RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Major news this afternoon. The U.S. House just a few moments ago passed HR-6003, the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act of 2008, by a veto-proof majority…. 311 to 104.
You’ll recall the Senate passed its version of the bill (S-294) by a 93 to 6 margin late last year. The next step will be for the bill to go to a joint House-Senate Conference Committee. The conferees have not yet been named.
This bill, if it becomes law, will not only greatly increase funding for Amtrak, but carries the first-ever state matching grant program that can advance the Ohio Hub Plan and state-generated passenger rail plans like it around the nation.
Here’s how Ohio’s Congressional delegation voted today:
Nay OH-1 Chabot, Steven [R]
Nay OH-2 Schmidt, Jean [R]
Aye OH-3 Turner, Michael [R]
Nay OH-4 Jordan, Jim [R]
Nay OH-5 Latta, Robert [R]
Aye OH-6 Wilson, Charles [D]
Nay OH-7 Hobson, David [R]
Nay OH-8 Boehner, John [R]
No Vote OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]
Aye OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]
Aye OH-11 Jones, Stephanie [D]
Aye OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick [R]
Aye OH-13 Sutton, Betty [D]
Aye OH-14 LaTourette, Steven [R]
Aye OH-15 Pryce, Deborah [R]
Aye OH-16 Regula, Ralph [R]
Aye OH-17 Ryan, Timothy [D]
Aye OH-18 Space, Zackary [D]
Related Stories:
- The Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act
- Strickland wants 3-C Passenger Rail Restored
This was my initial knee-jerk reaction as well, although I fly all the time for business to just about anywhere. So, I thought I’d look up current Amtrak routes and get a feel for costs. For example, for a round-trip ride to Boston and back for a week, you’re going to spend around $260-$400 and spend at least 16 hours in a train/train station. You can get a flight for around $300-$350 and spend around 1/4 to 1/3 the time.
don’t forget amtrak tends to run about 40% off if you book two weeks in advance.
cleveland to bos (south station) is $85 going east on the lake shore limited (july 13th as my example date) 16 hour trip, so bring a pillow, a flask of whiskey, and a good book.
westbound is $105 and is only a 14 hour trip.
Drink up and sleep. Relax, visit the snack bar and grab a Sam Adams, chit chat with your fellow passengers or whatnot It’s really rather comfortable on those trains. 16 hours wouldn’t bother me at all.
$190 round trip is going to be hard for the airlines to beat soon. Don’t forget flying adds several hours just arriving at the airports early and sitting on the stupid tarmac or whatever because it’s slightly rainy in some other airport and everyone is delayed or whatever their excuse is that day.
Fair enough. I’m no expert on Amtrak, so I didn’t really know how to look it up quite right. I tried booking it in the middle of July, just for a comparison between the two. I have no doubt that there are better ways to look for rates than the method I used.
I hear you about airports too: Believe me, I know. It isn’t my preferred method of travel, so I was looking into this as a possible alternative. Hopefully, it will be a good alternative for personal use, if/when all is said and done. I think for business, the sky is still going to be faster, and as long as the clients are paying for it, I guess I have no monetary gripe.
if it’s billable then heck yeah, fly and let the client foot the bill. No matter what they’re paying for the ticket it’s going to be cheaper for them than paying the 15 hours of my time in transit on a train. That adds up FAST.
for vacations when I’m paying the bills I think I would rather just enjoy the long day of downtime and just watching the hills go by. I love that.
We bill for the cost of travel: Not the time. Of course, I would certainly rethink that given a 15-hour travel-time.
On a more serious note, I still think that rail would work more to the advantage of regional travel. The average American isn’t going to be pleased with spending over a day traveling round-trip for a vacation. Now, if we had vacations like the Canadians or Europeans, people might sing a different tune. But, until that happens, I wouldn’t hedge your bets for most folks.
On a more serious note, I still think that rail would work more to the advantage of regional travel. The average American isn’t going to be pleased with spending over a day traveling round-trip for a vacation. Now, if we had vacations like the Canadians or Europeans, people might sing a different tune. But, until that happens, I wouldn’t hedge your bets for most folks.
Really the time is comparable to driving time in a lot of cases. If someone would drive it, they might rather take a train. If its too long to drive, then maybe not. depends.
BTW Thanks for reminding me. I just booked my upcoming trip to D.C. That trip takes a longer by train because there is no good “rail superhighway” over the mountains. But, its a red-eye anyway, so I’ll be asleep half of the trip (there is enough room to cuddle up with the wife on those seats too). Really, it’s a nice trip. You wake up right about the time the train passes through New River Gorge. Amazing scenery! $116 round trip.
I love Amtrak. I took a trip from Toledo to Montana on Amtrak last year, saved $1200 compared to flying, and had some fantastic scenery on the way. Of course it took 31 hours of train time, but it is nothing like being on a plane for that long. The seats are huge and comfortable, there are no seatbelts, the lounge cars are made for relaxing, and some trains still have dining cars.
