Amtrak Late to Station With Onboard WiFi
From the Wash Post's Comings & Goings col:
Okay, let's see if we've got this straight. You can get WiFi on a $20 bus traveling the Interstate 95 corridor from Washington to New York, but you can't get it on Amtrak. Really?
For years, travelers have wondered why the nation's premier rail company couldn't provide wireless Internet service to its passengers, especially on Acela trains, which are heavily patronized by business travelers. Most national train services in Europe provide WiFi, as does Canada's Via Rail.
But hey, don't give up hope yet.
"Presently Amtrak is testing systems on the Acela express train, and we hope to have some results on that front soon," said Cliff Cole, spokesman for the rail line. "Our goal is to provide WiFi service," he confirmed, although no launch date has been announced.
Isn't Joe Biden the Amtrak czar or something? Can he do something about this? Whatever else you can say about the nation's generally awful and useless national passenger rail service, the service between New York and Washington, D.C. is popular (actually has more passengers than employees on it!), on-time, and a decent (though pricier) alternative to flying between the two cities. If Amtrak did get WiFi, I suspect even fewer people would fly, given the massive hassles that entails.
But when your lunch—and at the Amtrak Cafe Car, that means a nuclear-meltdown bagel breakfast sandwich microwaved to the point where the egg, cheesy substance, and plastic wrapper have fused together in a novel sustance—is being eaten by cheapo bus operators (also good, but generally less reliable than flying or training), it's time to go to the big engine switching yard in the sky or something.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Your description of the sandwich Amtrack sells is totally correct. It should probably be cut back to DC-NYC route.
“novel sustance”? Is that a portmanteau of “substance” and “sustenance”? Congratulations, Nick, you’re another fucking Lewis Carroll!
It’s not that easy. Sure, AmTrack could just throw some wireless routers onto their passenger cars and let any old body access any old thing with them.
But what happens when someone uses the routers to access racist materials? Or terrorists use it to detonate some kind of intertube bomb? Or, worst of all, someone uses the government-provided web access to download pornography? People could get hurt. And by people I mean people who work for Amtrack, and by “get hurt” I mean be held accountable for their decisions.
No, no, this needs to be done right-with full Congressional approval. That way we can ensure that the routers will be purchased from the manufacturer with the right lobbyists, installed by the politically popular minorities with the loudest union, and feature last years technology accessible to the homeless, the mentally handicapped, and the non-english speaking. Even if no such people will ever ride that train or use the service.
Best of all, after it becomes an act of Congress, any semblance of accountability will dissolve like salt into the sea.
[Cough! Cough!]
There is significant competition for bus service in the Bos-Ny-Wash corridor.
If New York – Washington is anything like Boston – New York, the busses probably have WiFi already because if they didn’t some Chinatown bus company would steal all their customers.
We just need Chinese-American entrepreneurs to get into the train business too.
Hugh’s satire above is probably more fact than fiction. Somewhere there’s an Amtrak bureaucrat stealing time, visiting H&R, and chuckling.
“If New York – Washington is anything like Boston – New York, the busses probably have WiFi already because if they didn’t some Chinatown bus company would steal all their customers.”
The Chinatown buses are the ones who DO have wifi. After taking the Boltbus for $25 bucks from Washington to NYC, I’ll never use amtrak or a plane to do that trip again. Boltbus blows both out of the water.
For years, travelers have wondered why the nation’s premier rail company couldn’t provide wireless Internet service to its passengers
the nation’s premier rail company
That weird rumbling sound you hear is James J Hill spinning in his grave.
Has Amtrak been slow to do this because they know they’ll be forced to roll it out on all their trains?
Since when is Amtrak ever on time? For the price of a NY-Boston or NY-DC ticket the service is absolutely horrible.
Libertarians just refuse to understand transport systems, and how they scale non-linearly. The implication of this fact is that their utility scales much faster than their size (typically quadratically), which further implies that as the system gets bigger, each additional line generates more revenue than the previous ones while simultaneously increasing existing lines’ revenues as well. The first few lines are never profitable. Neither is the 50th. But the 100th, or the 101st, or the 102nd? At some point you cross the threshold and the system becomes self-sustaining.
