 | NARP blogTRAINS: A travel choice Americans want |
» Visit the Official NARP Website
A Tale of Two Rides
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I decide to check out one of Amtrak’s competitors in the Northeast.
Perhaps not surprisingly for someone in my position, I almost always prefer to take the train when given the choice. This past Saturday, however, for a day trip to New York City from Washington, I decided to take a ride with one of the many motorcoach companies that compete with Amtrak along the Northeast Corridor. I had heard good things about these buses and wanted to see for myself how they compared to the trains to which I am accustomed.
The main factor that draws so many riders to motorcoach services—each bus I rode was completely full—is price. The bus fare that I paid, $25 each way, was about half of what the lowest Washington-New York fare would have been on Amtrak’s Northeast Regional—$49 one-way under the current promotion, which would have required booking a ticket at least three weeks in advance. For $50 round-trip, I got a reasonably comfortable nonstop ride up I-95 and the New Jersey Turnpike. But there’s a lot I didn’t get.
For one thing, there is no cafe car on a bus. I could have brought my own food, but I couldn’t simply get up and grab a snack if I wanted one. I also missed out on the opportunity to sit and chat with fellow travelers. On the bus, you can only socialize with those sitting next to you, who may or may not be in the mood for conversation. I found the motorcoach privy to be very small and difficult to use while in motion. There was no running water for hand washing (something I take for granted on a train), only hand sanitizer gel.
Though my seat on the bus was fairly comfortable, coach seats on Amtrak are more accommodating than those on most motorcoaches, offering more legroom and greater reclining capability. A train ride is generally less bumpy than a bus trip, depending on the condition of the track, roads and shock absorbers. Additionally, although I enjoyed the change of scenery, the relative monotony of the interstate paled in comparison to all that can be seen from a train window as it travels through the center of cities and towns and across the countryside.
Above all, I missed the conductors and attendants who are there to make a train trip as enjoyable as possible. The driver was the only employee present on the bus, and he or she could only attend to passengers’ needs so much while keeping his or her eyes on the road.
There are several reasons why intercity bus travel is so much cheaper than rail travel, which may be the subject of a future blog post. But the train costs more mainly because it offers a higher-quality experience. Next time you are thinking about taking a motorcoach to save money, remember that the train fare is a truer reflection of the cost of your safe, comfortable transportation than a bargain-basement bus fare. As long as your pocketbook is not your sole concern, you will enjoy a more relaxing and civilized travel experience when you ride the rails.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: amtrak, bus, experience, intercity, motorcoach, new york, ride, train, travel, washington,Coming Together for Smarter Development
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Expert panelists call attention to the burgeoning demand for homes that are convenient to transit and the challenges to making such housing widely available and affordable.
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Public Policy Institute, the National Housing Trust and Reconnecting America held a panel discussion at Washington’s Union Station on September 30 on integrating affordable housing with better transportation for more livable communities. It is good to see that people in the various professions that relate to housing, transportation and the design of cities are coming together to address these issues in a coordinated way.
The qualities that make homes near transit lines desirable also drive up their prices, so the need for affordable housing accessible to transit is critical. As you get farther from the center of a city, housing gets less expensive, but transportation costs grow at a higher rate than the cost of a home drops. The opposite occurs as you get closer in. Residents of outlying suburbs who depend on their cars spend an average of 25% of their household income on getting around vs. 9% for those living in walkable neighborhoods with good transit connections. If transportation costs were considered as a factor in the affordability of housing, the whole equation would change in favor of denser, less car-dependent neighborhoods.
Nationwide, only 20% of housing units lie within half a mile of a bus or train stop, but in many larger cities, that figure is over 60%—even in places like Houston, Salt Lake City and Denver. Transit-oriented development doesn’t necessarily mean high-rise apartment buildings. It can also include townhomes and small single-family homes that are close together and laid out well enough to encourage walking.
Availability of affordable, pedestrian-friendly housing means greater independence for older adults who cannot/don’t want to/should not drive and whose personal mobility is limited. Those 65 and older make up over half of the residents of affordable housing units in the US; by 2050, senior citizens are expected to comprise 20% of the American population, up from 12% today.
A major obstacle to transit-friendly, affordable housing is market pressure to turn the existing housing stock into higher-priced condos and townhomes. Currently, there is much more demand for transit-oriented housing than there is supply. Properties in transit-oriented developments are holding their value despite the recession, and are some are seeing values increase. Codes and zoning laws often make infill development, mixed-use buildings, and repurposing of existing buildings difficult. Add to that the pervasive lack of integration of transportation and land-use planning, and you get a sense of the breadth of the challenge facing policymakers.
Rodney Harrell, Strategic Planning Advisor with the AARP Public Policy Institute, noted the irony of transit service cuts even as federal capital funding has grown. In response to this, Congressional leaders’ plans for the next surface transportation authorization include the reestablishment of federal operating assistance to keep the buses and trains that were bought primarily with federal dollars running. Keeping transit accessible and attractive to the entire public also means addressing safety issues and physical obstacles that make it difficult to get to train stations and bus stops, as well as providing better information (including the use of advanced technology) about how often trains and buses run, where they go and what connections are available.
Despite the enormity of the challenge, a sense of progress emerged in the conference room. The Obama Administration was given high marks for its attention to these matters. The rapidly changing American demographic and urgent need for solutions to the energy and climate crises make the transition of the American lifestyle back to one based on more cohesive communities and more reliance on public transportation, particularly rail, all but inevitable.
—Malcolm Kenton
Posted by Malcolm Kenton
Tags: aarp, access, bus, communities, development, housing, pedestrian, quality of life, rail, reconnecting america, tod, train, transit,©2010 National Association of Railroad Passengers | » NARP website
» Recent Entries
» Blogroll
» Terms of Service for Comments
You may register to post comments in response to NARP-generated postings on the Blog. By registering you agree 1) that all comments will be relevant to the respective posting and 2) not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws. We reserve the right to permanently block postings from any user who does not abide by the above terms. NARP reserves the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.
» Monthly Archives
