There has been a lot of discussion that passenger trains in the U.S. have been seriously underfunded, but the question remains, what represents adequate levels of funding? One answer is suggested by Vision for the future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050 is available on the Web site http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/rail-vision-2050.htm, and will be the subject of Congressional hearings in the next week or so.
To answer the concern about sources of numbers, the BTS numbers on passenger miles of various modes is available at http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_37.html puts Amtrak passenger miles (all numbers in billions) at 5.4, airlines at 583, and private motor vehicles at 4884. A commercial bus operator http://www.peterpanbus.com/whoweare/newsArchive.php?article=2 puts intercity bus passenger miles at 25. The private motor vehicle (auto and light truck) passenger miles combine both local with intercity driving.
The Vision for the Future plan is to spend 357 billion (in 2007 dollars) over the next 43 years at a rate ranging from 6.6 to 10.6 billion per year, of which a total of 80 billion is for a high-speed train linking San Diego, LA, and San Francisco. The breakdown of the 357 billion is to spend 244 billion on tracks, 14.6 billions on stations, and 98.8 billion on rolling stock. These figures only address capital expenditures as there is not mention of the level of money required for operating subsidy or if the improved trains are expected to break even on operating costs.
The purpose of this expenditure is to ramp up intercity passenger trains from about 5 billion passenger miles to 46.7 billion passenger miles per year -- in other words, and expenditure of 350 billion over 40 years to increase intercity trains from .1 percent of total passenger miles to about 1 percent of total passenger miles.
The report cites only the moderate energy saving of current Amtrak trains over the air or car modes and shows that intercity buses beat all of the other modes by a factor of 3. The report also gives dollar values of the energy savings -- diverting 46.7 billion auto passenger miles or 22.5 billion auto vehicle miles per year should save 2.2 billion per year in fuel costs. Assuming an auto highway mileage of 22.5 MPG and $3 gallon gas, that level of savings assumes that the new passenger trains would consume energy at the level of buses, but this is not explicitly stated. Trains should be able to achieve or beat bus gas mileage using Don Oltmann's string of 8 Amfleet coaches behind a single F40 locomotive, but they won't do that with the current mode of LD trains with the baggage, crew-dorm, diner, and lounge adding to a consist of low-density leg-rest coaches and sleeper cars.
As autos are said to account for 40 percent of oil usage, and assuming that new train designs use only a small fraction of autos, the 350 billion dollar plan will save .4 percent on our oil bill.
The other part that doesn't make sense to me is spending about 100 billion on rolling stock to carry 46.7 billion passenger miles per year at 45 percent load factor (some might argue the load factor, but if you want to grant people access to the train seats without booking two weeks in advance, I think it is realistic). A train in Hiawatha corridor service runs up 600 miles per day. Assuming a coach holding 70 passengers, 6800 coaches would be required for the national fleet, or about 15 million dollars per coach. Am I correct that CRC will sell you their DMU for under 4 million? And to build up the fleet in this manner, the average annual car purchase would be 170 cars, supporting a good size factory in continuous production -- wouldn't there be any volume-purchase savings?
This plan was put together by Amtrak and state transportation people, but the unrealistic numbers, either in terms of the amount of spending or the advantages realized suggest that the preparation of this report was rushed. Is this a plan the rail advocacy community should get behind, or is presenting this plan a disaster in terms of the political ammunition it will give to passenger rail opponents?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The Vision for the Future plan is to spend 357 billion (in 2007 dollars) over the next 43 years at a rate ranging from 6.6 to 10.6 billion per year, of which a total of 80 billion is for a high-speed train linking San Diego, LA, and San Francisco.
I'd like to start off with a billion or so (may be a wee optimistic with this figure) just to ge the LA-San Diego line to the point where trains can spend most of their time at 90MPH. That is cut down on slow orders, time spent on meets, straighten out parts of the line, etc. This would also help the Metrolink and Coasters as well.
While they're at it, spend a few million on maintenance, the ATK cars have problems with flat wheels.
I would like to see $6 million spent on 195 miles of track in Kansas and Oklahoma to make possible a connection all the way from Chicago to Fort Worth and beyond; linking 5 state capitals and providing intercity service for approximately 150,000 annually. With Lautenberg-Lott funding that price tag for the states involved could actually be done for about $1.2 million. Why wait until 2050 for an expansion as easy to pull off as this?
www.northflyer.org
Just for the record, this topic was discussed earlier in this thread.
I think its a good start, but it looks to me more like a 20 year plan stretched out 40 years.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.