Aug 26, 2008
The proposal to lend $25 billion to U.S. auto manufacturers is just the tip of the iceberg
Yesterday, astonished at the scope of the proposal, I wrote about the $25 billion that both political parties advocate be loaned to Ford, Chrysler and General Motors by the federal government. (The money is to be used to retool their plants for the production of smaller, fuel-efficient cars.)
The actual government assistance to the automotive industry is much greater. On July 30, Slate.com, the respected Internet-based magazine, made a startling calculation of how much U.S. taxpayers pay each year in subsidies for cars.
The amount it came up with was nearly $100 billion each year, a number it admitted was very rough but which, it pointed out, "dwarfs anything provided to mass transit." This includes the $50 billion a year appropriated annually for highways. It also includes all the tax write-offs of driving expenses enjoyed by workers -- numbers that certainly put into perspective the recurring complaint about "handouts" to trains and mass transit.
Road travel has become the country's dominant transportation method in no small part because of the investment of the federal government. Had our country devoted more attention to our railways for the past century (in 2007, Amtrak got $1.3 billion, or a little more than 1 percent of what roads received by Slate's calculations), we might be taking them with much more regularity and reliability.
If you plant a tree, you'll get the fruit later. The success of the personal car in America is because we planted the seeds a long time ago, mainly through Federal expenditures for excellent roads, including interstate highways. It's time to invest in a rail system that will soon bear as much fruit as France's trains have done by reporting a 2007 profit of $1.75 billion.
Write and read comments about this post.
The actual government assistance to the automotive industry is much greater. On July 30, Slate.com, the respected Internet-based magazine, made a startling calculation of how much U.S. taxpayers pay each year in subsidies for cars.
The amount it came up with was nearly $100 billion each year, a number it admitted was very rough but which, it pointed out, "dwarfs anything provided to mass transit." This includes the $50 billion a year appropriated annually for highways. It also includes all the tax write-offs of driving expenses enjoyed by workers -- numbers that certainly put into perspective the recurring complaint about "handouts" to trains and mass transit.
Road travel has become the country's dominant transportation method in no small part because of the investment of the federal government. Had our country devoted more attention to our railways for the past century (in 2007, Amtrak got $1.3 billion, or a little more than 1 percent of what roads received by Slate's calculations), we might be taking them with much more regularity and reliability.
If you plant a tree, you'll get the fruit later. The success of the personal car in America is because we planted the seeds a long time ago, mainly through Federal expenditures for excellent roads, including interstate highways. It's time to invest in a rail system that will soon bear as much fruit as France's trains have done by reporting a 2007 profit of $1.75 billion.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: amtrak, rail, red tape, trains
Jul 23, 2008
Some leisurely thoughts about the pleasures of traveling in Europe on the slowest trains
The European rail system is generally efficient, fast and affordable. But you must always keep in mind that on many routes, you'll have a choice between an airplane-style high-speed train and a slower one that makes more stops. Improbably enough, the slower variety, in addition to costing much less, are often more pleasant.
The price, first. Taking a six-hour-long fast train between Berlin and Munich will cost €110. But agree to board the local, which takes about nine hours, and the price is about €73. That's a nearly $60 savings for the same day on the same route, and the only difference to your touring schedule will be three hours.
This additional time is often offset by the fact that in some cities, the slower trains run with greater frequency than the more expensive express trains, so they are often easier to schedule. Also, fast trains often require seat reservations whereas slow trains, which are intended for casual commuters, are easier to catch on a whim.
Now these savings are not always possible on every route. In Spain, the new AVE bullet train, outfitted as beautifully as an airplane cabin, goes between Barcelona and Madrid in 2 hours and 43 minutes at a cost of $240 round-trip. Unfortunately, it completely replaced the five-hour trains that cost about $80 less. When you buy your ticket, always ask if there's a cheaper slow train available.
In Europe, the railway can be a very social environment. Taking the train that stops more may involve a longer trip than the fast train does, but it also affords you more opportunities to meet locals, who use this multi-stop service to get around their respective regions.
It's just more proof that often, traveling in the most affordable fashion can not only save you money, but can also supply a richer and often more authentic local experience.
And, of course, you'll have more time to relax, read a book, or get a better look at the foreign countryside as it cruises along at a slower speed.
Write and read comments about this post.
The price, first. Taking a six-hour-long fast train between Berlin and Munich will cost €110. But agree to board the local, which takes about nine hours, and the price is about €73. That's a nearly $60 savings for the same day on the same route, and the only difference to your touring schedule will be three hours.
This additional time is often offset by the fact that in some cities, the slower trains run with greater frequency than the more expensive express trains, so they are often easier to schedule. Also, fast trains often require seat reservations whereas slow trains, which are intended for casual commuters, are easier to catch on a whim.
Now these savings are not always possible on every route. In Spain, the new AVE bullet train, outfitted as beautifully as an airplane cabin, goes between Barcelona and Madrid in 2 hours and 43 minutes at a cost of $240 round-trip. Unfortunately, it completely replaced the five-hour trains that cost about $80 less. When you buy your ticket, always ask if there's a cheaper slow train available.
In Europe, the railway can be a very social environment. Taking the train that stops more may involve a longer trip than the fast train does, but it also affords you more opportunities to meet locals, who use this multi-stop service to get around their respective regions.
It's just more proof that often, traveling in the most affordable fashion can not only save you money, but can also supply a richer and often more authentic local experience.
