Why we need a passenger-train network: Denver edition

Nearly all the news media have framed Denver as a place you can't get into or out of. With a few exceptions like this Indianapolis station.

But lookit, Amtrak's running out of Denver.

Now is the California Zephyr running late? Of course. Is it crowded? Likely. Might it run out of food en route? Sure; provisioning is more art than science anyway, and abnormal circumstances throw everything out the window. But it's warm and it's moving.

Passenger trains add a measure of redundancy to our transportation network that comes in handy when the weather's bad. And despite attempt after attempt to strangle and dismember it, Amtrak still maintains a nationwide network. Now to be sure, it's tissue-thin in places like Denver (one train a day, each way) and nonexistent in places like Columbus (Ohio or Georgia) but a network nonetheless. That Indy station's article notes that a Hoosier can ride Amtrak to Chicago and connect there to the westbound California Zephyr, subject to availability.

And the Amtrak network looks a little more robust when you zoom out a little to pick up airports.

From Denver you can ride east to Omaha: a city well east of the snow and served by all the major carriers at its airport Eppley Field. Westbound there's Salt Lake City, which according to FAA's flight delay map seems to be operating normally.

If the object is to get people to their destinations, trains have a role to play. A new Congress offers an opportunity to expand that role.

•  Tickets please. n/t

  by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:16:37 AM PDT

  •  Fahrscheine, meine Damen und Herren:)

    My favorite line from Indiana Jones and the Lost Crusade :)

    by cskendrick on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:26:31 AM PDT

•  I took the California Zephyr...

  ...this summer, as part of a train trip across America!  I absolutely loved it!

  But to be fair, it was considered a luxury.  Yes I was going to a work-related conference.  But the days on the train were considered part of my vacation.

  Still, we need a strong intercity passenger rail system.  I am not necessarily wedded to Amtrak in particular.  But until someone comes up with a serious bona fide alternative, I'm sticking with it.

  by JPhurst on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:21:40 AM PDT

•  35 years ago - Chicago to Ann Arbor.

  I commuted on the Metra train from the suburbs to the city (Chicago) for 20 years.  It got me a lot of reading and walking, and it was definitely a lot more relaxing then commuting in the car from suburb to suburb.

  by kaye on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:24:20 AM PDT

  •  Chicago edition: O'Hare has fog delays today,

    but the Hiawathas now stop directly at the Milwaukee airport,
    General Mitchell Field, which is reporting no delays as of right now.

    by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:32:35 AM PDT

    •  Chicago to St. Louis (some time ago)

      Some years ago, I was working with a consultant who was trying to sell a package to railroads.  He arranged at trip for us to a number of them, in Chicago and St.Louis.  We flew to Chicago and from St.Louis, but he scheduled a train ride down the river.

      I ragged on him all day about preferring the outmoded train to modern planes.  As it turned out, it was a miserable rainy, foggy night in Chicago.  Nothing flew, and people were stacked up in O'Hare while he and I were enjoying a fine meal with real silverware on a white tablecloth on the train.

      I never ragged on him again.

      by dmonahan on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:07:46 AM PDT

      •  Yes!

        I'm taking the train from Chi to Stl (Alton, actually) this weekend.  I was wondering if I'd made the right decision, but with the fog delays, I'm feeling good about it.  Plus I can get a lot of reading done on the train. Plus it was infinitely less expensive.

        Best of all, trains emit on average 10 times less CO2 per passenger than planes do.  Yay!

        by poemless on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:24:11 AM PDT

•  Late 2003. Charlotte to New York (and back)

  And there was as huge blizzard that shut down everything but the subways and, you guessed it, the trains, for everywhere north of DC.

  I was so transportationally buff. :)

  by cskendrick on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:28:56 AM PDT

•  Your poll could use a "MORE than 2 years ago."

  Used to do it all the time when I lived on the east coast. I've always been in the habit of checking Amtrak when I'm in the dreaming stage of planning a trip, and it's always way more expensive than in my dream. I would love to have a robust, go-everywhere train network and it's ridiculous that we don't.

  by blueteam on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:31:21 AM PDT

  •  Good point. My bad. n/t

    by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:34:20 AM PDT

  •  What's ridiculous is we once did.

    But maintaining existing infrastructure's less profitable than building a new one from scratch, so there you have it.

    by cskendrick on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:34:51 AM PDT

•  Yeah, right

  Intercity passenger trains would use the same lines that freight trains now use.

