Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 pm

The possibly soon to be passed Infrastructure Bill includes $60B infusion into Amtrack. Amtrack is detailing how it would use those funds here: https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/c ... ouisville/ (this is for routes from Chicago to Indy to Louisville; and Indy to Cinci.) Amtrack cites $448M Annual economic impact and $8.2B in one time boosts. So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? My personal opinion is this is a gigantic boon doggle that will attract very few passengers and never pay for itself. What is the fare? Travel time? What basis do they make these economic impacts?
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 3315
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:06 pm

The train is only a threat on short corridor hops that have a downtown to downtown time of under 3 hours.

Short hop:
Airport 1 hour before
Flight 1 hour
Deplaning/exiting airport 15 min
Airport to downtown Chicago 45 min

Total travel time: 3 hours, productive time: about 30 min in flight

Train:
3 Hours downtown to downtown, productive time: 2 hr 45 min

Business travelers can get 5x more work done in the same amount of time as flying. The trick is both product, schedule, and price. I love flying as much as the rest of us, but I'll admit, even on PVD-PHL, the Acela won out almost every time.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:07 pm

If it is a straight 300km/h HSR without too many stops, you can cut travel times massively from office to office. If it is 100km/h service with many stops it is just a money drain with no gain.

Air travel is only affected when the travel time from the actual business district to the other business district is shorter than via flight. Also for leisure it will depend on the actual travel time from door to station to station to door as it is now from door to airport to airport to door.

Knowing the actual public transport situation in the USA, it will always be faster to just drive to the airport and take a flight then actually get from the suburbs to any large station (where there is no parking) and take the train. So for business it could make an impact, for leisure, that ship has sailed in the USA.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15308
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:09 pm

The trip times are unimpressive - Chicago-Louisville can be driven in as little as five hours if traffic isn't too bad.

But let's assume, contrary to reality, that this hypothetical rail service takes a meaningful chunk of the demand for downtown-downtown travel. In all of these cities, a meaningful fraction of the demand can get to the airport more conveniently than they can get downtown, plus ORD and MDW will still be huge hubs. So there will still be plenty of demand for air service.
 
joeblow10
Posts: 659
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:58 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:10 pm

Yeah… zero impact. We’re not talking about another Acela corridor here. And even then, I know plenty of folks who prefer to fly BOS-WAS… now NYC-WAS, different story
 
SWADawg
Posts: 719
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:12 pm

It’s Amtrak not Amtrack BTW.
 
bpatus297
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:51 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:15 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
The possibly soon to be passed Infrastructure Bill includes $60B infusion into Amtrack. Amtrack is detailing how it would use those funds here: https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/c ... ouisville/ (this is for routes from Chicago to Indy to Louisville; and Indy to Cinci.) Amtrack cites $448M Annual economic impact and $8.2B in one time boosts. So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? My personal opinion is this is a gigantic boon doggle that will attract very few passengers and never pay for itself. What is the fare? Travel time? What basis do they make these economic impacts?


I honesty don't think it will have any impact. The problem is that CIncy, Indy, and Louisville don't have very good established mass transit. They do have buses, but not light rail or similar and all three are considered car commuter cities. I personally only think that Amtrak and rail works for areas with established mass transit like much of the eastern seaboard and for sightseeing (California Coast Starlight). I just dont see many people in those three cities driving to a station, parking, waiting for a train, and still needing a rental car at the next city due to the lack of mass transit. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
 
lat41
Posts: 683
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 12:23 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:18 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
The possibly soon to be passed Infrastructure Bill includes $60B infusion into Amtrack. Amtrack is detailing how it would use those funds here: https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/c ... ouisville/ (this is for routes from Chicago to Indy to Louisville; and Indy to Cinci.) Amtrack cites $448M Annual economic impact and $8.2B in one time boosts. So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? My personal opinion is this is a gigantic boon doggle that will attract very few passengers and never pay for itself. What is the fare? Travel time? What basis do they make these economic impacts?

