Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(1152944)

view threaded

Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:25:23 2012

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Would it be at all possible to replace some of the EAS services with train service? There are plenty of city pairs that could easily be done just as fast (if not faster) with even a moderately speed train. Would it be cheaper operationally to run a rail service than an air service? Could the money be used to operate a train that stops in other cities as well along the way?

Post a New Response

(1152947)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Apr 25 03:23:44 2012, in response to Replacing EAS with trains, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:25:23 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I agree with you.

Post a New Response

(1152952)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 04:01:06 2012, in response to Replacing EAS with trains, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:25:23 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Unfortunately it's unlikely a medium speed service would reach the point where they'd consider the Essential Air Service subsidy requirements lifted. After all, Amtrak already runs fairly fast, frequent service from Lancaster to Baltimore with one transfer, yet somehow LNS-BWI is an EAS recipient, to the tune of $1.3 million a year. And all of Illinois' EAS recipients are also served, or nearly served, by their intrastate Amtrak service. That having been said, if the Essential Air Service subsidies to Visalia and Merced, totaling around $3.6 million a year, persist after the California HSR system opens then that will truly be a travesty. But with how incredibly politicized the entire EAS arrangement is, I wouldn't be overly surprised if the airline and their fairy god-congressman found a way to increase the payment because the HSR is now competing with the subsidized airline flights.

The last thing anyone in a position of planning future regional or high speed rail service should be doing is chasing EAS subsidies. The million or so dollars in annual expenditures they'll save aren't likely going to be enough to offset the cost of operating a regional line, and they're going to take a long time to pay off on a high speed rail line. However, if EAS subsidies can be eliminated while connecting large metropolitan areas with high speed rail lines then that's just one more bonus of building a high speed rail line.

Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(1152960)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by Train2104 on Wed Apr 25 06:57:29 2012, in response to Replacing EAS with trains, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 02:25:23 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
EAS outside of AK should be drastically reduced: any route that can't maintain a subsidy per passenger < $75 should be eliminated.

Post a New Response

(1152997)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Apr 25 16:10:06 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 04:01:06 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Everything you said is exactly what is going through my head as well. EAS I'm sure is a VERY touchy political issue and I've noticed before that there are several locations with rail service running exactly the same route with fast enough running times to make subsidizing the flight pointless. But you're under the belief that in general, the operating cost of a rail line serving many of these corridors would be greater than the flight subsidies? Even if it were 2 or 3 of these airports on the same line? What are the financials behind some of the lines operating in Illinois or any other similar EAS vs rail example you can think of?

Post a New Response

(1153190)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by Charles G on Thu Apr 26 18:48:30 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by WillD on Wed Apr 25 04:01:06 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I think your point is strong about Lancaster, but not as much so for the Illinois cities.

EAS serves not just for point-to-point, but also (mainly?) to connect these cities to the airline network. A train to Union Station isn't going to help the person who wants to go to LAX or LGA.

(with that being said, I'm no fan of EAS -- it could die tomorrow and I'd still be annoyed so much has been wasted on it).

Post a New Response

(1153240)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 01:04:10 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by Charles G on Thu Apr 26 18:48:30 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Very valid point, which is why integration of rail with the major airports is so important. Either that or start shifting the LD/International flights to airports that could be accessed by rail. Perhaps tonight I'll work on a list of airports near rail lines that could be integrated (either directly or by monorail/shuttle bus/etc). Gotta love being bored on the overnight shift :)

Post a New Response

(1153243)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Apr 27 01:55:55 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 01:04:10 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Albany airport is < 3 miles from the Empire Corridor (with currently 6 trains a day in each direction). And ironically, a station at the closest point to the airport would be a more convenient location than Rennselaer for most Albany county residents...

Post a New Response

(1153244)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 02:21:05 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Apr 27 01:55:55 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I doubt we'd see a shift of many international/LD flights to Albany airport. I'm talking more about connecting the airports in the major cities to rail. Chicago OHare has a subway and commuter rail connection, but no Amtrak. EWR is a perfect example of what we need more of in this country. What are major airports (or airports near the cities that could be turned into major airports) that are near rail lines? Are those lines good carriers for a regional network?

Post a New Response

(1153415)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Apr 27 22:39:50 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Apr 27 02:21:05 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Albany already has a surprisingly decent selection of flights in terms of destination, just all low capacity planes... though the only reason it is called an "international" airport is the occasional flight to Canada...

The only major city airport in the Northeast I can think of without decent rail connection are LaGuardia and Reagan. Everything else is pretty seamless:
Boston Logan->Silver Line to South Station (or blue to orange to back bay if you stubbornly deny the logic of putting a bus on the subway map to make it a subway).
Providence now has the MBTA station.
JFK->LIRR->Penn
EWR has its own Amtrak/NJT Station.
Philly has the SEPTA R1
BWI... duh.
Washington Dulles is getting the DC Metro extension...

Post a New Response

(1153417)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 27 22:44:45 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Apr 27 22:39:50 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Reagan National has a Metro station.

Post a New Response

(1153437)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Apr 28 00:31:38 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Apr 27 22:44:45 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I *thought* it did but I didn't see the Metro listed under "ground transportation" on a third party website... looking at the main website of course there's a damn picture of the station.

Okay then, that just leaves LGA as the odd man out.

Post a New Response

(1153466)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 03:25:33 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Apr 27 22:39:50 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Of that list, only EWR and BWI are actually integrated into the inter-city network. You could just have Amtrak stop at the TF Green station. JFK would need Amtrak coming to Jamaica, and you could never market a multi-stop subway/bus ride as an "airport stop" for the traveler trying to connect between a flight and a train. The airports need to be easily linked in with the regional rail systems that would be replacing the short/medium distance flights.

Post a New Response

(1153482)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by merrick1 on Sat Apr 28 09:22:13 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 03:25:33 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Are you talking intercity rail or regional rail? SEPTA regional rail stops at Philadelphia Airport.

Post a New Response

(1153621)

view threaded

Re: Replacing EAS with trains

Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 28 17:31:06 2012, in response to Re: Replacing EAS with trains, posted by merrick1 on Sat Apr 28 09:22:13 2012.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I said regional meaning regional intercity, not commuter rail. As in tie in JFK with the Amtrak Empire service so we don't need short hop flights to Albany (not sure they actually exist, just giving an example), or tying in those Illinois services with OHare so instead of flying to get your connecting flight, you can take the train

Post a New Response


[ Return to the Message Index ]