  Yeah, good luck trying to have Walmart's containers from China subject to delay.

  by Utahrd on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 09:41:02 AM PDT

  •  Passenger trains

    have to wait for freight trains, not the other way around.

    by tryptamine on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:07:16 AM PDT

    •  in theory, yes

      in practice: the freights own the lines, do the dispatch centrally, provsion capacity based on their own needs (which have been outstripped by the wave of containerized imports) and have little incentive to deliver on their commitments to prioritize passenger service.

      by raines on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:06:50 AM PDT

  •  in a real passenger train system

    each type of train has its own lines.  Passenger trains need smooth rail beds, freight lines do not.  The biggest trouble with our current system is the rails themselves, which were designed a century ago and are now only acceptable for hauling freight.  

    If we are going to have a real passenger train system (and we ought to), it ought to be high-speed — which means we need to lay all new track for modern trains built to go modern speeds.  And when we lay those rail beds, they have to be designed as to eliminate "at grade" crossings.  Anytime streets and highways cross train tracks, it adds extra delays for both (trains have to slow down in the vicinity of "at grade" crossings) and creates needless danger.  

    by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:39:12 AM PDT

    •  I can't wait to see the diaries

      Then we will see a bunch of diaries about people who lost their houses to eminent domain to put in the new passenger rail lines.

      by Utahrd on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:49:12 AM PDT

      •  the LAND is already there

        Only the TRACK needs to be re-laid.

        by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:14:29 AM PDT

    •  You're right. And that's the problem.

      All the things you cite are huge advantages of air travel. No land condemnation for routes, no construction cost for routes, no disruption of life along the routes.

      Of course, air travel is much less fuel-efficient, and worse for the ozone layer, and there's new research on jet contrails changing weather patterns.

      I read recently there are some companies working on a new generation of dirigibles. They would be slower than jets, but much more fuel-efficient, able to handle much heavier loads, and much faster than trains. Could be the best of both worlds.

      by HeyMikey on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

      •  land condemnation, construction costs, disruption

        All that happens with planes as well.  Any airport expansion projects come to your town lately?  

        Also, if you live within 10 miles of an airport you deal with disruption on a daily basis.  

        by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

        •  Within 10 miles?

          I used to live close to downtown Seattle and we still had to deal with a lot of plane noise, even though it was nowhere near Seatac.

          by tryptamine on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:21:48 PM PDT

          •  I was being cautious

            I live directly between LaGuardia and JFK, so I've lost all perspective as to how far away one needs to be for peace and quiet.

            This line of exchange reminds of the Bob Newhart standup routine where he plays a real estate agent.  "Don't worry about the airport next door, they tell me you never hear anything..."

            by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:34:22 PM PDT

        •  Terminals vs. routes.

          You have to condemn land for train terminals, too. The switching yards may not require as much land as runways, but it's in the same ballpark. The land for the routes is where the huge difference is.

          As far as noise, again it's a terminals v. routes tradeoff. Planes are definitely noisier around the terminals, but quieter for the great majority of the routes.

          As far as other disruption, planes are way, way ahead. No vehicular-traffic backups when a plane flies overhead. No school buses T-boned at airplane crossings.

          by HeyMikey on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:10:30 PM PDT

          •  Passenger terminals don't require switching yards

            on an airport scale, though some freight yards do.

            by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:14:20 PM PDT

          •  as I said earlier

            A real passenger train system requires elimination of "at-grade" crossings.  In other words, there should be no "contact" between streets/highways and railroad tracks, for the safety of all concerned — and for the speed of the train.  

            It's disingenuous to try and blame trains for vehicular gridlock and accidents where motorists try to defeat the barricades (and often end up killing themselves).  Eliminate the "at grade" crossings and you will eliminate such accidents, and the need for trains to travel slowly over that sector of track.  You still won't eliminate gridlock on the highways...although trains alleviate that problem, not contribute to it.

            by Big River Bandido on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 10:04:06 AM PDT

            •  It comes back to money.

              It's disingenuous to try and blame trains for vehicular gridlock and accidents where motorists try to defeat the barricades (and often end up killing themselves).

              Blame is irrelevant. People get killed at rail crossings -- not just stupid drivers, but their innocent passengers. Designers of transportation systems have to make choices that take account of real, predictable, flawed human behavior.

              Eliminate the "at grade" crossings and you will eliminate such accidents, and the need for trains to travel slowly over that sector of track.

              I completely agree. But then the cost of your routes goes way, way up.

              Look, I confess: I'm not qualified to weigh all the costs of land, construction, fuel, greenhouse emissions, etc. and decide whether rail beats air or vice versa. I suspect the answer depends on the length of the route. For a 10-mile daily commute, obviously rail wins. For Atlanta to Los Angeles, I suspect air is way ahead. It's the intermediate-length trips that are the closer question.

              I live in Atlanta, where people are kicking around the ideas of rail lines to the south metro area (around 30-40 miles), to Athens (around 60 miles), and to Chattanooga (about 110 miles). Frankly, I'd like to know more. I'd like to see rail get its best shot, and see what happens.

              by HeyMikey on Sun Dec 24, 2006 at 04:35:03 PM PDT

•  Oui, oui!

