In praise of Metro North
With oil prices the way they are, and ethanol production not going so well, I really have to wonder why trains aren't making a comeback. Sure, ridership (If that's actually a word?) is up considerably, but not much is being done to expand service. As airlines flounder and actually lose money on flights, spending more time on the tarmac than it would take to get to the destination some other way, public transportation becomes more and more sensible.
As a resident of the sixth borough of New York City (Connecticut; you know it's true) I take the train a lot. When I do, I ride Metro North. Unlike Amtrak, Shore Line East, and other carriers, I've never seen an MT train marked as "late." While the Connecticut line cars are a little old, there is a plan in action to replace them with new ones like the Hudson line has. I got to check out a sample car a while ago; they're shiny and comfy and very sleek. Also properly air-conditioned. If I remember correctly, the engineer said that each new car costs $1.6 million. I think it would be worth it, though, particularly if they increase the number of cars and trips as well. Since last year I've noticed that each time I go into the city, the number of people on the train increases a little bit. I'm lucky to go from end-to-end of the line, because people getting on at Stamford have to squish in. And I only ever take off-peak trains!
The only problem with the system right now is that the fares are still a little too high to make riding in cheaper than driving. For one person it's a no-brainer; $28 round-trip for an off-peak would only pay for parking once you're in the city and gas would cost much more. But for three or more, it's still more economically viable to carpool and split the cost. It's possible that with the new fleet, which is also supposed to be more efficient, ticket prices will go down a bit. This would be awesome, but it isn't guaranteed, and it will take a while to incorporate the new cars. However, I think it's a shame that public transport is still more expensive for families and groups than driving. It's far cleaner, more fuel- and space-efficient, and safer. There's also the fact that taking a train has a mystique all its own. For a lone passenger, like me, there's the feeling of being in a movie, staring out the window pensively with my iPod on. For groups, we can sit and face each other and talk without distracting the driver. Admittedly some people don't know proper train etiquette, but then you can move to another car. And sometimes you meet somebody nice! The last time I came home from the city, I spent half the ride talking with a young woman named Kate who was very nice, smart, and liked many of the same books that I do. You never get that kind of socializing on the highway.
Living in Connecticut, I'm privileged to have access to this kind of resource. Because we are, basically, a suburb of the City, reliable and regular train service is all but necessary, and it's also highly profitable; people less fortuitously placed have trouble finding train stations. But with the price of flying going up exponentially, and delays on the tarmac exceeding seven hours in some cases, rail travel is looking more attractive by the day. Even if the flight itself only takes two hours, once you spend three in the airport and five on the runway it takes just as long to get to, say, Chicago as it would to take a train there. What I'm supporting is a revival of nationwide railroads, on the scale of the 1800s, to replace or relieve both air travel and driving. It is unlikely that oil prices will fall significantly any time soon, so if an economy of scale is built back into the train system, it will become much less expensive to use the rails while still being profitable to the entity in charge of them. In fact, widespread rail use could possibly cause a fall in oil prices because of decrease in demand. Extrapolating from all this, imagine changing transport systems from trucking to train cars. The prices of goods would fall too, because the price of gas would not have to be passed on to the consumer.
Admittedly the original cost of rebuilding the tracks and manufacturing cars would be expensive; but think of all the jobs it would create! We'd need people to lay the tracks, operate the equipment, coordinate the effort, build more stations, and of course drive the trains. And this is the sort of thing that can't be outsourced! You can't lay a Colorado railway from China, and somebody in India can't check tickets in Florida. I'm actually quite shocked that nobody has thought of this. If someone has, more power to her! Reviving the railways would do wonders for the country, the environment, and the consumer. What are we waiting for?
As a resident of the sixth borough of New York City (Connecticut; you know it's true) I take the train a lot. When I do, I ride Metro North. Unlike Amtrak, Shore Line East, and other carriers, I've never seen an MT train marked as "late." While the Connecticut line cars are a little old, there is a plan in action to replace them with new ones like the Hudson line has. I got to check out a sample car a while ago; they're shiny and comfy and very sleek. Also properly air-conditioned. If I remember correctly, the engineer said that each new car costs $1.6 million. I think it would be worth it, though, particularly if they increase the number of cars and trips as well. Since last year I've noticed that each time I go into the city, the number of people on the train increases a little bit. I'm lucky to go from end-to-end of the line, because people getting on at Stamford have to squish in. And I only ever take off-peak trains!
The only problem with the system right now is that the fares are still a little too high to make riding in cheaper than driving. For one person it's a no-brainer; $28 round-trip for an off-peak would only pay for parking once you're in the city and gas would cost much more. But for three or more, it's still more economically viable to carpool and split the cost. It's possible that with the new fleet, which is also supposed to be more efficient, ticket prices will go down a bit. This would be awesome, but it isn't guaranteed, and it will take a while to incorporate the new cars. However, I think it's a shame that public transport is still more expensive for families and groups than driving. It's far cleaner, more fuel- and space-efficient, and safer. There's also the fact that taking a train has a mystique all its own. For a lone passenger, like me, there's the feeling of being in a movie, staring out the window pensively with my iPod on. For groups, we can sit and face each other and talk without distracting the driver. Admittedly some people don't know proper train etiquette, but then you can move to another car. And sometimes you meet somebody nice! The last time I came home from the city, I spent half the ride talking with a young woman named Kate who was very nice, smart, and liked many of the same books that I do. You never get that kind of socializing on the highway.
Living in Connecticut, I'm privileged to have access to this kind of resource. Because we are, basically, a suburb of the City, reliable and regular train service is all but necessary, and it's also highly profitable; people less fortuitously placed have trouble finding train stations. But with the price of flying going up exponentially, and delays on the tarmac exceeding seven hours in some cases, rail travel is looking more attractive by the day. Even if the flight itself only takes two hours, once you spend three in the airport and five on the runway it takes just as long to get to, say, Chicago as it would to take a train there. What I'm supporting is a revival of nationwide railroads, on the scale of the 1800s, to replace or relieve both air travel and driving. It is unlikely that oil prices will fall significantly any time soon, so if an economy of scale is built back into the train system, it will become much less expensive to use the rails while still being profitable to the entity in charge of them. In fact, widespread rail use could possibly cause a fall in oil prices because of decrease in demand. Extrapolating from all this, imagine changing transport systems from trucking to train cars. The prices of goods would fall too, because the price of gas would not have to be passed on to the consumer.
Admittedly the original cost of rebuilding the tracks and manufacturing cars would be expensive; but think of all the jobs it would create! We'd need people to lay the tracks, operate the equipment, coordinate the effort, build more stations, and of course drive the trains. And this is the sort of thing that can't be outsourced! You can't lay a Colorado railway from China, and somebody in India can't check tickets in Florida. I'm actually quite shocked that nobody has thought of this. If someone has, more power to her! Reviving the railways would do wonders for the country, the environment, and the consumer. What are we waiting for?
posted by Mint Sharpie at 1:53 PM
2 Comments:
You make a good point! I've travelled on trains quite a bit, and most often they're far more relaxing that an airplane, as well as more efficient. I've travelled across Canada 3 times by train now... the problem with that trip is that it takes 3 days each way, and most of the time is spent going through the countryside and small towns (beautiful, but not very time-savvy). But I can easily see in the States, where the population is much more dense, a system like that working.
(And the point about feeling like you're in movie is definitely true! :D)
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment
<< Home