Time to rethink air-rail equation?
 

It occurs to me that security arrangements on air travel will shortly make trips of less than about 300 miles relatively impractical, esp. on the east coast. Time on the ground will be a multiple of time in the air, and costs will rise to cover the security (happy to pay that) and the inevitable rise in oil prices to come. <BR> <BR>Isn't it time to think about abandoning the idiocy about privatizing Amtrak and nationalizing and building up our passenger rail system? Similarly, haven't we made ourselves very vulnerable by our dependence on air transport -- such that shutting down our airports paralyzes much of our commerce? Shouldn't we be building up alternatives?

I wholeheartedly agree but believe that some of the massive expenditures we're about to incur as a nation should be dedicated to hastening the process of making alternative fuel sources available and practical. Our ever increasing dependence on petroleum based products has much to do with our involvement in mid-east politics, a situation which conceivably has contributed to events that led to Tuesday's tragedy. Improving and increasing the efficiency of rail travel is desirable and should be pursued. We should, however, take note of the fact that there are limitations. In Eurpoean countries with highly developed and efficient rails systems, the geographich areas and distances involved are equivalent to or sometime smaller than single regions of the US, such as the Northeast corridor. Expecting an efficient and widely distributed passenger rail system throughout the US may be unrealistic. Let's also consider the issue of security on traqins - it is nonexistent. Anyone can bring anything onto a train if it's concealed within a duffel bag or suitcase. Thankfully, this avenue of terrorism has not been pursued in the US but it should now be an area of concern.

Agree with both of you, and/but what's wrong with beefing up the northeast corridor rail system as a start? <BR> <BR>re:train security -- it's not completely un-improvable. And there's the simple logistical difference in the possible damage that can be done -- a train can go just so far derailed, is much less maneuverable, etc. etc. <BR> <BR>(And we don't have all these stupid little schools to teach train engineers, unlike the ones that will now teach any damn fool how to fly that are sprinkled all over everywhere.)

Trips less than 300 miles is already impractical on air, had it not been in the USA. Even using the railroad technology of 80's used in the Europe, the air trip less than 1000 miles are already not signigicantly faster than railroad trips, considering that airports are usually way out of the city and need to spend long ours just to get there and the checking requirements. And if the air trip requires airplane changes, you need to add 1 hrs per change as opposed to about 10 minutes used by European trains. <BR> <BR>If US acts on what makes sense, it would rethink about alternate transportation strategies, but that is not how the funding works. Only the industries pouring enough money into the campaign fund get what they want. The railroad industry is not one of them. <BR> <BR>Regarding the railroad security: tell me how will it be possible to redirect the train from Boston to New York to hit a populated building elsewhere?

re: alternative transportation. I would have to add that unless you're traveling from one hub to another (i.e., you don't have to change planes), air traffic may not be much faster than driving. My in-laws are 11-12 hours by car. By air, adding travel time to the airport, advanced check-in, delays; hops to the appropriate hub; hour+ layovers; more flight time; waiting for baggage then rental car; and drive time to the final destination, it makes for an 8 hour trip. And that doesn't take into account unanticipated delays.

Marchon and Owen <BR> <BR>I think you both make very good points about the rail system...unless things have changed, right now that security is nonexistent on Amtrak as Owen mentions. This I fear makes the rails a potential target, although a train as mentioned could not be used as quite the weapon that an airplane could. Can security be improved? Yes, I'm sure it could but how much? People including myself used the train before September 11th almost as they would a subway in a major city. This way of life would change with security checks; is there enough money in the train system to put up i.e., X-ray machines, new security guards at every station in the country? People would have to arrive far in advance of their trains' departure time, which might be a sacrifice people are willing to make, but makes getting around on the train more timely. Would these changes then extend to the COMMUTER RAILS and SUBWAY systems of the country? This would definitely be a slowdown in movement. Certainly there would HAVE TO be government subsidy to install greater security measures, considering that Amtrak is not profitable at this time. (Not likely under this administration I suspect.) While I have wished for a long time that there would be a buildup of the rail system, I fear that despite the significant growth in passengers recently, that concerns about security combined the delays may actually have the inverse effect and shut Amtrak down entirely. I hope I am wrong, and will continue to support our rail system. <BR> <BR>DAN

There's a fundamental difference in the structure of rail travel and air travel, which has become quite concentrated and centralized, while a good rail system has all sorts of get-arounds in getting from one place to another (just look at your options getting from Paris to Rome). <BR> <BR>As to vulnerability to terrorism: blowing up one train or plowing into a building, a la "Silver Streak," would not be pretty but I challenge you to come up with a scenario in which a train could be commandeered to bring down the Sears Tower, the White House, and the Capitol all at once. In other words, the "payoff" of terrorism directed at trains is small potatoes compared to thousands of gallons of JetA aimed from anywhere in the three dimensions of the sky and targeted at any building, anywhere in the country. <BR> <BR>

Strengthening of the northeast corridor rail service will probably happen now, just by default (Amtrak, btw, is offering to honor any airline tickets "indefinitely" -- is carrying huge numbers of plane-shy people between Boston-NYC-Washington). <BR> <BR>But wouldn't it be great if they would actually, consciously PLAN to improve it, subsidize it, and get on with building the system in the rest of the country?

Last week I took the new Acela Express from NYC to Boston. Fare was $120 each way vs. $53 for "regular train". Admittedly, the seats were a bit more comfy (but don't recline nearly as far for thosewho wish to doze), tray tables and work space was better and it was sleek, quiet and clean. NOw for the not so good - out promised 3 1/2 hour travel time was 4 hours - there were no on track or in-station delays perceivable and the train was only about 1/3 full. For much less than half the price I could get there in 5 houts rather than 4. Where is the value? I recognize that Amtrak does not "own" the tracks on much of the route and is facing track improvement issues that are slow in arriving but this is blatant misrepresentation. No explanation was offered for the delayed arrival. As a business traveler I appreciate the extra hour but Amtrak needs to address issues such as these if they expect to win people over and earn their loyalty.

I have found that a good compromise for the money is to take the Acela Regional, rather than the Acela Express, between Boston and NYC. <BR> <BR>I expect that in the near future, those trains will no longer travel only 1/3 full. In this land of supply and demand, I expect that demand is going to increase, and thta more attention will be paid to public ground transport, including rail track maintenance.