4 ms·

Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?

by dvtrn 9y ago

geerlingguy 9y ago
For shorter routes, it's the inverse; I go from STL to CHI (and back) often, and it's $30-40 for a pretty enjoyable short trip; 5-6 hours (compared to driving (4-5 hours), or flying (1 hour, but 2.5+ with airport time and stress included). Flights are usually $90+.
akshat_h 9y ago
Also, maintaining tracks is expensive, especially in a large country like USA, as compared to just maintaining two airports. Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving.
- protomyth 9y ago
  Amtrak doesn't own most of the track they use. They pay track usage payments to the freight railroads that actually own the track. In FY 2009 that was $115.4 million (3.3% of total operation cost). Cannot find the current numbers. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD-7i738naAhWD3oMKHa6JADkQFggsMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.dot.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FAMTRAK%2520Access%2520Fees%2520%2528Final%2520redacted3%2529.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ogNTkB73VBhoBulz6Q8Mp https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
  - jandrese 9y ago
    $115.4M seems really cheap. You couldn't lay too many miles of track for that, especially if you're buying land rights along the way.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      Did the interstate highway system have to buy land rights?
      - protomyth 9y ago
        The government used it in Eminent domain power to acquire the land (which if owned was paid for). The interstate system was built by the government, so it’s a totally different situation as the railroads built and maintain the track Amtrack is using.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        I guess that then the solution is obvious.
        protomyth 9y ago
        I'm not sure what is obvious. The government pays rent on something it didn't build. Cargo is vital to so many sectors of the economy, and passenger trains are not.
        closeparen 9y ago
        It doesn’t seem like a good use of eminent domain to build a slower and less capable transportation network when airline service is already ubiquitous. “I prefer to spend more for a slower journey because I like trains” is a weak justification for the use of such an invasive power.
- kalleboo 9y ago
  > Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving Here in Japan all the highways are privatized and are supposed to be self-funded by tolls. Where I live pretty much any road trip over 45 minutes you're likely to hit a toll. All tallied up (gas+tolls), driving 3-4 hours costs about as much as taking the 1hr 40minute bullet train (which isn't cheap - about $90 one-way). Driving only becomes economical when you're 3+ people in the car. I imagine there would be riots in the US if the interstates all started charging tolls.
pocketstar 9y ago
I understand the root issues is Amtrack unions. Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers. I dont know what the ratio is for airlines but it must be lower. This video does a pretty good explonation i think: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA
- hexane360 9y ago
  It's certainly a labor issue, but can you explain how it's the union's fault? Staffing a train for 30+ hours is 10x more expensive than staffing an airplane for 3. It's not the number of workers, but the time cost of workers. Don't forget to account for the ground crew when discussing planes.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers I've been on Amtrak trains and have seen nothing like that number of employees. My impression is that 1 in 40 or 80 might be closer.
nerfhammer 9y ago
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/amtrak-tracks-late-trains https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/amtrak-tracks-late-tra...
rdl 9y ago
Also because it's so slow. You're tying up a lot of personnel on the train, as well as capital equipment, for multiple days, rather than hours for a plane. With the same personnel (which cost about as much as pilots/cabin crew), you could run ~10 equivalent flights. Capital equipment is cheaper for rail than in the air, but the portion of rail capex/opex (either directly, or usually via fees to freight lines) is also high. This video is a good analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?

by dvtrn 9y ago

Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?

For shorter routes, it's the inverse; I go from STL to CHI (and back) often, and it's $30-40 for a pretty enjoyable short trip; 5-6 hours (compared to driving (4-5 hours), or flying (1 hour, but 2.5+ with airport time and stress included). Flights are usually $90+.

akshat_h 9y ago

Also, maintaining tracks is expensive, especially in a large country like USA, as compared to just maintaining two airports. Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving.

protomyth 9y ago
Amtrak doesn't own most of the track they use. They pay track usage payments to the freight railroads that actually own the track. In FY 2009 that was $115.4 million (3.3% of total operation cost). Cannot find the current numbers. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD-7i738naAhWD3oMKHa6JADkQFggsMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.dot.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FAMTRAK%2520Access%2520Fees%2520%2528Final%2520redacted3%2529.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ogNTkB73VBhoBulz6Q8Mp https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
- jandrese 9y ago
  $115.4M seems really cheap. You couldn't lay too many miles of track for that, especially if you're buying land rights along the way.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Did the interstate highway system have to buy land rights?
    - protomyth 9y ago
      The government used it in Eminent domain power to acquire the land (which if owned was paid for). The interstate system was built by the government, so it’s a totally different situation as the railroads built and maintain the track Amtrack is using.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        I guess that then the solution is obvious.
        protomyth 9y ago
        I'm not sure what is obvious. The government pays rent on something it didn't build. Cargo is vital to so many sectors of the economy, and passenger trains are not.
        closeparen 9y ago
        It doesn’t seem like a good use of eminent domain to build a slower and less capable transportation network when airline service is already ubiquitous. “I prefer to spend more for a slower journey because I like trains” is a weak justification for the use of such an invasive power.
kalleboo 9y ago
> Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving Here in Japan all the highways are privatized and are supposed to be self-funded by tolls. Where I live pretty much any road trip over 45 minutes you're likely to hit a toll. All tallied up (gas+tolls), driving 3-4 hours costs about as much as taking the 1hr 40minute bullet train (which isn't cheap - about $90 one-way). Driving only becomes economical when you're 3+ people in the car. I imagine there would be riots in the US if the interstates all started charging tolls.

pocketstar 9y ago

I understand the root issues is Amtrack unions. Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers. I dont know what the ratio is for airlines but it must be lower. This video does a pretty good explonation i think: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

hexane360 9y ago
It's certainly a labor issue, but can you explain how it's the union's fault? Staffing a train for 30+ hours is 10x more expensive than staffing an airplane for 3. It's not the number of workers, but the time cost of workers. Don't forget to account for the ground crew when discussing planes.
forapurpose 9y ago
> Amtrack staffing is one employee to four passengers I've been on Amtrak trains and have seen nothing like that number of employees. My impression is that 1 in 40 or 80 might be closer.

nerfhammer 9y ago

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/amtrak-tracks-late-trains https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/amtrak-tracks-late-tra...

rdl 9y ago

Also because it's so slow. You're tying up a lot of personnel on the train, as well as capital equipment, for multiple days, rather than hours for a plane. With the same personnel (which cost about as much as pilots/cabin crew), you could run ~10 equivalent flights. Capital equipment is cheaper for rail than in the air, but the portion of rail capex/opex (either directly, or usually via fees to freight lines) is also high. This video is a good analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA