Crazy Transit Pitches

I'm not trying to pull people off of planes.

You should. Something like 75% of air traffic is regional. That means, within the scope of HSR. And that's a lot of air congestional. Space isn't unlimited up there, nor on the runways. The cost of expanding runways to allow more traffic is also a massive capital cost, and takes up large amounts of space.

Air travel is the least energy efficient travel mode of any transportation option!

Air travel is subject to fuel prices (all modes are, but more so those where electric isn't viable), which are going to rise. I mean, who knows, maybe we'll see natural gas fueled planes for cheap $, but I'm not sure.
 
I don't really see the TSA argument as a longterm argument. I see it this way, 2 things are going to happen:

1. People get fed up with TSA and start revolting against them (not like a civil war or anything, but they're going to be lobbying hard) and the TSA is dissolved.

or

2. TSA continues to exist, and as trains become more popular, trains are now a 'target' and must be 'protected'.

2 will eventually trend towards 1 - if "protecting" the trains doesn't do it, "defending our nation's highways and byways" will.

I'm a naive and stupid college kid, though, and still have faith that the TSA is on its way out.
 
Source, please.

bbf -- Just look at the growth of the el-Cheapo Airlines in Europe

They already had the high speed rail and in many cases the extensive RER, SBahn and the Tube

Now they are driving to Luton and flying to Berlin or Budapest

In the US today there is only one legitimate long-haul rail market the BOS-Wash Corridor and even then only center city, or burb near to a station to center city. Today even burb to burb via rail is unpopular as there is no way to get anywhere from the station in the burbs

Now an electric Zipcar that you just plug a Credit or Debit card into a slot and drive away would probably make the burb-to-burb more practical
 
You should. Something like 75% of air traffic is regional. That means, within the scope of HSR. And that's a lot of air congestional. Space isn't unlimited up there, nor on the runways. The cost of expanding runways to allow more traffic is also a massive capital cost, and takes up large amounts of space.

Air travel is the least energy efficient travel mode of any transportation option!

Air travel is subject to fuel prices (all modes are, but more so those where electric isn't viable), which are going to rise. I mean, who knows, maybe we'll see natural gas fueled planes for cheap $, but I'm not sure.

Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

For a more concrete example -- you wake up at home in Lincoln and your destination is White Plains NY:
1) Train
a) drive to Westwood at Rt-128 -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to South Station
b) Acela to Penn Station,
c) then what?
2) Plane
a) drive to Logan -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to Logan
b) Fly to Laguardia or Newark
c) rent a car
d) drive to White Plains
3) Car -- drive directly to White Plains and your destination

I had a consulting project in Stamford that moved to White Plains. When it was in Stamford, I mostly took the train mostly from Rt-128. After the move to White Plains, I tried all three modes (the plane sometimes actually flew directly to White Plains) -- after the project moved to White Plains I ended-up driving most of the time

Note -- If there had been a flight from Hanscom to White Plains -- I would have taken it every time except when I was hauling a bunch of equipment
 
Last edited:
The answer to then what? is rent a car at Penn Station or taxi - same as at the airport.

Commute -- taxi is an option -- though it could be expensive
renting a car at Penn Station is not nearly as easy as at an airport, also its not easy at Union Station in DC, or for that matter at South Station

I just Googled renting a car at South Station -- here's a dialogue
Lydia "wtf is JUICE? I want PURPLE DRANK!" M. says:
Hey there, Boston Yelpers! ;-)

I need a little bit of help. I will be traveling via Amtrak to the Boston South Station from DC, and need to locate a nearby car rental location. I have a training course in Duxbury and was advised that I could take the local train, but I prefer to rent a car and sight-see a bit. My hotel is in Plymouth. Any suggestion on any of the above?


11/13/2008 Susan "challah back, yo" N. says:
There should be car rental places around Government Center, about a 10-15 minute walk from South Station. Just know, it's pricier to rent a car in Boston than it is outside of Boston. If you're going to tour in Boston, ABSOLUTELY ditch the car. Even GPS won't help. For outside of Boston, it's definitely necessary. Also, if you're in Duxbury, you should check out Bongi's turkey farm. You may end up eating there everyday.


