Amtrak packed because of high gas prices

[editor]

There's an interesting article in the P-I about Amtrak being stuffed because of high gas prices. While it's not unusual for regional trains to be sold out, now even the long-distance trains are full sometimes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...3_amtrak21.html

And since Amtrak has spent the last couple of decades downsizing and trying to do less, it's having a hard time expanding to keep up with demand.

I saw on the news last week that several billion dollars has been released to the states to help with regional passenger rail expansion.

I know I take a train instead of a plane when I can. But the Amtrak schedules are sometimes rediculous (arrivals and departures at 2am are not uncommon), and if you're on an overnight train the cabins are sometimes twice the cost of a hotel or even an airplane ticket. Then again, you don't have to arrive two hours early for Amtrak or wait in a security line or put away your laptop for departure and arrival.

[TexasVines]

There's an interesting article in the P-I about Amtrak being stuffed because of high gas prices. While it's not unusual for regional trains to be sold out, now even the long-distance trains are full sometimes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...3_amtrak21.html

And since Amtrak has spent the last couple of decades downsizing and trying to do less, it's having a hard time expanding to keep up with demand.

I saw on the news last week that several billion dollars has been released to the states to help with regional passenger rail expansion.

I know I take a train instead of a plane when I can. But the Amtrak schedules are sometimes rediculous (arrivals and departures at 2am are not uncommon), and if you're on an overnight train the cabins are sometimes twice the cost of a hotel or even an airplane ticket. Then again, you don't have to arrive two hours early for Amtrak or wait in a security line or put away your laptop for departure and arrival.

bad thing is you can often arrive 12-14+ hours late on longer Amtrak routes......more often than not at least 3-4 hours late

Amtrak is definately for people who only have to go from A to B and it does not matter how long it takes

[Jeebus]

It disgusts me that our government has poured billions into air travel, yet they have all but forgotten rail. Disgusting.

[editor]

bad thing is you can often arrive 12-14+ hours late on longer Amtrak routes......more often than not at least 3-4 hours late

Amtrak is definately for people who only have to go from A to B and it does not matter how long it takes

Very true. Though the airlines seem to be trying hard to catch up to this epic level of lateness.

[TexasVines]

It disgusts me that our government has poured billions into air travel, yet they have all but forgotten rail. Disgusting.

why is this? Rail travel for long distance is simply not viable it is for the few that will not get over their fear of flying and there is no need of government to subsidize this extremely small minority

even with faster trains like in Japan or Europe it will still take 2 or 3 times longer to get somewhere by train than by plane on all but the shortest routes

and those shorter routes should be some that the state or a few states work to take care of themselves.....I have no interest in helping pay for the North East Corridor or for Commuter Routes in California just like those people have no interest in helping Texas build up rail between Houston San Antonio and Dallas

if you want it in your state or between neighboring states then pay for it.....if not ride the bus or take a plane or suffer on Amtrak or drive

people that need to get things done will not sit 8-12 hours on even the fastest train when a plane can do it in 4-5....as for shorter routes.....it is not the federal governments job to build every transportation project in the USA

the USA is not Japan or Europe and what works there does not always work here

with trains you have a fixed route......what would a high speed train from Houston to LA to to cut the popular Austin to San Jose SWA route.....you have Dallas to LA and Houston to LA.....Dallas to NY and Houston to NY.......Dallas to Chicago.....Houston to Chicago

even if you routed the rails all squiggly to get through major cities by the time you add in the extra mileage and the wait while additional passengers load rail becomes nothing but long TIME travel.....and that is not viable

[wxman]

My grandfather and I took the train from Houston to New Orleans on the Sunset Limited and then the Accel from New Orleans to NYC. Great experience, though we were in first class. Our train was scheduled to depart Houston around 2pm. We didn't leave the bus/train station until almost 6 pm that night! Made us miss our reservations in N.O. Other than that, great experience. If your in a hurry, that is not the way to travel.

[ricco67]

why is this? Rail travel for long distance is simply not viable it is for the few that will not get over their fear of flying and there is no need of government to subsidize this extremely small minority

This is not entirely true. does "Bridge to nowhere" come to mind? Not to mention the absurd pork that has come out of the place? Its simply a political game.

if you want it in your state or between neighboring states then pay for it.....if not ride the bus or take a plane or suffer on Amtrak or drive

people that need to get things done will not sit 8-12 hours on even the fastest train when a plane can do it in 4-5....as for shorter routes.....it is not the federal governments job to build every transportation project in the USA

I don't have the numbers, but I believe that a good portion of travelers (ALL) are leisure travelers.

