Amtrak Benefits with United Ending

[MARC Rider]

Actually the setup in EWR is perfectly usable for such, as is BWI with a little tweak. If those are not usable as such then neither are the rail connections in Frankfurt (requires a people mover ride to get to most terminals) or London Heathrow (requires an endless walk to get to the Heathrow Express/Connect station). would be usable. Then there is Milwaukee and Burbank and such, as well as Harrisburg which are also possible to bring up to usable standard, as is Miami, and Orlando soon, if things fall in place properly. There may be others that I can't think of right at this moment.

For true interline service, you would need to have the trains available "airside" (i.e. within the security cordon) so that passengers and baggage could be easily transferred without having to be reinspected. Even Philadelphia doesn't have that. Of course, to have that for incoming trains, you'd need to have TSA security for barding at all the stations served by the inbound trains. Maybe they'd only need one small platform or part of a platform for the "air trains." But it would be a problem for riders who want to travel to the airport, but not necessarily go "airside." (Airport workers, people meeting passengers, people connecting to airlines that don't have an interline agreement with the rail operator, etc.) Outbound trains would be easier, as you could have a seperate "landside" station for people not conecting from flights, and no TSA is needed for passengers disembarking from trains down the line.

Aside from that, you're probably right, though BWI would need to have a people mover built; I've done that connection and it's a pretty long bus ride in traffic between the Amtrak station and the terminal. Another that you didn't mention was Providence, RI. I've passed by that many times on the way to Boston. I'm not sure if Amtrak stops there or only the MBTA trains. But that's also another one that needs a people mover to connect the train station with the airport terminal.

 

[sttom]

Oakland, CA could also work if there was an easier way to get from the Amtrak platform to the BART station that has a people mover to the airport. I did it last Christmas and it was doable, but not easy. It would also require more service south of Jack London Square, but its also a doable connection with some planning.

 

[John Bredin]

At O'Hare, the ATS peoplemover has been extended to a new unified car rental facility right next to the O'Hare Transfer Metra station. The existing service to that station (North Central Service) is less than impressive, including no weekend service.

However, if a switch could be installed at Deval to connect the North Central line to the UP freight line, then Hiawathas could use the North Central from Chicago to Deval, switch to the UP freight line, and switch to the existing Hiawatha tracks on to Milwaukee. The Hiawathas would lose a stop at Glenview but gain an airport stop. The Empire Builder could do the same as the Hiawathas but the station facilities at O'Hare Transfer would have to be improved as the shelter there is modest.

Mind you, Deval is a crowded spot where three rail lines cross at grade and a national highway passes under them in a narrow and twisting underpass, so such a switch may be difficult if not impossible.

 

[jis]

For true interline service, you would need to have the trains available "airside" (i.e. within the security cordon) so that passengers and baggage could be easily transferred without having to be reinspected. Even Philadelphia doesn't have that. Of course, to have that for incoming trains, you'd need to have TSA security for barding at all the stations served by the inbound trains.

Even Amsterdam does not quite have that. Let us not cause us to lose sight of the possible in pursuit of the perfect.

Indeed even changing terminals often involves security check. So perhaps we should stop dreamin'

Remeber that the original plan for remote checkin at the EWR NEC station was scrapped after 9/11 due to security concerns, and no one has even mentioned it as a possible thing to be restored. I think it is safe to surmise that trains that have traveled far and wide outside the security perimeter will not be allowed into it without complete vetting of its passengers and their baggage at the boundary of the security perimeter of an airport.

 

[saxman]

At O'Hare, the ATS peoplemover has been extended to a new unified car rental facility right next to the O'Hare Transfer Metra station. The existing service to that station (North Central Service) is less than impressive, including no weekend service.

The Midwest HSRA has really been pushing for better rail connections to ORD and better Metra service once the ATS extension is complete. If Metra could run every half hour or so, as far as the O'Hare station that would be ideal with a direct link to Union Station. I've also understood in the past that the Antioch line is a fairly busy freight line.