And, of course, you'll have more time to relax, read a book, or get a better look at the foreign countryside as it cruises along at a slower speed.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: berlin, munich, trains
Apr 25, 2008
An interesting fact about the structural advantage that Congress gives to appropriations for highways over rail transportation
Were you aware that state governments have to pay far more of the cost of light-rail transit than of highways? Last week's online edition of The New Republic carries this remarkable revelation:
Write and read comments about this post.
It's no secret that Congress has always spent far more to promote driving than it's spent on public transit -- note that the White House requested $40 billion for the federal highway budget in 2008, versus $1.08 billion for railroad funding. But that's only the beginning. While doing some searching around, I came across an old Brookings report from 2003, which usefully compared the funding process for highway and mass transit projects, and laid out some glaring differences.
Under current law, the federal government usually covers about 80-90 percent of the costs for a new highway project, compared with only 50 percent of the costs for a transit system. Local communities have to pick up most of the rest of the tab for public transportation, with state governments chipping in what's left. Since doing that usually requires raising property taxes, most local governments just prefer to build highways. (Indeed, some 30 states restrict their gas-tax revenues to highway purposes only.)
Moreover, transit projects have to undergo intensive scrutiny: a cost-benefit analysis, a land-use analysis, an environmental-impact analysis, and, usually, a detailed comparison among various alternatives. That all sounds pretty reasonable, except that highway projects don't have to undergo any of this -- save for a (considerably less strict) environmental analysis -- federal oversight is rather minimal. Highway money is basically a gift to states and local governments.
Not surprisingly, most communities find it far easier to build new highways than to set up, say, a light-rail system, no matter how popular the latter might be. (The Brookings report gives an example of a popular light-rail proposal in Milwaukee going down in flames for exactly this reason.) So, sure, any decent plan for reducing emissions and curbing gasoline use should include more money for public transit. But it also seems like a lot of funding rules need to be changed, so that transit and highway projects can compete on a more level playing field. -- Bradford Plumer
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: trains, washington dc
Apr 23, 2008
Help! The penalties and fees added to airfares are becoming a serious matter, and should cause us all to take the train wherever possible
You may want to bring an electronic calculator to the airport, to tote up all the fees, surcharges and penalties that airlines have recently added to their basic airfares. The pricing picture is worsening with every passing moment, and it's important that you act in advance to head off the possibility that some of these fees may badly affect your own travel budget.
Let's start listing them: just three days ago, United Airlines raised the penalty to a hefty $150 for changing reservations once made, and it's likely that other airlines will soon copy. Your own response: think carefully about committing yourself to a flight, and adhere to those plans once they are made.
United, U.S. Air, and five other copycats scheduling their own announcements for next week, are now charging $25 one-way, and $50 round-trip, for checking a second suitcase. They are also increasing the penalty-per-pound on the excess weight of the one suitcase you do check with them; people avoiding the second-suitcase penalty by stuffing all but the kitchen sink into the first suitcase, will learn the errors of bringing heavy wardrobes with them when they travel. Your only recourse: learn to travel light. Repeat: learn to travel light.
U.S. Airways has announced a new "Choice Seat" program to begin May 7, whereby travelers will be charged an additional $5 per flight for an aisle or window seat in the first several rows of coach. Your response should be: take the train wherever possible, don't subject yourself to cattle car-like conditions in the air.
Fuel surcharges on many trans-Atlantic airlines are now hovering close to $200.
Numerous airlines are charging $10 extra if you make your reservations by telephone rather than on the internet.
Curbside check-in fees at Delta are going up to $3 from $2.
Airfares themselves are rising by at least $10 almost every week.
And finally, United Airlines is adding a Saturday overnight stay requirement to nearly all their discount fares, thus effectively blocking their use by business travelers determined to return home quickly from their short business trips.
In Europe, fees like these would cause most of the population to yawn; they possess a rail alternative for most of the trips they contemplate. We don't have such options. We are paying the price for our failure to maintain a viable rail system in the U.S.
We are also jamming our airports, and overburdening our air traffic control system, with hundreds and hundreds of daily flights to close-in destinations that should be serviced instead by high-speed rail: between Los Angeles and San Francisco, for instance, between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, up and down the east and west coasts of Florida, between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, from New York to upstate New York. If these city pairs possessed high-speed rail, we could eliminate hundreds of daily flights and ease conditions at our badly-overstretched airports.
Remember that when you vote this November on those members of Congress who have almost playfully opposed additional appropriations for Amtrak.
Write and read comments about this post.
Let's start listing them: just three days ago, United Airlines raised the penalty to a hefty $150 for changing reservations once made, and it's likely that other airlines will soon copy. Your own response: think carefully about committing yourself to a flight, and adhere to those plans once they are made.
United, U.S. Air, and five other copycats scheduling their own announcements for next week, are now charging $25 one-way, and $50 round-trip, for checking a second suitcase. They are also increasing the penalty-per-pound on the excess weight of the one suitcase you do check with them; people avoiding the second-suitcase penalty by stuffing all but the kitchen sink into the first suitcase, will learn the errors of bringing heavy wardrobes with them when they travel. Your only recourse: learn to travel light. Repeat: learn to travel light.
U.S. Airways has announced a new "Choice Seat" program to begin May 7, whereby travelers will be charged an additional $5 per flight for an aisle or window seat in the first several rows of coach. Your response should be: take the train wherever possible, don't subject yourself to cattle car-like conditions in the air.
Fuel surcharges on many trans-Atlantic airlines are now hovering close to $200.
Numerous airlines are charging $10 extra if you make your reservations by telephone rather than on the internet.
Curbside check-in fees at Delta are going up to $3 from $2.