As far as travel time, you didn't include the drive to and from various locations AND the security line (which rail doesn't have...yet). If you want to just travel to SA or Austin, a car is just as viable for time as it is for flying. The only current issue amtrak has is that (in our region of the country) they are at the mercy of cargo trains schedules.

the USA is not Japan or Europe and what works there does not always work here

with trains you have a fixed route......what would a high speed train from Houston to LA to to cut the popular Austin to San Jose SWA route.....you have Dallas to LA and Houston to LA.....Dallas to NY and Houston to NY.......Dallas to Chicago.....Houston to Chicago

even if you routed the rails all squiggly to get through major cities by the time you add in the extra mileage and the wait while additional passengers load rail becomes nothing but long TIME travel.....and that is not viable

Oh? Airports aren't fixed objects? That's news to me.

[TexasVines]

This is not entirely true. does "Bridge to nowhere" come to mind? Not to mention the absurd pork that has come out of the place? Its simply a political game.

I don't have the numbers, but I believe that a good portion of travelers (ALL) are leisure travelers.

As far as travel time, you didn't include the drive to and from various locations AND the security line (which rail doesn't have...yet). If you want to just travel to SA or Austin, a car is just as viable for time as it is for flying. The only current issue amtrak has is that (in our region of the country) they are at the mercy of cargo trains schedules.

Oh? Airports aren't fixed objects? That's news to me.

so just because there have been pork projects in the past that means it is now a free for all on any new pork project ....no wonder this country has government spending issues......not only can we not justify some current projects, but we can use them to attempt to justify more unneeded projects

yes Amtrak is at the mercy of cargo railroads.....this does not mean more tracks need to be built for LEISURE travelers........let LEISURE travelers be at the LEISURE of the Amtrak schedule

your last point is so baseless it is laughable.....yes an airport is a fixed object......just like a train station......where the plane flies to once it leaves the airport is not fixed.......it can fly to just about any other airport in the world.....once a train leaves the station.....it can only go where there are tracks.......was it really that difficult to comprehend this

last time I checked the train does not pick people up at their front door either......well maybe it does in your reality....and if trains were as popular as planes then security would be tightened....there have already been terror attacks on trains and terrorist caught riding trains.....so as more people use them the security would increase....and as the speed of travel increases (and the likelihood of major deaths from a crash) security will increase as well

with replies like that I wonder if this country is really not in big trouble

look at China.....the highspeed rail they built was hugely expensive......and that is in a country that gets out a map and draws a straight line and then cranks up the D-11 and starts dozing......people, critters, environment, and anything else in the way be damned

in the USA we already have to put up with the totally ignorant that buy near 100+ year old railroad tracks and 50 year old airports and then complain about the noise....and sometimes we sadly even listen to them and try and placate their stupidity

much less if we try and build anything new it requires 30 environmental reviews, 50 impact studies, 1,000 public meetings and if we find the three footed, pink cheaked, yellow billed, wollyboogermander we have to stop and start over....all while facing lawsuits from people that live 10,000 miles from where the project takes place

but yea we should build up railroads for LEISURE travelers

[jfre81]

If people can't figure out how to make airlines profitable in today's economy, then more people than just those who are afraid of flying will become railroad riders again. Jeebus is right in that this country has let its railroads go to hell and kept Amtrak barely functional, not really ready to accommodate this surge in demand.

What is with the anti-rail bias, anyway? Roads and freeways are fixed routes, and air routes go from one point to the other in the quickest manner possible. There is no difference. Besides, what's not to like about traveling across the country and actually see what you're traveling through, from the ground? Flying gets boring after awhile, and service cuts and delays don't make it any better.

[TexasVines]

If people can't figure out how to make airlines profitable in today's economy, then more people than just those who are afraid of flying will become railroad riders again. Jeebus is right in that this country has let its railroads go to hell and kept Amtrak barely functional, not really ready to accommodate this surge in demand.

