwest will not miss my $369. But acquiescing does nothing to change the system. If enough people vote with their feet, there WILL be change.

If by "change" you mean "more taxpayer money to bail out airlines", you're absolutely correct.

Hey, that's on the folks who keep voting for the same retreads hoping they'll change.

 

[Nathanael]

P.S. --> Why did I pay $800 for a bedroom instead of getting a roomette? Because the roomettes were sold out. On a Wednesday. In mid-February. The room was literally the last room on the train.

Um... wow. Just wow. If this is happening in February... well, let's just say prices are going to go up again, and those new Viewliners can't come soon enough. Amtrak might actually become profitable, as people were speculating. Then, of course, train-haters will attack it for being an "elitist" service which is "too expensive" -- train-haters gotta hate trains.

 

[Phil S]

Cardinal rooms are also sold out over a month out -- fall colors I guess. This is all great for Amtrak turning a profit but that's not what its goal should be. Rather it should be trying to provide a reasonably low cost transportation alternative that uses less energy (lower carbon footprint) than either flying or driving. If at the same time it can get us there faster than the plane or the car (counting time as door to door) that's even better. I htink passenger rail in this country certainly could meet these goals but a lot will have to change politically before it will happen. The question of course is how much of the cost should be recouped from tickets and how much subsidized by various govts. To answer that requires looking at ALL the costs incurred by each mode of travel, not something that is easily (ever?) done.

FWIW I consider $200-250/night for a rommette plus meals very reasonable. Not sure I see any reason why i should need to pay a lot more than that.

Sept. 27 is the start of my trip east --ALY/LAX/NOL/CVS with 2 nights in NOL. Any of you regulars gonna be on any of those trains?

Phil S

 

[SarahZ]

P.S. --> Why did I pay $800 for a bedroom instead of getting a roomette? Because the roomettes were sold out. On a Wednesday. In mid-February. The room was literally the last room on the train.

Um... wow. Just wow. If this is happening in February... well, let's just say prices are going to go up again, and those new Viewliners can't come soon enough. Amtrak might actually become profitable, as people were speculating. Then, of course, train-haters will attack it for being an "elitist" service which is "too expensive" -- train-haters gotta hate trains.

It's probably due to Mardi Gras, which falls on February 12, 2013. I imagine that's probably a heavy travel week to/from New Orleans.

 

[JoeBas]

P.S. --> Why did I pay $800 for a bedroom instead of getting a roomette? Because the roomettes were sold out. On a Wednesday. In mid-February. The room was literally the last room on the train.

Um... wow. Just wow. If this is happening in February... well, let's just say prices are going to go up again, and those new Viewliners can't come soon enough. Amtrak might actually become profitable, as people were speculating. Then, of course, train-haters will attack it for being an "elitist" service which is "too expensive" -- train-haters gotta hate trains.

It's probably due to Mardi Gras, which falls on February 12, 2013. I imagine that's probably a heavy travel week to/from New Orleans.

Nope, wasn't Mardi Gras. I live down here, I would know the effect that can have. This was northbound leaving New Orleans on Feb 14th, 6 days before Fat Tuesday.

All rooms were sold out completely on the days before and after that week, too. That's just how much the demand is on the Crescent right now.

 

[SarahZ]

Nope, wasn't Mardi Gras. I live down here, I would know the effect that can have. This was northbound leaving New Orleans on Feb 14th, 6 days before Fat Tuesday.

All rooms were sold out completely on the days before and after that week, too. That's just how much the demand is on the Crescent right now.

This year or last year? Fat Tuesday is February 12 next year. I'm so confused.

Anyway, that's kind of crazy. I didn't realize so many people wanted to go to NY in mid-February. It's not like the weather is balmy.

 

[VentureForth]

Nope, wasn't Mardi Gras. I live down here, I would know the effect that can have. This was northbound leaving New Orleans on Feb 14th, 6 days before Fat Tuesday.

All rooms were sold out completely on the days before and after that week, too. That's just how much the demand is on the Crescent right now.

This year or last year? Fat Tuesday is February 12 next year. I'm so confused.