11/13/2008 Pete "I'd buy that for a dollar!" C. says:
I just checked Hertz and this comes up from their website:

"This location is for Amtrak arrivals only. There is no rental counter at South Street/Amtrak Station. Cab fare to the 30 Park Plaza location (Motor Mart Parking Garage) will be reimbursed up to $20.00 with receipt. The taxi stand is located outside the main entrance.
After Hours - Please reserve at the Boston Logan International Airport, 207 Porter Street, East Boston. Cab fare will be reimbursed up to $20.00 with receipt."

11/13/2008 Pete "I'd buy that for a dollar!" C. says:
Oh, another alternative is to get off Amtrak at Back Bay instead. That location info I clipped from Hertz is only a few blocks from Back Bay Station.

In that case, Avis is also convenient. This from the Avis website:
Boston - BO4
100 Clarendon St., (BackBay Train Park Garage), Boston, MA 02116 , U S A
(1) 617-534-1404
Sun 07:00AM-04:30PM; Mon-Sat 07:00AM-07:30PM

Back Bay/Copley is a major tourist area and there are tons of major hotels with rental desks. So that's an option too.
/quote]
 
Acela Southeast Express - the "Silver Bullet"
Washington, DC
Alexandria, VA
Staples Mill Road / Richmond, VA
Rocky Mount, NC
Charleston, SC
Savannah, GA
Jacksonville, FL
Orlando, FL
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Miami, FL


That silver made things too hard to read I think. Oh well.

Ten stops, probably 10~12 hours to Miami Central. Maybe 8~10 to Orlando. Change for rail to Disneyworld?
 
Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

This is a solid argument anywhere but in the NE. Manhattan and the stations on either side will probably provide plenty of demand, and the presence of the train will take those passengers flying from other NE cities off of the roads between the airports and Manhattan. The same argument can certainly be made about DC, where a huge portion of business traffic is destined for areas which can be easily reached from Union Station (walking or Metro).

Boston is a little more complex due to 128, but I bet most companies would be happy to expense a taxi fare along the highway from 128 station.
 
Even with the hassles with the TSA most people would rather fly for 2 hours than sit on a train for 8 -- and that's being optimistic about the average speed

Now consider a train originating in NYC or BOS -- you are talking 12 hours minimum to Miami -- no one* will do that instead of flying

Realistically -- the window for high speed rail to compete with Air is about 3 to 5 hours center city to center city -- in other words the limit is about BOS to DC with Acela running full-bore with few stops



* -- well perhaps old hippies who can still strum the "City of New Orleans" and hostel-hikers from Europe
There are at lest two cases to be made for longer duration high speed trains.

  1. Ridership derives mostly from people going partial distances. Not DC to Miami, but DC to Atlanta, Charlotte to Miami, etc.
  2. Overnight sleeper trains. Board in Boston after work, dine on the train (high end food and wine), enjoy a bit of TV, go to bed (comfortable bunks, wake up fresh an hour or so before the train arrives in Miami. This might appeal to quite a few people over flying down after work, finding your way to the hotel, shoveling in some junk food somewhere along the way. I have ridden such trains in Russia, it is a very comfortable and refined travel mode.
 
Urb -- that argument is flawed because in a given MSA (Metropolitan Area according to the Census Bureau) most of the trips would either not originate in the CBD near to the HSR station or would not end near to the CBD

For a more concrete example -- you wake up at home in Lincoln and your destination is White Plains NY:
1) Train
a) drive to Westwood at Rt-128 -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to South Station
b) Acela to Penn Station,
c) then what?
2) Plane
a) drive to Logan -- you could take the Commuter Rail & T to Logan
b) Fly to Laguardia or Newark
c) rent a car
d) drive to White Plains
3) Car -- drive directly to White Plains and your destination

I had a consulting project in Stamford that moved to White Plains. When it was in Stamford, I mostly took the train mostly from Rt-128. After the move to White Plains, I tried all three modes (the plane sometimes actually flew directly to White Plains) -- after the project moved to White Plains I ended-up driving most of the time

Note -- If there had been a flight from Hanscom to White Plains -- I would have taken it every time except when I was hauling a bunch of equipment

Okay, so you give me some anecdotal evidence and use it as a coverall to say HSR can't compete with regional air travel because of it.
 