I’d take 30 hours of relaxing on the train over 5 hours of plane stress even if the price was even.
HR6003 should make a huge difference for rail travel in America! It is about time we invest in our passenger rail infrastructure again. The subsidies for rail aren’t so big when you compare them to what the cost of supporting air and auto travel.
geez, good point. I had forgotten about that. What was the cost of the “airline bailout” back in ’02? I know it was at least a few Bs
According to a recent interview with Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant:
[color=darkred:1f111896d0]“If you actually look at the amount of public capital that flows into the rail network per passenger, it’s like $40 a passenger for Amtrak and $500 to $700 per automobile out there through the highways.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSIB27628520080612?sp=true
Since it was created in 1971, and for all of the fuss over “subsidizing” Amtrak since then, Amtrak’s budget has never represented more than 2% of the total federal transportation budget. So where are all the Congressional budget hawks when it comes to far more heavily subsidized highways and airports?
Probly stuck in traffic.
But even that much would be enough for me. Yes, I’d want to use Amtrak to go back to New York to visit once or twice a year, but most of the time, if I wanna go to Detroit or Pittsburgh or especially Chicago, then it would be ideal. I don’t need to do any cross-country excursions, and if I do I’d sooner fly.
I went to OSU for Logistics and I’m going to University of Minnesota for a dual Master’s in Civil Engineering and Transportation Planning (in a year). This news is beyond jubilant for me. :-)
A couple of things. Alternative transportation has to be beyond easy in order for a person to take the initial step to try it. Hopping in the car and heading to one’s destination city is so much easier than attempting to take the train. There may be a few of you on this site that have taken AMTRAK and love it, but believe me you are in the minority. I grew up in DC and spent the majority of my life glamorizing rail travel, as most of the businessmen head to NYC via the Acela, but here in the midwest traveling by rail is not an option for the majority of travelers because the savings in monetary units do not supersede the losses in the value of time.
With this passing of HR-6003, hopefully this will change. I can foresee an increase in travelers utilizing the Ohio Hub to travel between Cincy, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago. However, Columbus to Boston will still remain a flight. Until America develops high-speed rail similiar to Taiwan or Korea (with top speeds of 240 MPH), the flying industry will remain victor over long-distance traveling.
The focus should be on regional development, not national development. The Ohio Hub is a great project that I am working diligently to support. The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative is another great idea to promote. However, cross-country is a little to ambitious at this point. Let JetBlue keep control over flights to DC, NYC and Boston, and let Amtrak work on connecting bordering states.
All this to say, I love the enthusiasm for alternative transportation and I encourage all of us to keep promoting it to our friends, co-workers and anyone who is willing to listen to us :-). (Also, I’d like to have a job when I graduate, ha ha!)
With this passing of HR-6003, hopefully this will change. I can foresee an increase in travelers utilizing the Ohio Hub to travel between Cincy, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago. However, Columbus to Boston will still remain a flight. Until America develops high-speed rail similiar to Taiwan or Korea (with top speeds of 240 MPH), the flying industry will remain victor over long-distance traveling.
True for most people, but some of us just love the trains SO MUCH and hate the way the airlines/FAA/TSA treat customers SO F****ING MUCH that we’re willing to deal with hangin’ out in a rolling snack-bar for 4 hours waiting for someone to free up a seat in coach for the rest of a 12 hour trip. :D
Related: heard on the broadcast this morning estimates that if oil hits $200/barrel that airlines will be forced to drop about 30% of capacity and raise tickets about $80/seat plus. In practice it may just cut back on leisure travel as a whole, but that really does factor into the equation for people deciding to take overland routes vs flying.
Here is a stupid question, then, in relation to the perceived cost of time.
Do weather delays for airlines affect rail travel to the same degree?
Do weather delays for airlines affect rail travel to the same degree?
it takes a lot to stop a train
floods, landslides, and more than about 8 feet of snow will do it. Amtrak has had to cancel some service this week to iowa.
fog, ice storms, high winds, and other things that ground planes have little to no effect on trains.
Do weather delays for airlines affect rail travel to the same degree?
leaves on tracks can cause a lot of slippage during the fall.
ice can be a problem for electric trains that utilize overhead wires.
Outside of extreme weather…such as the floods in Iowa, or an outright blizzard…. passenger trains will keep rolling through weather that shuts down the aviation system. It is pretty much an all-weather mode.
When the aviation system was shut down during 9/11, Amtrak and most commuter railroads kept rolling. They were booked up beyond capacity, but they kept rolling.
BTW: Here’s a story that ran in today’s Cleveland Plain dealer about the Passenger Rail Investment & Improvement Act and its impact on Ohio.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1213691605244110.xml&coll=2
[color=darkblue:4c812f9c5f]Passenger rail net possible for Ohio
[color=darkred:4c812f9c5f]Congress revives state’s dream, proposes 80% funding
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Sarah Hollander
Plain Dealer Reporter
If the state could write its own ticket, trains traveling 110 miles an hour would whisk passengers between major and minor cities throughout Ohio.