Anyway, that's kind of crazy. I didn't realize so many people wanted to go to NY in mid-February. It's not like the weather is balmy.

Fat Tuesday, 2012, was on 2/21. Six days prior was 2/14 (or 2/15 depending on definition of "day")

 

[gordonlee]

In general, here's my rule of thumb:

Anytime I need to get to NYC I take the train (I live in Miami). Reason being: I've missed innumerable business meetings and family events due to delayed and cancelled flights. The New York airports are scheduled beyond their capacity and all it takes is a raindrop or some gusty winds and the 3 airports go into "traffic management mode" which means they hold you on the plane at your origination city for 2 to 3 hours before they let you in the air.

A flight to NYC manages to eat up an entire day (leave for airport at 9am, arrive at airport at 10am, 11am flight delayed 3 hours (or more), land in NYC around 5pm, get to Manhattan hotel around 7pm.

With the train, I basically end up losing only 2 to 3 hours and during the time I'm on the train, I've got my mobile wireless hot spot WiFi, my cell phone and I can do what I need to do, arrive at NY Penn Station about 11am and head right to the office and NOT lose an entire day due to the airlines.

Now, I will usually fly back home to Miami from NYC because it's not all that important to me if the flight is 6 hours delayed or cancelled because I've already had my business meeting / family function.

BTW: I'm writing this on the Silver Meteor, just coming into Deerfield Beach having started in NYC yesterday evening.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

In general, here's my rule of thumb:

Anytime I need to get to NYC I take the train (I live in Miami). Reason being: I've missed innumerable business meetings and family events due to delayed and cancelled flights. The New York airports are scheduled beyond their capacity and all it takes is a raindrop or some gusty winds and the 3 airports go into "traffic management mode" which means they hold you on the plane at your origination city for 2 to 3 hours before they let you in the air.

A flight to NYC manages to eat up an entire day (leave for airport at 9am, arrive at airport at 10am, 11am flight delayed 3 hours (or more), land in NYC around 5pm, get to Manhattan hotel around 7pm.

With the train, I basically end up losing only 2 to 3 hours and during the time I'm on the train, I've got my mobile wireless hot spot WiFi, my cell phone and I can do what I need to do, arrive at NY Penn Station about 11am and head right to the office and NOT lose an entire day due to the airlines.

Now, I will usually fly back home to Miami from NYC because it's not all that important to me if the flight is 6 hours delayed or cancelled because I've already had my business meeting / family function.

BTW: I'm writing this on the Silver Meteor, just coming into Deerfield Beach having started in NYC yesterday evening.

Great to know that businessmen love the train! And it looks like you are taking the train back to MIA as well. It looks like Amtrak could do really well if they improved more businessman-heavy routes, like NYP-CHI and WAS-CHI.

Anyway, hope you had a great trip and thanks for support Amtrak!

 

[gordonlee]

In general, here's my rule of thumb:

Anytime I need to get to NYC I take the train (I live in Miami). Reason being: I've missed innumerable business meetings and family events due to delayed and cancelled flights. The New York airports are scheduled beyond their capacity and all it takes is a raindrop or some gusty winds and the 3 airports go into "traffic management mode" which means they hold you on the plane at your origination city for 2 to 3 hours before they let you in the air.

A flight to NYC manages to eat up an entire day (leave for airport at 9am, arrive at airport at 10am, 11am flight delayed 3 hours (or more), land in NYC around 5pm, get to Manhattan hotel around 7pm.

With the train, I basically end up losing only 2 to 3 hours and during the time I'm on the train, I've got my mobile wireless hot spot WiFi, my cell phone and I can do what I need to do, arrive at NY Penn Station about 11am and head right to the office and NOT lose an entire day due to the airlines.

Now, I will usually fly back home to Miami from NYC because it's not all that important to me if the flight is 6 hours delayed or cancelled because I've already had my business meeting / family function.

BTW: I'm writing this on the Silver Meteor, just coming into Deerfield Beach having started in NYC yesterday evening.

Great to know that businessmen love the train! And it looks like you are taking the train back to MIA as well. It looks like Amtrak could do really well if they improved more businessman-heavy routes, like NYP-CHI and WAS-CHI.