Now a real goal would be to get checked baggage at major stations too. Check your bag at Penn Station and it ends up on the plane in EWR or JFK. I know, I can dream.

 

[sttom]

The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good enough, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a long term goal. Transferring baggage could be easy, depending on how far the train station is from the airport. If the train station is built into the airport, a baggage transfer would be fairly easy. If the airport is a couple of miles away, making the transfer would be fairly difficult. But, to have seamless connections between Amtrak (or trains in general) and airports, we need to acknowledge and deal with 3 issues. The first one is the one we talk about here, which is there aren't enough trains in this country to do this effectively. The second one is that a lot of airports in this country were built far away from railroads on purpose. The last one is that airports get a good chunk of their revenue from parking and trains would eat into that revenue. All of these problems can be solved if planned and funded at the state and local level, but we need to work on all three of them.

For example, in Northern California, we could build in airport train stations at SFO, Oakland and Sacramento Airports, but there are logistical and social problems about it. SFO would likely be the easiest because of the proximity to an existing rail line and the only barrier being a highway. a parking lot and possibly swampy terrain. Oakland would be harder since you'd either have to elevate a rail line over a bunch of warehouses and sewage treatment plant or eminent domain a path and move the sewage treatment plant. Sacramento would be somewhere in between, but the Yolo Shortline would need to be upgraded from West Sacramento to where a bridge would have to be built due south of the airport, a tunnel would likely need to be dug under the highway or an overpass built, along with repurposing a road and ruin some of aesthetics of the airport. All of these present problems, but different problems. Sacramento would have to deal with ruined aesthetics which rich people and business travelers would find abhorrent because looks trump convenience or the greater good. Oakland would be a hard sell because of the BART shuttle and SFO would face similar issues, nevermind that a heavy rail line would connect to San Jose and allow Caltrain to run a Heathrow Express style train between the city and the airport. But, all of these are doable and would allow for train to plane baggage transfers to be feasible.

 

[jis]

Now a real goal would be to get checked baggage at major stations too. Check your bag at Penn Station and it ends up on the plane in EWR or JFK. I know, I can dream.

I had used such a facility at London Paddington, traveling via the Heathrow Express, for my United flight from London Heathrow to EWR pre-9/11. It was truly convenient. All that went bye-bye with 9/11, never to return - at least yet.

 

[jebr]

Now a real goal would be to get checked baggage at major stations too. Check your bag at Penn Station and it ends up on the plane in EWR or JFK. I know, I can dream.

Agreed. I've seen it done with a bus connection before - I think the TSA requires the bags to be placed in a sealed cage from initial pick-up until it reaches the TSA (which seemed like a bit more paperwork than was necessary, since it isn't actually security-cleared until it arrives at the airport.) Having to do the security screening at the airport seems fine - time can be built into the schedule to allow for the time to clear security, which usually doesn't take more than a half-hour or so even on the busiest days, and there's no need to get bags checked or boarding pass obtained once at the airport.

Having a train actually enter the secure area seems like a much larger logistical challenge, especially if there's smaller station stops along the way where it's not practical to pre-screen passengers, there's through running, or the train wants to attract passengers for their own service that doesn't require TSA air-level security screening. Considering that the time to go through security needs to happen somewhere, and there's a transfer of some sort regardless, it seems just as easy to do it at the airport where the resources already exist and don't require additional security measures on the train.

 

[me_little_me]

Even though Atlanta's MARTA train goes right to the terminal building, they never implemented the ability to easily move, drag or carry baggage between the station and the terminals. Would be so nice when getting off the train to have an exit-only ramp from the train level to the terminal check-in area. No thought to integrating convenient transfer. Would also separate exiting passengers with luggage and entering passengers with the same from having to navigate the same gates and same crowded area.
At least they didn't stop the tracks at the outer perimeter of the airport!