It's called AMTRAK please. An opportunity to use rail for many big cities 250-300 miles apart would get the road traffic down and free up airspace. We are a bit behind some other advanced countries in this respect, say 50 years.
Last edited by lat41 on Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8376
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Complete waste of money, but what’d you expect from Washington?
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3384
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:39 pm

RL757PVD wrote:
The train is only a threat on short corridor hops that have a downtown to downtown time of under 3 hours.

Short hop:
Airport 1 hour before
Flight 1 hour
Deplaning/exiting airport 15 min
Airport to downtown Chicago 45 min

Total travel time: 3 hours, productive time: about 30 min in flight

Train:
3 Hours downtown to downtown, productive time: 2 hr 45 min

Business travelers can get 5x more work done in the same amount of time as flying. The trick is both product, schedule, and price. I love flying as much as the rest of us, but I'll admit, even on PVD-PHL, the Acela won out almost every time.


That sounds about right to me, having used the train systems in Italy, France and Germany there is zero reason to use the airlines.

The US of course has far larger distances to cover and while the BOS - NYC - WAS routes work, out here on the west coast the idea gets floated for various routes, they should work, however the developers seem to want to set them to fail by setting the routes up in stages, for instance, LA - Vegas, should be a no brained, but various companies have put forward a Victorville - Vegas first stage, which nobody will use, it's just a waste of time and resources.
 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:47 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
The possibly soon to be passed Infrastructure Bill includes $60B infusion into Amtrak. Amtrak is detailing how it would use those funds here: https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/c ... ouisville/ (this is for routes from Chicago to Indy to Louisville; and Indy to Cinci.) Amtrak cites $448M Annual economic impact and $8.2B in one time boosts. So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? My personal opinion is this is a gigantic boon doggle that will attract very few passengers and never pay for itself. What is the fare? Travel time? What basis do they make these economic impacts?


"Fixed Amtrak spelling. Please note there are links to all the other proposed Amtrak expansions from the link provided. https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/
 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:50 pm

lat41 wrote:
Bluegrass60 wrote:
The possibly soon to be passed Infrastructure Bill includes $60B infusion into Amtrack. Amtrack is detailing how it would use those funds here: https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/c ... ouisville/ (this is for routes from Chicago to Indy to Louisville; and Indy to Cinci.) Amtrack cites $448M Annual economic impact and $8.2B in one time boosts. So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? My personal opinion is this is a gigantic boon doggle that will attract very few passengers and never pay for itself. What is the fare? Travel time? What basis do they make these economic impacts?

It's called AMTRAK please. An opportunity to use rail for many big cities 250-300 miles apart would get the road traffic down and free up airspace. We are a bit behind some other advanced countries in this respect, say 50 years.


"How many cars would this really eliminate? The Northeast Corridor is the most popular/successful corridor in the US. Last I checked....the traffic on I-95 was as bad as it has always been.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:50 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
The possibly soon to be passed Infrastructure Bill includes $60B infusion into Amtrack. Amtrack is detailing how it would use those funds here: https://www.amtrakconnectsus.com/maps/c ... ouisville/ (this is for routes from Chicago to Indy to Louisville; and Indy to Cinci.) Amtrack cites $448M Annual economic impact and $8.2B in one time boosts. So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? My personal opinion is this is a gigantic boon doggle that will attract very few pTsengers and never pay for itself. What is the fare? Travel time? What basis do they make these economic impacts?



Please note that the corporation is the National Passenger Railroad Corporation, and it does business as AMTRAK, not Amtrack.
 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:51 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Complete waste of money, but what’d you expect from Washington?


Totally agree that aside form money spent on the Northeast Corridor...this is a waste of money!
 
Western727
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 12:38 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:54 pm

With the recent jump in daily adds to the no-fly list as a result of the increase in inflight hostility, maybe that's the reason? I kid, I kid.
 
kbmiflyer
Posts: 329
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:47 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:56 pm

You can look at the number of flights on routes currently served in the Midwest by Amtrak - like STL - CHI and DTW - CHI. There are plenty between DL, AA, UA, and WN (probably F9 and Spirit too, I didn't look).

50% or more of the passengers flying into Chicago (ORD and MDW) are connecting on to other flights, they aren't going to take a train instead.

