How to improve Amtrak
Dec. 19th, 2006 10:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sauergeekYes, I know I'm on crack. But I'm also on an Amtrak train. I have a number of thoughts on ways Amtrak could improve their service and become a more viable alternative to both driving and flying.
There are at least two good reasons (and one not so good, at least for me) to improve Amtrak service. The not-so-good reason is simply that I like trains, and I would love to have them available to me more often. However, simple practicality usually demands that I fly to all but the shortest-distance destinations.
The first of the good reasons is that trains, when reasonably full, are significantly more energy efficient than cars. (They may also be more energy-efficient than airplanes too, not sure.) Modern trains are also electric rather than diesel or diesel-electric hybrid, so using trains reduces our reliance on imported petroleum. The second of the good reasons is that greater use of trains reduces traffic on the road systems, so that the cars that are on the road can run at more consistent speeds (increasing the efficiency of the engines) and so that communities do not need to build more and wider roads (saving on both the cost and hassle of road construction).
The cost of making many of these improvements -- most notably, the dedicated rails -- would be enormous. However, the government already subsidizes both road and air transport; why not provide a similar subsidy for rail? Modern rail is electric and thus fairly clean (reduced oil consumption) and can be fast (providing an alternative to air and reducing congestion on both roads and at airports). It is the only major form of transportation where the industry is expected to pay for the transportation infrastructure directly, instead of having it funded by the government through taxation.
My suggestions for improvements:
1) Internet connectivity. Amtrak should figure out a way to provide wifi on every train with a real Internet connection to back it up. I'm able to post from the train because I have a Treo and run PDANet on my phone and laptop. Most people don't have this ability, but nearly everyone can do wifi. Having a usable Internet connection on the train would likely make both business and computer-savvy casual travelers happy, and increase ridership.
2) Dedicated rails. Developing dedicated rails is an expensive proposition, probably the most expensive item on this list with the possible exception of the next one. A lot of current Amtrak service is on freight rails; Amtrak has paid the freight rail companies for the right to run passenger trains. Unfortunately, the agreements involve giving the freight trains priority on the rails, which can mess up the Amtrak scheduling horribly. Dedicated rails would prevent this and allow Amtrak much more accurate scheduling of trains, as well as no longer needing to keep an incredible amount of slop in train schedules to allow passenger trains to be delayed by freight trains and still make their schedule.
3) High-speed rail. Amtrak should build out a true high-speed train service on the order of Japan's Shinkansen or France's TGV trains. Currently the fastest trains in the Amtrak system are the Acela Express trains. These are available only on the east coast between Boston and Washington, DC. Further, the Acela Express runs significantly slower than the 25-year-old TGV or the 42-year-old Shinkansen.
4) Minimal-stop high-speed service. With the dedicated lines and a better high-speed train service, develop long-haul minimal-stop routes to take advantage of the high-speed train and good scheduling. For example, the most direct Washington DC to Chicago route, the Capitol Limited, has 16 stops on a roughly 700 mile, 18 hour trip (including time spent faffing around in the train station). In comparison, that same 700 mile trip would take about 12-14 hours to drive, or about 4-5 hours to fly (including all time spent faffing around in airports).
Every stop costs a great deal of time, as in addition to the full stop, there must also be enough time to decelerate to the stop and accelerate back up to whatever cruising speed is. Reducing the number of stops can dramatically reduce the trip time. I propose that the high-speed train service stop in only major cities. The Chicago run, for example, would be reduced to four stops from its current sixteen. Those stops would be: Washington, DC; Pittsburgh, PA; Cleveland, OH; and Chicago, IL. That, combined with dedicated tracks planned for a train capable of top speeds of at least 200 MPH, would reduce the trip time to something that would be able to compete with flying to Chicago from DC.
A similar stop reduction could happen on the Northeast Corridor runs. Instead of the current 16 stops on the Acela Express, reduce the stop count to five: Washington, DC; Baltimore, MD; Philadelphia, PA; New York, NY; and Boston, MA. The high-speed train plus reduced stop count on the 440-mile trip once again would compete well with the 3-hour flight time (including airport time) between DC and Boston.
