I should have taken the train

In article , Scott en
Aztlán wrote:

Three hours is a LONG time when you're in physical pain. My legs were
so cramped I could barely walk off the plane the last time I flew.

So why didn't you book a flight in first or business class, with lots
of comfortable space?

Consumers have proven, over and over again, that price is their primary
concern. Not seat comfort. Not food. Price.

The pendulum is about to swing back.

I work for an airline, and I've seen no evidence of that. I'd be
*very* happy to see it, but I don't believe it.

wrote:
RJ wrote:

What published literature?


There has been a flurry of news reports of the problems in airports,
airlines, and air traffic control. Just the other day they predicted a
miserable flying summer. Many of those reports are posted in this
newsgroup.

Anecdotal commentary is not particularly effective justification.

On the other hand, Amtrak ridership is at record levels.

And we have published commentary on the disaster of the not high speed
service introduction.

Most airlines are in serious financial trouble with numerous
bankruptcies. Investors lost millions when US Air went belly up. The
taxpayer and wage earner had to kick in many billions of dollars to
cover lost pension funds of the airlines. Airlines are very fuel
intensive and the recent high oil prices have been murder on them.

And Amtrak was created and has always existed in a sewer of financial
trouble.

Many key airports are overcrowded. The airlines schedule multiple
flights to leave at the same time which is of course impossible, the
FAA doesn't like it, but the airlines keep doing it.

Airports can't expand because there is no more free land. Building new
airports requires finding adequate land many miles from the towns from
which they serve or extremely expensive and disruptive condemnation of
existing homes, businesses, and industry. The expansion issue of LAX
has been discussed at length here.

Airports have never had free land if you intended no cost. If you
intended available then there is no free land for tracks either. Space
for airports is far easier to arrange than space for rail service/

Here are three examples of recent air travel troubles.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...ing-usat_x.htm

Yes the surge in air travel has increased the need for parking at
airports. Train stations are unaffected since few use trains.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/colum...ncatelli_x.htm

Frequent flyer programs to bribe regular business users have always been
problematical. They are good revenue generators for airlines as long as
other vendors customers are attracted.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...r-travel_x.htm


And, yes, the massive increase in air travel has stretched the system
and made it vulnerable to the normal weather disruptions. If we get
some folks to not travel things will be simpler.

Weather does have more impact on air travel. Just as congestion has
more impact on train service. Clearly the recent government paranoia
has had a negative impact on air travel. One decent rail bombing will
bring a security crash to rail traffic which has so far escaped being
considered a negligible target.

wrote:

On the other hand, Amtrak ridership is at record levels.

And is still having financial woes.

Most airlines are in serious financial trouble with numerous
bankruptcies.

Despite literally *B*illions of dollars of Federal subsidies in the FAA
and DoT Transporation budget, whereas rail gets essentially nothing.

Over the past 35 years, Amtrak has gotten $29B. That's an average of
$828 million per year.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...sportation.pdf

In contrast (and documented in the same citation, above), the FAA got
$11 Billion in FY06, plus there's another $3B for the AIP (effectively,
airport infrastructure grants). Not counting all the other bells and
whistles, that's a 17:1 ratio in subsidies.

Airlines are very fuel intensive ...

Simply more the reason to switch our Federal subsidies investments to
less energy-intensive transportation modes such as rail. Rail is the
second most energy efficient transportation mode...the only one that's
more energy efficient than rail is a pipeline.

FWIW, one of my pet peeves regarding rail is that unlike airports,
there's often issues regarding parking your car near the rail station
like there always is at an airport. A way can usually be found, but
its rarely as easy, convenient or inexpensive.


-hh

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

Anecdotal commentary is not particularly effective justification.

Perhaps not, but the quoted news articles below represent just the last
few days. Air travel is a nightmare for many people.

In summary, psgr rail could fill a niche market of trips of several
hundred miles in dense corridors (which many trains do now very well).
That would leave airports free to concentrate on very long distance or
trans-ocean trips.

It would be far cheaper to expand Amtrak and regional rail services
than to expand a single large airport like LAX to accomodate travel
demand.



And we have published commentary on the disaster of the not high speed
service introduction.

We do? As I read the Wall Street Journal, their business oriented
reporters found it good. Like the Metroliner before it, it captured
travelers away from the airlines in the NEC, as it was intended to do.
Expand Logan and LaGuardia? They're hemmed in.