Anyway, hope you had a great trip and thanks for support Amtrak!

Yep, I enjoyed the trip very much.

My next trip is Miami to Los Angeles on American Airlines. Don't know if the news reached any of you, but there has been a strange surge in majorly delayed and cancelled flights the past few days, curiously starting around the time the bankruptcy court judge threw out the pilots contract.

I'm really a bit worried that they're going to cancel my flight at the last minute and then I'm stuck. Would be nice if Amtrak reactivated the Jacksonville - New Orleans segment again making a true southern transcontinental route a reality.

 

[VentureForth]

Cardinal rooms are also sold out over a month out -- fall colors I guess. This is all great for Amtrak turning a profit but that's not what its goal should be. Rather it should be trying to provide a reasonably low cost transportation alternative that uses less energy (lower carbon footprint) than either flying or driving. If at the same time it can get us there faster than the plane or the car (counting time as door to door) that's even better. I htink passenger rail in this country certainly could meet these goals but a lot will have to change politically before it will happen. The question of course is how much of the cost should be recouped from tickets and how much subsidized by various govts. To answer that requires looking at ALL the costs incurred by each mode of travel, not something that is easily (ever?) done.

FWIW I consider $200-250/night for a rommette plus meals very reasonable. Not sure I see any reason why i should need to pay a lot more than that.

Sept. 27 is the start of my trip east --ALY/LAX/NOL/CVS with 2 nights in NOL. Any of you regulars gonna be on any of those trains?

Phil S

WOW!!! You mean, those of us who pay the government 25% or more of our hard earned wages need to pay for you to ride a train? ITS UNSUSTAINABLE AND AMTRAK WILL SHUT DOWN IF THIS IS THE MINDSET UNDER WHICH THE PUBLIC PERCEIVES ITS EXISTENCE!

FWIW, if someone considers $300-$400 a night for a roomette and meals, then they should be allowed to pay that before your $200 - $250.

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation! If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you. If there aren't enough people for that, then perhaps it shouldn't exist.

 

[Ryan]

If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you.

I would assume then that you're also opposed to ending the government subsidies for other modes of transportation, including the added on effect of making every physical item you purchase more expensive due to higher shipping costs?

Also, the "get a job" comment was wildly unnecessary. I know that insulting people that you disagree with by saying that they're just too lazy to work and expect the government to take care of them from cradle to grave is a hallmark of the current political campaign, but you don't really need to stoop to that level to get your point across.

 

[AlanB]

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!

And yet, one of the biggest reasons that the Government does subsidize Amtrak is because it's providing lower cost transportation to everyone via subsidized roads & air travel. If we were paying fully for those forms of transit, Amtrak would be able to raise fares and it would still be cheaper than the other forms of transportation, meaning that Amtrak might well be able to wean itself off of subsidies.

But if things not paying for themselves is the golden rule for "existing/not existing" then wave good bye to driving and flying as we know it today.

 

[SarahZ]

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation! If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you. If there aren't enough people for that, then perhaps it shouldn't exist.

Holy cow. That's a lot of assumptions in one sentence. I have a full-time job, but I say some prices are unreasonable, be they hotel rooms in Chicago's Loop, a new gadget, or a $400 roomette I'm only going to use for one night. That doesn't mean I expect you to subsidize me or that I'm a lazy, unemployed girl waiting for my handouts. It just means I'm frugal. Saying a price is too high is just that: making a statement. God forbid someone have an opinion about prices.

 

[VentureForth]

If you have to travel across the country, get a job, earn the money and pay to do it at price that it costs to provide that service to you.

Also, the "get a job" comment was wildly unnecessary.

You are right. I apologize.

You should get a job that provides an income level allowing you to do what you want....[Note: that could be a $30k/yr job if you don't mind a studio apartment in a small town in the midwest.]

I would love to travel the world. I chose a career that is very rewarding but doesn't pay me enough to do it. No government is obligated to provide me with lost cost transporation to see the world - even see my own birth place.

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!