Airfares themselves are rising by at least $10 almost every week.
And finally, United Airlines is adding a Saturday overnight stay requirement to nearly all their discount fares, thus effectively blocking their use by business travelers determined to return home quickly from their short business trips.
In Europe, fees like these would cause most of the population to yawn; they possess a rail alternative for most of the trips they contemplate. We don't have such options. We are paying the price for our failure to maintain a viable rail system in the U.S.
We are also jamming our airports, and overburdening our air traffic control system, with hundreds and hundreds of daily flights to close-in destinations that should be serviced instead by high-speed rail: between Los Angeles and San Francisco, for instance, between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, up and down the east and west coasts of Florida, between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, from New York to upstate New York. If these city pairs possessed high-speed rail, we could eliminate hundreds of daily flights and ease conditions at our badly-overstretched airports.
Remember that when you vote this November on those members of Congress who have almost playfully opposed additional appropriations for Amtrak.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jan 25, 2008
It's those short-haul flights that are jamming up our airports and airways
My wife and I flew to Sanibel, Florida (reached via the Ft. Myers airport) on JetBlue, boarding at what is probably the busiest and most crowded terminal building in all of America. JetBlue at JFK Airport is a scene from an all-year-around New Year's Eve, crammed with hordes of people standing patiently in line to pass through security, looking for empty seats in which to rest, surging to the gates when a flight is announced. And why is JetBlue so busy? A glance at the departures board tells the story.
Flights from New York City to Rochester, New York, less than 350 miles away. Flights to Buffalo, New York. To Syracuse, New York. To Portland, Maine. To Burlington, Vermont. To Richmond, Virginia. All of them short, under-one-hour flights, each scheduled for several departures a day, and using up a large percentage of JetBlue's total take-offs and landing.
Not one of these close-in places should be reached by airplane from New York. They should be serviced by train -- by trains on high-speed tracks. If we had such trains, we could radically reduce congestion in the skies. We could return to an efficient, comfortable aviation system, and conserve giant amounts of fuel at the same time.
We urgently need to increase the appropriations for Amtrak and permit that system to grow and get faster.
Write and read comments about this post.
Flights from New York City to Rochester, New York, less than 350 miles away. Flights to Buffalo, New York. To Syracuse, New York. To Portland, Maine. To Burlington, Vermont. To Richmond, Virginia. All of them short, under-one-hour flights, each scheduled for several departures a day, and using up a large percentage of JetBlue's total take-offs and landing.
Not one of these close-in places should be reached by airplane from New York. They should be serviced by train -- by trains on high-speed tracks. If we had such trains, we could radically reduce congestion in the skies. We could return to an efficient, comfortable aviation system, and conserve giant amounts of fuel at the same time.
We urgently need to increase the appropriations for Amtrak and permit that system to grow and get faster.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: airlines, amtrak, trains
Jan 22, 2008
Buy a Eurailpass before March 31 and get a totally free day on European trains
Europe has gotten so expensive that it's a cause for rejoicing when one of the unavoidable costs of travel -- food, lodging, or transportation -- comes down in price. This is why a rare railpass sale from Rail Europe (tel. 888/382-7245; www.raileurope.com) is good news.
This Eurail Early Bird sale is tacking on a free extra rail day if you purchase certain of its European train passes by the end of March. That might not sound much, but with a 6-day pass going for $530, adding that extra, seventh day is like getting $87 worth of train travel free.
The sale is on the Select Pass (as well as its variations the Youthpass and the SaverPass, for two or more adults traveling together), which allows you to travel a certain number of days within a two-month period in your choice of three, four, or five countries (or, in a few cases, multi-country regions).
The days of train travel don't have to be consecutive; you can opt to use them, one at a time, at any point in your travels. The countries/regions you pick, however, must either be contiguous or connected by ferry from the following list: Austria, Benelux (includes Belgium, Luxembourg, and Holland), Bulgaria/Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia/Slovenia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Here are the 2008 prices under this sale (children 2-11 pay half-price):
Write and read comments about this post.
This Eurail Early Bird sale is tacking on a free extra rail day if you purchase certain of its European train passes by the end of March. That might not sound much, but with a 6-day pass going for $530, adding that extra, seventh day is like getting $87 worth of train travel free.
The sale is on the Select Pass (as well as its variations the Youthpass and the SaverPass, for two or more adults traveling together), which allows you to travel a certain number of days within a two-month period in your choice of three, four, or five countries (or, in a few cases, multi-country regions).
The days of train travel don't have to be consecutive; you can opt to use them, one at a time, at any point in your travels. The countries/regions you pick, however, must either be contiguous or connected by ferry from the following list: Austria, Benelux (includes Belgium, Luxembourg, and Holland), Bulgaria/Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia/Slovenia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Here are the 2008 prices under this sale (children 2-11 pay half-price):
- A 7-day pass (in other words, the six-day pass plus the freebie) costs $520 if you want to use it in three countries, $576 for four countries, and $630 for five countries.
- A 9-day pass costs $617 for three countries, $673 for four countries, and $729 for five countries.
- An 11-day pass costs $715 for three countries, $769 for four countries, and $822 for five countries.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jan 3, 2008
U.S. population growth defies the arguments put forth by Amtrak opponents
The enemies of Amtrak are constantly arguing that the United States is different from Europe, that we do not possess the population density that would make a widespread rail system sensible. They are apparently unaware of recent demographic trends resulting in a nation of 303,152,000 people, of which the vast majority are concentrated in the eastern half of the country, along the southernmost strip of the "sunbelt," and along the west coast. In these areas, a use of train transportation is just as sensible and feasible as anywhere in Europe.
