I use Amtrak for pleasure, and I'm getting better at it all the time. During my last $340 Explore America adventure ($300 of that paid by American Express, just for enrolling for their Green Card), I was able to visit friends and family in Chicago, Milwaukee, New York, Montreal and Ottawa.
Since I work at a large University and my job does not require me to travel, I don't need to take the train for business. *However,* if my employer did want me to travel somewhere, I would take the train to my destination, no ifs ands or buts.
Those who faithfully read my postings know I have a physical problem that prevents me from flying. My employer understands this and always gives me generous time off so that I can go wherever I want, for as long as I want.
I don't consider myself lucky in this regard, however. We all make our own "luck" in this world. None of us *have* to be somewhere at a given time. We have just convinced ourselves that we have to be there.
I am somewhat frustrated by some people on this board, six-figure big-shots, who seem to think they are so special they have to be somewhere in three hours or less. If you're so special, then how come you don't have control over your destiny? How come you act like puppets at the end of a string? Face it, you're just well-paid slaves to the system.
Yes littletrain, I take Amtrak for pleasure. But if my living required me to travel, I would take it for business, as well.
No ifs ands or buts.
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 02-24-2004).]
------------------
JONATHON D. ORTIZ
[This message has been edited by JONATHON (edited 02-24-2004).]
Now, here's an interesting bit of related information fron the NARP plan for Amtrak. This refers to studies on trip purpose by mode of transportation:
Mode Share by Purpose of Trip
· The automobile dominated all types of travel regardless of purpose but was weaker for business travel.
· Commercial air was in second place with greatest strength in business and weakest in Leisure and Personal Business.
· Rail finished a distant third in Visiting Friends and Relatives, fourth in business and personal business and fifth in Leisure (ahead only of “all other” and intercity bus).
· In terms of comparative strength, however, the train was above average in the business and visiting friends and relatives Categories, average in the personal business category and weakest in leisure travel where tour busses and ships had their greatest strength.
You can download the complete document here with a breakdown of travel purpose statistics in the appendix: http://www.narprail.org/plan.htm
------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy
A few years ago while working in the northeast I made quite a few business related trips on Amtrak. But, if I am in Memphis and want to go, say to Atlanta or Dallas, the train is simply not there. I recently rode a bus Nashville to Memphis, family related visit / busineess simply because I had no desire to pay the exhorbitant short haul air fare and the car was needed elsewhere, plus why spend 3 hours plus on a road owned by a group of trucking companies. Well, we all know they don't actually own it, but they act like they do. Talk about freight interference, this one can kill you. On this particular occasion, the bus was over 2 hours late, so it is not just Amtrak that runs late.
We need to be pushing for a true rail passenger system where all major cities are connected by no less than two trains in each direction about 12 hours apart, and in most areas, four or more each way spread out over the day. Operating at decent speeds, of course. No super duper high speed stuff, just approximate or better normal driving times. Then and only then will we have any menaingful basis for comparison.
If anyone hasn't looked, even with only a few not very fast trains ridership can improve drastically. Look at what North Carolina has done for a good non-California example. It take consistent long term commitment. web site www.bytrain.org
Actually, if anyone has looked recently, a lot of the major cities connections by bus are becoming pretty skeletal as well.
However, outside the NEC is another story. In nearly 17 years, I've made a total of five business trips by train, as follows:
1) Wenatchee - Milwaukee in a deluxe BR
2) Huntington, WV - PHL in a standard BR
3) Grand Rapids - Chicago in coach
4) Chicago - St. Louis in coach
5) San Antonio - Dallas in coach
6) San Diego - LAX
7) San Jose - Sacramento
I won't bore everyone with explanations. Let's suffice to say that there were unusual circumstances involved in every trip.
Note that, despite frequent trips to MTR and JAX during the 1990s, I never once used an overnight train. Problems included:
1) the 1115 arrival of the Montrealer in MTR, too late for a morning business meeting
2) Such high prices for sleepers to JAX, it was actually cheaper to fly, rent a car, and stay a night in a hotel!