If you take a look at a country with a good rail network, like Japan, you see new lines being built all the time with private money. This isn’t because of population density but rather that any new line piggy-backs on the existing network.
Government policy killed rail and massively subsidized its competition. This has turned out to be a regrettable mistake that we will spend decades un-doing.
In fairness, Amtrak is generally cheaper than flying on the Northeast Corridor, though the cheapest specials flying are cheaper than the Amtrak prices (especially Acela) at popular times. But by price Amtrak is a flying competitor for the most part.
Given the air traffic congestion in the NYC airports (and what that causes to the rest of the country), trains fast enough to kill off the air shuttles wouldn’t be a terrible idea, though pricing landing slots would also be a sensible one.
Politics always forces Amtrak to keep alive money-losing routes elsewhere, though, including the long-distance ones. I’ve had conversations with friends that insist that it’s absolutely necessary to have a “national train system” for some reason, and I’ve never understand the argument. Not when people who live in less-dense areas could take buses, for example.
Chad is trying to apply network analysis to rail lines. It doesn’t work, because the cost structures are flipped. IT networks have their costs front-loaded, while each additional node costs virtually nothing and adds value for high marginal returns. Rail lines have high fixed costs, so adding additional lines costs a lot, for declining marginal returns.
I’ve had conversations with friends that insist that it’s absolutely necessary to have a “national train system” for some reason, and I’ve never understand the argument.
There is currently a consortium of special interest groups agitating for [federally fun ded] passenger rail service across southern Montana. What a bunch of fucking imbeciles. The government could just give everybody a new Chevrolet and a thousand gallons of gas and come out ahead.
Libertarians just refuse to understand transport systems, and how they scale non-linearly. The implication of this fact is that their utility scales much faster than their size (typically quadratically), which further implies that as the system gets bigger, each additional line generates more revenue than the previous ones while simultaneously increasing existing lines’ revenues as well.
Nice gibberish, Chad; did you hear that from Al Gore?
I’m not sure Amtrak takes longer than flying, when you calculate the time it takes to get out to JFK from Manhattan vs. Penn Station, the hour early you have to be there for “security”, and the 20 minutes you have to wait for your luggage.
Train travel really is much nicer than air for the DC to Boston corridor
No Chad, this is backwards. The first shinkansen line in Japan, Tokyo-Kyoto, is profitable. The subsequent ones aren’t. Just like how the NYC-Boston Northeast Corridor is profitable, but others aren’t. There is some synergy effect, sure, but the system doesn’t become “self-sustaining.”
Actually, the Sanyo line is profitable as well, and the others lose only small amounts of money – much less than the Tokaido Osaka/Tokyo line makes. Either way, such a simplistic analysis ignores the synergy effects. These “unprofitable” lines increase ridership on the profitable lines (making them more profitable!) and on the feeder lines, as well as business at the stores, restaurants, etc outside the stations, which are often rail-company owned. JR isn’t in business to lose money, and they aren’t. They are quite a healthy company, and Japan’s rail system is quite self-sustaining.
Subsidies? No, it didn’t. Rail has been massively subsidized, on a per passenger-mile basis. Roads and drivers have been net contributors through the gas tax, though Obama and the Democratic Congress have been using general funds for roads through the stimulus and last year’s transportation bill, trying to change that and subsidize roads. (Republicans wouldn’t raise the gas tax, but refused to spend from non-gas tax sources. Democrats won’t raise the gas tax, but happily spend general funds on roads.)
The biggest subsidies occurred back the 50s and 60s, which paid for the most expensive elements of any transport network (land and basic infrastructure). These are now fully amortized, making roads look cheap. However, roads are still subsidized as well, as most state and local spending is not paid for with gas taxes. Nor are pollution costs fully accounted for with respect to driving, nor are other externalities related to oil procurement.
Just imagine if we had built a massive rail network in the 50s as well. It would also be fully amortized and very profitable.
And yes, RC Dean, this is network theory. Coincidentally, I happened to have a conversation on this topic last weekend with someone who did his PhD work on modeling suburban growth. He also advocates a strong rail network. Why am I not surprised.
It all sounds good Chad but the reality is there are more people interested in using the Golden Dollar coin than riding light rail for the simple reason they prefer their car. Why would I take a train from Atlanta to Chattanooga? I am still going to need a car when I get there. So then I have to rent one. WHY??? I can just drive it.
