Why don't the passenger trains get better, as the autos do and the aircraft do?

[jeaton]

I suspect that a good portion of those who do not drive did not "opt out", but rather had someone tell them that they are not allowed to drive. I am thinking of elderly people and others with chronic illnesses or disabilities. I won't include those who can not afford to own a car, as I assume you consider poverty a life style choice.

[DSchmitt]

I find the information on sources of highway funding very confusing, however I did find this chart: http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-03-915sp/g_cac2.html
While very sketchy it appears that Motor Fuel Taxes are about 48%, Vehicle/Motor Carrier Taxes 25%, Other 11% Tolls 8%, and General Fund 8%.

It is not clear what other is, however based on knowledge from my job, I can say it probably incudes developer projects (private money), other State and Federal agency funded projects (Parks, Forest Service, DOD, etc) and Local agency projects (City, County, Districts)

In California:
Most Local projects are funded by a mix of developer fees and Federal and/or State (usually highway) money allocated to the local agency.

New roads in residential and commercial developments are funded by the developers (private money). Many, perhaps most , improvements to existing local roads (widening, traffic signals, etc.) are funded by a mix of developer fees and Highway money.

Local agencys also recieve highway money for maintenance. Unfortunately it is often not enough money and the poorer communities in particular are har pressed to maintain their roads since developer fees generally cannot be used for maintenance.

Local roads are needed even when other transportation modes are provided.

Highway money also pays for most pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the streets and highways. A nearly 100% subsidy.

The subsidy for rail passenger operations (according to a chart on the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute web site) is about 70%. (and I'm not convinced they are including all the costs)

While a it is a lot more money, it appears the subsidy for highways is at most 15%.
The roads and highways provide benefit to many more people than rail does (including everyone who uses other modes of transportation)

[greyhounds]

You know, all I wanted when I started this topic was the option to purchase for an extra charge:

1) a more comfortable seat on my commuter train - which would have a holder for my coffe cup.

2) wireless Internet access on the train.

But we have seriously strayed!

It is important to realize and accept the fact that people who never, ever drive a vehicle "use" the road network. That's how public safety services access you. Most of us may agree (I no longer assume anything!) that it is a "good thing" that a vehicle designed to assist and transport firefighting personel can access our reisdence in a timely manner. To do this requires a local road network that is kept in good repair and clear of things like snow and ice. That's why some funding for local road networks should come out of general tax dollas. Even a housebound invalid "uses" the local road net for deliveries, mail, public safety ,etc.

As to comming up with an "equitable" national transportation plan - a plan that covers all "social" and/or "external costs - no.

It all sounds so good - just plan it out - but you can't. I would suggest reading the Wall Street Journal of November 19, 2004. Page #1 story about Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the US Central Bank - the infamous Federal Reserve. If the story is accurate, and that is a big "if" given today's journalism, Mr. Grenspan would, if he could, return us to a situation where the gubernmint had so little role in the economy that there was no US currency. Individual private banks issued money - it worked just fine. I beleive that he truly "gets it". Things are just too complex and volitale to be "planed out" in some central planning way. That thing called "The Great Depression" had a root cause in the Federal Reserve ( which was only 16 years old in 1929). The Fed kept reducing the money supply - which kept making the "Great Depression" worse.

Why on Earth did anyone think a central gubernmint authority should have been given control of the money supply? Well, it's basically the same mentality that reasons that some group of folks can sit down and come up with an "equitable" transportaiton system that covers all those "social costs". Nobody's that smart and they'll only make things worse.

Social costs are: 1) ill defined at best, 2) not quantifiable in any reliable way and 3) unassignable as to who should pay them. They're basically a tool for elitests who think they are smart enough to do things like: 1) plan out a national transporation network, or 2) control the money supply. These folks just want to justify their assumption/siezure of power from the rest of us.

That being said, when I get on the train tomorrow morning I will: 1) have an uncomfotable seat, 2) no cup holder for my coffee, and 3) no Internet access.

[andrewjonathon]

I have a comment that goes back to the original premise that cars and airlines have gotten better since the 1970's. I'm in agreement that cars are better but if anyone can point me in the direction of airline whose service is better than the 1970's please let me know where I can find it. The odd plane has a better entertainment system but I swear the seats are a lot closer together and often not as well padded, even foot rests have gone, the planes are often dirty now since they have cut the number and size of the cleaning crews and the food...do I need really need to say anything about food? It seems that before the airlines invented the hub airport concept most flights were also direct whereas now one or two stops are now common. And of course if you have a lot of money to spend, in the years gone by you could fly between Europe and America on the Concorde but even that service is no longer available. Its true that flights are relatively cheaper but it seems that has come at the cost of service.

