Basic Amtrak Thoughts

Having recently taken the California Zephyr, Amtrak's Chicago-Bay Area service, for approximately half its length on a trip to the Rockies (as well as a lengthy set of experiences previously in my life, of course), I have some thoughts on train travel in the US that I wanted to share. 

1. Timeliness is a Huge Issue

Amtrak has significant issues with not owning its track and with not getting priority over freight because of that (which it's supposed to). These are structural problems that operations can't be expected to magically solve. 

That said, I boarded my train in Galesburg, IL half an hour late, despite being only the third station stop out of the origin in Chicago. For a train with dozens of later stops, that's a really bad start.

And don't get me started on the poor folks who were waiting for the Southwest Chief, which at the time we departed were still waiting on a train already 6 hours late and projected to be 8.

Again, Amtrak has serious structural problems that the actual train operators are not responsible for--but that is unacceptable. Our train was scheduled for late afternoon; the Southwest Chief was scheduled for the morning. But imagine doing the same wait for a train scheduled for 2am (the scheduled time in Lincoln, NE); do you show up mid-night and then wait until the actual morning? How exhausted would you be? How likely to take the train again?

Making it worse is that different sources available from Amtrak give different projections: is it 20 minutes late or 30? 6 hours or 7? It's not even consistent across Amtrak's website, app, and display boards in the stations.

2. Frequency is Non-existent 

If you miss your train, I'd say good luck on getting another except even that would be impossible: there's no such thing as good luck with Amtrak trains because they come once a day, twice if you're lucky. Yes, that's not true in the Acela corridor, but for the rest of the country missing a train means literally not traveling.

This happens once a day. Don't be late!

This also means that there are trips for which the train will literally never be convenient despite being technically served. The train comes to Lincoln, NE at midnight in one direction and 2-3 am in the other: there are no other times, and no other options on that route. The same is true the next/previous day on the same train (depending on direction) for Salt Lake City. So it will not be convenient for any person on a normal sleep schedule to ever get a train from either of those cities, despite being "served."

Again, there are systemic reasons for this, but it breaks the effectiveness of the system more or less entirely.

3. Great Views, Mediocre Other Experiences 

If you want a beautiful and amazing tour of the sights of America, Amtrak is unrivaled.

It's gorgeous! You can't relax and look at these while driving. It's truly unique as a way to explore the country and its physical wonders.

But there's not much else to do on the train (and these are long train rides, up to two days). The Wi-Fi that is advertised only works sometimes, usually not. The staff of the dining and café cars are great, but the stocking of both cars is hit and miss (and frequently therefore out of the better food options fairly early in the trip). The seats are comfortable as designed, but in need of repair or maintenance frequently (they may not fully recline, for example). The track, which again is not actually Amtrak's and so they can't totally be blamed for it, is bumpy and not up to par with intercity rail in other countries. 

Basically, the Amtrak experience is one I recommend having had, but can't recommend using for actual transportation unless you live on a rare frequent corridor (Acela, the Milwaukee-Chicago line, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, etc.). Which is a shame: train travel is ecologically better, and being delivered to a downtown instead of the airports on the outskirts of cities is a big plus.

But it's not functional, not really. And I wish it were not so.

Get Your Kicks (Off Route 66)

 Since I do a fair amount of travel in the US, and as much as I can get away with outside of it, I wanted to talk today about the roadtrip, and how it compares to two other modes of long-distance travel: the plane and the train, probably unsurprisingly.

Specifically, I want to focus on the freedom and pleasure aspects that so frequently get attached to the idea of the roadtrip in American literature and culture. Which forms of transportation allow you the greatest freedom? Which provide the greatest chances for random discovery? And which will allow you relaxation and pleasure if this is your vacation (whether frequent as in Europe or rarely taken as in the USA)?

1. Freedom depends on flexibility

I would argue that the plane is the great loser in the question of which form of transit gives you the greatest freedom. You cannot easily change where you are going on a plane, and they are pretty much inherently point-to-point travel: you can't get off the plane early unless you're skiplagging, and even that is just skipping a connection, not getting off midflight (hi, DB Cooper, if you're still out there). 

Not an exit point.

It might seem like the car wins here, and it is true that if I'm driving I can take the car wherever the road will let me. 

Burnin' rubber in the Mustang can indeed be flexible.

But while this is true, I have a lot less flexibility in what I do while I'm driving the car. If I'm inattentive, let alone watching Harry Potter while driving, bad things are going to happen. "I am the captain of my soul," but also I am captaining a vehicle that will run into things if I don't stop it.

A train seems less free: it runs on literal rails. I have to go where it goes, just like a plane.

But that's a very US-Amtrak-small network approach. If the train network is like the Dutch NS (complaints from the Dutch aside) or the London Overground (same point about local objections), it works much more flexibly. 

I got off here randomly, just to take a picture of the sign for my London blogs about transit. I then walked across the neighborhood/town and got back on another train to go to another place.

So in a decent and well-designed (even if not perfect!) system, the train gives me a significant degree of flexibility and freedom as well.

And lest someone complain that the Overground is not intercity (it kinda is, depending on your definition of what a city is), I think the same applies to National Rail, for all its flaws.

And on the train, I can read, watch Harry Potter, or zone out to my heart's content. I am free to just be, not to direct the vehicle.

A view I would not be able to stare at if I drove from Paris to Amsterdam, but which I spent quite a bit of time watching while taking the train.