And yet, one of the biggest reasons that the Government does subsidize Amtrak is because it's providing lower cost transportation to everyone via subsidized roads & air travel. If we were paying fully for those forms of transit, Amtrak would be able to raise fares and it would still be cheaper than the other forms of transportation, meaning that Amtrak might well be able to wean itself off of subsidies.

But if things not paying for themselves is the golden rule for "existing/not existing" then wave good bye to driving and flying as we know it today.

But it shouldn't be. Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.

What I don't like to see is that the trains are for whomever want to ride them whenever they want, and at any price they want to pay. I want to ride a train every day. When I look for a new job, I check out the transit issue to see if I can find a job that allows me to take a relatively comfortable train ride. I almost had that in New Mexico before my company went belly up. Savannah doesn't quite have that level of service (and I'm not a bus nut). So I drive. I cringe and I drive. My choice. I get to ride the rails perhaps once a year. Twice if truly blessed. Do I wish the fares were lower? Sure. I want more for my money. But I'm not going to say that I'm entitled to it, or that the fares should be lower.

 

[AlanB]

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!

And yet, one of the biggest reasons that the Government does subsidize Amtrak is because it's providing lower cost transportation to everyone via subsidized roads & air travel. If we were paying fully for those forms of transit, Amtrak would be able to raise fares and it would still be cheaper than the other forms of transportation, meaning that Amtrak might well be able to wean itself off of subsidies.

But if things not paying for themselves is the golden rule for "existing/not existing" then wave good bye to driving and flying as we know it today.

But it shouldn't be. Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.

What I don't like to see is that the trains are for whomever want to ride them whenever they want, and at any price they want to pay. I want to ride a train every day. When I look for a new job, I check out the transit issue to see if I can find a job that allows me to take a relatively comfortable train ride. I almost had that in New Mexico before my company went belly up. Savannah doesn't quite have that level of service (and I'm not a bus nut). So I drive. I cringe and I drive. My choice. I get to ride the rails perhaps once a year. Twice if truly blessed. Do I wish the fares were lower? Sure. I want more for my money. But I'm not going to say that I'm entitled to it, or that the fares should be lower.

Yes, check with Greyhound which cut 50% of its service because it still cannot manage to cover its costs, despite the fact that they run their buses on the government subsidized roads & highways.

Sorry, but Greyhound isn't doing any better than Amtrak!

 

[tubaia]

It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!

And yet, one of the biggest reasons that the Government does subsidize Amtrak is because it's providing lower cost transportation to everyone via subsidized roads & air travel. If we were paying fully for those forms of transit, Amtrak would be able to raise fares and it would still be cheaper than the other forms of transportation, meaning that Amtrak might well be able to wean itself off of subsidies.

But if things not paying for themselves is the golden rule for "existing/not existing" then wave good bye to driving and flying as we know it today.

And it isn't just the mega airports that get government subsidies. Our small municipal airport that has no scheduled flights, only small private planes (mostly Cessna, etc.), gets huge subsidies. Any time that any upgrades or repairs are done, we receive federal grants of 75-90% of the cost. While we do live in a rural Midwest area, it isn't like we're out in the backwoods of Alaska where air travel is a necessity.

Since I don't have my own airplane, this airport doesn't help me get anywhere anyway. I have to use the highly subsidized roads to drive over an hour to the nearest commercial airport, which uses those EAS dollars to attract one airline that provides 2 flights a day, and is still too expensive for many people (often twice as expensive as larger airports that are a couple hours further - $700 round trip flights isn't unusual).

 

[George Harris]

Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.

Much as I would like to believe you, the reality is not there. A few:

British Rail. Railtrack was a disaster. A number of other components of the components of the privatization have ended up costing the government more, not less.

Alan ahs already mentioned Greyhound. There are numerous routes that no longer have any service of any kind. How about Trailways, which was always to me the better of the two which folded completely as a national system.

As to the EAS example: Maybe true for that one you mention, but does not appear to be that way generally. the "next to nothing" price certainly is not true. The norm appears to be that a service is provided that few of the people "served" can afford to use despite still losing buckets of money.

 

[zephyr17]

Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived. There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound. And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.