[Hugh Jampton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds


That being said, when I get on the train tomorrow morning I will: 1) have an uncomfotable seat, 2) no cup holder for my coffee, and 3) no Internet access.

That's a shame. When I go to London on Wednesday morning I will have all three of these things.

[Junctionfan]

Greyhounds

Who do you think funds thease things? All thease nice things you see on the trains of Europe, Japan and even Canada; who do you think is the major investor?

I can understand your frustrations with the government bureacrats and their uselessness but ultimately the government will have to do the funding. You can't expect the railroads to do it because they don't want anything to do with passenger service. The private sector will likely not be interested as it isn't profitable and is unlikely they can turn a decent one without price gouging resulting in lowering of ridership and in turn an unhealthy decline in a bottomline that can at least be at cost.

I don't really understand what kind of solution you think you can get. I sure don't have the answers here; I'm not an economist, politician (yet) nor am I really qualified to give you much in the way of an informed opinion based on what goes on in the U.S. You want a all this stuff but you don't want the government to do what they need to do? Does that sound logical or rational to you? Just a thought.

All I can do is give you my opinion based on what I see about me which is VIA Rail Canada and GO transit (Toronto transit). My only positive response is to write editorials calling for better service. It comes down to how much more taxes are you willing to pay?

[Anonymous]

All due respect, ol' buddy MWH, but life ain't fair. If it was, we'd all be rich and able to slam dunk a basketball while the supermodel of our choice cheered for us.

Expecting our giverment, or Canada's, to act according to the rules of common sense (can we all agree on a definition of that?) is far more than we could ever hope for.

I long ago gave up on the idea that they (whoever the hell they are) would ever run this world to suit me.

But I live in it, anyway, and I commuted on Metra without a cupholder or an internet connector for that laptop I never had. And I lived to talk about it.

Stiff upper lip, guys. You can make it, if you try.

Oh, and someone much wiser than I said that democracy is the worst government system on earth, except for all the others.

Someone else said that democracy embodies the illusion that the majority can run the country. Sometimes, they actually can. But when they can't, we can vote the b******s out.

Old Timer

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds
Why on Earth did anyone think a central gubernmint authority should have been given control of the money supply? Well, it's basically the same mentality that reasons that some group of folks can sit down and come up with an "equitable" transportaiton system that covers all those "social costs". Nobody's that smart and they'll only make things worse.

Social costs are: 1) ill defined at best, 2) not quantifiable in any reliable way and 3) unassignable as to who should pay them. They're basically a tool for elitests who think they are smart enough to do things like: 1) plan out a national transporation network, or 2) control the money supply. These folks just want to justify their assumption/siezure of power from the rest of us.

That being said, when I get on the train tomorrow morning I will: 1) have an uncomfotable seat, 2) no cup holder for my coffee, and 3) no Internet access.

The planners are more interested in "redesigning" people to fit their transportation system, than in designing a transportation system to fit peoples needs. Thats why you can't get a comfortable seat with a cup holde[:(]

[M636C]

If I might be allowed to make an on-topic posting, my understanding of why trains didn't get better was that unlike automobiles, buses and commercial aircraft, railroad passenger cars don't wear out and require replacement nearly frequently enough to give the turnover that occurs in other modes.

The idea of full refurbishment to meet rising passenger expectation is a fairly recent one, but experience in Australia, at least for commuter trains, is that you get fresh bright colours, harder and less comfortable seats and visual desintation indicators that spend most of the time giving you unwanted advertisements.

But when Edward G Budd built his stainless coaches for Burlington and Santa Fe and others, he built a structure that if not damaged, had an almost infinite fatigue life and if cleaned, would look good and "modern" almost indefinitely.

Any surviving "Heritage" cars with Amtrak have lasted about fifty years. The "Heavyweight" era only lasted about 25 years before "Lightweight" cars were introduced (assuming my recollection of 1910 as the start is correct).

Without the need to replace a car for structural reasons, an operator will try to continue to operate it for as long as possible, even those who are profitable and aren't dependent on absolutely minimal government funding. This is the big difference between modes.

Peter

[Junctionfan]

Mind you though, I don't believe the LRCs of VIA had Lap-top jacks originally. There is alot of nice things on them now.

I don't think it's is a matter of replacing when you need something different. I think it is all in the matter at least in Canada is "it could be a fixer uper" we souped up the Budds and we now have souped up the LRCs. I think VIA is successful because of it. VIA rarely buys anything new so they just pay the cost of maintainance and modifications and not the full cost of buying something new. While Amtrak bought all those nice new P42s, we only bought 22 (900-921) since the F40s were still good so why replace them. They just usually use the P-42s for the Windsor Corridor where they can actually use the speed. Our federal government isn't exactly Santa; trying to get money from them is like pulling teeth at times but VIA manages to still do a great job and saves at lot of money.