What is with the anti-rail bias, anyway? Roads and freeways are fixed routes, and air routes go from one point to the other in the quickest manner possible. There is no difference. Besides, what's not to like about traveling across the country and actually see what you're traveling through, from the ground? Flying gets boring after awhile, and service cuts and delays don't make it any better.

last I checked passenger rail is not profitable.....it is a massive money loser.....the only people that will ride rail in the next decade or more will be people who just have to get from one place to another and do not care one bit how long it takes

I happen to love trains....but that does not mean I think we should just waste money all over the place to duplicate much of what already exist.....especially just so people can sightsee or "not be bored"......why can't people that want to sightsee or "not be bored" take the bus.....I promise you will not be "bored" on the bus....and if you are just ask the person next to you for some of what they are smoking

there is a fixed speed currently that even highspeed trains can travel....any faster would require massive amounts of research and new technologies that might be decade away if ever....not to mention the cost of them....this puts a limit on what distance a train (even highspeed) will be of use to people who need to be somewhere on a schedule and in the shortest amount of time possible

even if the rails were cleared of all cargo traffic and only passenger rail was running on the rails....it will still take more time to get anywhere over 250 miles away than it does by plane....from door to door....and if you really believe the USA will be able to build higherspeed rail on moer than a few short routes with all the envirowackos and nimbys in the country today....then you need to stop smoking what the guy on the bus next to you is smoking....and even with highspeed rail.....longer distances will still take longer than a plane and probably "cost" more when ALL the cost are calculated

loving trains is great......that does not divest trains from the reality of their limitations or from the reality of what it takes to add infrastructure in the USA

[ricco67]

so just because there have been pork projects in the past that means it is now a free for all on any new pork project ....no wonder this country has government spending issues......not only can we not justify some current projects, but we can use them to attempt to justify more unneeded projects

but yea we should build up railroads for LEISURE travelers

Obviously you don't read sarcasm very well.

PASSANGER Rail ISN'T for every location and region. For texas, it is only really viable for 4 cities or 5 cities. Look how many flights WERE being flown between Houston, Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio? Now THOSE particular flights are being cut back and being put on larger planes due to the lack of profitability, not lack of customers. Those that aren't able to get on larger planes is due to the limitations of the airport they are flying to.

As far as "Pork" goes, this wouldn't fall under pork, this is an infrastructure investment, something that many people seem to forget that. Europe spent a considerable sum on their rail system and now seems to be thriving. As I've said before, Infrastructure isn't sexy and people don't like spending money on it.

Passanger rail was a major investment in the Northeast where you have a number of cities together. The Boston/New York run has been VERY popular with BUSINESS TRAVELERS while many considered AIRLINE travel to SLOW and EXPENSIVE. Or would you consider THOSE business travelers lazy because they don't want to hurry up and jump on a plane?

[Trae]

It disgusts me that our government has poured billions into air travel, yet they have all but forgotten rail. Disgusting.

Don't vote McCain. He wants to get rid of Amtrak.

[ricco67]

Don't vote McCain. He wants to get rid of Amtrak.

If I remember properly, McCain wants to see if the private sector will pick it up and run with it.

I have mixed feelings about that, though. I think the private sector might have better luck and more incentive, but I don't know if they are willing to put in the upfront money, but considering how the travel demos are changing a bit, it might be worth it it on the long run.

[TexasVines]

Obviously you don't read sarcasm very well.

PASSANGER Rail ISN'T for every location and region. For texas, it is only really viable for 4 cities or 5 cities. Look how many flights WERE being flown between Houston, Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio? Now THOSE particular flights are being cut back and being put on larger planes due to the lack of profitability, not lack of customers. Those that aren't able to get on larger planes is due to the limitations of the airport they are flying to.

As far as "Pork" goes, this wouldn't fall under pork, this is an infrastructure investment, something that many people seem to forget that. Europe spent a considerable sum on their rail system and now seems to be thriving. As I've said before, Infrastructure isn't sexy and people don't like spending money on it.

Passanger rail was a major investment in the Northeast where you have a number of cities together. The Boston/New York run has been VERY popular with BUSINESS TRAVELERS while many considered AIRLINE travel to SLOW and EXPENSIVE. Or would you consider THOSE business travelers lazy because they don't want to hurry up and jump on a plane?

I have already stated that regional highspeed rail is viable....I wish Texas had built it back in the day....and even on the NEC there have been studies that show that the train is about equal in time to what it takes for a plane door to door.....and there have been several bus services that have tried to compete and failed because of cost and time

jetblue boston to newyork $159 tomorrow with a return flight as low as $75 on the 24th

amtrak same thing as low as $84 each way

so very little savings and the plane is probably still a bit faster.....train might be more comfortable

you could go from Boston to West Palm Beach for $139 or to San Diego for $219 try that on a train and see what it will cost much less how long it will take

and the NEC is the only place in the USA where Amtrak even comes close to competing and as soon as those trains fill up there is ZERO option for adding more trains without slowing all those currently running because of massive capacity constraints......constraints that will require "big dig" type money to overcome.....and that is for one small route in a very limited part of the USA.....though it will probably cost all of us in the end