So it *is* possible to use Amtrak for business outside the NEC; you just have to work at it a bit.
My trip is in June but I'm sooo looking forward to it (104 more sleeps!!) that I'm driving everybody here I know in New Zealand nuts!!
With some luck, I'll be able to snag employment in a part of the US where I can ride the train as a part of my vacation, similar to what I do now. I'm really looking forward to my next trip in march. RDW - FTL. Ft. Lauderdale, here I come!
[This message has been edited by CG96 (edited 02-26-2004).]
There's only been one time that I rode Amtrak for business, and that was after our corporate meeting in Vancouver.
Doesn't this prove my previous post, that amtrak is mainly used for pleasure, not for business! Not to refuel the debate, but why exactly is it the government's job to pick up the tab for a nice rail vacaton?
What I'm writing here is that the tye of respondent here is more likly to be someone who uses rail for pleasure trips to begin with, so the posts reflect the membership of this forum. Go to a different forum, and you'll get a different response.
I think the shortest line that Amtrak runs is the Hiawatha, between Chicago and Milwaukee and they say it is doing quite well. I guess one could argue that most of the people who take that line are doing it for reasons related to business (although *I* took it for pleasure). A survey of riders would be very appropriate on the Hiawatha, I suppose.
Just for the record, it's 2.5 hours from Chicago to Milwaukee on the Hiawatha, a distance of about 90 miles. Round trip cost is about $40.
In my hometown, we are in the beginning stages of creating a "light rail" train from the small town of Belen to downtown Albuquerque and eventually to Santa Fe. Amtrak, for your information, is not involved in this deal at all.
So far, the freight companies haven't had much to say about this route. I suppose from their perspective, they're just waiting for a nice hunk of money to be deposited in their lap. That's kinda the way things work in this part of the country.
[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 02-27-2004).]
Polorbearucla if you remember when Amtrak talks about cut backs they always refer to the long distant trains. On the west coast alone we have trains in the morning which carry over 300 passengers every morning from SAC to OAK to work in the bay area. The same train will unload at OAK and reload with another 200 passengers and take them from OAK to SJC. That's 500 passengers on just one train alone every week day one way. While the freeways are clogged up with bumper to bumper traffic moving at an average of 25mph. We go blowing by at 79mph on the rail. The NE corridor carries a whole lot more passengers and run trains more often than the west coast. The same goes for the Chicago area.
Polarbear - Let me see if I can follow your logic here. If it is found that a majority of Amtrak riders do it for pleasure (which I don't believe from experience) then the feds should have no part in funding it? Ok, but I wonder how many people drive on highways or fly for pleasure? Since I don't fly at all, why should MY tax dollars fund that? The answer is that all of these systems are part of infrastructure. I will grant you that the long distance trains are a bit harder to rationalize, but these are still important simply as an alternative. Why should we as a nation limit ourselves to only two major transportation systems when we could have three? We've already seen what can happen to the airline industry and I'll suggest a re-read of my post on environmental impact. Year after year it is being proven, throughout the system, that if train service is there, people will use it.
CG96 & Sheriff - Ditto.
One other small matter, I need to address to you and others. You said,
"I will grant you that the long distance trains are a bit harder to rationalize..."
In the end, it really doesn't matter whether people in big cities can rationalize the existence of trains that serve small communities.
Big cities are not going to "rationalize" the crucial congressional votes of "flyover country" out of existence.
The current management of Amtrak would happily shut down the entire system before they got rid of long haul passenger trains. This includes your precious NEC.
There is no way *my* tax dollars are going to pay for *your* railroad unless you pay for mine, as well: Period.
You all better start thinking "compromise."
------------------
The Copper Country Limited [Milwaukee Road] and the Peninsula 400 [CNW} still my favorites