I'm sure that Amtrak and the commuter services could save money by souping it up instead of buying new all that is needed is the will and the minor amount of money into it. You would be surprise how such a little amount of improvement influences. In real estate, you can sell a house better and for a better price if it looks like it is worth it. Well because VIA has invested into the little things and a couple of larger things like the Panorama louge for VIA1 class fares, ridership is up and so is the bottomline. I don't have access to their financial records at least to knowledge I would be allowed, but I know that is had a positive effect on the trains because they have been getting longer and more full now.

[Anonymous]

Comparing Chicago/Metra to corridor services is not quite accurate. With 1 or 2 exceptions, the runs are under 40 miles end to end and most have express trains during rush hours for the farther out destinations. There's no lack of ridership either, I've riden many standing room only trains over the years.

One of the biggest problems is insufficient parking and an unwillingness of the older suburbs to have massive parking lots in their business districts or to build multi-story parking garages. There is fairly extensive feeder bus service, but it's difficult to have buses serving every suburban neighborhood.

The systen probably has more pasenger cars than Amtrak(there are 9 or 10 different lines most with hourly non-rush service throughout the day) and has been slowily buying new cars and engines for increased ridership and to replace the oldest Pullman Standard bi-levels. Most of the Budd bi-levels have been refurbished twice.

Regional funding is done using a state-mandated formula with certain percentages coming from fares, a gasoline tax, and a portion of the sales tax. Comparing Metrra to the Interstate Highways isn't really accurate either. Most Chicago expressways pre-date the Interstates as do many of our much-hated tollroads. These roads were built with state bond issues and made part of the Interstate system later.

Regarding passenger train service in Canada, I'm curious why there's no dedicated high speed TGV between Montreal and Toronto? Any plans to build one? Any studies of rail vs. air vs highway use between those cities?? I ask not to start anything, but it might be interesting for comparison. I was watching a show on the History Channel recently where they tallked about high speed rail development in France. We are often quick to blame the highways and airlines, but according to the documentary France was developing all three quite extensively at the same time. It also helped that France is about the size of Texas and they had plenty of rail ridership to begin with.

[Anonymous]

I can only speak from personal experience with the New Haven railroad, both from my hometown on the Connecticut shore line to New Haven, and New Haven to New York.

In 1968, just before the New Haven got swallowed up by the Penn Central, passenger rail service between my hometown and New Haven was cancelled. New Haven rail service between New Haven and New York was also cut back. My father, who spent his four hour commute into New York reading the paper, described the ride as roughly akin to being on the deck of a World War II destroyer in a North Atlantic storm.

The depot in my hometown ended up being closed after PC was formed.

In 2003, I went back to my hometown and naturally, I went down to see the railroad. The old depot was gone- it had been replaced by a "bus shelter" type building on the south side of the tracks. There was a large parking lot which was full of cars. I actually got a schedule of trains going to New Haven and back. Service had come back- instead of "The Rocket" trundling once a day in and out of New Haven, there were three Metro North- Connecticut DOT trains.

Has passenger service improved? I would say "yes" in this particular instance. The infrastructure has been pretty much rebuilt. I remember ties in 1968 with "36" pins on them, telling me they hadn't been replaced in a dog's age. At age 13, I could go out on the main line and pull a spike out of rotted ties. I would regularly watch the "Yankee Clipper"- a "premier express" from Boston to New York- sway from side to side as it boiled through town at a blistering 40 mph. Now I have also seen the ACELA go whipping through town at double- even triple- that speed.

Has the passenger train gotten better? I'd have to say, in this particular case, "yes". Is it more comfortable? Again, I'd have to say yes. Is it more convenient? I would say yes, as there is no way I would consciously choose to drive I-95 from New Haven to New York and attempt to park anywhere in "The City".

There's also an unfair comparison going on nowadays between the premier trains of the past and trains of today. Expecting "Super Chief" or "20th Century" service on commuter trains is like expecting Concorde level service on the Washington-New York shuttle. I'm positive you can get premium amenities on a train if you pay, well, a premium fare. But if you are taking a "rattler" into work every day, and back home, the business is moving large numbers of people in a short period of time. Governments will support that sort of transportation at the lowest possible cost to them... amenities come extra.

Erik

[Junctionfan]

No arguement caused. In fact I was hoping someone would ask this. As far as I know the Windsor Corridor (Windsor/Sarnia to Toronto to Montreal/ Ottawa) high-speed system is up in the air but most definately something being looked at by the federal government. If I'm not mistaken, the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec as well as the multitude of municipalities effect are in favour of this to increase commutes for business folk and tourist alike to their destinations at higher speeds. I believe this is a result of poor satisfaction with Air Canada and its financial thorn in the government's butt. As far as I know the only reason why the government doesn't let Air Canada go to oblivion is because too many people still depend on it so they are looking for alternatives including more airlines and mass transit (high speed rail) so they let the thing die.