Amtrak schedule says fastest is 3 hours 35 minutes JetBlue says 1 hour 22 minutes so add in an hour and a half for security and you are still nearly ah hour ahead on the plane each way

for many people in the north east $60 to save an hour each way is worth it

[ricco67]

I have already stated that regional highspeed rail is viable....I wish Texas had built it back in the day....and even on the NEC there have been studies that show that the train is about equal in time to what it takes for a plane door to door.....and there have been several bus services that have tried to compete and failed because of cost and time

jetblue boston to newyork $159 tomorrow with a return flight as low as $75 on the 24th

amtrak same thing as low as $84 each way

so very little savings and the plane is probably still a bit faster.....train might be more comfortable

you could go from Boston to West Palm Beach for $139 or to San Diego for $219 try that on a train and see what it will cost much less how long it will take

and the NEC is the only place in the USA where Amtrak even comes close to competing and as soon as those trains fill up there is ZERO option for adding more trains without slowing all those currently running because of massive capacity constraints......constraints that will require "big dig" type money to overcome.....and that is for one small route in a very limited part of the USA.....though it will probably cost all of us in the end

Amtrak schedule says fastest is 3 hours 35 minutes JetBlue says 1 hour 22 minutes so add in an hour and a half for security and you are still nearly ah hour ahead on the plane each way

for many people in the north east $60 to save an hour each way is worth it

Didn't *I* also say that it is better for regional? Long distance travel for Rail is great if you aren't in a big hurry.

As far as your time thing goes being cheaper....the airlines are now discussing people staying overnight if they want a cheaper flight. THAT is going to suck for business travelers.

[Trae]

I just really wish the airliners in Texas, as well as the politicians would not have slowed down the Texas T-Bone. That thing would be so critical for our state.

A line connecting Houston to San Antonio, San Antonio (through Austin and Killeen) to Dallas-Fort Worth, and DFW back down to Houston. You could also have another line connecting Houston with Austin (or upgrade 290 to a freeway all the way). Then (especially with Houston and DFW), the high speed rail system would hook up with the Inner City rail systems (commuter and light rail).

Would be something great.

[editor]

why is this? Rail travel for long distance is simply not viable it is for the few that will not get over their fear of flying and there is no need of government to subsidize this extremely small minority

Lots of people choose trains over planes for reasons other than fear of flying.

even with faster trains like in Japan or Europe it will still take 2 or 3 times longer to get somewhere by train than by plane on all but the shortest routes

Trains don't have to be faster than planes. They only have to be fast enough to be useful.

A 300 MPH train could cross the country in 10 hours.

But let's say that I'm going to fly a short distance -- say from Houston to Dallas. I have to drive from my office to the airport (30-45 minutes), arrive at the airport two hours early and go through security, add 15-20 minutes for taxi delays, spend an hour in the air, then collect my luggage at the other end (20 minutes).

So a one hour flight (I'm assuming it's an hour from Houston to Dallas; I've never done it) can actually take up to five hours. In five hours a high-speed train can go 1,000 miles -- or about 5x the distance of that plane between Houston and Dallas. And there's no waiting in line for security, metal detectors, and whatnot. No taxi delays. No luggage checking or collection. I can stretch out, plug in my computer (to a normal power outlet), walk around, get something to eat and have a much more enjoyable and productive time.

In days gone past, travel by train was more civilized than travel by air. Then air travel became much nicer. But recently the pendulum has swung the other way again.

I ride Amtrak or another regional rail service about once a month. Rail is perfect for regional (5-800 miles) travel. The airlines should concentrate on long hauls. That's the arena in which rail has a hard time competing.

and those shorter routes should be some that the state or a few states work to take care of themselves.....I have no interest in helping pay for the North East Corridor or for Commuter Routes in California just like those people have no interest in helping Texas build up rail between Houston San Antonio and Dallas

if you want it in your state or between neighboring states then pay for it.....if not ride the bus or take a plane or suffer on Amtrak or drive

As someone who doesn't own a car and lives in another state, I have no interest in having my tax dollars pay for the Katy Freeway expansion -- but I do. Everyone's tax dollars mix together and we help each other out. It's called "society."

people that need to get things done will not sit 8-12 hours on even the fastest train when a plane can do it in 4-5....as for shorter routes.....it is not the federal governments job to build every transportation project in the USA