Take out a map of the United States. Starting at the northernmost tip of the mid-west, draw a somewhat jagged north/south line starting at Duluth, Minnesota, and then proceeding downwards through Minneapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. Everything to the east of that line -- nearly half the United States -- is a place of intense population density growing "thicker" by the day.
Now add to that vast swath of the United States the southernmost area of the sunbelt, going across the bottom of the U.S. to San Diego, and then up the entire west coast to Seattle. That, too, is a place of population density that can well support an efficient rail system.
Recently, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, which has fought for 40 years to extend and expand the Amtrak system, published a map showing the railroad routes that it would add to the present inadequate network of passenger tracks. The web of rail lines that resulted are found in the population-dense areas I have just described. If these new routes were to be built for high-speed rail, we would have something close to an adequate rail system, and would not have to cram the airports of our country with anxious passengers sweating out the delays and cancellations that now afflict our air traffic. We would restore a decent quality of travel life -- and greatly improve our own lives. And we would do this for a fraction of the money we now spend on extending highways.
Several members of Congress -- members of both the House and Senate -- currently delight in proposing an elimination of funding for Amtrak. Let's make them aware that we know who they are -- and that we're coming after them.
Write and read comments about this post.
Take out a map of the United States. Starting at the northernmost tip of the mid-west, draw a somewhat jagged north/south line starting at Duluth, Minnesota, and then proceeding downwards through Minneapolis, Des Moines, Omaha, Kansas City, Joplin, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Austin and San Antonio. Everything to the east of that line -- nearly half the United States -- is a place of intense population density growing "thicker" by the day.
Now add to that vast swath of the United States the southernmost area of the sunbelt, going across the bottom of the U.S. to San Diego, and then up the entire west coast to Seattle. That, too, is a place of population density that can well support an efficient rail system.
Recently, the National Association of Railroad Passengers, which has fought for 40 years to extend and expand the Amtrak system, published a map showing the railroad routes that it would add to the present inadequate network of passenger tracks. The web of rail lines that resulted are found in the population-dense areas I have just described. If these new routes were to be built for high-speed rail, we would have something close to an adequate rail system, and would not have to cram the airports of our country with anxious passengers sweating out the delays and cancellations that now afflict our air traffic. We would restore a decent quality of travel life -- and greatly improve our own lives. And we would do this for a fraction of the money we now spend on extending highways.
Several members of Congress -- members of both the House and Senate -- currently delight in proposing an elimination of funding for Amtrak. Let's make them aware that we know who they are -- and that we're coming after them.
Write and read comments about this post.
We are a nation wedded to the airplane, and thus unable to cope when the weather prevents airplanes from flying
The holidays are over, and if you're like me, you've heard dozens of stories from relatives and friends about the nightmares they encountered in trying to fly home for those holidays.
Flights canceled by the hundreds. Flight delays causing missed connections. New York airports busing passengers to less crowded airports in Philadelphia. Chicago airports desperately seeking to accommodate stranded passengers in nearby hotels. Infants squealing, toddlers screaming. Snowstorms causing hundreds of cancelled flights in Chicago, and thus backing up traffic all over the nation. Similar crises at a dozen other major cities in the Midwest.
Note that most of these problems were weather-related and therefore won't ever be fixed by adjusting flight schedules, improving air traffic controls, using larger airplanes, or adopting all the other measures that earnest pundits are proposing. They are problems that arise from our decision to move people almost entirely by air -- thus putting all our eggs in one basket. And they are problems that other, wiser, nations avoid by maintaining an adequate rail system.
Unless and until Amtrak is expanded and turned into a high-speed system, we will continue to experience periodic nightmares at our airports.
Write and read comments about this post.
Flights canceled by the hundreds. Flight delays causing missed connections. New York airports busing passengers to less crowded airports in Philadelphia. Chicago airports desperately seeking to accommodate stranded passengers in nearby hotels. Infants squealing, toddlers screaming. Snowstorms causing hundreds of cancelled flights in Chicago, and thus backing up traffic all over the nation. Similar crises at a dozen other major cities in the Midwest.
Note that most of these problems were weather-related and therefore won't ever be fixed by adjusting flight schedules, improving air traffic controls, using larger airplanes, or adopting all the other measures that earnest pundits are proposing. They are problems that arise from our decision to move people almost entirely by air -- thus putting all our eggs in one basket. And they are problems that other, wiser, nations avoid by maintaining an adequate rail system.
Unless and until Amtrak is expanded and turned into a high-speed system, we will continue to experience periodic nightmares at our airports.
Write and read comments about this post.
Dec 13, 2007
Guess how the European airlines have responded to the new, lightning-fast train service between London and Paris? By slashing airfares!
Now that the Chunnel train's runtime is down to around two hours and 15 minutes between Paris and London, shaving off another 20 minutes from its previous record, the airlines that fly the same route know the wolf is at their door. With the opening of a glorious new train terminal, St. Pancras (www.stpancras.com), anyone who wishes to travel to Paris must only board a train in central London and be delivered comfortably to central Paris a little over two hours later. Increasingly, there's little point in travelers struggling through the typical hassles of airline travel by commuting to the airport terminals, slogging through security checks, waiting around for possibly delayed flights, being strapped into uncomfortable airline seating, and so on.
So the airlines have done what the cross-Channel ferry companies did a decade ago when the tunnel first opened: They've slashed prices. Now, travelers may find that when they compare rates on the Eurostar Channel Tunnel train versus the major airlines, what the airlines are charging may offset the grief of dealing with the airports.
I did some price checking. At www.eurostar.com, a one-way train seat from London to Paris during a weekday next week would cost £155 (about $325) for a flexible ticket. If I had purchased my seat months in advance, I could have had access to a $170 one-way ticket, which wouldn't have been flexible in case I needed to change my plans. RailEurope (www.raileurope.com), which also sells seats on Eurostar, would charge me $77 one-way to Paris for a train leaving at 5:35am; for the rest of the day, rates were more like $126 each way.
Compare those prices to the airlines. British Airways (www.britishairways.com) is charging $360 round-trip -- which is what Eurostar charges for a one-way non-flexible ticket. So, essentially, the airlines are twice the value of the train right now. Air France's (www.airfrance.com) deals were better still; it charges $105 each way for flights between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle airport in France. So you could come and go to Paris on Air France for less than the price of a one-way ticket on the train. (Just make sure you remember that it will cost you to get to and from the airports.)
Of course, Eurostar doesn't just go to London and Paris. Through the Chunnel from England, it also reaches Brussels, Lille, and Disneyland Paris. So if you plan to go to any of those stations, you'll likely find equally competitive prices (except for Disneyland, which doesn't have its own airport that competes with the trains).
Get ready for even more competition in the future, because rail planners have just announced their intentions to connect Heathrow Airport in London with the high-speed Eurostar line -- a direct attack against the airlines.
Write and read comments about this post.
So the airlines have done what the cross-Channel ferry companies did a decade ago when the tunnel first opened: They've slashed prices. Now, travelers may find that when they compare rates on the Eurostar Channel Tunnel train versus the major airlines, what the airlines are charging may offset the grief of dealing with the airports.
I did some price checking. At www.eurostar.com, a one-way train seat from London to Paris during a weekday next week would cost £155 (about $325) for a flexible ticket. If I had purchased my seat months in advance, I could have had access to a $170 one-way ticket, which wouldn't have been flexible in case I needed to change my plans. RailEurope (www.raileurope.com), which also sells seats on Eurostar, would charge me $77 one-way to Paris for a train leaving at 5:35am; for the rest of the day, rates were more like $126 each way.
Compare those prices to the airlines. British Airways (www.britishairways.com) is charging $360 round-trip -- which is what Eurostar charges for a one-way non-flexible ticket. So, essentially, the airlines are twice the value of the train right now. Air France's (www.airfrance.com) deals were better still; it charges $105 each way for flights between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle airport in France. So you could come and go to Paris on Air France for less than the price of a one-way ticket on the train. (Just make sure you remember that it will cost you to get to and from the airports.)
Of course, Eurostar doesn't just go to London and Paris. Through the Chunnel from England, it also reaches Brussels, Lille, and Disneyland Paris. So if you plan to go to any of those stations, you'll likely find equally competitive prices (except for Disneyland, which doesn't have its own airport that competes with the trains).
Get ready for even more competition in the future, because rail planners have just announced their intentions to connect Heathrow Airport in London with the high-speed Eurostar line -- a direct attack against the airlines.
Write and read comments about this post.
Nov 15, 2007
Buy a European rail pass in the next several weeks, and you'll pay the dollar amount that was chosen prior to the recent rise in the value of the Euro
The dollar has recently sunk to appalling depths -- but all is not lost. Remember that for some European services, the prices charged to the American market were set as much as a year ago. So even though the greenback has weakened, the price of some items hasn't changed all year.
Take rail passes. As long as you buy over the next few weeks, you'll be able to secure the earlier-2007 rates, despite the fact the dollar has slid dramatically downward all year. Wait too long, though, and price levels will be re-adjusted.
For example, a four-day Britrail (www.britrail.com) pass, which buys you four days of unlimited train travel over two months, costs $293 for an adult right now. Bought without a railpass, a one-way ticket from London to Scotland can cost as much as £100 (US$210) if you walk up to the ticket counter on the day of travel, so it's clear that as long as you're traveling substantial distances on your vacation, a railpass can save you money. But when the sellers of these passes re-adjust their prices to make sure they maintain the old profit margins, you can bet the price of a railpass will soar higher. The same math applies to Eurail passes (www.raileurope.com).
Many hotels, too, re-adjust their dollar rates as of the first of the year. So for the next month or so, you can still secure the lower prices set an earlier date in 2007.
It may seem obvious, but in this brutal economic climate, every little thing helps.
Write and read comments about this post.
Nov 14, 2007
The opponents of Amtrak have responded to my defense of the national railway system with wholly ideological arguments hard to understand
I am constantly surprised by the responses to my pleas for support of Amtrak. At a time when we are all so painfully aware of the need to limit the use of oil and reduce emissions of hothouse gases, I would have thought it self-evident that expansion of our railroads -- the single most energy-efficient form of transportation -- would receive broad approval.
At a time, too, when our air transport system is literally falling apart -- when planes wait for hours on airport runways and airports are crowded beyond belief -- I would have thought it self-evident that we should expand the capacity of our railroads. If the tens of thousands of people who use Amtrak each day were forced instead to fly by air, their numbers would add chaos to our airports.
And yet whenever I write a post about the need to support Amtrak, I provoke angry dissents that are wholly ideological in nature. Most of them cite, as their chief argument, that Amtrak makes no money. Without explaining why that argument is relevant to the operation of a public utility -- and Amtrak is an essential, increasingly important public utility -- they repeat almost endlessly and without supporting explanation that Amtrak must be profit-making -- or else abandoned.