The OP link is an Amtrak wish list for 2035. High speed STL - CHI service was announced and started in 2008 and is still not implemented even after nearly $2 Billion has been spent on the project.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10047
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 1:58 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
If it is a straight 300km/h HSR without too many stops, you can cut travel times massively from office to office. If it is 100km/h service with many stops it is just a money drain with no gain.


It isn't HSR. Outside of Acela, Amtrak's high speed is 110 mph. Louisville and Indianapolis aren't going to see Acela investments. They will be lucky to see 70 mph trains - and that's max speed, not avg.

kbmiflyer wrote:
The OP link is an Amtrak wish list for 2035. High speed STL - CHI service was announced and started in 2008 and is still not implemented even after nearly $2 Billion has been spent on the project.


Amtrak spending on high speed Pontiac-Detroit-Chicago hits 110 mph speeds on purchased track for about 100 miles. It's still a 6:04 - 6:27 trip (when on time - hah hah!) that Google Maps says one can drive in 4:29. But Amtrak has only spent in the few hundreds of $ millions, not $ Billions, on that ~315-mile stretch.

Outside of California's Capitol Corridor, Acela, and Northeast Regional services, IMHO Amtrak really doesn't complete with planes, not in trip time nor passenger volumes. Count how many people fly Bay Area - Seattle on a typical day, and how many take Amtrak's Coast Starlight. Or the Coast Starlight + Cascades PDX-SEA.
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:16 pm

The train will help in terms of $$$ for passengers in the South. BNA-ATL and at some point SAV will be a big money saver for people who need to get around on their own dime. It's expensive to fly BNA-ATL or ATL-SAV, and if a train at half the cost is there, people will take it as long as rental cars are available at the stations. Otherwise, we can expect them to drive as they currently do.

Our country runs on cars, and we have to admit it. Outside of a handful of major metros, trains and planes don't work without cars to rent. If cars are lacking at any of the stations, people will just get in their cars and drive from their true Point A to their true Point B. Or they'll fly since the hassle of taking a cab from a downtown station to a rental car office outside of business hours will dissuade them from taking the train.
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Complete waste of money, but what’d you expect from Washington?


It isn't a waste of money for the train builders who offer a product with cracking frames and over-complex electrics and charging inflated prices for each car.

Dial in the construction union kickbacks and local politicians getting their share.... what could possibly be wrong?

Do I sound cynical?
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Amtrack Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:21 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Complete waste of money, but what’d you expect from Washington?


Totally agree that aside form money spent on the Northeast Corridor...this is a waste of money!


Money spent on the NE Corridor taken from the pockets of everyone in the country.
 
ScottB
Posts: 7553
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:21 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
So many questions...among them...what impact would this have on air travel from IND or CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW?


From CVG or SDF to ORD/MDW? Practically nil. Travel time of ~6 hours station-to-station is completely uncompetitive with flying. It's really not even competitive with driving door-to-door. It might take some passengers for downtown-Indy to downtown-Chicago -- but even then, this is a relatively small market with under 150 PDEW as of 2019Q3. It wouldn't capture that entire market, either, since there's a significant cluster of businesses out in the Chicago suburbs near ORD.

As far as I can tell, they're still going to be using tracks belonging to the freight railroads, so they're still going to be subject to delays caused by the operational needs of the host railroads. If the on-time record looks anything like Amtrak's current performance outside the Northeast Corridor (where they own/control most of the tracks) it probably won't even be competitive with Greyhound.

A lot of the other stuff is just laughable. 3x daily for Houston-Dallas-Fort Worth with 4h30 for Houston-Dallas? That is slower than the bus.
 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:30 pm

Why do "We The People" continue to allow the Federal Government to (mostly) waste $60B on added funding for Amtrack??? Take 1/2 that and we could probably make improvements to airports and airport access (City Center to Airport) that would really make a difference.
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:43 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
Why do "We The People" continue to allow the Federal Government to (mostly) waste $60B on added funding for Amtrack??? Take 1/2 that and we could probably make improvements to airports and airport access (City Center to Airport) that would really make a difference.


