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: 2006-12-21 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...