To handle intervening cities, Amtrak should keep a slower service that makes multiple stops. For the DC to Chicago run, the existing Capitol Limited service can handle the cities cut from the high-speed run. The dedicated lines should speed up the Capitol Limited service and cut the time down from 18 hours to something more akin to driving speed. For even finer-grained stops, passengers can rely on the local commuter rail service from various major cities.
5) Coordination of schedules. Amtrak can coordinate fast train arrival times with slower train departure times. With a high-speed service, people should be able to take the fast train to the nearest big city to their actual destination, and then quickly and easily jump onto a slower train going to their ultimate destination. For example, when a high-speed train arrives in Philadelphia heading southbound, there should be a slower train leaving for local New Jersey stations (such as Newark, Iselin, and Trenton) within 30 minutes of the arrival in Philadelphia. This train would run back and forth between Philadelphia and Baltimore, with its departures timed to the fastest trains. Similarly, the arrival of slower trains should, where feasible, be coordinated with the departure of faster trains, so that passengers transferring from one to another need not wait very long between trains.
If possible, local commuter rail systems should coordinate at least some of their departures with the slower Amtrak trains, providing the same service timing for passengers going to even more minor stops.
6) Expand available routes. The existing set of routes (warning: PDF) provided by Amtrak is pathetically limited. For example, there are significant cities, like Nashville, TN and Las Vegas, NV, with no Amtrak service at all. Other major cities have limited service available: to take a pure train route (instead of a train-and-bus route) to Detroit requires going through Chicago. While this is not a problem for passengers coming in from the west, and only a minor one for passengers coming in from the south, it is a ridiculous detour for passengers coming in from the east. Even if Detroit is not served by a high-speed line, there could still be a slower run between Cleveland and Chicago (with a stop in Toledo for trains originating further south to connect to) that would provide sensible train service to Detroit. Alternatively, a rail passenger in Oklahoma City, OK who wants to go anywhere by train must go through Dallas, TX even if he wants to go to Kansas City, MO. That's a major detour and discourages ridership. Increasing the available routes makes trains more convenient and can increase ridership.
There are at least two good reasons (and one not so good, at least for me) to improve Amtrak service. The not-so-good reason is simply that I like trains, and I would love to have them available to me more often. However, simple practicality usually demands that I fly to all but the shortest-distance destinations.
The first of the good reasons is that trains, when reasonably full, are significantly more energy efficient than cars. (They may also be more energy-efficient than airplanes too, not sure.) Modern trains are also electric rather than diesel or diesel-electric hybrid, so using trains reduces our reliance on imported petroleum. The second of the good reasons is that greater use of trains reduces traffic on the road systems, so that the cars that are on the road can run at more consistent speeds (increasing the efficiency of the engines) and so that communities do not need to build more and wider roads (saving on both the cost and hassle of road construction).
The cost of making many of these improvements -- most notably, the dedicated rails -- would be enormous. However, the government already subsidizes both road and air transport; why not provide a similar subsidy for rail? Modern rail is electric and thus fairly clean (reduced oil consumption) and can be fast (providing an alternative to air and reducing congestion on both roads and at airports). It is the only major form of transportation where the industry is expected to pay for the transportation infrastructure directly, instead of having it funded by the government through taxation.
My suggestions for improvements:
1) Internet connectivity. Amtrak should figure out a way to provide wifi on every train with a real Internet connection to back it up. I'm able to post from the train because I have a Treo and run PDANet on my phone and laptop. Most people don't have this ability, but nearly everyone can do wifi. Having a usable Internet connection on the train would likely make both business and computer-savvy casual travelers happy, and increase ridership.
2) Dedicated rails. Developing dedicated rails is an expensive proposition, probably the most expensive item on this list with the possible exception of the next one. A lot of current Amtrak service is on freight rails; Amtrak has paid the freight rail companies for the right to run passenger trains. Unfortunately, the agreements involve giving the freight trains priority on the rails, which can mess up the Amtrak scheduling horribly. Dedicated rails would prevent this and allow Amtrak much more accurate scheduling of trains, as well as no longer needing to keep an incredible amount of slop in train schedules to allow passenger trains to be delayed by freight trains and still make their schedule.