Did Acela have technical teething problems? Yes, it did. It some time
to get the 747 debugged as well; Boeing and the pioneer airline almost
came to blows over the problems.

The bottom line is that business travelers--who supposedly don't have
time for trains--are happy to pay premium fares to ride Acela.


Airports have never had free land if you intended no cost. If you
intended available then there is no free land for tracks either. Space
for airports is far easier to arrange than space for rail service/

Many airports were built many years ago when land was available. Some
were built on swamps where land was undesirable. Since then the areas
have become built up. Midway is very tight hemmed in and needs extra
space for buffers (a plane recently ran off the runway onto a nearby
highway). Airplanes need a lot of space for the airport and
surrounding noise buffers.

As to RR tracks, there is plenty of empty ROW for them. Train tracks
can be placed anyway, indeed are underground in many cities where the
space is used for other development.


And, yes, the massive increase in air travel has stretched the system
and made it vulnerable to the normal weather disruptions. If we get
some folks to not travel things will be simpler.

Exactly. Provide rail service so that short distance psgrs won't have
to fly.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
One can argue just how far the trip must be to make driving more
convenient but there is no doubt that the distance has at least doubled
in the past decade.

The train could offer an alternative. Unfortunately, present policy is
to starve Amk and regional rail while pouring money into air travel.

Amk offers the best bang for the buck. The aviation world would eat
through two or three billion dollars in no time--look how much the
carriers lose money. But Amtrak could add considerable routes, in many
cases utilizing existing infrastructure with modest improvements.



As far as train use there might be a few more routes where trains would
be effective competition but I do not remember the long train trips of
my youth fondly. Usually I could get some sleep the second night from
complete exhaustion but it was not easy.

As you said:
Anecdotal commentary is not particularly effective justification.

The service on high quality psgr trains is remembered quite fondly and
is so described in numerous books.

However, while there is a need for overnight travel, the real need is
short distance. Long distance trains today have turnover with most
psgrs riding relatively short distances of a few hundred miles. It
makes sense to run the train the full length because of overlap and
some through travellers.

wrote:

RJ wrote:
What published literature?

There has been a flurry of news reports of the problems in airports,
airlines, and air traffic control. Just the other day they predicted a
miserable flying summer. Many of those reports are posted in this
newsgroup.

Anecdotes are not data.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 02:00:43 GMT, beavis wrote:

Sure. The problem is the stuff that IS certain: you'll be crammed into
a small plane that is almost completely full, your seat will be
uncomfortably small, the only food you'll get is a cup of Coke and a
1-ounce bag of peanuts, and some schmuck will crush your kneecaps when
he reclines his seat.

And you'll be in Vegas in less than three hours, for less than the
price of a tank of gas. Sounds like a fair tradeoff to me.

Three hours is a LONG time when you're in physical pain. My legs were
so cramped I could barely walk off the plane the last time I flew.

Consumers have proven, over and over again, that price is their primary
concern. Not seat comfort. Not food. Price.

The pendulum is about to swing back.

It is very hard to get the American consumer to look past the price
number. Ask anybody who sells appliances how tough it is to sell energy
saving appliances that cost more, even though their lifetime cost is
lower. It's a very hard sell.

RJ wrote:
Anecdotes are not data.

I posted several recent newspaper articles describing numerous problems
for travelers in aviation.

RJ, why don't you post your data? Thanks.

mrtravel wrote:

Rusty Waters wrote:

According to old-timers, it was 18 hours to Chicago by rail, then
another 36 hours to the west coast. Leave Friday night, arrive Monday
morning, multiple departures per day. High speed rail could do even
better with today's technology. Still sounds better to me than the
confused, improved, airline system that replaced it.


I am one of the "old-timers" who have had this experience by US
railroads. We used to train between Chicago and Philadelphia.
I think our on time arrivals were around 0 percent.


That's apparently because the railroad detectives on board had you
manacled so as to prevent you from coming into contact with any little
kids...

--
Best
Greg

On 23 May 2006 12:20:34 -0700, wrote:


RJ wrote:
Anecdotes are not data.

I posted several recent newspaper articles describing numerous problems
for travelers in aviation.

RJ, why don't you post your data? Thanks.

As Jack May said:

"This is his standard line to a lot of things. He never has any
data.

He just wants to fool people in to thinking he knowledgeable when he
knows
almost nothing about anything. "