Why it's time to expand the passenger-train network: China edition
American Airlines is pushing for a nonstop between Chicago O'Hare and Beijing. So it's asking for lobbying help from St. Louisans, who would presumably connect there. By flying, of course--on one of American's 10 daily nonstop round trips. Over a distance of 258 air miles.
Amtrak already runs 5 daily round-trips between St. Louis and Chicago, but the service terminates at Chicago Union Station, which leaves you 17 miles and a ride on the Blue Line from O'Hare. A built-out passenger-train network would be able to carry passengers direct to the airport. Save those O'Hare gates for flights that are impractical or impossible for train travel. And maybe even make the place a little less miserable.
Do planes cover distance faster than trains? Even with higher-speed train service, they would. But when you're connecting to/from a trip that United makes in 13 hours 20 min, what's your hurry?
Amtrak already runs 5 daily round-trips between St. Louis and Chicago, but the service terminates at Chicago Union Station, which leaves you 17 miles and a ride on the Blue Line from O'Hare. A built-out passenger-train network would be able to carry passengers direct to the airport. Save those O'Hare gates for flights that are impractical or impossible for train travel. And maybe even make the place a little less miserable.
Do planes cover distance faster than trains? Even with higher-speed train service, they would. But when you're connecting to/from a trip that United makes in 13 hours 20 min, what's your hurry?
posted by conductor at 10:38 AM
1 Comments:
Your points regarding really long flights are well made, and well taken.
But I will take you to task on continuing the belief that planes are 'effectively' faster than trains on anything but trips longer than 500~600 miles. This summer, My wife and kids have taken many trips on various modes of travel, on planes and trains, and automobiles, source of my data, this summer alone.
The trains averaged only 2~3 hours late (per trip), where as the airplanes were in many cases days late. The cars ran mostly on time, but we didn't go further than 500 miles, and the drivers were wipe-out tired when they got to the destination.
So those nasty greyhounds like Amtraks which always ran late proved to be the best price/mile, the driver (me) could rest, and were only 'hours' late.
On a recent air trip from Atlanta - Baltimore (12 hours by car) I left at 1300 from my office to the ATL Airport and arrived in my hotel in Baltimore at 0100 in the morning! After a very tiring 12 hour air trip on Delta, factoring in the drive-times, airport-time 2~3 hours due to 911 security, and drive-time on the far end, always fun like a trip to a third world nation on those taxis.
Trains are faster, period! If I were president of Amtrak twice so! We don't need bullet trains, although they would be nice. What we need is more trains that compete with airplanes and cars. Run them at night! Also we trains that connect to local subways -- are you listening Atlanta MARTA and DC's METRO !, I'm sure there are others that have not figured this out either, When one
rides the train, you don't have a car when you get to where you are going therefore, wait for it... One will need to take the subway! Fix this, and the rest will follow. Good Luck on your Train Blog, it is a needed voice.
Post a Comment
<< Home