3) High-speed rail. Amtrak should build out a true high-speed train service on the order of Japan's Shinkansen or France's TGV trains. Currently the fastest trains in the Amtrak system are the Acela Express trains. These are available only on the east coast between Boston and Washington, DC. Further, the Acela Express runs significantly slower than the 25-year-old TGV or the 42-year-old Shinkansen.
4) Minimal-stop high-speed service. With the dedicated lines and a better high-speed train service, develop long-haul minimal-stop routes to take advantage of the high-speed train and good scheduling. For example, the most direct Washington DC to Chicago route, the Capitol Limited, has 16 stops on a roughly 700 mile, 18 hour trip (including time spent faffing around in the train station). In comparison, that same 700 mile trip would take about 12-14 hours to drive, or about 4-5 hours to fly (including all time spent faffing around in airports).
Every stop costs a great deal of time, as in addition to the full stop, there must also be enough time to decelerate to the stop and accelerate back up to whatever cruising speed is. Reducing the number of stops can dramatically reduce the trip time. I propose that the high-speed train service stop in only major cities. The Chicago run, for example, would be reduced to four stops from its current sixteen. Those stops would be: Washington, DC; Pittsburgh, PA; Cleveland, OH; and Chicago, IL. That, combined with dedicated tracks planned for a train capable of top speeds of at least 200 MPH, would reduce the trip time to something that would be able to compete with flying to Chicago from DC.
A similar stop reduction could happen on the Northeast Corridor runs. Instead of the current 16 stops on the Acela Express, reduce the stop count to five: Washington, DC; Baltimore, MD; Philadelphia, PA; New York, NY; and Boston, MA. The high-speed train plus reduced stop count on the 440-mile trip once again would compete well with the 3-hour flight time (including airport time) between DC and Boston.
To handle intervening cities, Amtrak should keep a slower service that makes multiple stops. For the DC to Chicago run, the existing Capitol Limited service can handle the cities cut from the high-speed run. The dedicated lines should speed up the Capitol Limited service and cut the time down from 18 hours to something more akin to driving speed. For even finer-grained stops, passengers can rely on the local commuter rail service from various major cities.
5) Coordination of schedules. Amtrak can coordinate fast train arrival times with slower train departure times. With a high-speed service, people should be able to take the fast train to the nearest big city to their actual destination, and then quickly and easily jump onto a slower train going to their ultimate destination. For example, when a high-speed train arrives in Philadelphia heading southbound, there should be a slower train leaving for local New Jersey stations (such as Newark, Iselin, and Trenton) within 30 minutes of the arrival in Philadelphia. This train would run back and forth between Philadelphia and Baltimore, with its departures timed to the fastest trains. Similarly, the arrival of slower trains should, where feasible, be coordinated with the departure of faster trains, so that passengers transferring from one to another need not wait very long between trains.
If possible, local commuter rail systems should coordinate at least some of their departures with the slower Amtrak trains, providing the same service timing for passengers going to even more minor stops.
6) Expand available routes. The existing set of routes (warning: PDF) provided by Amtrak is pathetically limited. For example, there are significant cities, like Nashville, TN and Las Vegas, NV, with no Amtrak service at all. Other major cities have limited service available: to take a pure train route (instead of a train-and-bus route) to Detroit requires going through Chicago. While this is not a problem for passengers coming in from the west, and only a minor one for passengers coming in from the south, it is a ridiculous detour for passengers coming in from the east. Even if Detroit is not served by a high-speed line, there could still be a slower run between Cleveland and Chicago (with a stop in Toledo for trains originating further south to connect to) that would provide sensible train service to Detroit. Alternatively, a rail passenger in Oklahoma City, OK who wants to go anywhere by train must go through Dallas, TX even if he wants to go to Kansas City, MO. That's a major detour and discourages ridership. Increasing the available routes makes trains more convenient and can increase ridership.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 03:04 pm (UTC)I'm guessing it has to do with building the dedicated rails -- either the cost of construction, or the cost of reimbursement for property taken via eminent domain (if that's the right term).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 02:20 pm (UTC)However, there are a number of rail easements sitting unused. I just don't know if they're anywhere useful. (See, for example, the easements that have been converted into bike paths.) If there are existing unused easements, then there's no taking, just use of the easement.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 03:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 05:51 pm (UTC)I'm totally with you though, Amtrak really could do more to offer better service. I like trains - I even like riding Amtrak. Going up to New York, for example, it beats the hell out of driving, and really isn't that much different in terms of either price or time than flying. And, you can get up and walk around, get food on demand, use your laptop, etc.
