The Economist explains: Why don't Americans ride trains?

[bgiaquin]

Americans do ride trains. Train travel is gaining popularity, not just Amtrak, but also light rail and commuter rail. This economist obviously has not looked at Amtrak's ridership growth over the past few years. If he has, then he must be really ignorant.

 

[Tennessee Traveler]

Simply put, where there are passenger trains available, I and people ride. Unfortunately where there are no passenger trains( zero to Nashville, TN), people CAN NOT ride. That is the situations for most of America outside of the East and West Coasts except for Chicago. No can ride a train that does not exist.

 

[cirdan]

Americans do ride trains. Train travel is gaining popularity, not just Amtrak, but also light rail and commuter rail. This economist obviously has not looked at Amtrak's ridership growth over the past few years. If he has, then he must be really ignorant.

The Economist does not have a reputation for being overly rail-friendly.

 

[henryj]

We don't ride them in Texas because we don't have any.

 

[Ryan]

Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.

But other than that, you're completely correct.

 

[jebr]

Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.

But other than that, you're completely correct.

Plus, since he didn't specifically refer to Amtrak, there's also DART, TRE, and possibly other commuter and light rail that I can't think of off the top of my head.

I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it is more expensive... I just got tickets to get somewhere I could not have gone otherwise because it was 72 bucks round freakin trip. Travel time about 1 hour slower than driving, and probably 1/4 of the cost of gas alone. I know it was 1/3 the price to rent a car, about the same as a bus, and so much cheaper than flying it isn't even funny. And instead of being stuck in the drivers seat for 10 hours, I get to be on a train for 11 where I can get up, go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, talk to other people.) I found this topic cause I ran a search after this experience asking "why don't more people ride trains?". Beat taking my car, hands down in every point except an hour longer travel time.

Charles - it depends on the route, to be honest. Sometimes flights are cheaper; sometimes the train is cheaper. Sometimes travel time figures in (as in, what is your time worth?)

I agree with you that spending a little more time on the train is better than driving. It takes just a few minutes longer to take the train to Chicago, but it's cheaper than paying for gas and so much better than driving. I LOVE taking the train to Chicago.

On the other hand, for a long-distance trip (like Chicago to Albuquerque, our most common one), the train is almost always more expensive than a round-trip flight, and it takes 26 hours. Don't get me wrong - we love the train - but I get kind of irritated about the time difference sometimes because it means I have to take two extra vacation days. If I'm going to take extra time off, I'd rather spend it with family/friends at our destination instead of traveling.

So yeah... bottom line... it depends.

Amtrak serves a small niche, for the most part, on longer-than-overnight LD travel. Airlines are almost always substantially faster than taking the train, though the train can often be cheaper if you are willing to travel in coach (but not always, and often the difference isn't enormous if the refundability of tickets is not an issue.) However, a very price-conscious customer will likely revert to the bus before taking the train, as bus travel is usually cheaper and can be faster than taking the train.

Of course, part of this is the problem that Amtrak has a very sparse network outside Californa, parts of the Midwest, and the NEC. As but one trip I've been researching (MSP - ATL,) taking the bus is as low as $50 one-way (but does have one non-guaranteed transfer with Megabus in Chicago, though the layover is three hours. Going Greyhound and eliminating non-guaranteed transfers brings the cost to $85 one-way.) Taking the airlines starts in the $160 - $180 each way price range. Amtrak is in the $220ish price range for coach one-way, and takes almost a day longer than the bus and almost two days longer than flying, assuming that I actually make the EB connection to the CL that day (which, recently, is a gamble.)

Granted, this is a bit of an outlier case, but it reflects the difficulties Amtrak has in competing in the LD market. It performs much better over small to medium distances where it can be overall time-competitive with the airlines (after factoring in security and general airport hassle.) This also includes markets served by LD trains but people travel between midpoints that would be short to medium distances if they were endpoints on their own train. As but one example, the last couple times I've traveled on the Builder I've talked with a few people who are traveling from MSP to points throughout North Dakota...moreso than I've talked to people taking longer trips.