A recent response from one of these Amtrak-must-run-at-a-profit folk reads: "I personally believe this should not be funded with taxpayer money. We've been down this road before and the results are not promising."
What's strange about these responses is that none of them make the same argument with respect to cars and planes. The interstate highway system does not run at a profit. Yet every two years, Congress appropriates literally tens of billions of dollars for the maintenance and expansion of our interstate highways, so that more people can make long-distance trips by car. (Is it possible the oil industry has something to do with that funding?) Operating those highways at a profit would require that each U.S. Interstate become a toll road, demanding ruinous fees from motorists, and not one of the responders to my blog would be in favor of that.
The air traffic control system does not operate at a profit. Each year, Congress appropriates at least three billion dollars for air traffic controls, air traffic towers, and FAA safety operations. If the airlines themselves had to pay for the immense cost of air traffic control not covered by taxes and fees, most of those airlines would be forced to shut down. Yet none of my responders would deny the need to keep funding the air traffic control system.
And there are countless other government functions that do not operate at a profit. Our fire departments do not operate at a profit. When fire fighters put out a blaze in a private home, they do not send a bill to the home owner. Our police departments, public schools, municipal hospitals, sanitation departments, downtown streets, do not operate at a profit.
And neither should Amtrak. Fares on Amtrak should enable low-income and middle-income Americans to travel affordably to their work or to meetings and for many other purposes vital to our economy and society.
All over the world, major national railway systems, like those in France, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, the Baltic states, others, are subsidized from general tax revenues and do not operate at a profit. They perform brilliantly for their public. In the few instances where passenger rail has been privatized, fares have often skyrocketed in price and grave safety concerns arisen; and even the private railway companies (like Eurostar) depend, to a considerable extent, on partial government funding.
If you have recently traveled on Amtrak's high-speed, comfortable Acela trains, you have had a glimpse of what we as a nation could enjoy. The U.S. Senate last month took the first steps towards properly funding Amtrak, beating back violent attacks on Amtrak by Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, and supporting an enhanced appropriation by a vote of 70 to 22. The 22 dissenters are undoubtedly those who share the ideological beliefs reflected in responses to this blog, or are beholden to the oil and automotive industries.Write and read comments about this post.
At a time, too, when our air transport system is literally falling apart -- when planes wait for hours on airport runways and airports are crowded beyond belief -- I would have thought it self-evident that we should expand the capacity of our railroads. If the tens of thousands of people who use Amtrak each day were forced instead to fly by air, their numbers would add chaos to our airports.
And yet whenever I write a post about the need to support Amtrak, I provoke angry dissents that are wholly ideological in nature. Most of them cite, as their chief argument, that Amtrak makes no money. Without explaining why that argument is relevant to the operation of a public utility -- and Amtrak is an essential, increasingly important public utility -- they repeat almost endlessly and without supporting explanation that Amtrak must be profit-making -- or else abandoned.
A recent response from one of these Amtrak-must-run-at-a-profit folk reads: "I personally believe this should not be funded with taxpayer money. We've been down this road before and the results are not promising."
What's strange about these responses is that none of them make the same argument with respect to cars and planes. The interstate highway system does not run at a profit. Yet every two years, Congress appropriates literally tens of billions of dollars for the maintenance and expansion of our interstate highways, so that more people can make long-distance trips by car. (Is it possible the oil industry has something to do with that funding?) Operating those highways at a profit would require that each U.S. Interstate become a toll road, demanding ruinous fees from motorists, and not one of the responders to my blog would be in favor of that.
The air traffic control system does not operate at a profit. Each year, Congress appropriates at least three billion dollars for air traffic controls, air traffic towers, and FAA safety operations. If the airlines themselves had to pay for the immense cost of air traffic control not covered by taxes and fees, most of those airlines would be forced to shut down. Yet none of my responders would deny the need to keep funding the air traffic control system.
And there are countless other government functions that do not operate at a profit. Our fire departments do not operate at a profit. When fire fighters put out a blaze in a private home, they do not send a bill to the home owner. Our police departments, public schools, municipal hospitals, sanitation departments, downtown streets, do not operate at a profit.
And neither should Amtrak. Fares on Amtrak should enable low-income and middle-income Americans to travel affordably to their work or to meetings and for many other purposes vital to our economy and society.
All over the world, major national railway systems, like those in France, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, the Baltic states, others, are subsidized from general tax revenues and do not operate at a profit. They perform brilliantly for their public. In the few instances where passenger rail has been privatized, fares have often skyrocketed in price and grave safety concerns arisen; and even the private railway companies (like Eurostar) depend, to a considerable extent, on partial government funding.
If you have recently traveled on Amtrak's high-speed, comfortable Acela trains, you have had a glimpse of what we as a nation could enjoy. The U.S. Senate last month took the first steps towards properly funding Amtrak, beating back violent attacks on Amtrak by Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, and supporting an enhanced appropriation by a vote of 70 to 22. The 22 dissenters are undoubtedly those who share the ideological beliefs reflected in responses to this blog, or are beholden to the oil and automotive industries.Write and read comments about this post.
Nov 9, 2007
Amtrak has just received a show of support in the U.S. Senate, following defeat of measures to emasculate it
The enemies of Amtrak are unrelenting. Just shortly before a vote by the Senate on a proposal to set aside nearly $12 billion for the national passenger railway system over the next six years (an improvement on recent funding, though still inadequate), Senator John E. Sununu of New Hampshire introduced an amendment to require that Amtrak discontinue all of its long-distance services in the west. He and another Senator later introduced other amendments to limit, hamper or discredit Amtrak. All such amendments were overwhelmingly defeated and the appropriation was then approved, 70 to 22, with Sununu among the 22 no votes. The same proposed appropriation will now be brought to the House of Representatives.