I guess you've never seen those giant red, white, and blue Federal Transportation Administration funding signs that go up next to just about every road or highway construction project in Texas.

the USA is not Japan or Europe and what works there does not always work here

Damned straight. But that doesn't mean that just because something works elsewhere that it will be a failure in America. The worst thing is to simply not try. If people didn't strive for bigger, better thing there would be no Texas.

with trains you have a fixed route......what would a high speed train from Houston to LA to to cut the popular Austin to San Jose SWA route.....you have Dallas to LA and Houston to LA.....Dallas to NY and Houston to NY.......Dallas to Chicago.....Houston to Chicago

even if you routed the rails all squiggly to get through major cities by the time you add in the extra mileage and the wait while additional passengers load rail becomes nothing but long TIME travel.....and that is not viable

The airlines have fixed routes, too. Ever been on a flight from Houston to El Paso and ask the stewardess if the pilot would mind dropping you off in San Antonio? It won't happen.

There's no reason not to have a route between Houston and Los Angeles. The cities aren't moving anywhere, so why not connect them? If the airlines can have routes between the two cities for the last 60 years what evidence is there that the need for this link will suddenly dry up if rail is put in?

If I remember properly, McCain wants to see if the private sector will pick it up and run with it.

I have mixed feelings about that, though. I think the private sector might have better luck and more incentive, but I don't know if they are willing to put in the upfront money, but considering how the travel demos are changing a bit, it might be worth it it on the long run.

The ideal solution would be for some kind of federal mandate that makes it attractive for the freight companies to lease their idle track time to passenger rail services. There are vast stretches of America's rail infrastructure that are underutilized.

As the same time, in many places even the freight system is clogged. Crain's has been complaining about it for a couple of years now. Some of the bottlenecks add up to nine days to the time it takes to move a container across country simply because there isn't enough track to handle the demand for freight. Additional passenger service would make it worse.

[TexasVines]

Lots of people choose trains over planes for reasons other than fear of flying.

Trains don't have to be faster than planes. They only have to be fast enough to be useful.

A 300 MPH train could cross the country in 10 hours.

But let's say that I'm going to fly a short distance -- say from Houston to Dallas. I have to drive from my office to the airport (30-45 minutes), arrive at the airport two hours early and go through security, add 15-20 minutes for taxi delays, spend an hour in the air, then collect my luggage at the other end (20 minutes).

So a one hour flight (I'm assuming it's an hour from Houston to Dallas; I've never done it) can actually take up to five hours. In five hours a high-speed train can go 1,000 miles -- or about 5x the distance of that plane between Houston and Dallas. And there's no waiting in line for security, metal detectors, and whatnot. No taxi delays. No luggage checking or collection. I can stretch out, plug in my computer (to a normal power outlet), walk around, get something to eat and have a much more enjoyable and productive time.

In days gone past, travel by train was more civilized than travel by air. Then air travel became much nicer. But recently the pendulum has swung the other way again.

I ride Amtrak or another regional rail service about once a month. Rail is perfect for regional (5-800 miles) travel. The airlines should concentrate on long hauls. That's the arena in which rail has a hard time competing.

As someone who doesn't own a car and lives in another state, I have no interest in having my tax dollars pay for the Katy Freeway expansion -- but I do. Everyone's tax dollars mix together and we help each other out. It's called "society."

I guess you've never seen those giant red, white, and blue Federal Transportation Administration funding signs that go up next to just about every road or highway construction project in Texas.

Damned straight. But that doesn't mean that just because something works elsewhere that it will be a failure in America. The worst thing is to simply not try. If people didn't strive for bigger, better thing there would be no Texas.

The airlines have fixed routes, too. Ever been on a flight from Houston to El Paso and ask the stewardess if the pilot would mind dropping you off in San Antonio? It won't happen.

There's no reason not to have a route between Houston and Los Angeles. The cities aren't moving anywhere, so why not connect them? If the airlines can have routes between the two cities for the last 60 years what evidence is there that the need for this link will suddenly dry up if rail is put in?

The ideal solution would be for some kind of federal mandate that makes it attractive for the freight companies to lease their idle track time to passenger rail services. There are vast stretches of America's rail infrastructure that are underutilized.