There are at lest two cases to be made for longer duration high speed trains.

  1. Ridership derives mostly from people going partial distances. Not DC to Miami, but DC to Atlanta, Charlotte to Miami, etc.
  2. Overnight sleeper trains. Board in Boston after work, dine on the train (high end food and wine), enjoy a bit of TV, go to bed (comfortable bunks, wake up fresh an hour or so before the train arrives in Miami. This might appeal to quite a few people over flying down after work, finding your way to the hotel, shoveling in some junk food somewhere along the way. I have ridden such trains in Russia, it is a very comfortable and refined travel mode.

Henry -- in Russia people still take a train across 7 time Zones over the course of a week

Name one person (outside of left-over drugged-out hippies, Euro-Hostelers, or some retired folks) who would take a train from Boston to LA or SF -- even if it ran at an unreasonable average speed of 300 mph.

And for the above mentioned groups -- I've nothing against a US version of the Orient Express running on the existing US rail infrastucture -- we the taxpayers just can not afford to subsidize it
 
Henry -- in Russia people still take a train across 7 time Zones over the course of a week

Name one person (outside of left-over drugged-out hippies, Euro-Hostelers, or some retired folks) who would take a train from Boston to LA or SF -- even if it ran at an unreasonable average speed of 300 mph.

And for the above mentioned groups -- I've nothing against a US version of the Orient Express running on the existing US rail infrastucture -- we the taxpayers just can not afford to subsidize it

Me. I'm not a hippie, I hate hostels and I'm not retired.

Also, I call whatever the Godwin's Law of "rail versus road" is.

When you make the argument that taxpayers can't afford rail infrastructure as we continue to fully subsidize the majority of the highway system, then you have to sit the rest of the class in the corner. With your mouth taped shut.
 
This discussion has been largely about convenience. Can anyone explain why a trip on the Acela is more expensive than flying coach? Intuitively is seems like it should be cheaper to move people along a track than through the air. Is this just a matter of competition and Amtrak's lack there of? It makes the decision to travel by rail a difficult one.
 
This discussion has been largely about convenience. Can anyone explain why a trip on the Acela is more expensive than flying coach? Intuitively is seems like it should be cheaper to move people along a track than through the air. Is this just a matter of competition and Amtrak's lack there of? It makes the decision to travel by rail a difficult one.

Demographics. Acela caters to first-class customers...business execs and the like. And does very well at that premium market. What Amtrak lacks right now is that middle ground between the premium class and the current Regionals. That's the screaming need that's unfilled, and getting moreso by the day as airlines abandon regional routes in favor of cross-country/hub-to-hub. But that's more for lack of equipment. The Acela is such a specially-designed trainset to work on that old infrastructure under such suffocating FRA rules that it doesn't scale enough to offer 150 MPH trainsets for "coach class". There's only a handful of Acela sets in existence for how expensive they were to purchase. The Regionals are capped at 125 MPH, and are a hodgepodge of generic 'AmCan' coaches and old locomotives.

They're in process of replacing every single loco on the fleet and may be able to order more to start doing some of those midrange regionals that maybe skip more local stops. And a couple of the last big-chunk stimulus grants take care of some big traffic bottlenecks. But ultimately I don't think you're getting that sweet-spot regional airline replacement for the masses until it's time to order a 2nd-generation HSR trainset to replace the experimental Acelas. Something a little more modular and standardized with the coaches, and with some more realistic FRA-standards flexibility so they can scale better with more borrowed Euro technology instead of having to overbuild freight-derived sets that aren't functionally safer than their Euro counterparts (in fact, maybe less so because they're so experimentally overcustomized). The FRA has recently done some relaxing away from its "...but we've always done it this way" shortsighted stubbornness that'll allow more of this Euro HSR tech to seep in. Caltrans recently got some equipment waivers for upping their slow-speed lines to a less-slow 100 MPH at cheaper than it would normally be under the draconian old rules. But they'll have to do substantially more of that, catered to the NEC, to allow that HSR-for-the-masses type scale on the equipment purchases.