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I had used such a facility at London Paddington, traveling via the Heathrow Express, for my United flight from London Heathrow to EWR pre-9/11. It was truly convenient. All that went bye-bye with 9/11, never to return - at least yet.

Flying in the late 1990's was peak convenience. You could park your car thirty minutes before boarding a domestic flight with a drivers license. Unfortunately we only enjoyed a few short years of easy access before it was quickly dismantled and forgotten. I cannot help but wonder how different life would be today if the authorities had actually listened to the warnings and taken the tip-offs seriously. In any case I'm honestly fine with conventional airport rail connections. If we can get more American airports to connect with passenger rail similar to how things work in London, Frankfurt, and Tokyo, I'd be very happy.

 

[railiner]

Flying in the late 1990's was peak convenience.

I would say it was even easier in the sixties...you could show up at the Eastern Shuttle terminal at LGA minutes before departures, and purchase your ticket on board.
Or, you could check your baggage straight to your destination at the East Side Airlines Terminal in Manhattan, before boarding your Carey bus to LGA or IDL.

 

[tricia]

Now a real goal would be to get checked baggage at major stations too. Check your bag at Penn Station and it ends up on the plane in EWR or JFK. I know, I can dream.

I'm still dreaming of checked baggage to/from all Amtrak stations. Hope this might be a higher priority than checking your baggage through to a destination airport.

 

[sttom]

Having a train actually enter the secure area seems like a much larger logistical challenge, especially if there's smaller station stops along the way where it's not practical to pre-screen passengers, there's through running, or the train wants to attract passengers for their own service that doesn't require TSA air-level security screening. Considering that the time to go through security needs to happen somewhere, and there's a transfer of some sort regardless, it seems just as easy to do it at the airport where the resources already exist and don't require additional security measures on the train.

I took the train to Warsaw's airport and the train goes right into the building, but you are near the check in desks. Doing that is fairly easy. As for transferring baggage, the TSA runs the bags through security anyways. So long as Amtrak could print the luggage tag and the train stopped at the airport instead of a few miles away, I don't see how it would be hard for there to be a handoff. I know the TSA is jumpy about security, but their failure rate is already between 80% and 95%. If they'd miss a bomb in checked baggage, they're going to miss it whether or not Amtrak is giving them the bag or a person is giving it to them at the airline's front desk. Being able to check my bag at the local Amtrak station and ride the train all the way into Oakland Airport and have my bag checked through to where ever would be a boon for Amtrak. Besides a direct rail link, there would need to be a baggage handling area and code sharing with airlines, but that's easier than trying to "secure" the bag at a bunch of unstaffed stations and trusting that they are safe enough to go to the plane without checking. I don't get why anyone would want to set up a process where security is avoided? I've traveled at fairly busy times and I've spent more time in the check in line to drop my bags than I waited to get through TSA.

 

[jebr]

Besides a direct rail link, there would need to be a baggage handling area and code sharing with airlines, but that's easier than trying to "secure" the bag at a bunch of unstaffed stations and trusting that they are safe enough to go to the plane without checking. I don't get why anyone would want to set up a process where security is avoided? I've traveled at fairly busy times and I've spent more time in the check in line to drop my bags than I waited to get through TSA.

The one setup I've seen (with the bus) still has TSA baggage screening at the airport, but the bags have to be held in a sealed bin that has tracked seals on the bus as well (instead of simply loaded on like normal baggage.) I think that's fine, though it'd probably be logistically easier for the ground transport company to not have that extra step (and be able to treat them as normal bags within their own network.) I wouldn't want to circumvent any security measures at the airport (they should be applied equally,) though I think you might need to have some sort of priority lane to woo people away from their short lines at a regional airport, or to better protect connections if a train is late or the security line is extremely long. But overall, I think the baggage transfer situation is relatively easy, and that plus codeshare should be the focus for rail - airport connections, rather than trying to get the entire train inside the secure zone.

