Trains scale-up better than planes

June 13, 2007 at 1:12 pm | In transportation, the Commons, train, Chicago |

Even as a big fan of passenger rail, I never would’ve guessed that this is true. Why do we fly again? The Equivalent of Midway Airport - Right Downtown:

Understanding the potential of Union Station requires thinking on a much larger scale than when thinking about airports.

For example: A 737, the workhorse of domestic flights, holds 130 people.

On the other hand, Amtrak’s smallest trains hold 200 people (with no center seats.)

During busy travel periods, Amtrak’s sleeper trains can exceed the seating capacity of 747s.Many peak-hour Metra trains exceed 1100 seats.

Many French TGV’s also have 1100 seats (no center seats and two bars) – twice the size of the new super-jumbo Airbus A380. They cover the distance of Chicago to Pittsburg or Memphis in just three hoursTrains also come out ahead in space requirements. Union Station’s 15 track south concourse is about same width as just one and a half gates at a major airport.

And since large buildings can be built immediately adjacent to a railroad station, many people can walk or take a quick cab ride to their final destination making huge parking lots unnecessary.

The result is much more intense economic activity at a lower cost.

7 Comments

  1. […] Ted Ernst | Trains scale-up better than planes (tags: trains versus planes coordination density adjacency round-one fight) […]

    Pingback by Brian Kerr | links for 2007-06-14 — June 13, 2007 #

  2. Well put. Meanwhile on the local transit front there is discussion of shutting down 2 train lines.

    Comment by Michael Maranda — June 13, 2007 #

  3. Local transit funding is in a real structural crisis. No one thinks shutting down the yellow and purple lines is a good idea. They’re actually building a new yellow line station right now, and planning is underway for another one, and to extend the line to Old Orchard Mall. The problem is money. The system needs money. It’s the same old problem of “public” transportation needing public funding. We fund police and fire departments. Isn’t public transportation just as vital?

    Comment by ted — June 14, 2007 #

  4. Well, this doesn’t take into account infrastructural costs. Rail lines need space for their rails, and to maintain them.

    Of course planes also require lots of space–I couldn’t compare an airfield’s requirements to a rail line’s, off the top of my head.

    Also, the benefit of train stations downtown doesn’t come for free: the stations and lines take up more valuable space.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying you need more comprehensive and detailed economic analysis to support this point.

    I’d be curious to see a comparison of maintenance costs, fuel efficiency, and so forth, on a per-passenger basis and a systemic basis.

    Comment by John Stoner — June 14, 2007 #

  5. […] Ted Ernst | Trains scale-up better than planes (tags: trains versus planes density coordination adjacency via:bkerr) […]

    Pingback by Matt Hampel | matth.org » Blog Archive » links for 2007-06-15 — June 15, 2007 #

  6. I’m not sure what you mean, John. There are infrastructural costs with airports as well. And since train stations can serve way more people per vehicle, in much smaller spaces, that’s the scaleability. As far as space for rails, the rails are already there, to a large extent, and because of their nature, we hardly notice them. We go under a viaduct and usually fail to notice that it’s a railroad right-of-way. Not so airports, with their traffic and huge footprint. I’m surprised to hear your skepticism since I know you’re a huge fan of transportation that “makes sense.” On it’s face, putting the equivalent of Midway Airport right downtown, where Union Station already sits, mostly unused, just seems to make a ton of economic sense, and that’s not counting the social benefits of trains over planes.

    Comment by ted — June 16, 2007 #

  7. By the way, in case I’m sounding like a know-nothing ideologue, I’m fairly certain that no-one did an analysis of fuel efficiency and maintenance costs, etc before killing the streetcars in favor of buses, or before pouring millions of public dollars into road and airport infrastructure, to the detriment of rail, which just seems to make so much more sense, on so many different levels.

    So, assuming you agree with me that it “makes sense,” I’d be more interested in hearing, and dealing with reasonable objections than I am in having to affirmatively prove a whole bunch of points that don’t seem central. Do we have any evidence that any of the questions you bring up would be barriers to a vastly expanded passenger rail network?

    Comment by ted — June 16, 2007 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^