  Gatwick express train from airport to London and back.  The Tube everywhere.
  Chunnel train from London to Paris.  TGV from Paris to Provence.

  by Sharon Jumper on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:03:50 AM PDT

•  If you travel by rail, make sure...

  ...you have plenty of time.

  Early this year, my sister-in-law decided take a trip from Denver to the east coast to visit some of her relatives. She thought it would be interesting to take the train.

  The train was scheduled to leave at 7:30pm. It was a bit late, yeah, just a bit. It left Denver at 2:30am the next morning!

  She missed the connection in Chicago, so she spent the night in a hotel. She left late the next day.

  Anyway, be sure to allow for a day to two extra on travel time and be sure to bring lots of snacks and water.

  by BlogDog on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:05:52 AM PDT

  •  This is what they do

    They essentially make using it so unpleasant, inconvenient or impossible that traffic decays and then they have a reason to pull the plug. I switched from train to Greyhound to get home from college in the 60s because they were already cutting the trains, making the stops at ungodly hours (imagine hiking a mile and a half at 3 a.m. to a train station in a small college town because everyone else had already left and there was no such thing as a cab and haul all your luggage in the pre-wheeled suitcase era), and not maintaing the triins which were completely filthy and unpleasant. Plus I recall most of them made stops at every backwater town in Ohio and Indiana, resulting in a 12-hour trip between Cleveland and Chicago.

    by anastasia p on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:00:40 AM PDT

•  Trains don't come to my town

  anymore.  But my husband and I drove up to St. Louis and took the train to Chicago, and I really enjoyed that.  I got to see for the first time just how vast this country is... and just how many cornfields there are in Illinois. ;)

  Other than that, I took the train from NJ to NY once with a friend.  It was much more pleasant than trying to deal with traffic.  I also took a train when I was in Sweden, which was heaven compared to the two train rides I've gone on in the States....

  by tryptamine on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:10:52 AM PDT

•  It can be done right

  I spent a week in Switzerland last month.  I bought a rail pass (for 2) for about the same price as renting a car.  Boy, was that the right decision.  Essentially, a train leaves for everywhere every half hour.  We had no trouble just deciding to go somewhere, heading for the station and getting on the next train out.

  When you arrange an intinerary, they routinely schedule 2 minute connection times between trains. TWO minutes!  We never missed a connection.

  It was wonderful.

  Dick.

  by dmonahan on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

  •  The SBB's got it going on.

    One of the best rail passenger systems in the world.

    by suzq on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:02:09 AM PDT

•  Can it be done

  and be profitable, or at least break even? It seems that every year i read about how far Amtrak is in the red and needs to be bailed out with federal funds. Why does Amtrak lose so much money, especially when it's the only interstate rail service around? BTW, my youngest brother uses Amtrak to get back and forth to school during breaks and despite the train always running late it seems like a good deal to me.

  by Prison4Bushco on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:18:51 AM PDT

  •  Amtrak does break even.

    It does so with federal subsidy. Another way to put this is that we support Amtrak just enough to break even, but not enough to make any real expansion or money-making opportunity possible.

    It's worth noting that in the UK many of the train-operating companies pocket a government subsidy. The biggest checks are cut to Virgin Trains; yet those operators are said to "make money."

    by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:30:09 AM PDT

  •  come on

    do AIRLINES break even???  Hell, we subsidize them with all kinds of breaks, and still another airline goes belly-up.  

    Transportation networks are expensive to build and maintain.  They come with societal benefits that cannot be gained any other way.  They ought not be expected to make a profit.  

    I would also point out that Amtrak does well with the pittance of support it receives from Washington.  Under the Republicans, Amtrak has been run in a way designed to prove that it cannot work.  It will be interesting to see if that culture changes with a party in power that is committed to common-sense initiatives designed to help average people.

    by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:43:07 AM PDT

    •  easy there Bandito

      Good point about the airlines. I don't profess to be a transportation expert. I'm just your average, run of the mill person asking some questions based on my observations. I personally don't mind subsidizing new transportation methods, especially high-speed rail. However, it seems that Amtrak has a hard enough time getting the subsidies it currently needs so is it realistic to expect congress to invest many billions on something that won't operate in the black.

      by Prison4Bushco on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:59:12 AM PDT

      •  When you get gridlock in the skies and on I-95

        in the next few years, believe me, you'll wish you'd have built the train network out now.

        by suzq on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:04:02 AM PDT

        •  what makes you think that

          I dont wish it were built out now? I live along the I-95 corridor which is served by the Acela (sorry excuse for a) high-speed rail line and three of the most frustrating airports there are. Other options would be wonderful.

          by Prison4Bushco on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:15:31 AM PDT

      •  sorry wasn't getting testy

        Just trying to inject some realism...people talk about airlines as though they don't have all the drawbacks of trains...when in fact they have more.  Don't take what I said personally, my bark is much worse than my bite.

        by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:17:27 AM PDT

        •  no problem

          I detest airports and flying in general. Give me an option to head for a train station and hop on a high speed train for interstate travel and I'm there. Hopefully, it will happen in my lifetime.

          by Prison4Bushco on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:21:41 AM PDT

    •  To reinforce the bandido's point:

      Immediately after 9/11, Congress set up something call the Air Transportation Stabilization Board.

