Oil hit $120 a barrel today, and the financial pundit class is talking about $200 oil. To quote the wisdom of Mr. T: “My prediction… is pain.”
High oil prices and travel generally don’t mix. But is there any segment that stands to benefit?
Apparently so. Trains!
As the price of fuel skyrockets, more people are traveling to North Carolina’s major cities by train. Ridership on Amtrak is up as much as 40 percent on some routes compared to last year.
40%? Pretty substantial. Perhaps enough to offset the higher cost of diesel.
But how widespread is this as a trend? It’s more likely a phenomenon on shorter, regional routes that would otherwise have been driven. Except for a few diehards, and some gluttons for punishment, most aren’t choosing to take Amtrak from California to Chicago.
Trains becoming more a part of your travelin’ life? Hit the comments.
(image)
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
Follow on Twitter
May 7th, 2008 at 4:30 am
Yes, trains are turning into my default option when I can take them. In fact, I just put up a post listing the major train networks around the world today.
Trains are eco-friendly, fast, comfortable, and there are no charges for a second bag!
May 7th, 2008 at 7:57 am
It is also worth noting that trains take you from city centre to city centre. In most cases, the journey time may seem longer by train than by plane. However, on short haul routes, any time you save during the flight is lost (or at least drastically reduced) by getting to the airport in time for check-in and then getting to the city from your destination airport.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:21 am
I live in NC (Chapel Hill) and we’re traveling this weekend to Washington, DC metro area. Amtrak price: 160 to 294$ to go and 132$ to return. (two adults two children)! 132$ one way seems to be the cheapest. And it’s 6.5 hours. With only one choice, for the second one I have to drive 30+ minutes to Raleigh… It’s a no-brainer, we’re driving.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
California’s Amtrak service ranks near the top in ridership and keeps on climbing! Amtrak is certainly a great way to travel!
May 7th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I live in Chicago, where I can reach the better parts of three states easily and affordably by train, and usually much faster than by car.
I got rid of my car last November, and so far in the past six months I’ve found myself able to do all the commuting and traveling I want, easily by train and/or airplane.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Living in the Pacific Northwest, there are several destinations such as Portland, Seattle, and (though I can’t really fathom wanting to go there) Spokane that would be far more practical to reach with high speed rail than air travel.
Provided accommodations are more luxurious onboard, I’d take a high speed train (180 mph total average) as far as southern California, and definitely from Seattle to San Francisco, even with a slightly lower average speed, though there’s only two cities worth stopping an express train between Seattle and SF.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I always prefer to take Amtrak instead of flying from DC to NYC, and if I can get a $69 one way fare, it’s probably cheaper than driving, especially if you take the price of NYC parking garages into account.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I take a ferry/train combo to work sometimes. If gas prices continue to rise, it will become my primary means of transportation. It is also kinder to the environment.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 am
I took Amtrak from Toronto to Los Angeles (two legs) back in 2002. I was heading to cover the Oscars for my site. The sleeper room was great, the food was fantastic.
Nominee Benicio del Toro was on the train and the attendant said Julia Roberts was on the week before. Sure it takes a couple of days…but it’s like a land cruise.