As the same time, in many places even the freight system is clogged. Crain's has been complaining about it for a couple of years now. Some of the bottlenecks add up to nine days to the time it takes to move a container across country simply because there isn't enough track to handle the demand for freight. Additional passenger service would make it worse.

few people that have to be anywhere on time or in a decent amount of time use the train especially for long distances

and again the train has a station you have to get to as well.....so talk of time to get to the airport means nothing.....the train does not come to your door

trains can be attacked at any point on the rail line....planes once they are in the air over the USA it is a very very small chance anyone will have a SAM to shoot one down

anyone with a crowbar or a pickup some nitrate and some diesel can blow up or derail a train along any point of the line....so security for trains will be much more expensive if they become crowded and a target

I have heard very few stories that say trains are any more civil than air....especially on a miles traveled basis

it is called a federal highway system....the feds don't pay for surface streets or state highways states do....and just because there is federal pork that is not an excuse or justification for more federal pork

the USA has done just fine (worlds leading economy with only china close to catching us) without passenger rail.....just because Europe has it is not a reason to try it in a country that is much larger than Europe and much more spread out

fixed routes does not mean the plane can not go on a different route the next time it flies.....the route is only for traffic control it is not a limiting factor to where a plane can go from one place to another.......rail requires billions of dollars if right of way.....planes only require the relatively small footprint of an airport.....trains have to have land surface to go to anywhere....planes only need 5,000 feet or less to land and take off

the only places that have spare rail capacity have it because it goes from nowhere to nowhere and the track is in terrible condition that would allow travel at 15-20MPH max if anyone did want to go to nowhere.....any other extra capacity was ripped up years ago because railroads are taxed on that "asset" so if it does not make money it is pulled up and abandoned....all other forms of transportation have their infrastructure subsidized by the government.....railroads pay taxes on theirs.....so it must produce.....or it is gone......rail that goes from any place of significance to any other place of significance is jammed beyond capacity.....that is the reason Amtrak is 8-12 hours late nearly every other trip to any place of significance...if you want to go from Lubbock to Brownfield at 15mph there is plenty of rail......Houston to El Paso or beyond.....there is not

you pretend as though building new rail lines is simple and people will welcome it with open arms when the reality is nothing can be further from the truth.....even in China or India where the government goes where it wants high speed rail has taken a back seat to air travel......because rail is extremely expensive to build and takes a great deal of surface area

[KinkaidAlum]

Trust me, the train is a MUCH better option for travel between Boston and Manhattan.

You stated some of the obvious drawbacks to flying that route (security at the airport) but failed to mention the following;

1) Delays. Summer time delays over NYC are notoriously awful. If there is even the hint of rain, your flight wont be taking off from BOS because there will be too many others already in the airspace.

2) Additional costs. How do you get to the airports? Taxi? Subway? Friend drop you off? Drive and park? You are adding costs to your trip.

3) Airport locations. Boston's isn't too bad. It's just on the other side of Boston Harbor from downtown. It's a quick T trip or $20 in a cab. However, none of NYC's airports are located on Manhattan. Newark, LaGuardia, and JFK will all require extra travel time to get most people to where they want to go (Manhattan).

In the end, it's a no-brainer for people who live and work in either Boston or Manhattan to take the train. The Acela takes 4 hours to go from downtown Boston to Midtown Manhattan. You can use those 4 hours to work, read, sleep, eat, drink, etc...

Flying on the other hand means the following for me;

1) Walking 2 blocks to catch a cab

2) 15 to 30 minutes in a cab depending upon traffic

3) 20 minute average to clear security

3) 30 to 90 minutes of waiting to board

4) cross your fingers you take off on time (VERY rare for BOS-NYC flights)

5) 1 hour of flying time

6) 15 minutes to get out of the airport, longer if you checked a bag

7) Catch a cab and spend at least an hour trying to get into Manhattan

In the end, you've added quite a bit more cost to your trip and a ton more hassle.

[sarahiki]

My grandfather and I took the train from Houston to New Orleans on the Sunset Limited and then the Accel from New Orleans to NYC. Great experience, though we were in first class. Our train was scheduled to depart Houston around 2pm. We didn't leave the bus/train station until almost 6 pm that night! Made us miss our reservations in N.O. Other than that, great experience. If your in a hurry, that is not the way to travel.

Amtrak has not been funded in such a way that high-speed travel has been able to develop, despite existing technology for it. Congress and the people have demanded a bottom line that's in the black: if it's not turning a profit, what's the point. This has always seemed absurd to me. We don't demand profit from our highways, yet we fund them.

From my current perspective (in Europe) we have fallen about a century behind in terms of rail. There are bullet trains streaking all over France now, for example. I took one directly from the airport in Paris out to Avignon, and arrived in centre ville in I think four hours. That thing moved! Google Maps puts the drive at 6.5 hours, and that's without traffic, which believe me is not the reality. And having also missed a train last week by literally three seconds, I can tell you that they run on time.