Nostalgia. Our passenger service was in severe decline decades ago, even before the era of jets. The equipment was often ill-maintained, passenger trains often at on sidings for hours at a time waiting for a delayed freight. Many passenger terminals were filthy and outmoded.

I, for one, would rather ride a train, but the service just, plain, doesn't exist anymore.

To address your question: lots of lobbyists demand this 1:1 toy train set be kept going but are unwilling to pay for it. As for building new , dedicated passenger trains, that, well, train left the station decades ago. For every mile of track to be laid, there would be purple-haired picketers demanding years of environmental impact studies, even if the new track was to be right next to existing, or ON past abandoned rights of way.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:51 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
Why do "We The People" continue to allow the Federal Government to (mostly) waste $60B on added funding for Amtrack??? Take 1/2 that and we could probably make improvements to airports and airport access (City Center to Airport) that would really make a difference.

Why do the people keep spending money on highways they still have traffic on them? Major airports in this country mostly self sustained and are getting grants to improve the airport. Chicago is a major train hub now and with electrification, switch improvements, and track improvements we can reduce the regional flights so Chicago could focus on attracting more flights that yield better profits. Trains are good on short distances anywhere from 300 miles to 500 miles.
Imagine the NEC without train service, we would have 20 lane highways probably still be clogging up with car traffic. Look at Houston and LA with massive highways and major airports yet they still have traffic problems.
Your vision is so shortsighted only to service the aviation industry which is doing fine on its own with moving people long distances and moving goods fast. Airports are doing fine today and quite a few of them now are being invested in. So stop your nonsense.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 2:56 pm

WesternDC6B wrote:
Nostalgia. Our passenger service was in severe decline decades ago, even before the era of jets. The equipment was often ill-maintained, passenger trains often at on sidings for hours at a time waiting for a delayed freight. Many passenger terminals were filthy and outmoded.

I, for one, would rather ride a train, but the service just, plain, doesn't exist anymore.

To address your question: lots of lobbyists demand this 1:1 toy train set be kept going but are unwilling to pay for it. As for building new , dedicated passenger trains, that, well, train left the station decades ago. For every mile of track to be laid, there would be purple-haired picketers demanding years of environmental impact studies, even if the new track was to be right next to existing, or ON past abandoned rights of way.

Amtrak was setup to fail, yet Amtrak kept growing throughout the years even with poor investment. I believe it's not Nostalgia only. People are willing to pay for the quick and reliable service on trains when invested. Take a look at Acela investment.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:04 pm

usdcaguy wrote:
The train will help in terms of $$$ for passengers in the South. BNA-ATL and at some point SAV will be a big money saver for people who need to get around on their own dime. It's expensive to fly BNA-ATL or ATL-SAV, and if a train at half the cost is there, people will take it as long as rental cars are available at the stations. Otherwise, we can expect them to drive as they currently do.

Our country runs on cars, and we have to admit it. Outside of a handful of major metros, trains and planes don't work without cars to rent. If cars are lacking at any of the stations, people will just get in their cars and drive from their true Point A to their true Point B. Or they'll fly since the hassle of taking a cab from a downtown station to a rental car office outside of business hours will dissuade them from taking the train.

I wish most people understood that. Cars are need if you are a farmer or living in a rural area. A majority of us live near a city where we can use trains and buses to move people around. Flying is good if you need to get somewhere fast or fly long distances. The city pairs you lay out is great for trains. And if those train stations good public transit service you don't need to use a car if you are staying inside the city area. But some odd reason we have dumb flights like PH L-LGA,JFK-???. Where it's better to drive than get on a crappy regional plane. It's a waste of slots.
Last edited by PHLspecial on Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
WesternDC6B
Posts: 790
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:08 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
Amtrak was setup to fail, yet Amtrak kept growing throughout the years even with poor investment. I believe it's not Nostalgia only. People are willing to pay for the quick and reliable service on trains when invested. Take a look at Acela investment.


Acela is fine, but, it is a train set up for businessmen and lobbyists to go bck and forth to Washington to finagle the latest deal fir themselves and the tickets are expensive.