      Lotsa people recall the loan guarantees sought of, and issued by, this board, but we tend to forget the nearly five billion in cash paid out to the airlines. Not loans, checks. And 427 airlines got 'em, including such "airlines" as Fedex and UPS.

      by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:53:45 AM PDT

      •  and how much did Amtrak get?

        0.00

        There was a political cartoon at the time with all the fat cat airline execs running from Capitol Hill with their pockets stuffed with money.  They were running down the steps so far they missed the guy marked "Amtrak" standing on the steps with a tin cup.  

        Air travel was way down for two months after 9/11, and all travel nationwide was severely disrupted.  Had we already had a real passenger train system in place, much inconvenience and loss of business could have been averted.

        Sadly, we don't seem to have learned anything from that experience in the last 5 years.

        by Big River Bandido on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:40:23 PM PDT

        •  Dems run Congress now. That's the one thing

          that's changed in 5 years. Now that the pro-learning party is in charge, I'm guardedly hopeful.

          by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:43:37 PM PDT

•  In NC we have about 150,000 people

  Move in every year. Trains? Nah. We love gridlock. And arguing. And arguing some more.

  I'm in dispair that this state will ever move into the mass transportation age.

  by kateNC on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:26:18 AM PDT

•  I love trains

  There are few where I live although prior to WWII they were the major travel mode (northern NE).  Unfortunately, this country decided to put money into roads instead of rails.  When we retire my husband and I plan to celebrate by taking the Canadian transcontinental train.

  by SMucci on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:52:23 AM PDT

  •  S and J

    Can you please e-mail me!

    Bora/Coturnix

    by coturnix on Tue Dec 26, 2006 at 07:57:17 PM PDT

•  On the other hand

  when I took the train to camp as a kid from Chicago to COlorado, I recall being stranded overnight in the middle of Nebraska because of a flood.

  by anastasia p on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 10:57:25 AM PDT

•  Let's not forget

  that rail transport uses less fuel and produces less CO₂ than air transport. As fuel prices rise and CO₂ emission becomes a substantial political issue in this nation, we must be prepared to carry larger proportions of the traveling public on rail.

  All they need is a moving hot spot on all intercity trains, and we'll be able to stay in contact with the rest of the world while we're traveling.

  by sowinso on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:07:21 AM PDT

  •  now what?

    has HTML been turned off?  funny, it worked in the preview....

    by sowinso on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:09:10 AM PDT

•  It sucks to go to Europe from the West Coast

  Because you often have to connect through the East Coast, which has far too many crowded airports.

  Just easing traffic congestion at Boston Logan, NY's airports, Chicago and DC is one BIG reason to greatly expand rail traffic.

  by Mumon on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:54:05 AM PDT

•  On your poll:

  You should have said "DOMESTIC" train trip.

  I travel by train in Japan all the time.

  by Mumon on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 11:54:53 AM PDT

  •  Good point. Funny thing about Japan, though,

    it's about the only place on earth where 747s are still in domestic service! In fact, Boeing developed a 747 variant, the 747-400D,  strictly for the Japanese market.

    by ticket punch on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 12:17:35 PM PDT

    •  In order to get a "round the world" fare

      once I had to travel from Narita to Kansai via ANA, which went to Fukuoka first.

      Very strange the way transportation is priced; absolutely no relation to its utility or cost it seems.

      by Mumon on Fri Dec 22, 2006 at 01:55:56 PM PDT

  •  Interesting story...

    ...from my cross country rail journey (mentioned above).  One day we had lunch in the dining car and were seated with a mother and daughter from Japan.  The daughter was travelling out from the east coast to California to start grad school.

    I asked the mother about trains in Japan.  She said she liked Amtrak better, because the Japanese trains had gotten "too businesslike."  She didn't mind a long, slow journey, I guess because she could spend quality time with her daughter.

    Again, like I mentioned above, it seems that the long distance trains are largely praised for people who see the journey itself as a vacation.  At the same time, there's something to be said for just slowing down sometimes.

    by JPhurst on Sat Dec 23, 2006 at 12:15:26 PM PDT