The Caltrans waver is a sea change from how the FRA ivory tower usually works. But it's a tiny first step requiring many more. This institutionalized mentality about every U.S. train having to be a military tank-grade freight engine has been ingrained in the gov't since the 19th century. They got a loooooong way to go before that mentality is changed enough to uncap Amtrak's artificial ceiling and allow something half-approaching the more nimble high-speed equipment the rest of the world has long and safely perfected.
 
Henry -- in Russia people still take a train across 7 time Zones over the course of a week

Name one person (outside of left-over drugged-out hippies, Euro-Hostelers, or some retired folks) who would take a train from Boston to LA or SF -- even if it ran at an unreasonable average speed of 300 mph.

And for the above mentioned groups -- I've nothing against a US version of the Orient Express running on the existing US rail infrastucture -- we the taxpayers just can not afford to subsidize it

I'm not sure your range of experience covers California (not to say you haven't been there, just that you likely don't understand the place). I would ride that L.A. to S.F. train as my preferred mode. And every single person I know who lives in California says the same thing. Since I grew up there, and maintain many ties to the state, both North and South, I know a lot of people from varied backgrounds. What we all understand is that the one hour flight from LAX to SFO (or any of the many regional to regional options) requires a minimum of five hours for the total trip. I know people who will make the 400 mile drive rather than hassle with the airports/TSA/car rental/traffic issues when flying. But they don't like spending 8 or 9 hours driving in heavy traffic. They will take a fast train if it is available.

As for the overnight service, I'm not talking Orient Express, though I can see a market for that, too, as a transcontinental. What I mean is just what I described, something that busy people would use as a more comfortable means of making the trip, that requires less of their active awake time than flying.
 
I'm not sure your range of experience covers California (not to say you haven't been there, just that you likely don't understand the place). I would ride that L.A. to S.F. train as my preferred mode. And every single person I know who lives in California says the same thing. Since I grew up there, and maintain many ties to the state, both North and South, I know a lot of people from varied backgrounds. What we all understand is that the one hour flight from LAX to SFO (or any of the many regional to regional options) requires a minimum of five hours for the total trip. I know people who will make the 400 mile drive rather than hassle with the airports/TSA/car rental/traffic issues when flying. But they don't like spending 8 or 9 hours driving in heavy traffic. They will take a fast train if it is available.

As for the overnight service, I'm not talking Orient Express, though I can see a market for that, too, as a transcontinental. What I mean is just what I described, something that busy people would use as a more comfortable means of making the trip, that requires less of their active awake time than flying.

Henry -- I must admit that try as I might I don't understand Caiifornians although:
1) my daughter got her Law Degree from Peperdine,
2) she married an Angelino (his parents live in Malibu) and they lived in Santa Monica for several years before moving to Texas
3) I've also spent some of my most pleasant traveling on business in Calinfornia from SF to SD with lesser good times in LA area and probably the best time in SB
4) I lived for one summer in Santa Monica while I worked at UCLA and commuted on Santa Monica and LA buses
5) I've commuted up and down the SF peninsula and in SV on BART and Caltrans
6) done some hiking in the mountains
7) presented seminars and keynote talks at major conferences and exhibited in SF, San Jose, Anaheim, LA, SD, LaJolla
8) Met the real TopGun
9) done some things at Lawrence Livermore (you didn't see me say that)
10) seen things through some big telescopes
11) had a friend and colleague who grew up in LA and vaguely remembered the Red Cars (inter-urbans)
12) and once arrived in LA on an early Tuesday PM, visited the La Brea Tar Pits, did my business and was back in Boston Wednesday PM -- perfect -- no jet lag
13) Ran through SFO (like OJ) trying to cactch my flight to Boston after returning from Asia
14) almost was hit by a subsiding wall of mud on the 101
15) Met the inventor of the Vector (the car in "Rising Sun")
16) really enjoyed the Gamble House
17) was not impressed by the original Getty
18) traveled to some obscure rural area full of nut trees to talk to an investor
19) really enjoyed the Huntington Museum and especaially the cactus gardens
20) accidentally drove down the 405 in SD when it was closed for the SD marathon -- talk about a post Appocolyptic view
21) landed at LAX while an earthquake (small) was in progress -- a week or so later I was in the UCLA Student Union restaurant when a fair sized one hit in the San Fernando Valley and made the water in my glass dance
22) got lost in the fog driving through Sorrento Canyon
23) heard the sound of 10 millon cars up on Mulholland Drive
24) was invited to go skinny dipping at Big Bare (err Bear) by my landlady in SM
25) Heard the iconic "Ok pull over and take out you Driver's License") from a motor cycle cop in Westwood -- only problem I was j-walking -- I even traveled the court to pay my $9 fine