The rest of us are compelled by the tax man to subsidize it.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:16 pm

WesternDC6B wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
Amtrak was setup to fail, yet Amtrak kept growing throughout the years even with poor investment. I believe it's not Nostalgia only. People are willing to pay for the quick and reliable service on trains when invested. Take a look at Acela investment.


Acela is fine, but, it is a train set up for businessmen and lobbyists to go bck and forth to Washington to finagle the latest deal fir themselves and the tickets are expensive.

The rest of us are compelled by the tax man to subsidize it.

The smaller airports subsidize too? Why is my taxes going to some tiny airport in Missouri which I never fly out of or most of us anet people. We are paying for it.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8376
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:24 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
The train will help in terms of $$$ for passengers in the South. BNA-ATL and at some point SAV will be a big money saver for people who need to get around on their own dime. It's expensive to fly BNA-ATL or ATL-SAV, and if a train at half the cost is there, people will take it as long as rental cars are available at the stations. Otherwise, we can expect them to drive as they currently do.

Our country runs on cars, and we have to admit it. Outside of a handful of major metros, trains and planes don't work without cars to rent. If cars are lacking at any of the stations, people will just get in their cars and drive from their true Point A to their true Point B. Or they'll fly since the hassle of taking a cab from a downtown station to a rental car office outside of business hours will dissuade them from taking the train.

I wish most people understood that. Cars are need if you are a farmer or living in a rural area. A majority of us live near a city where we can use trains and buses to move people around. Flying is good if you need to get somewhere fast or fly long distances. The city pairs you lay out is great for trains. And if those train stations good public transit service you don't need to use a car if you are staying inside the city area. But some odd reason we have dumb flights like PH L-LGA,JFK-???. Where it's better to drive than get on a crappy regional plane. It's a waste of slots.


Next month, I’m doing a trip I do a few times a year, in the Northeast, which puts me right in the heart of Amtrak routes. I just looked, there’s a train station, I’d have to drive or Uber to about 20 minutes away. Very inconvenient times, but ignoring that, I’d have to rent a car at the destination because there’s no mass transit serving my ultimate destination nothing and I’d need one for local travel, meals, etc. The train would cost more, using my own car cost data, take longer, be more inconvenient at BOTH ends. That’s in the MOST favorable AMTRAK service area. Utter waste, but that’s what I’d expect.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:37 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Next month, I’m doing a trip I do a few times a year, in the Northeast, which puts me right in the heart of Amtrak routes. I just looked, there’s a train station, I’d have to drive or Uber to about 20 minutes away. Very inconvenient times, but ignoring that, I’d have to rent a car at the destination because there’s no mass transit serving my ultimate destination nothing and I’d need one for local travel, meals, etc. The train would cost more, using my own car cost data, take longer, be more inconvenient at BOTH ends. That’s in the MOST favorable AMTRAK service area. Utter waste, but that’s what I’d expect.

That sounds like typical North American development. Probably sounds best to drive for you if you already driving into the northeast with your car.
Unfortunately we don't like to build development next to train stations but instead build suburbs that are 20 miles from a train station or have supporting public transit services at train stations. That is part of the problem with American sprawl and why we need cars all the time.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8376
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:39 pm

People prefer the suburbs or exurbs, embrace it. Living in the city is an exception in the US.
 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:39 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
Bluegrass60 wrote:
Why do "We The People" continue to allow the Federal Government to (mostly) waste $60B on added funding for Amtrack??? Take 1/2 that and we could probably make improvements to airports and airport access (City Center to Airport) that would really make a difference.

Why do the people keep spending money on highways they still have traffic on them? Major airports in this country mostly self sustained and are getting grants to improve the airport. Chicago is a major train hub now and with electrification, switch improvements, and track improvements we can reduce the regional flights so Chicago could focus on attracting more flights that yield better profits. Trains are good on short distances anywhere from 300 miles to 500 miles.
Imagine the NEC without train service, we would have 20 lane highways probably still be clogging up with car traffic. Look at Houston and LA with massive highways and major airports yet they still have traffic problems.
Your vision is so shortsighted only to service the aviation industry which is doing fine on its own with moving people long distances and moving goods fast. Airports are doing fine today and quite a few of them now are being invested in. So stop your nonsense.