Much as I would like to believe you, the reality is not there. A few:

British Rail. Railtrack was a disaster. A number of other components of the components of the privatization have ended up costing the government more, not less.

Alan ahs already mentioned Greyhound. There are numerous routes that no longer have any service of any kind. How about Trailways, which was always to me the better of the two which folded completely as a national system.

As to the EAS example: Maybe true for that one you mention, but does not appear to be that way generally. the "next to nothing" price certainly is not true. The norm appears to be that a service is provided that few of the people "served" can afford to use despite still losing buckets of money.

I can think of one more that is particularly germane.

Long Distance Railroad-Operated Passenger Service. Completely privately run. Many trains had good ridership but still lost money under private operation. They really lost money after a government "subsidy" was pulled (First class mail) that represented 40% or more of revenue.

An historical footnote: There were 2 competing proposals to "save" the passenger trains, one was a new entity to run the passenger trains (what became Amtrak), the other was to directly subsidize continued railroad operated passenger trains.

 

[Nathanael]

1348147400[/url]' post='394926']It's not the government's responsibility to provide low cost transportation!

Actually it is. It always has been, it always will be. Why do you think the government builds and maintains roads? ("Go build your own road or use a toll road, you moocher off the government teat!") Your federal income taxes have now subsidized more road building (>$50 billion) in the last four years than they have subsidized Amtrak over its entire 40-year history. As long as we're subsidizing, let's subsidize the more effective means of transportation.

 

[Nathanael]

But it shouldn't be. Just about everywhere the Private Enterprise has taken over the role conventionally doled out by Government, it has thrived.

This is simply false.

There already is low cost transportation - check with Greyhound.

Government subsidized roads. HEAVILY subsidized.

And the government subsidized Essential Air Services (where bazillions are spent to provide air travel for next to nothing to small towns in the teens of thousands) is slowing being eliminated by private companies like Pacific Air Holdings who have undercut EAS bids with half the cost and twice the service, practically eliminated the need for the subsidy.

Not even close -- the subsidies are still very large, even with the "el cheapo" airlines using secondhand, ready-to-break planes.

But I'm not going to say that I'm entitled to it, or that the fares should be lower.

You know? People should feel *more* entitled. We are *entitled* to a government which provides a decent level of public services, including a public road system, a public passenger and freight railway system, public water service, public power distribution, public sewer, public trash collection, public (municipal) broadband Internet, etc. These are all things where "private industry" makes a hash of it, overcharges, underprovides, and -- once monopoly is achieved -- often starts acting like an unaccountable private government. I wouldn't *prohibit* private industry from screwing around with these areas, but in practice infrastructure is something which is best managed by government, if you want decent results.

Now, subcontracting some aspects of operations to private enterprise is fine (as with Essential Air Service), but design, planning, oversight, scheduling, management, and pricing policy for infrastructure, including transportation, is a job for government.

(In terms of economic theory, this is because transportation infrastructure does not have the characteristics of a commodity -- and if you start really looking into it, "market competition" works reliably only for commodities.)

 

[Nathanael]

Of note, the only method of passenger transportation where the user routinely pays all the costs is walking, and even that's only true when walking on dirt trails -- and not even always then (some trails need to be cleared of vegetation more often than can be done by the mere trampling of feet). In a previous era, people travelling by horse sometimes paid all their costs, but only the rich could afford horses exclusively for riding (other people used "dual purpose" horses which were also work horses).

Without government subsidies, passenger transportation just stops happening and people just stop travelling.

Freight recovers more of its costs from users, but without government subsidy, it's still massively underprovided. Think "silk road" levels of service.

There is a reason why transportation is government-subsidized. Provide more transportation, and it benefits everyone -- but it doesn't benefit any individual enough for that individual to build or maintain the road or railroad (aside from some "captive industry" cases like mines). There's a collective action problem, which is exactly what elected government is there to deal with.

 

[the_traveler]

Nathanael, you make many good points in your posts. Would you consider joining AU as a member?

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Nathanael, you make many good points in your posts. Would you consider joining AU as a member?

Alan already asked him in another thread and Nathanael gave his reasons in that thread as to why he would not join.