For the wifi thing - its been done in Germany. Google for Flarion or Qualcomm Flarion. Highspeed network on a highspeed train. Way Cool. Of course, that protocol and hardware has largely been eclipsed by Wi-Max here in the states, and, I'm guessing, never sees the light of day, except in Europe.
Another thing would be nice for Amtrak to make a point to interconnect with commuter rail. This is the case in some places, but not all. For example, to go from DC up towards Armonk NY, you have to cab between the major train stations in NYC and then get on a different train.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 02:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 02:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-19 11:19 pm (UTC)Today's rails are not.
This could be changed...
I assert that changing either fact alone and not the other would suffice to make rail competitive, but I am not a railway expert.
I just love the convenience and ease of rail in Europe and Japan, which are both more densely populated, but also subsidize their roads and rails to the same extent (with the exception of France).
no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 12:50 am (UTC)Because railroads own the property that the rails traverse, the railroads and not the government have always had the responsibility of maintaining their infrastructure. Roads, on the other hand, are generally public, built and maintained on public land with public funds.
The government could nationalize railroads and take over maintenance of the railway infrastructure (and IMO, this would probably be an overall good thing, though not without problems), but it would involve an eminent domain taking of the land.
If I had unlimited money to spend on a railroad-related project, I'd start a passenger rail service in which I subcontracted a bunch of cars on the train to various services, such as an internet cafe, various stores & shops, restaurants, book store, movie theater, swimming pool car (an open-topped tank car with a deck), and various other amenities. I think a lot more people wouldn't care so much about how long rail travel took if they could have more entertaining ways to pass the time.
I'd also do the Auto-Train thing of having a way for people to bring their cars with them on the train.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 02:28 pm (UTC)I'm not sure that the swimming pool car is feasible given the occasional lurches of the train and also given the enormous weight of water. I like the rest of them though...
no subject
Date: 2006-12-20 05:37 am (UTC)(1) I can get wifi on a bus from Boston to New York, with a cheaper one-way fare (limoliner); the lack on amtrak mostly means that they're not even trying.
(2) If I fly to a city, I can get a rental car [ie, "ability to go where I really wanted to" which is never the airport/transit terminal itself] without leaving the building, usually. If I go by train, I might be connected with an existing transit system which also doesn't go where I need to :-) (One "straightforward" (handwave handwave) fix to that is to actually have drive-on/drive-off service for more than just the train to disneyland... I'd use that within New England, even - after all, if I don't have to meet another form of transit, I don't care so much that amtrak won't ever be there on time :-)
(Let's see, Jeff already covered the theft of public land; people have mentioned Europe - trains in Europe are nice, but they also don't have much in the way of suburbs :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-12-21 02:32 pm (UTC)(2) One of my frustrations with coming into Boston South Station is the singular lack of rental car places in the station. I've never tried renting a car in a train station anywhere else. For South Station, I usually end up going to Harvard Square for a rental, although sometimes I end up at the airport. While I can see that having rentals in the station would be expensive (buying up lots of places to actually put the cars), it would certainly make the long-haul riding more convenient.
And speaking of South Station, another thing Amtrak should try to do is get a good rail connection between South and North Station. Having to get off a train, take the subway to the other station, and then get on a train is just plain silly if you're going from Maine to NYC.