Rail is an expensive non starter. I wish it wasn’t that way but it is.
And yes, RC Dean, this is network theory.
IT networking dynamics can’t be transferred whole to train networks, Chad, because of the different cost models each has.
Color me shocked, BTW, that a grad student would be all in favor of light rail.
Let’s not forget that Amtrak is unionized. WiFi is not in the union contracts, so it’s probably tied up in negotiations: is it installed and maintained by electricians or maintenance crews, etc. etc.
And Chad, if your massive rail network existed, it wouldn’t be profitable not just for the reasons mentioned above, but because it would be unionized. Haven’t you noticed that all unionized industries eventually shrink or collapse? Railroads, automobiles, steel, shipping, etc.
IT networking dynamics can’t be transferred whole to train networks, Chad, because of the different cost models each has.
Ummm, networking theory is general and applies to many things, including IT, social networks, neurology, and transportation systems. I am not applying an IT-specific variation, and I have no idea why you think that I am.
I am comparing roads and trains, which have the SAME up-front capital requirements. It is precisely because of this that roads have such an advantage, as we paid those up-front costs long ago. Just imagine if we had built a world-class train network with public money while ripping up almost all the roads, and then claimed building new roads is just too expensive because it costs so much to move houses, businesses, etc.
the nation’s premier rail company
Is that like being America’s premier soccer team?
I happened to have a conversation on this topic last weekend with someone who did his PhD work on modeling suburban growth. He also advocates a strong rail network.
His name wouldn’t happen t be ‘Joe’, would it?
FYI, AirTran has started offering WiFi on their planes. It’s a bit expensive, $6 to $8, but about the same cost as connecting in a Starbucks or in an Airport.
I am not applying an IT-specific variation, and I have no idea why you think that I am.
Because the model that you seem to be relying on assumes that additional lines add value. That is a pretty safe assumption for IT, but not for rail.
I am comparing roads and trains, which have the SAME up-front capital requirements.
You seem to be comparing the railbed itself with roads, rather than looking at trains and passenger lines.
My point is that, even without laying any new rails, adding a new passenger line costs a shitload of money just in rolling stock.
The first passenger route you put in will likely be your most profitable, with additional lines presumably having lower (and lower) returns, while still requiring significant investments.
Are there networking benefits, so that the return on adding a new line is likely to be better if it is part of a larger system? Sure. But you still have large startup and fixed costs for passenger lines, so it is hardly a no-brainer that adding lines with lower and lower rates of return will add to your bottom line.
Just imagine if we had built a massive rail network in the 50s as well. It would also be fully amortized and very profitable.
Good one, Chad. We had a rail network in the fifties; unfortunately, “we” were too busy making it impossible for the railroads to actually make money.
Networking theory ultimately fails to justify passenger railroads in the U.S. because: 1) the U.S. is too big, 2) railroads can never go as many places as roads, 3) railroads have very restricted schedules compared to independent vehicles, 4) railroads have limited capacity for passengers with large amounts of cargo: you can’t buy 10 bags of potting soil at the garden center and bring them home on the train, and 5) the aforementioned unions make it unprofitable in any case.
Idiots. The reason we don’t have WiFi on Amtrak is because conservative republicans have been trying to destroy Amtrak for the last 30 years. It is a miracle we have any intercity passenger rail left. Good thing Republicans are incompetent, because now we have something to build our high-speed rail infrastructure upon.
lexslamman,
I guarantee you that if conservative Republicans had had their way, and Amtrak had shed its most egregiously money-losing routes and concentrated on the Northeast Corridor, perhaps as a private operator, we would have WiFi on Amtrak. It’s the “fans” who have been fighting to “save” Amtrak who have decided that it needs to limp along as a money-losing pit.
I fully expect GM and Chrysler to be the same.
Far be it from me to defend Amtrak, but I haven’t noticed any WiFi service on our privately owned airlines either.
You know why trains suck? Because you can’t take your dog on one. If I want to go from Boston to DC with Heather, my delightfully charming German Shepherd dog, I can’t even bring her in her veri-kennel and have her travel as a checked bag. I can do that on an airplane and I can do that in my F-150, but not on the freakin’ train.
