"During the first six months of fiscal year 2010, Amtrak trains carried 13.6 million passengers, up 4.3 percent from the same period a year earlier. If the pace holds, the rail operator is on track to beat the record of 28.7 million passengers it set in 2008." 2008 being the year of record gas prices. So we see cost is a huge contributor. Airline fees go up, train travel goes up. Gas costs go up, train travel goes up. But what about time?
"Between 2006 and 2009, the on-time performance of Amtrak’s 15 long-distance trains improved from 30 to 75 percent. Upgraded sleeping cars, schedule changes and other improvements helped boost customer satisfaction scores from 65 to 80 percent." While 75% accuracy may not seem very good, it definitely competes with air travel. I know I certainly get peeved when my public transport is delayed (silently wishing I was on my bike). Because the airlines share just 5-6 national hubs, air travel later in the day is only 60% on-time. But even if Amtrak was 100% on-time, it's completely unfeasible time-wise for cross country travel. It'd take days to get from coast to coast.
Even so, what's really unfortunate is that people have a skewed mindset of how long it takes to travel by plane vs train. One tends to only account for the time the plane is in the air. They forget that often times, you arrive 2 hours early to get through security. They forget the time it took to get to the airport. They forget the extra time it takes on the other side to get picked up.
When my mother and I took Amtrak from Chicago to Ann Arbor, it took 4.5 hours and under $40. A plane's air time from Chicago to Detroit (DTW) would be 1.5 hours and $179. Seems like an easy equation of whether money or time is worth more to you.
But since the Amtrak station was inside downtown Chicago, it only took us 10 min (.5 miles) to get there, versus 25 min to 1+ hour (18 miles by car or M line) to the airport. On the other side, it took my sister 10 min (1 mile) to come pick us up, but it would've been 1 hour (50 miles round trip) by car. Adding it up, the train took 5 hours while going by airplane would've been 4-5 hours (includes 1.5 hours for security). So given the disparate ticket prices, the train clearly was the way to go, even though at first it looks like flying would be way faster.
So I wish people would treat the train right. With the advent of high speed rail in America (or at least California), I hope people start giving trains the same leeway they give planes. High speed rail spaced out more akin to airports rather than commuter rail stations. But faster security lines. More comfortable seats/amenities. Bringing your bike. Less fees. But probably, the same high ticket prices.
P.S. Berkeley recently did a study comparing emissions of different modes of transportation across the whole life cycle. The whole shabang- from manufacturing to tailpipe emissions. I hope the CA high speed rail pays attention since this method of calculation gives trains 155% more emissions but only gives airplanes 31% more. In fact, on a per mile basis, large aircraft travel was quite comparable to fossil fuel energized light rails. See chart below. Crazy.
Image Source Environmental Research Web
