In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel

[marmar]

http://streetsblog.net/2013/03/22/in-many-markets-rail-beats-or-competes-with-air-travel/


from StreetsBlog:


In Many Markets, Rail Beats or Competes With Air Travel
by Angie Schmitt




It can seem like the image of Amtrak as a second-rate mode – a “Soviet-style monopoly” – is so firmly ingrained that it’s hard to shake. Even as more people choose to ride trains.

Today at Network blog Better Institutions, Shane Phillips shares this graphic that shows how competitive Amtrak is in certain markets. It’s amazing, given all the ways our political system undermines rail transportation, that it still manages to surpass air travel in some cases. But there are important reasons for that, he says:

Longer-distance intercity rail gets short shrift as a transportation mode in a lot of circles, often treated as more novelty than honest-to-god mobility solution. Air travel, on the other hand, is generally considered completely legitimate. In reality, even with relatively poor facilities by international standards–and massive federal investments in airport infrastructure–rail is competitive with air travel in much of the United States, and in some cases vastly more popular as this chart illustrates.

This is good for everyone, airlines included. Air travel is an incredibly valuable and important transportation mode, but its utility is severely diminished at distances of 100-500 miles. A smaller share of total travel time is spent cruising in the plane; more is spent getting through security, waiting to board, taxiing, taking off, and landing. Rail is also easier to locate nearer the core of dense metro populations (where people usually ultimately want to go), something airlines can’t really do with their huge geographical footprint and noisy planes. Where city-pair distances and populations warrant rail travel, pressure is taken off the airlines to provide these shorter, less profitable domestic routes. This then allows them to provide more international and longer-distance flights, improving airlines’ extremely thin profit margins and reducing overall airport congestion. Air travel is also much more polluting than rail–electrified rail in particular.

Just imagine if these routes were prioritized the way highway development is.

[MrTriumph]

1. This is largely bunk

"A smaller share of total travel time is spent cruising in the plane; more is spent getting through security, waiting to board, taxiing, taking off, and landing."

Say what? After getting to the train station you don't have to wait on the train to arrive just as you do for the plane at the airport?


"Rail is also easier to locate nearer the core of dense metro populations (where people usually ultimately want to go), something airlines can’t really do with their huge geographical footprint and noisy planes."

Ridiculous. Planes don't have many tracks that must lead into and out of a single terminal in a highly dense metropolitan area. To locate a railroad terminal into an existing metropolitan area would be a monumental task.

"Where city-pair distances and populations warrant rail travel, pressure is taken off the airlines to provide these shorter, less profitable domestic routes." Actually automobiles are far more time and fuel effective for shorter distances than rail.

Railroad infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain. Do we need rail? Sure. But is it a viable replacement for other means of transportation? Not necessarily.

[marmar]

2. You can get to the train station 10 minutes before departure and still make the train......

...... you can't do that at an airport.

And this: "Planes don't have many tracks that must lead into and out of a single terminal in a highly dense metropolitan area. To locate a railroad terminal into an existing metropolitan area would be a monumental task." ........ doesn't even make sense. Train stations already are located in the center of the city. You don't have to "locate" them there.

Sorry, but your response is largely bunk.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

3. I would have gone by rail btween OC and Vegas if it had existed...

I wouldn't have cared if it was high speed or not.

We need more commuter trains too. Preferably electric. Light rail in LA is very popular. There's a monorail here in Vegas but it's treated more like a ride than actual transportation. It's $5 for a one way ticket to go a few blocks. Have it connect the strip to the airport and you've got something.

[marmar]

4. I never understood why they didn't extend the monorail to the airport in LV.

nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

5. It seems there is an effort to make sure monrails are a failure....

Disney's could easily go to John Wayne or LAX.

People think of them as an oddity but the original idea was for them to actually GO somewhere.

[msongs]

6. the taxi /bus/car rentals industries would not like the monorail going to the airport

for everyone that benefits there are vested interests who will lose so they oppose progress

[Spitfire of ATJ]

7. People refuse to put up with crap like that forever....

You know it's bad when even the cab drivers are saying there's too many cabs.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/local/138821414.html