Now as far as the rail capacity is concerned, I have know idea what will happen. Between Toronto and Aldershot (near Bayview Junction) is know problem because for the most part it's triple or quadruple track and only a couple of mainline CN trains use it as well as a hand full or locals particularly at Oakville. Most of the traffic is VIA and more so GO trains. The problem becomes evident at heading to Windsor. CN runs a pile of trains and often runs into traffic jams at Bayview and occasionally around the London area. There is also a number of engineering issues.

1/ The curve at Paris Ontario is rather sharp and trains have to slow down on the trestle too.

2/ Bayview has a number of tight curves until it straightens out at Dundas.

3/ There seems to be a slow order required after climbing the hill and approaching Copetown.

4/ There are two diamonds-one at Carew (near Woodstock) and one with the busy CP Windsor Sub near Komolka (west of London) on the Sarnia bound Stratroy Sub so the trains have to slow down.

5/There is also too many crossings as well as bridges that would require upgrading. Also I think the rail would have to be replaced with heavier and the issue of concrete ties might also come up.

That is just one subdivision and effected would be at least 8. CN would have some major money to spend and I don't know how much money the governments think it will cost but from what I have look at a lot of money. If I had to guess, roughly 3 to 5 billion dollars. Equipment also has to come into play. The F-40s won't be all that useful here so the government would either have to buy more P-42s or go electric which is even more expensive. They had plans to purchase the "Jet train" from Bombardier but have never heard much on it so it likely means that the thing sucks and was not up to VIA's expectations or they can't run it because it's too fast and won't work well on the lines. Something along that line.

So.....the government in proceeding slowly and cautiously as to not invest into a fluke so they are doing alot of studies and would imagine some consulting with CN and CP among others. It is in demand but right now most of the money is needed to go into healthcare, defence and various neglected essentials so it is unclear what the Prime Minister even has this on his agenda. I don't recall hearing about it in the Thone Speach which means it won't happen with in the next 4 or 5 years anyways.

[jchnhtfd]

I came in on this rather late here... but so much of what has been said is true, one way or another. The bottom line, though, is... the bottom line. How long is something expected to last? As has been noted, a Budd (or any other of the 'lightweight' passenger cars of the 50s) has a useful life of at least 50 years -- and a depreciation (read: taxes, my friends) schedule to match. You can't afford to go out and get a new one now and then! On the other hand, a passenger car has an expected life of 5 years or so, and a truck not much more than that. An airplane is getting pretty old after 10 to 15 years, if that. Similarly for track -- rail rights of way are expected to last indefinetly, and improvements (track, culverts, trestles, bridges, what have you) are designed for at least 100 years. The air travel system -- airports, navigation, etc. -- changes radically in a decade; so does much of the highway system. Junction's comments on CN in his area are so true -- but apply with equal force to a good bit of the northeast corridor in the USA, too.
Railroads got started, and their thinking got started, in an era when things were built to last, and the notion of chuck it out and get a new one didn't exist.
On the whole, though, I would have to agree that passenger trains have gotten better. Granted, the premium service isn't there any more (but it isn't there in any transportation mode any more, for that matter -- unless you reall pay; priced out a first-class airline ticket lately?) but the average service, such as commuter rail, is a lot better now...
just me meandering along...

[billski]

Money - is one answer and the other is: The auto manufacturers have more pull then the railroad lobbyists. Never happen. It's an excellent idea.
At the rate the new subdivisions are being built no one is making plans for railroad tracks - all the plans are for roads or airports. SAD

[Anonymous]

Quoth MWH: OT, did I ever say life was fair? But saying that something is wrong is not a justification for continuing the wrong, not if there's a better choice. I know, you're just trying to live up to your reputation of Official Cynic.

Hey - it's a nasty job but somebody's gotta do it.

Sometimes you've just got to remember the Serenity Prayer, and change what you can.

Old Timer

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

As a Metra and South Shore Line rider of some seniority, I can vouch for the long lifespans of passenger cars. South Shore's orange cars lasted slightly over 50 years at the time of their retirement, and some the CB&Q Budd-built bilevels are in that age range now.

Suburban equipment, in all of its various permutations, is designed to move the maximum amount of people in reasonable comfort. Cupholders, bucket seats,etc. all eat into that capacity. Most commuters would rather have a slightly less comfortable seat than have to stand all the way home if having a more comfortable seat, cupholders and other amenities meant that less seats were available.