But -- I still don't claim to know why they do what they do -- although I love how they have a 2 letter code for every city that matters

Oh -- the reason for this ramble -- I landed at LAX got on a Embraer for San Jose and was told to evacuate the plane as it "needed to be rebooted" -- we eventualy got a second Embraer and arrived 1 hour late -- but a whole lot earlier than I would have on a train
 
Last edited:
whighlander, I grant that rail service over long distances may not always be the fastest alternative, but in the scheme of things, would you rather spend, say, 1 hour on a plane + 1 hour waiting for a replacement plane + 2 hours getting to the airport early, checking in, doing security checks, etc + 1 hour getting from your departure city to its airport and then getting from your destination city's airport to its downtown = 5 hours...

or 8 hours on a train where you go directly from downtown to downtown, and are free to do basically anything you want during those 8 hours (sleep, read, work, look out the window, watch a movie on your laptop, walk around the train, check out the café car, talk with your fellow passengers)?

I think a good argument could be made that the time you lose taking the train is made up for by the less stress you'll have upon reaching your destination.

(And I think a similar argument could be made about sitting in traffic for however long that same trip would take, although with gas as it is and Amtrak prices as they are, most people would probably still find it more cost-effective to drive.)

But moving the discussion back to slightly less crazy transit pitches more specifically in New England: in a hypothetical HSR (or Super HSR) trip from Boston to Washington (or even just NYC for simplicity's sake), what are the smallest cities that the train should service? At what point do you begin to lose too much time between major destinations that's not off-set by enough new passengers? (New Haven, Hartford and Providence, I'm looking at you.)

I mean, I guess in the case of Providence, with the ROW as it is now, the trains would have to slow down to go around that giant curve along Rt 10, so they might as well stop to let off/pick up passengers.

But putting considerations like that aside, theoretically, what cities merit HSR service between Boston and NYC?
 
whighlander, I grant that rail service over long distances may not always be the fastest alternative, but in the scheme of things, would you rather spend, say, 1 hour on a plane + 1 hour waiting for a replacement plane + 2 hours getting to the airport early, checking in, doing security checks, etc + 1 hour getting from your departure city to its airport and then getting from your destination city's airport to its downtown = 5 hours...

or 8 hours on a train where you go directly from downtown to downtown, and are free to do basically anything you want during those 8 hours (sleep, read, work, look out the window, watch a movie on your laptop, walk around the train, check out the café car, talk with your fellow passengers)?

I think a good argument could be made that the time you lose taking the train is made up for by the less stress you'll have upon reaching your destination.

(And I think a similar argument could be made about sitting in traffic for however long that same trip would take, although with gas as it is and Amtrak prices as they are, most people would probably still find it more cost-effective to drive.)

But moving the discussion back to slightly less crazy transit pitches more specifically in New England: in a hypothetical HSR (or Super HSR) trip from Boston to Washington (or even just NYC for simplicity's sake), what are the smallest cities that the train should service? At what point do you begin to lose too much time between major destinations that's not off-set by enough new passengers? (New Haven, Hartford and Providence, I'm looking at you.)

I mean, I guess in the case of Providence, with the ROW as it is now, the trains would have to slow down to go around that giant curve along Rt 10, so they might as well stop to let off/pick up passengers.

But putting considerations like that aside, theoretically, what cities merit HSR service between Boston and NYC?

Riverside -- You are somewhat asking the wrong question -- the problem with HSR as currently conceived is that it is inherently a serial system in that to get to NYC you have to go through Providence, etc.