 

[henryj]

Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.

But other than that, you're completely correct.

I'm in Houston Ryan, the largest city in Texas with a metro pop of 5 million. We have one train three times a week and a bus to Longview. You, on the other hand, are in NY where trains run by the hundreds day and night. There is a huge difference.

Amtrak would have discontinued the Eagle if not for the private organization TEMPO which still supports it even today. They would love to get rid of the Sunset and did manage to chop off the Florida end. The Heartland Flyer is an Oklahoma sponsored train. Texas contributes to maintain our friendship with the Okies.

The subject line was "why Americans don't ride trains". Like I said.......because there aren't any.

 

[Ryan]

I'm not in NY, and I know where you are, thanks.

Your statement was factually incorrect. Plenty of people ride the trains you guys have down there (and as Jebr pointed out, there's more than Amtrak to trains in Texas).

 

[JoeBas]

I'm in Houston too, and manage a few trips a year.

Whoda thunk?

 

[SarahZ]

Except for the Sunset Limited. And the Texas Eagle. And the Heartland Flyer. And the half million riders.

But other than that, you're completely correct.

I'm in Houston Ryan, the largest city in Texas with a metro pop of 5 million. We have one train three times a week and a bus to Longview. You, on the other hand, are in NY where trains run by the hundreds day and night. There is a huge difference.

Houston =/= Texas. That's like saying Detroit (and the metro area) speak for all of Michigan's train pax.

 

[henryj]

Well I believe most know exactly what I meant. There are of course a few too dense to figure it out.

 

[SarahZ]

I am not dense, thanks. I'm simply stating that big cities don't always reflect the needs of an entire state. Every city counts and matters.

 

[PaulM]

I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it (rail) is more expensive (than driving)...

It's simple. They think driving a car is recreation which they would expect to pay for. So when when comparing driving to rail, they subtract this cost from the cost of driving. You on the other hand seem to think driving is work, and drudgery at that. So you add your labor cost to the cost of driving.

 

[jebr]

I'm just trying to figure out why you guys are all saying it (rail) is more expensive (than driving)...

It's simple. They think driving a car is recreation which they would expect to pay for. So when when comparing driving to rail, they subtract this cost from the cost of driving. You on the other hand seem to think driving is work, and drudgery at that. So you add your labor cost to the cost of driving.

It's not quite that even. I'm not subtracting my time out of the cost of gas or some random amount because I enjoy it. I rather just don't count my time on either one. I also usually don't factor in the cost of owning the car, since most of that is fixed no matter if I only drive to the train station or if I drive all the way to my destination.

Yes, given the choice I'd rather take a four hour train ride over driving four hours. But usually the equation isn't that simple...the train often takes longer outside of the NEC than driving, even after factoring in stops when driving to refuel, rest, grab food, etc. And sometimes I just don't have that additional time to spare.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Yes, Americans do ride trains more and more. But I don't ride Amtrak anymore, I still ride trains and I'm still American but I don't ride Amtrak trains anymore. Why? Because Amtrak here is OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive!

You must make out the difference, there is a difference between riding "trains" and ridng "Amtrak". There is also a difference between riding one Amtrak and another Amtrak. Sometimes the difference is so huge that no fair argument can be taken on either side.

 

[Anderson]

Swadian,

On a cost-per-mile basis, Amtrak is either on par with or cheaper than either VIA (Canada) or the various UK companies. In places like India or China, the cost comparison gets distorted because of low wages in those countries.

 

[jis]

Swadian,

On a cost-per-mile basis, Amtrak is either on par with or cheaper than either VIA (Canada) or the various UK companies. In places like India or China, the cost comparison gets distorted because of low wages in those countries.

Or conversely the fares are distorted by unusually high wages in the western countries compared to world medians. The top 10% effect One earns more so one pays more.
Also people do forget that the lower class fares (specially suburban fares) at least in India are significantly subsidized as a matter of social and economic policy and political reality both for rail and road transport, directly or indirectly.