 

[sttom]

The one setup I've seen (with the bus) still has TSA baggage screening at the airport, but the bags have to be held in a sealed bin that has tracked seals on the bus as well (instead of simply loaded on like normal baggage.) I think that's fine, though it'd probably be logistically easier for the ground transport company to not have that extra step (and be able to treat them as normal bags within their own network.) I wouldn't want to circumvent any security measures at the airport (they should be applied equally,) though I think you might need to have some sort of priority lane to woo people away from their short lines at a regional airport, or to better protect connections if a train is late or the security line is extremely long. But overall, I think the baggage transfer situation is relatively easy, and that plus codeshare should be the focus for rail - airport connections, rather than trying to get the entire train inside the secure zone.

A code share agreement would be necessary for smooth connections between airlines and Amtrak. The airport would need to know which airline the passenger is traveling on and what flight the bag is going on. That would be more on the airlines to agree to, assuming a state would push for an Amtrak connection to an airport. Like with Oakland, the dominant carrier is Southwest and they generally aren't big on partnerships which would hamper a rail connection to that airport. I personally would use the train with or without the ability to check a bag through to the destination at the Amtrak station, but some people wouldn't once they find out they'd have to collect their bag and check it in with the airline separately. Having check in desks near the train platform would help with that, but a proper code sharing agreement would work better. But I'm not sure what it would take for an airline like Southwest to even entertain a partnership with Amtrak. Amtrak would probably have to show that having a train connection into a hub of theirs (like Oakland) would benefit them, which would be more passengers going through Oakland instead of going to San Francisco.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Surrogate Amtrak codes were loaded into airline booking systems in the past and presumably they could still be used again in the future. I know this is disappointing news to loyal United customers but maybe this means Amtrak can find another airline partner. Or maybe Amtrak will try to renegotiate the terms with United and bring back a light version.

 

[TC_NYC]

It would make a lot of sense for Amtrak to team up with Jet Blue. Jet Blue is trying to grow at EWR and is putting in a lot of routes like EWR-LAX that go right up against United. Jet Blue could make EWR-LAX a big success with connections with Amtrak from PHL/TRE/STM/NHV/NLC.

 

[jiml]

A code share agreement would be necessary for smooth connections between airlines and Amtrak. The airport would need to know which airline the passenger is traveling on and what flight the bag is going on.

For the longest time American Airlines used a similar situation with DB in Germany. It was great to fly to Frankfurt and seamlessly connect to other German cities not served by AA. I believe the agreement has lapsed, but Qatar Airways and others still do. I'm sure precedents exist elsewhere outside North America.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

It would make a lot of sense for Amtrak to team up with Jet Blue. Jet Blue is trying to grow at EWR and is putting in a lot of routes like EWR-LAX that go right up against United. Jet Blue could make EWR-LAX a big success with connections with Amtrak from PHL/TRE/STM/NHV/NLC.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. United probably doesn't care about losing an inherited relationship with Amtrak. When I flew UA I never saw or heard anything about connecting with Amtrak and didn't even know it was possible. United is big enough that an agreement with Amtrak just doesn't move the needle for them. But Jet Blue is in a difference place with a different perspective. For them it might be worth it. Even if a lot of people don't make use of it right away it gives Jet Blue another way to differentiate itself. I think the key to making it useful is to advertise it.

 

[jis]

Since I had never really used the UA-Amtrak relationship, except experimentally to probe its existence in terms of lounge access, the disappearance of it goes pretty much unnoticed to me. The code share part of the agreement suffered from the malady that many code shares suffer from - the joint fare is often much higher than if the two legs were purchased separately. Most code shares that I have flown that are not part of a JV type much closer relationship, tends to treat the guest customer on the codshare host as a second class citizen too, which is sometimes not very pleasant.

I had acatually made greater use of a previous relationship that UA and Amtrak had about flying one way and traveling by Amtrak the other way on cross country trips. Unfortunately that went away many moons ago.