Some Say Train Travel More Convenient, Less Expensive... And Less Stressful

In these days of crowded jets languishing for hours on hot tarmacs and irritated passengers growing more irritated at ever increasing flight delays, there are some that have had enough and are returning to the roots of long-distance travel.

No, not sailing ships, or stagecoaches -- trains.

According to the Wall Street Journal, ridership on the nation's passenger rail system is up six percent so far this year -- reportedly the largest leap up since the 1970s. Those kinds of numbers are music to the ears of many at Amtrak... the nation's oft-maligned, arguably ill-funded rail provider.

Amtrak's Acela Express runs a line from Boston to New York to Washington. The number of passengers has jumped 20 percent just in the last 10 months. The Journal says that equals the number of passengers it takes to fill 2,000 757s.

One reason for the switch in loyalties is the fact that security lines, flight delays and cancellations make traveling by air "an absolute horror show," as one disgruntled air traveler put it.

Traveler Richard Rosen travels frequently for business and has begun taking the Acela whenever possible.

He says a trip from Boston to New York, with traffic, delays and security hassles can take four hours or more. But, the Acela takes about three and a half hours and is much less stressful and much  more comfortable.

"The train is much better, and you can do your work and use your cell phone during the whole trip," he said.

Some are switching because they believe trains are not as dangerous to the environment. Recent studies are suggesting aircraft are more damaging than originally thought, as ANN reported.

Some are doing it because it's cheaper. A one-way non-discounted fare for the New York-Washington on the Acela is $199, compared to $324 for the same ticket on the same route on the air shuttle.

The improvement in Amtrak's numbers hasn't gone unnoticed, either. "This means a lot of goodwill in the bank for Amtrak among policy makers for increasing its funds and expanding service," says Rep. James Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota and head of the House transportation committee.

"The dynamics have shifted in favor of a strong future for Amtrak."

The House passed a fiscal 2008 funding bill recently with $1.4 billion destined for Amtrak plus another $50 million that will match state funding of some capital projects.

The Senate is considering $1.37 billion plus $100 million for Amtrak's capital program.

So what does this have to do with aviation? As with any kind of competition, there are critics and detractors. There are those, like the Air Transport Association, who say a new air traffic control system will fix what ails the air transport industry.

"If that is taken care of, a lot of the problems we have today will be eliminated," says a spokesman for US Airways Group Inc.

A JetBlue Airways spokesperson added, "It's wrong for tax dollars to be used to subsidize Amtrak passenger trains when a modernized air-traffic-control system is not yet in place or even funded."

Then there's the other side of the proverbial coin. Some surprising attitudes from some surprising sources are all for building up America's rail system.

Robert Crandall -- former CEO of AMR Corp, parent company of American Airlines -- says helping Amtrak grow and prosper, especially in the Northeast (think JFK, Newark and LaGuardia) is "one of the best" ways to reduce aviation congestion.

If trains are taking the short-distance travelers, that would free up space for long-haul flights.

"You have to begin to put the infrastructure in place to put in high-speed trains," said Gordon Bethune, former CEO of Continental Airlines. "It should be a national priority. If the French can do it, why can't we?"

FMI: www.amtrak.com