But at billions of dollars, an extensive high-speed rail network always seemed ambitious at best, unrealistic at worst. Until now.
Legislation working its way through Congress – the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act – has local rail advocates almost giddy with excitement.
The act proposes an up to 80 percent match to help states create or improve passenger rail service.
It also provides $350 million per year in competitive grants for states and Amtrak, specifically for high-speed rail projects.
“This is a huge step,” said Stu Nicholson of the Ohio Rail Development Commission. “A bill like this could make the difference between a plan and a project.”
With gasoline prices soaring, the time is right for rail alternatives, he said.
The legislation, if it stands, signals a landmark shift in national policy toward supporting rail, said Rep. Steven LaTourette.
The act proposes a federal-state partnership that’s more commonly associated with highway projects, he said.
LaTourette, a Bainbridge Township Republican, foresees focusing on one route, possibly a line through Cleveland and northern Ohio, first. Providing clean, fast, convenient service could drag more people out of their cars and encourage further rail investments, he said.
“Imagine if [rail] becomes as popular as it is in Europe and Asia,” he said.
Ohio began working on the hub plan more than a decade ago with a mission to improve both passenger and freight rail service.
The plan includes more than 1,200 miles of track and 46 stations. The seven corridors would connect to planned or existing networks in neighboring states and southern Ontario.
A passenger boarding in Cleveland could not only travel to Toledo, Columbus, and Cincinnati, but also across state lines to Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo and beyond.
Ohio would own the trains and hire an operator, such as Amtrak or a private company.
Ohioans currently have limited choices. Amtrak operates two routes that stop along Lake Erie and another that stops in Cincinnati.
The hub project would take eight to 10 years to build and cost $5 billion, Nicholson said.
The rail commission, an independent group within the Department of Transportation, is now looking for money to complete environmental studies.
Another shorter-term Ohio train effort, known as the 3-C project, could also benefit from new federal rail money.
Gov. Ted Strickland has asked Amtrak to investigate restoring passenger service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. His proposal includes running regular speed trains on mostly existing tracks.
In Washington, the House and Senate have both passed versions of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act and are now working to create a joint bill. The legislation would then head to budget hearings.
LaTourette said the chances are good.
“It’s now time to flex our muscles and get it done,” he said.
So essentially, barring these extreme weather conditions, you could make the claim that whatever loss of time there is using Amtrak, you make up for it by having a very low probability of being delayed. Your co-worker flying to Boston may get there quicker, provided that their luggage isn’t lost, the plane doesn’t run into mechanical issues or weather doesn’t delay takeoff.
It would be great to see an Amtrak/Ohio Hub station here in Columbus. Could really help Ohio’s economy by opening the job markets in these cities to a larger pool.
Additionally, the last time I flew, I dealt with massive delays on the ground. We were stuck in a line 40 planes deep trying to get a takeoff spot. That took at least a half hour. Once we landed, it was an additional 20 minutes sitting on the tarmac waiting for the plane at our gate to move out of the way.
While I’ve seen some bad delays on regional rail, they’re far from the norm and tend to be rather spectacular, like the SEPTA train ahead of mine that had a woman lean over too far to look for the oncoming cars… CLANG! For the main part, the rail experiences I’ve had tend to be no more than 10 minutes behind schedule.
I think trains are better posed to compete with driving shorter distances rather than flying to further distances. The 3C is a perfect example. No one flys from Columbus to Cleveland or Cincinnati (I’m not even sure if there are flights available) but taking a train would trump driving that far.
When it comes to cross-country travel though, I don’t think many are going to opt for the train unless some real high-speed rail can get up and running.
Actually, Amtrak’s long-distance trains are almost always book solid, regardless of the route. In fact, most riders on the long-distance routes ride between points within the destination end points: in other words, short haul trips within a long distance corridor.
It is a very relaxing way to travel. When’s the last time you were relaxed on a flight to almost anywhere? I get on a train and I’m in relaxation mode right away. I fly and I don’t begin to unwind for hours after I land.
I think trains are better posed to compete with driving shorter distances rather than flying to further distances. The 3C is a perfect example. No one flys from Columbus to Cleveland or Cincinnati (I’m not even sure if there are flights available) but taking a train would trump driving that far.
When it comes to cross-country travel though, I don’t think many are going to opt for the train unless some real high-speed rail can get up and running.
There are flights available to Cleveland because Cleveland is a hub for one of the major airlines–Continental, I think. When I flew to England, I had to hop to Cleveland for the international connection. It was over before I knew it, and it seemed like we barely got up before we started going down again. I’d have been happy to take a train for that leg.
I don’t really find flying all that stressful, but I do find airports that stressful. There is a difference, though: if something bad happened to a train and they started treating train stations like airports, I’d find rail travel to be every bit as irritating, because the source of my irritation with flying has nothing to do with the mode of transportation itself. Once I’m on a plane, I don’t find it that hard to relax. (They’re safer than cars.)