Oklahoma needs passenger rail link to Chicago

NewsOK.com ^ | Wednesday, August 04, 2010 | Zama Bailey, Midwest City

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

Even with the government subsidizing the rail industries (can you say Amtrak?) they still cannot come close to the airlines in cost or time savings. For example, I'm planning a two week trip out to the west coast for the wife and I:

2 round-trip tickets from Harrisburg, PA to Spokane, WA. Two plane changes en-route; total time out to Spokane - 9 hours, 15 minutes; total time back to Harrisburg - 10 hours 45 minutes. (taking into account 3 time zones) Total cost for two adult passengers - $909 (I could have booked cheaper tickets through United, but I refuse to fly through Chicago's O’Hare airport.)

By comparison, two round-trip tickets from Harrisburg to Spokane on Amtrak. Two train changes en-route; total time out to Spokane - 65 hours, 10 minutes; total time back to Harrisburg - 64 hours, 45 minutes. (again taking into account the 3 time zones) Total cost for 2 adult passengers - $975 (no sleeper compartment) to $2475 (with sleeper compartment).

Now knowing the Mrs. I know if I try to talk her into the Amtrak trip, I damn well better figure on the sleeper compartment.

So $909 with only 2 of 14 days being taken up with travel or $2475 with a total of 5 of the 14 days being taken up with travel. It's a no brainer on my part!

You can keep your rail travel, I'll keep my air travel.
Thank you very much.

[Willie Green]

Even with the government subsidizing the rail industries (can you say Amtrak?) they still cannot come close to the airlines in cost or time savings. For example, I'm planning a two week trip out to the west coast for the wife and I:
2 round-trip tickets from Harrisburg, PA to Spokane, WA. Two plane changes en-route; total time out to Spokane - 9 hours, 15 minutes; total time back to Harrisburg - 10 hours 45 minutes.

Airlines will always have a competitive advantage over passenger rail for transcontinental travel.
But for shorter, regional trips less than 600 miles, passenger rail is more efficient than short-hop air travel.

For instance:
From Harrisburg, Amtrak's Keystone Service offers 13 daily trains (each way) to NYC for $94 round trip. That means both you and your wife could go there for only $188 round trip and not have to worry about spending extra for a sleeper compartment.

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

First of all, I'll stay out of NYC (and so will the wife).
Second, if I was to travel within 600 miles, it would be by car.

For example:
Round trip - Amtrak to Pittsburgh for 2 - $232, 5 Hours, 30 Minutes each way.
Round trip Car to Pittsburgh for 2, $75 (Gas - 2 tank-fulls) and $25 in turnpike tolls, 3 hours 30 minutes each way.

Taking 2 hours more by train then by car is absurd!

[Willie Green]

Round trip - Amtrak to Pittsburgh for 2 - $232, 5 Hours, 30 Minutes each way.
Round trip Car to Pittsburgh for 2, $75 (Gas - 2 tank-fulls) and $25 in turnpike tolls

You must've waited until the last minute to buy your ticket.
If you book your trip just a couple weeks in advance, a round trip ticket to Pittsburgh is only $74,
or $148 for the two of you.

I guess driving might be cheaper if you make your wife pay for her share of the gas and tolls.
But if you're traveling by yourself, it looks like Amtrak is the cheaper way to go. (especially in winter when icy turnpike conditions through the mountains are treacherous.)

[cuz_it_aint_their_money]

Well Willie,
I must take into consideration the cost for both of us, since I would have no need to travel without the wife.
And since you want to nit-pick about the cost, after further consideration, it would only take slightly more than 1 tank of gas for the round trip so, by car the cost is reduced to about $65.
Also, you still haven’t explained why it takes 2 hours longer by train than by car. That fact, in and of itself, kills any thought of traveling by train.

[Willie Green]

Also, you still haven’t explained why it takes 2 hours longer by train than by car. That fact, in and of itself, kills any thought of traveling by train.

East of Harrisburg, where the terrain is more gentle, Amtrak operates more frequent trains on its own tracks with little interference from freight traffic.

West of Harrisburg, Amtrak must share the windy old Norfolk Southern freight tracks through the mountains. This route still sees fairly heavy freight traffic, which leads to significant bottlenecks and delays.

This is why, in the long run, I support construction of the Pittsburgh Maglev Project. Although initially proposed to run from Pittsburgh to Greensburg, it could eventually be extended to Harrisburg and connect to Amtrak service there.
Maglev not only travels much faster than traditional passenger rail, it can also travel on steep grades of up to 10%. (Traditional trains are limited to 1% to 2% grades at best) So it would be easier to build a new route for Maglev through the mountains than to grade/tunnel a separate route for Amtrak.

[gogeo]

Ah, when I saw rail, I knew it was you, Willie.

Of course, the article has a misleading headline.

It is only tangentially about rail service. It is primarily about those who want more free stuff.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Not to mention that when you get to the NYC area you HAVE A CAR. Want to go anywhere that the subway doesn’t serve? The cost of a single taxi ride in NYC would eat up any of Willie’s mythical savings via Amtrak...