The $12 billion funding bill was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (Democrat) of New Jersey, and Senator Trent Lott (Republican) of Mississippi. Yet even in the face of such bi-partisan support, opponents of a strong national passenger railway system launched the last-ditch effort (led by Sununu) which I have described.
Senator Sununu is up for re-election to the Senate next year. Readers of this blog living in New Hampshire may want to consider his anti-Amtrak shenanigans when they go to vote.
Write and read comments about this post.
The $12 billion funding bill was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (Democrat) of New Jersey, and Senator Trent Lott (Republican) of Mississippi. Yet even in the face of such bi-partisan support, opponents of a strong national passenger railway system launched the last-ditch effort (led by Sununu) which I have described.
Senator Sununu is up for re-election to the Senate next year. Readers of this blog living in New Hampshire may want to consider his anti-Amtrak shenanigans when they go to vote.
Write and read comments about this post.
Sep 26, 2007
Read it and weep: Europeans can now travel by train between London and Paris in just about two hours flat
Two weeks ago, in a test-run of the new high-speed train tracks installed into London's St. Pancras Station, the Eurostar made the trip between Paris and London in only three minutes more than two hours. When the train begins regular daily service between St. Pancras Station and Paris on November 14, it will be scheduled to make the trip in less than two hours and 15 minutes. It will go between London and Brussels in one hour and 51 minutes. For all practical purposes, it is no longer necessary -- ever -- to fly between London and Paris or between London and Brussels. In fact, it would be foolish to do so.
It should also be noted that persons vacationing in London can now make easy "day trips" to Paris, leaving early in the morning from London, returning evenings from Paris, and having the greater part of the day to spend in Paris. That's an important expansion of travel opportunities.
Naturally, the environmental benefits of using trains rather than planes to fly between these major capitals should also be noted. But equally important is the growing contrast between Europe's use of trains and ours. While one European train after another establishes new speed records, our government proposes to limit funding for Amtrak to subsistence levels, enabling our railroads to provide only the most minimal service. Please join with me in urging our representatives in Congress to improve and expand Amtrak.
Write and read comments about this post.
It should also be noted that persons vacationing in London can now make easy "day trips" to Paris, leaving early in the morning from London, returning evenings from Paris, and having the greater part of the day to spend in Paris. That's an important expansion of travel opportunities.
Naturally, the environmental benefits of using trains rather than planes to fly between these major capitals should also be noted. But equally important is the growing contrast between Europe's use of trains and ours. While one European train after another establishes new speed records, our government proposes to limit funding for Amtrak to subsistence levels, enabling our railroads to provide only the most minimal service. Please join with me in urging our representatives in Congress to improve and expand Amtrak.
Write and read comments about this post.
Sep 14, 2007
Wednesday evening's television exchange between my daughter and Bill O'Reilly exposes the confusion of the anti-Amtrak position
Bill O'Reilly got more than he bargained for when he invited my daughter, Pauline, to appear on Wednesday evening's broadcast of his O'Reilly Factor on nationwide television (the Fox News network). Asked to explain the current congestion of our airways and proposed solutions for dealing with the problem, Pauline responded that one factor was our national decision to put all our transportation eggs "into one basket." We enthusiastically support funding for highways and airports, she pointed out, while starving our national railway system. Crowding of the skies will end only when America acquires high-speed rail routes and trains, just as it has ended in certain areas of Europe where high-speed rail has eliminated the need to fly between certain close-in cities (like Paris and London).
To which O'Reilly became incoherent -- the only word I know for describing his response. While briefly acknowledging he was aware of the "bullet trains" of Japan, he went on to say, without explanation, that the labor unions of America were too strong to permit a similar solution, and having introduced that puzzling assertion, he immediately changed the subject. The relationship between labor unions and the expansion of Amtrak was simply left hanging, and incomprehensible.
What is it about such celebrities that makes them unable to intelligently discuss the expansion and improvement of Amtrak? Why does the topic of oil-efficient rail transportation render them dazed? Why does a TV commentator become tongue-tied when someone makes the obvious point that expanding the use of rail transportation is an obvious way to reduce the number of passenger flights? Can someone -- hopefully, someone who saw and heard the exchange -- explain to me the reaction of a pundit like O'Reilly to our woeful lack of adequate train transport in America?
Write and read comments about this post.
To which O'Reilly became incoherent -- the only word I know for describing his response. While briefly acknowledging he was aware of the "bullet trains" of Japan, he went on to say, without explanation, that the labor unions of America were too strong to permit a similar solution, and having introduced that puzzling assertion, he immediately changed the subject. The relationship between labor unions and the expansion of Amtrak was simply left hanging, and incomprehensible.
What is it about such celebrities that makes them unable to intelligently discuss the expansion and improvement of Amtrak? Why does the topic of oil-efficient rail transportation render them dazed? Why does a TV commentator become tongue-tied when someone makes the obvious point that expanding the use of rail transportation is an obvious way to reduce the number of passenger flights? Can someone -- hopefully, someone who saw and heard the exchange -- explain to me the reaction of a pundit like O'Reilly to our woeful lack of adequate train transport in America?
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: trains
Aug 28, 2007
Despite the energy crisis and the urgent need for mass transit, the anti-Amtrak people are again on the march
In late July, efforts were made in the House of Representatives to cut back next year's appropriation for Amtrak from 1.4 billion dollars down to 800 million dollars, barely enough to fund a greatly-reduced operation of the trains. Though the anti-Amtrak forces failed to achieve that reduction, it is feared that when the 1.4 billion figure is approved by both houses of Congress in September, that the margin of victory will be insufficient to overcome an expected veto by the administration.