The advantage of air is that you can go point to point with no intermediate stops. There is no inherent reason why you can not do the same with rail.

The only major modification is that all of the stations along the way need to be on sidings with the mainline uninterupted. However, since we've dispensed with long trains pulled by engines and replaced them with single units which are self-propelled the sidings are short.

Once you decide to go non-stop from point to point you get short travel times without the need for exceptional speeds and all of the infrasturcture which is required. You also can tailor the frequency and scale of the service to each destination.

For example you can have one single car-lenght train leave Boston for NYC every 15 minutes with a travel time of 2 hours and not require the vehichle to exceed 120 mph.

Of course such a system only solves the CBD to CBD aspect of the trip -- something such as all-electic ZipCars needs to be available at each station to handle the trips to the suburbs, etc.

As to what other cities need to have HSR service between Boston and NYC
on the shoreline route:
Providence
New London
New Haven
Stamford
all wold havet their own departures with frequencies varying from 1 to 2 per hour as requirred

on the inland route:
Framingham / Metrowest
Worcester
Spingfield
Hartford
all wold havet their own departures with frequencies varying from 1 to 4 per hour as requirred
 
Oh -- the reason for this ramble -- I landed at LAX got on a Embraer for San Jose and was told to evacuate the plane as it "needed to be rebooted" -- we eventualy got a second Embraer and arrived 1 hour late -- but a whole lot earlier than I would have on a train

I won't get in to the dick waving contest, but will point out that you are comparing a transfer connection to an origination trip. Not remotely the same thing, which is true whether you are in Los Angeles or London.

[edit]
I'm glad you enjoyed the Gambol House. Completely amazing in my opinion!
[/edit]
 
Demographics. Acela caters to first-class customers...business execs and the like. And does very well at that premium market. What Amtrak lacks right now is that middle ground between the premium class and the current Regionals. That's the screaming need that's unfilled, and getting moreso by the day as airlines abandon regional routes in favor of cross-country/hub-to-hub. But that's more for lack of equipment. The Acela is such a specially-designed trainset to work on that old infrastructure under such suffocating FRA rules that it doesn't scale enough to offer 150 MPH trainsets for "coach class". There's only a handful of Acela sets in existence for how expensive they were to purchase. The Regionals are capped at 125 MPH, and are a hodgepodge of generic 'AmCan' coaches and old locomotives.

They're in process of replacing every single loco on the fleet and may be able to order more to start doing some of those midrange regionals that maybe skip more local stops. And a couple of the last big-chunk stimulus grants take care of some big traffic bottlenecks. But ultimately I don't think you're getting that sweet-spot regional airline replacement for the masses until it's time to order a 2nd-generation HSR trainset to replace the experimental Acelas. Something a little more modular and standardized with the coaches, and with some more realistic FRA-standards flexibility so they can scale better with more borrowed Euro technology instead of having to overbuild freight-derived sets that aren't functionally safer than their Euro counterparts (in fact, maybe less so because they're so experimentally overcustomized). The FRA has recently done some relaxing away from its "...but we've always done it this way" shortsighted stubbornness that'll allow more of this Euro HSR tech to seep in. Caltrans recently got some equipment waivers for upping their slow-speed lines to a less-slow 100 MPH at cheaper than it would normally be under the draconian old rules. But they'll have to do substantially more of that, catered to the NEC, to allow that HSR-for-the-masses type scale on the equipment purchases.


The Caltrans waver is a sea change from how the FRA ivory tower usually works. But it's a tiny first step requiring many more. This institutionalized mentality about every U.S. train having to be a military tank-grade freight engine has been ingrained in the gov't since the 19th century. They got a loooooong way to go before that mentality is changed enough to uncap Amtrak's artificial ceiling and allow something half-approaching the more nimble high-speed equipment the rest of the world has long and safely perfected.

Thank you. Is there a go to location for this information or did you have to piece it together? I'm most interested in the reasons Acela lacks a coach class, the difference in purchase price between the Acela/Regional engines/passenger cars, and any near-term plans for replacement.
 

Back
Top