2. Random activities are also about flexibility

Surprise! The plane loses here too! While I love the little Blues Brother display in Midway Airport in Chicago, otherwise I'm not doing a lot of serendipitous discovery while flying from place to place.

This plane is going to Toronto Billy Bishop Airport, and good luck stopping.

There's a Bluey episode about a roadtrip, and they spend some time stuck behind the so-called Grey Nomads, RVing seniors, and then take a detour (along with said Nomads) to a roadside attraction. It's cute! It's true! You can detour off your route for random informational signs or to see what everyone else is visiting.

But beware! Sometimes those random places are actually pretty far from the interstate or equivalent. Sometimes the best thing you're seeing is the gas station you needed to stop at for fuel. And sometimes it's really cool. 

The same applies to a train, at least if the train schedule means you won't lose all your time if you get off at a stop. If you're on the once-daily California Zephyr, it's more like a plane. If you're on the 147 train-daily Amsterdam to Haarlem route you're pretty good to stop if you want. Or if that's too close (they are much closer than any 2 California Zephyr stations), consider the 10 daily high-speed Paris to Amsterdam trains. 

Random park? Cool. Got there on a train.

3. Relaxation can't require focus

Look, maybe you're someone who feels like they're most relaxed behind the wheel of a car. I'm just going to suggest that maybe you could let someone else do some of the work? 

Only 2 people on these trains need to be paying attention (give or take).

It's two per on these planes, too. Well, and the flight attendants.

I hope to God all these people are paying attention (sorry for the crowded street--for related reasons I don't have many photos of cars on the interstate).

Driving a car can be fun, and certainly people do do it for fun! But driving as transportation is not the same as driving for fun. It's a method of long-distance transport that requires your attention, your focus, and your dedication (or your life). And yes, you can play your own music in the car--but can I recommend a pair of headphones?

Driving also produces lock-in that actually can reduce your likelihood of stopping for all the random things that otherwise might be the advantage of a car: when I'm behind the wheel, I'm focused on driving safely and getting myself to my destination, so I don't really have time or focus to pay attention to what might come up. On a train I can flip through my phone to think of whether I want to get off at another station; unless I'm a passenger I better not be doing that in a car!

In summary: yes, cars can and do provide noticeable advantages over trains and planes in terms of your ability to simply pull over and do something. But they provide noticeable disadvantages in terms of attention and stress, and the need for focus detracts from some of the other feelings of freedom. There's nothing wrong with taking a long roadtrip, but it would be a real blessing if we in the US would provide some greater opportunities to take a traintrip--and of course, there's a reason really long trips are usually by plane.

Rail Service, Interrupted

So ever since I moved to the Quad Cities, and actually rather a long time before, there have been reports that Amtrak was in negotiations and planning to bring passenger rail service back to the Quad Cities: a direct line to Chicago (well, as direct as local Amtrak service gets).

It has not yet happened. It looks unlikely now to ever happen. Some of the blame here goes to Iowa Interstate, the company that owns the rails (but discussing rail nationalization is a different discussion). Some probably goes to local leaders and Amtrak and national leaders as well. But beyond apportioning blame, I want to talk here about why I think this kind of rail service should be doable, and is valuable, even if it's proving difficult in the moment.

1. We don't need more cars in Chicago

We also don't need more in the QC, but that is a much bigger ask. Chicago has real mass transit, as I've discussed in other posts, from the CTA trains and buses to Pace to, yes, even Metra. Not only that, but downtown Chicago and several of its neighborhoods are very walkable. 

But cars are like the proverbial hammer: if you have one, everything looks like a nail (or in this case, a drive). Once you drive into Chicago, each of the sub-trips you might make in Chicago is more likely to be taken by car, because, well, you have the car already. And parking longterm in Chicago is expensive, so you're also disincentivized to just leave the car in a garage (although you certainly can, as my family has proven). Instead, you'll drive within Chicago as well as to it. 

A train fixes this, because a train is city center to city center, and delivers you without a car to a place you don't need a car. It's a win-win.

2. It can be price competitive 

Now, this required actual consideration and communication, because the up-front cost of a train ticket (especially on Amtrak, which doesn't do the world's best pricing, or even international standard) is likely to be high. Also, a lot of people disregard car costs, including gas (especially if you can get to and from Chicago without filling up, even though you still spend the gas), insurance, chance of accident, etc. 

But parking in Chicago really is expensive, as noted above, in a way that can make a train ticket look a lot better. And getting a parking ticket in Chicago is worse. And you don't have to pay that if you don't have a car. Getting people to realize this can be difficult because, again, people discount car costs. But it actually can be cheaper, or at least competitive, to take even an Amtrak train.

3. Trains go two ways

The QC is on I-80, so we're no strangers to people coming in because the transportation is convenient. But it's worth remembering that trains go both ways, so a train to Chicago is also a train to here: and it's not just going to produce one-way flow. At ideal levels of service frequency and speed someone like my friend who does a weekly commute from Chicago (weekends in one, weeks in the other) could use the train to see their family more often. But even at minimal levels the existence of the train would promise additional tourism, shopping, and just general visitors, not just from and to Chicago but from and to the stops on the way (like Rockford). 

And tying the region together more would be good for social cohesion and mutual understanding, something Chicago and the rest of Illinois have often struggled with. 

Overall, I have more thoughts that will probably make it to another post, but this is a basic primer for why we should be pushing for that Quad Cities rail link actively, and not just letting it become another disappointment.