Amtrak hates dogs, which is extremely un-American.
Far be it from me to defend Amtrak, but I haven’t noticed any WiFi service on our privately owned airlines either.
Northwest does. Dunno about the others.
But just because synergies exist doesn’t mean that the synergies are large enough to justify building in all cases, and your hand-waving won’t change that. In the case of Amtrak’s long-distance trains, it’s unlikely that the added business on other Northeast Corridor trains justifies their existence.
Surely synergies cannot justify building in all cases. My point is that it is very possible that we can find ourselves in a situation where there is no new line that could be built that would be profitable, yet a much larger profitable system could be built. If the size of the profitable system outside the scope of a single company or consortium, as it likely is, we could be trapped in a sub-optimal local maximum. Imagine that lines 1-10 would be profitable because of the very high density of the places they would be connecting, but lines 11-49 would be unprofitable because the density would be two low while synergies not strong enough. Yet at line 50, profitability re-emerges due to strengthening synergy, peaking at line 250. Now given such an example, it is very possible that only the 10-line system would be built, because the jump to higher profitability would require such a large investment that no private organization could make it.
In Europe and Japan, the governments built the system up to a size large enough to push towards the higher maximum. In the US, we ripped up the lines and massively subsidized the competition. The result is a failed system.
As fuel prices go higher, trains will only gain in advantage over private cars and especially airplanes. The current “break-even” distance for high-speed train vs air is around 500 miles, as you noted, but will only grow longer as oil becomes more scarce. It is almost certain that oil prices will rise faster than electricity prices, as both our coal reserves and renewable options are more applicable to electricity than liquid fuels. Therefore, we should be planning on increased interest in trains, not the reverse.
It’s not a bad idea as long as you don’t mind the taxpayer funding it. Because that’s the only way it will happen. Amtrak doesn’t have cash.
I use train all the time, NYC subway, Long Island Railroad, MetroNorth, NJ Transit, SEPTA. They are great if you have a friend picking you up that has transportation once you’re there.
I’ve taken Amtrak many times, until their prices went up. Now it’s cheaper to fly most places.
1) 1-10
2) 11-49
3) 50
4) ???
5) Profit!
I think it’s amazing that people actually fly when they don’t need to.
Good thing Republicans are incompetent, because now we have something to build our high-speed rail infrastructure upon.
I’m trying to reconcile this statement on your part with what I’m actually witnessing with my own eyes.
I live near a traditional passenger rail station in Northern California. In the planning discussions of California’s new high-speed rail, the fact that there’s an existing right-of-way isn’t making projections of the cost of constructing high-speed rail project cheaper in any way. There is no coherent plan on how to run the high-speed rail in the same space as the traditional rail service, which everyone wants to retain, except that it will almost certainly involve expensive and disruptive grade separations and sound walls.
Oh, c’mon, Mike. We all know there must still be a few Republicans in California. It must be their fault!
Mike,
Good point. Of course it gets back to the question of whether when we say “high speed rail” we mean 110-150mph on existing right of way, or something like TGV/shinkansen speeds. The latter generally requires all new track, which means all new land acquisition and all sorts of Environmental Impact Statements. (Certainly other countries have done it on separate tracks; Japan even has a different size railway gauge for the shinkansen.) It’s also really expensive.
The former is cheaper, though not as fast, and requires various complexities to run both types of trains without interfering too much.
If we’re only spending $8 billion, then we can accomplish mild upgrades throughout the country that won’t waste too much and will be useful to freight as well. Or, we could spend all the $8 billion on a fraction of the California plan.
though pricier…
I dont recall the exact #s, but when factoring in, say, cabs to and from NYC and DC airports, I seem to remember the train wins out, albeit by a narrow margin. I almost always take the train to DC when going down on business, largely for the convenience, speed, comfort, and most importantly = Not having to deal with retarded TSA screeners.
John T., you’ll be interested to hear that the latest news is that the local committee of the Light Rail Authority wants to be exempted from the environmental impact review, because they don’t want to have to talk to any of the local Bay Area city governments about their plans.
your site is very nice and useful for me, I Bookmarked your blog
your site is very nice and useful for me, I Bookmarked your blog