If we weren't so wedded to highways, and had built (and continued to fund) a good train system, it could be a very different experience in the US.

[editor]

I think what we're seeing here is that people who have had the opportunity to try the train like it and will continue to use it, and those who have not are still wedded to air travel.

Yesterday I found out the article is very true. I went on Amtrak's site to book a trip to Kansas City for a couple of weeks from now. The train I would normally take ($48 each way, no long list of taxes and fees like the airlines) is booked solid from now until August. Ditto for Cleveland and a couple of other places I was thinking of going.

I may have to fly whether I want to or not.

[MetroMogul]

Is airline securoty really that big of an issue as far as time goes? I am a security officer at Hobby Airport and our longest wait time in the nine months I've been there was about 15 minutes. Our average is about five minutes from the end of the line to the metal detector. We've pushed through 1500 people in seven minutes before. Though I will say I've heard of two hour security lines at LAX.

[CDeb]

Is airline securoty really that big of an issue as far as time goes? I am a security officer at Hobby Airport and our longest wait time in the nine months I've been there was about 15 minutes. Our average is about five minutes from the end of the line to the metal detector. We've pushed through 1500 people in seven minutes before. Though I will say I've heard of two hour security lines at LAX.

It's not that security lines ARE long, it's that you have to be prepared for them to be and therefore, you arrive several hours early.

[editor]

Is airline securoty really that big of an issue as far as time goes? I am a security officer at Hobby Airport and our longest wait time in the nine months I've been there was about 15 minutes. Our average is about five minutes from the end of the line to the metal detector. We've pushed through 1500 people in seven minutes before. Though I will say I've heard of two hour security lines at LAX.

That's Hobby. While Hobby's average waits are in the 6-8 minute range, other airports are different.

According to the TSA, LAX and DCA have average wait times on some days of 30 minutes, and as much as 70 minutes.

Even Nashville has an average wait time of 20 minutes on Thursday mornings (again, TSA data).

[ssullivan]

I fly almost every week and never arrive at an airport hours early. At IAH I'd try to arrive about 45-60 minutes before departure, Hobby about the same. Here in Atlanta I try to get there about 60-80 minutes before the flight, just because the lines are a little more unpredictable, and it takes a little longer to get to the concourse I usually fly out of on the train. But at most airports in the US, arriving 60 minutes before departure, and being prepared (e.g., not showing up wearing tons of clunky metal jewelry and trying to walk through the metal detector with your shoes on and cell phone in your pocket), is plenty of time. There are exceptions, but in most cases the average wait at security is less than 30 minutes; and it's often less than 15.

[editor]

You are correct, and things are much better now than they used to be. Though the check-in lines have become chaos recently with the AA $15 first bag surcharge. But that will probably calm down once people get used to it.

Still, I always go with the two hours early rule. It's what the airlines recommend, and it leaves me plenty of time if something horrible happens (once my cab to the airport got a flat tire!)

[editor]

Here are yesterday's IAH delays:

10:30am: Due to [ WEATHER / THUNDERSTORMS ] there is a Ground Stop in effect for traffic arriving [ Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport(IAH) ].

11:15am: General Departure Delays: at [iAH] Due to [ TM Initiatives:MIT/MINIT:WX:TSTMS ] traffic is experiencing Gate Hold and Taxi delays between 30 minutes and 44 minutes in length and increasing.

11:50am: General Departure Delays: at [iAH] Due to [ TM Initiatives:MIT/MINIT:WX:TSTMS ] traffic is experiencing Gate Hold and Taxi delays between 45 minutes and 59 minutes in length and increasing.

12:00pm: Due to [ WEATHER / THUNDERSTORMS ] there is a Ground Stop in effect for traffic arriving [ Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport(IAH) ].

12:15pm: General Arrival Delays to [iAH]: Due to [ WX:TSTMS ] traffic is experiencing between 15 minutes and 29 minutes airborne delay and increasing.

12:15pm: General Departure Delays: at [iAH] Due to [ WX:TSTMS ] traffic is experiencing Gate Hold and Taxi delays between 15 minutes and 29 minutes in length and increasing.

12:20pm: Due to [ WEATHER / THUNDERSTORMS ] there is a Ground Stop in effect for traffic arriving [ Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport(IAH) ].

1:10pm: Due to [ WEATHER / THUNDERSTORMS ] there is a Ground Stop in effect for traffic arriving [ Houston's George Bush Intercontinental Airport(IAH) ].