"All due respect, but the nonsense that needs to stop, is wasteful government spending like much of this to be invested in Amtrak's expansion that will create a product that will never support its operations. I wish it were economical to create an Amtrak product that would make sense....meaning it would be used and pay for itself. Outside of the Northeast Corridor....not sure it exists in the US. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to provide rail spokes for efficient train service to all the cities within 300 miles of Chicago? Also...as another poster cited...much of the traffic to ORD/MDW are connecting.....the # flights will not change. You could end up in a situation where airlines (self sufficient) are forced to compete with gov subsidized Amtrak. Waste Waste Waste
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 15308
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 6:11 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
People prefer the suburbs or exurbs, embrace it. Living in the city is an exception in the US.


I think perhaps this is changing generationally but we aren’t there yet. I live in a hundred year old home four miles from downtown. I love it and most of my friends who are around my age and live near me do too. All my friends under, say, 40 who live in the suburbs despise it.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:53 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
Bluegrass60 wrote:
Why do "We The People" continue to allow the Federal Government to (mostly) waste $60B on added funding for Amtrack??? Take 1/2 that and we could probably make improvements to airports and airport access (City Center to Airport) that would really make a difference.

Why do the people keep spending money on highways they still have traffic on them? Major airports in this country mostly self sustained and are getting grants to improve the airport. Chicago is a major train hub now and with electrification, switch improvements, and track improvements we can reduce the regional flights so Chicago could focus on attracting more flights that yield better profits. Trains are good on short distances anywhere from 300 miles to 500 miles.
Imagine the NEC without train service, we would have 20 lane highways probably still be clogging up with car traffic. Look at Houston and LA with massive highways and major airports yet they still have traffic problems.
Your vision is so shortsighted only to service the aviation industry which is doing fine on its own with moving people long distances and moving goods fast. Airports are doing fine today and quite a few of them now are being invested in. So stop your nonsense.


"All due respect, but the nonsense that needs to stop, is wasteful government spending like much of this to be invested in Amtrak's expansion that will create a product that will never support its operations. I wish it were economical to create an Amtrak product that would make sense....meaning it would be used and pay for itself. Outside of the Northeast Corridor....not sure it exists in the US. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to provide rail spokes for efficient train service to all the cities within 300 miles of Chicago? Also...as another poster cited...much of the traffic to ORD/MDW are connecting.....the # flights will not change. You could end up in a situation where airlines (self sufficient) are forced to compete with gov subsidized Amtrak. Waste Waste Waste

We should shut down all the non profitable airports too since they need to be subsidized too.
 
User avatar
usdcaguy
Posts: 1662
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:01 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
usdcaguy wrote:
The train will help in terms of $$$ for passengers in the South. BNA-ATL and at some point SAV will be a big money saver for people who need to get around on their own dime. It's expensive to fly BNA-ATL or ATL-SAV, and if a train at half the cost is there, people will take it as long as rental cars are available at the stations. Otherwise, we can expect them to drive as they currently do.

Our country runs on cars, and we have to admit it. Outside of a handful of major metros, trains and planes don't work without cars to rent. If cars are lacking at any of the stations, people will just get in their cars and drive from their true Point A to their true Point B. Or they'll fly since the hassle of taking a cab from a downtown station to a rental car office outside of business hours will dissuade them from taking the train.

I wish most people understood that. Cars are need if you are a farmer or living in a rural area. A majority of us live near a city where we can use trains and buses to move people around. Flying is good if you need to get somewhere fast or fly long distances. The city pairs you lay out is great for trains. And if those train stations good public transit service you don't need to use a car if you are staying inside the city area. But some odd reason we have dumb flights like PH L-LGA,JFK-???. Where it's better to drive than get on a crappy regional plane. It's a waste of slots.