This controversy takes place at a time when our nation faces dreadful consequences from our dependence on foreign oil. We are currently studying every frantic way -- subsidies for hybrid cars, ethanol and switch grass -- to reduce both the gas consumption and gas emissions of our automobile-based way of life and their contribution to both global warming and dependence on unstable nations in the Middle East. And yet the single most effective method of reducing oil use -- mass transit through the increased use of trains -- is deliberately starved and thwarted.
The same pro-oil, pro-automobile policies are being pushed on a state level. Just a few years ago, Florida repealed a measure to mandate the construction of a high speed rail line along its heavily-populated coasts. Other initiatives to encourage the development of mass-transit light-rail have gone nowhere. Last winter, I spent nearly three hours traveling the 60 miles between Ft. Myers and Naples, Florida, on a highway that resembled a continuous parking lot jammed with thousands of cars barely-inching along. In a vacation area (the southwest coast of Florida) that is today populated by millions of Americans, there is no passenger rail transportation.
We will be returning to the Amtrak question in September, when both houses of Congress are expected to pass that 1.4 billion dollar appropriation for the national passenger rail system. In the meantime, we should all alert our representatives in Congress to the importance of providing adequate financial support for our trains. And beyond this yearly appropriation, we should urge them to support a bi-partisan measure sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to place the funding of Amtrak on a long-term basis, allocating nineteen billion dollars over six years to the improvement and expansion of our passenger railways.
Write and read comments about this post.
This controversy takes place at a time when our nation faces dreadful consequences from our dependence on foreign oil. We are currently studying every frantic way -- subsidies for hybrid cars, ethanol and switch grass -- to reduce both the gas consumption and gas emissions of our automobile-based way of life and their contribution to both global warming and dependence on unstable nations in the Middle East. And yet the single most effective method of reducing oil use -- mass transit through the increased use of trains -- is deliberately starved and thwarted.
The same pro-oil, pro-automobile policies are being pushed on a state level. Just a few years ago, Florida repealed a measure to mandate the construction of a high speed rail line along its heavily-populated coasts. Other initiatives to encourage the development of mass-transit light-rail have gone nowhere. Last winter, I spent nearly three hours traveling the 60 miles between Ft. Myers and Naples, Florida, on a highway that resembled a continuous parking lot jammed with thousands of cars barely-inching along. In a vacation area (the southwest coast of Florida) that is today populated by millions of Americans, there is no passenger rail transportation.
We will be returning to the Amtrak question in September, when both houses of Congress are expected to pass that 1.4 billion dollar appropriation for the national passenger rail system. In the meantime, we should all alert our representatives in Congress to the importance of providing adequate financial support for our trains. And beyond this yearly appropriation, we should urge them to support a bi-partisan measure sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to place the funding of Amtrak on a long-term basis, allocating nineteen billion dollars over six years to the improvement and expansion of our passenger railways.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: trains
Aug 14, 2007
A big secret of European rail travel: the regional networks offer whopping discounts on their own websites
Ever heard of Thalys? It's the network of high-speed trains that link Paris to numerous cities in Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern Germany (mainly Aachen and Cologne). A little-known fact is that the website of Thalys is constantly offering 50%, 60%, and even greater last-minute discounts on its trains operating between Paris, Belgium, the Netherlands and northern Germany. If you'll go to www.thalys.com, you'll find sales of that sort currently being offered, and available nowhere else.
Write and read comments about this post.
Jul 20, 2007
Our Toonerville Trollies versus their 250-mile-an-hour trains
The French train de grande vitesse ("train of great speed") is about to begin daily operations between Paris and Strasbourg on the easternmost border of France, eliminating the need to take polluting airplane flights from Paris to the northern parts of Germany. You may recall that in a test run, this train achieved a speed of 357 miles an hour on the new track leading from Paris to Strasbourg. Although actual operations won't be conducted at that speed, a velocity of about 250 miles an hour is expected.
In the meantime, the Chinese have just announced that they are currently operating 86 "bullet trains" that travel at a rate of more than 125 miles an hour, cutting most travel times in half. And all the while, our own powers-that-be condemn us to the use of "Toonerville Trollies" that barely function on the tracks set aside for Amtrak.
The Chinese have recently spent more than four billion dollars on high speed trains. We allocate less than one billion a year to the operation of the entire Amtrak system. Let us all dedicate ourselves to the fight to upgrade Amtrak, and to the defeat of those politicians whose allegiance to the oil and automotive industries is more important to them than sensible, environmental forms of land transportation in the United States.
Write and read comments about this post.
In the meantime, the Chinese have just announced that they are currently operating 86 "bullet trains" that travel at a rate of more than 125 miles an hour, cutting most travel times in half. And all the while, our own powers-that-be condemn us to the use of "Toonerville Trollies" that barely function on the tracks set aside for Amtrak.
The Chinese have recently spent more than four billion dollars on high speed trains. We allocate less than one billion a year to the operation of the entire Amtrak system. Let us all dedicate ourselves to the fight to upgrade Amtrak, and to the defeat of those politicians whose allegiance to the oil and automotive industries is more important to them than sensible, environmental forms of land transportation in the United States.
Write and read comments about this post.
Labels: trains
Fifty years ago, 
Arthur Frommer is generally acknowledged to be the nation's foremost travel authority. He is the founder of the