Here are yesterday's Houston Amtrak delays:

-none-

[TexasVines]

Here are yesterday's IAH delays:

Here are yesterday's Houston Amtrak delays:

hard to have a "delay" when entire routes have been canceled

Southwest Chief, Empire Builder and California Zephyr Midwest Flooding Disruption Update

June 24, 2008

8:00 am CDT

Amtrak has been notified by BNSF Railway it has restored service through the affected areas on the Los Angeles-Chicago route of the Amtrak Southwest Chief, effective June 24. However, BNSF and Canadian Pacific (CP) railways are still working to restore passenger train service on two other routes disrupted due to flooding on the Mississippi River and its tributaries in Iowa and Wisconsin.

BNSF and CP host these trains on tracks they own, maintain and dispatch. Amtrak is planning to operate limited alternate transportation through the affected areas for these trains until further notice, while hoping to restore rail service soon.

Through June 27, passengers are urged to call Amtrak at 800-USA-RAIL if they have travel plans through the affected areas of the San Francisco Bay-Chicago route of the Amtrak California Zephyr and the Seattle/Portland-Chicago route of the Amtrak Empire Builder.

Those passengers with telephone contact information in their reservations are being called by Amtrak and offered options including future travel dates.

Southwest Chief, Trains 3 & 4

Service by the Southwest Chief between Kansas City and Chicago, suspended since June 17 due to flooding on the BNSF Railway route in Iowa, is restored, with the exception of the Fort Madison, Iowa, station.

Passengers ticketed at that stop are being offered travel at other Amtrak stations in LaPlata, Mo., or Galesburg, Ill., or on other Amtrak trains, until the station can reopen following the flooding.

California Zephyr, Trains 5 & 6

Service by the California Zephyr between Chicago and Denver has been temporarily suspended since June 13 due to flooding on the BNSF Railway route in Iowa.

Alternate transportation by chartered motorcoaches will be provided between Denver and points in Nebraska, including Omaha. No alternate transportation is available to or from points in Iowa. Alternate transportation between Chicago and other points in Illinois will be provided by other Amtrak trains.

Empire Builder, Trains 7/27/807 & 8/28/808

Service by the Empire Builder between St. Paul and Chicago has been temporarily suspended since June 10 due to flooding on the CP Railway in Wisconsin and the closing of a BNSF Railway detour route for passenger trains since June 15.

Alternate transportation by chartered motorcoaches will be provided between St. Paul and Chicago, with the exception of Glenview, Ill., where passengers are being offered travel on Amtrak Hiawatha Service trains as alternate transportation between Glenview and Chicago.

Amtrak regrets any inconvenience. This information is correct as of the above time and date. Information is subject to change as conditions warrant. Passengers are encouraged to call 800-USA-RAIL or visit Amtrak.com for schedule information and train status updates.

please at least be honest in your comparisons........and Amtrak #5 was at least 2.5 hours down on the 24thfor an honest look at

Amtrak service one can go here

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServe...d=1202243059386

Acela Express

(Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington, DC)

On-Time Performance May 2008: 83.8% Last 12 Months: 83.5%

Michigan Services

(Chicago - Grand Rapids/Port Huron/Detroit - Pontiac)

On-Time Performance May 2008: 26.1% Last 12 Months: 30.1%

City of New Orleans

(Chicago - Memphis - New Orleans)

On-Time Performance May 2008: 58.1% Last 12 Months: 66.4%

Texas Eagle

(Chicago - St. Louis - Dallas - San Antonio - (Los Angeles))

On-Time Performance May 2008: 11.3% Last 12 Months: 19.7%

California Zephyr

(Chicago - Denver - Emeryville, CA (San Francisco))

On-Time Performance May 2008: 43.5% Last 12 Months: 27.6%

[editor]

I don't see the point of comparing a catastrophic 100-year flood to an average everyday afternoon's delays at IAH. But, OK...

"Denver International Airport was closed to flights at mid-afternoon Wednesday, and more than 1,000 were canceled through Thursday.

The runways will remain closed until at least Thursday night, spokesman Steve Snyder said. As many as 3,000 passengers were waiting for flights.

Airport officials set up hundreds of cots, while urging passengers to return home or check into hotels because emergency supplies are limited."

We can play this all day.

On-Time Performance May 2008: 11.3% Last 12 Months: 19.7%

Owie. That's getting down to United Airlines range!

[CDeb]

Owie. That's getting down to United Airlines range!

United passengers would be thrilled to see numbers like those.