Unfortunately, you do need a car to get around in ATL, SAV and BNA. There are buses, but the local systems are cumbersome, and the distances that you need to cover on foot even if transit is available are too great to make taking the bus convenient except in highly built-up areas. The way the southern cities developed, buildings are generally too far apart to make buses and walking practical. The trains in Atlanta are somewhat popular, but they're really only good for getting to a handful of destinations.
 
Bluegrass60
Topic Author
Posts: 560
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:15 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Thu Aug 26, 2021 3:53 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
Bluegrass60 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
Why do the people keep spending money on highways they still have traffic on them? Major airports in this country mostly self sustained and are getting grants to improve the airport. Chicago is a major train hub now and with electrification, switch improvements, and track improvements we can reduce the regional flights so Chicago could focus on attracting more flights that yield better profits. Trains are good on short distances anywhere from 300 miles to 500 miles.
Imagine the NEC without train service, we would have 20 lane highways probably still be clogging up with car traffic. Look at Houston and LA with massive highways and major airports yet they still have traffic problems.
Your vision is so shortsighted only to service the aviation industry which is doing fine on its own with moving people long distances and moving goods fast. Airports are doing fine today and quite a few of them now are being invested in. So stop your nonsense.


"All due respect, but the nonsense that needs to stop, is wasteful government spending like much of this to be invested in Amtrak's expansion that will create a product that will never support its operations. I wish it were economical to create an Amtrak product that would make sense....meaning it would be used and pay for itself. Outside of the Northeast Corridor....not sure it exists in the US. Do you have any idea how expensive it would be to provide rail spokes for efficient train service to all the cities within 300 miles of Chicago? Also...as another poster cited...much of the traffic to ORD/MDW are connecting.....the # flights will not change. You could end up in a situation where airlines (self sufficient) are forced to compete with gov subsidized Amtrak. Waste Waste Waste

We should shut down all the non profitable airports too since they need to be subsidized too.


"I have no problem with shutting down the non-profitable airports which are funded by $319M from the Feds Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. Conversely I would support any Amtrak expansion that can show how it will be "profitable"...or even "profitable" with their own version of EAS funded to a similar degree. Using Amtrak "math" the $319M equivalent would probably fund one station/one route.

Your "rail vision" is simply not affordable and does not reflect reality outside of the NEC.
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 935
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:18 pm

Bluegrass60 wrote:
"I have no problem with shutting down the non-profitable airports which are funded by $319M from the Feds Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. Conversely I would support any Amtrak expansion that can show how it will be "profitable"...or even "profitable" with their own version of EAS funded to a similar degree. Using Amtrak "math" the $319M equivalent would probably fund one station/one route.

Your "rail vision" is simply not affordable and does not reflect reality outside of the NEC.

I'm not trying to replace flying with trains. If you look up the 10 mega regions in the U.S. you will see those would be profitable train corridors. Of course don't need high speed rail from LA-NY. With 50 seaters going away on regionals we do need an answer. Those airports need to spend quite of money to upgrade the runways, taxiways, and possibly upgrading ILS systems to handle larger planes. Look at how much grants that the FAA needs to give out.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8376
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Amtrak Plans - Aviation Impact

Thu Aug 26, 2021 7:32 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
Bluegrass60 wrote:
"I have no problem with shutting down the non-profitable airports which are funded by $319M from the Feds Essential Air Service (EAS) Program. Conversely I would support any Amtrak expansion that can show how it will be "profitable"...or even "profitable" with their own version of EAS funded to a similar degree. Using Amtrak "math" the $319M equivalent would probably fund one station/one route.

Your "rail vision" is simply not affordable and does not reflect reality outside of the NEC.

I'm not trying to replace flying with trains. If you look up the 10 mega regions in the U.S. you will see those would be profitable train corridors. Of course don't need high speed rail from LA-NY. With 50 seaters going away on regionals we do need an answer. Those airports need to spend quite of money to upgrade the runways, taxiways, and possibly upgrading ILS systems to handle larger planes. Look at how much grants that the FAA needs to give out.



We have an answer for EAS cities—a CAR or a BUS. It was that way for decades and none of those towns can justify the expense of a plane when a CAR or a BUS can take people to nearest city with airline service.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mortyman and 29 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos