If you're not familiar with NARP (National Association of Railroad Passengers), take a few moments to visit their site: http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/main/join_narp/. NARP works hard to save, promote, and expand passenger rail in America. If you love passenger rail, then please join NARP so that we can concentrate our efforts to help expand passenger rail. It's the best transportation alternative we have!
-- From the NARP Web Site --
NARP Mission: "A modern, customer-focused national passenger train network that provides a travel choice Americans want."
NARP is the only national organization speaking for the users of passenger trains and rail transit.
NARP is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Dues and contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.
Hello SW,
I've been checking NARP's "Hot Line News" on their website since 2004. Always very informative and provides good details as to what's going on with Amtrak.
NARP has actually been effective as a number of Senators that support Amtrak have quoted information provided by NARP. Amtrak will always be a political hot potato. Inspite of increasing ridership, the freight railroads and some politicians would like to see it dissappear. There have been so many arguments for and against Amtrak. The freight railroad managers are, understandably, worried about liability issues and serving their own customers. Add to that many double tracked mainlines were converted to single track and some of the executives that were supportive of Amtrak in the early 70s are now retired or have passed away.
Here in my state (Florida) proposals for Amtrak to run intra-state service between Tampa Bay, Orlando, Miami, and Jacksonville are often shot down. CSX and FEC already have the lines linking these cities. The governor's office says "Great idea, but we don't have the funds". Interstates 75 and 95 are often congested in the metro areas and see a high amount of collisions.
The paltry funding Amtrak has received since 1971 (36 years) is less than what the FAA receives in a 5 year period. This doesn't even include the huge airline "bailout"$$ after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Ironic:
Critics contend that Amtrak serves too few cities and people. Yet, the critics seem to neglect mentioning that Amtrak is forced to continue to cutback on train routes, the number of cars in trains, or service frequency because the funding does not keep up with inflation costs. There were more Amtrak trains running in the mid-1970s (outside of the northeast corridor) than there are now! Yet, the demand for more service is greater now than back then. The news media often doesn't help. Reports constantly stream about Amtrak trains often being late but barely mention that freight railroad dispatchers under pressure were often the cause.
Until attitudes towards transportation change, Amtrak's status will always be uncertain from year to year though, imho, it won't be killed.
It may be difficult, but it's important not to look at this as a railfan but rather from the standpoints of travelers and business managers.
I've considered joining NARP and may do so in the future.
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
I've been a member of NARP for several years. Members get a 10% discount on most Amtrak rail fares, so the membership can pay for itself.
NARP does a lot of good work behind the scenes. However, I wish they would do more to get the word out to the public at large, or at least to Amtrak's own customers. I meet regular Amtrak riders on every trip, and all but a very small few have ever even heard of NARP. I think NARP could double its membership in a fairly short time if it focused on reaching out to existing Amtrak riders.
NARP has started to form "route support teams" composed of members who live along certain routes, to help promote their trains locally. It remains to be seen how effective this will be, but it's a start.
Paul, you make some important points regarding the complexities involved in funding. The relative funding per passenger compared to airlines is high for Amtrak. Aviation is more easily funded through user fees due to the sheer volume of people using the system. I believe that similar economies of scale could be achieved with Amtrak if a committment was made to make the initial investment in capacity and infrastructure. Without the capacity to carry a significant number of people, people Amtrak will never have the ability to pay for itself.
Thus, as NARP often points out, there needs to be a funding source that will "prime the pump" until Amtrak can better stand on its own. One possibility: A 2-3 cent increase in the gasoline tax would enable Amtrak to expand significantly. Before anyone shouts "no new taxes" remember that 2-3 cents is less than the weekly price fluctuations at the pump, and would probably go unnoticed. Gilbert Carmichael, former head of the Amtrak Reform Council estimates that such a tax invested over 20 years would be sufficient to build a national rail network on par with the interstate highway system (which he dubs "Interstate II.")
Mr. Toy wrote: Thus, as NARP often points out, there needs to be a funding source that will "prime the pump" until Amtrak can better stand on its own. One possibility: A 2-3 cent increase in the gasoline tax would enable Amtrak to expand significantly.
Thus, as NARP often points out, there needs to be a funding source that will "prime the pump" until Amtrak can better stand on its own. One possibility: A 2-3 cent increase in the gasoline tax would enable Amtrak to expand significantly.
Question: A penny a gallon tax (assuming no change in demand because of it) would raise how much money? A friend of mine calculted it once at a billion dollars/year. Is that about right?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:The paltry funding Amtrak has received since 1971 (36 years) is less than what the FAA receives in a 5 year period. This doesn't even include the huge airline "bailout"$$ after the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.The 36 year time horizon for Amtrak to receive the same funding as the FAA receives in 5 years in about right -- the FAA budget is about 10 times what Amtrak gets, give or take.But . . .Most of the FAA budget comes out of tax on aviation fuel along with that not-so-insignificant tax on your airline tickets. Are they taxes or really user fees?
The 36 year time horizon for Amtrak to receive the same funding as the FAA receives in 5 years in about right -- the FAA budget is about 10 times what Amtrak gets, give or take.
But . . .
Most of the FAA budget comes out of tax on aviation fuel along with that not-so-insignificant tax on your airline tickets. Are they taxes or really user fees?
As Federal taxes, I suppose the money belongs to everybody, so money paid from those taxes for aviation use is a Federal expenditure. On the other hand, the fuel tax and ticket tax are specific to aviation fuel and passenger ticket receipts for the purpose of raising the money to operate the FAA. Also, there is nothing like it for trains, taxes on locomotive fuel or Amtrak tickets, that could raise anywhere near the amount of money raised by the aviation industry, either in absolute dollar amounts or percent of Amtrak budget
About 2 billion or so of the FAA budget comes out of general revenue while all of the 1-1.4 billion (spread represents variability of Amtrak funding, which indeed is a concern). Now the number of airline to Amtrak passengers is something in the ratio of 100:1, so if you want airlines subsidized at the rate of Amtrak, are we prepared for a 20 million (yep 20 million) dollar annual Amtrak appropriation?
Now if you meant $20 billion, to be frank, that's not that much. Doing a route-mile comparison (passenger miles are heavily dependent upon number of trains operated) to the commuter rail, entities like Metra and the Long Island Rail Road get ten times what Amtrak currently gets, as annual appropriations out of general revenues. $20 billion per year is still less than half of what the Interstate Highway System gets from the federal government annually—and if the Northeast Corridor is any judge of what would be to come in the instance of serious investment in long-distance passenger rail with high-speed capabilities, the potential for positive revenue flow is remarkably high.
($20 billion would be $9.09 million per mile, related to Amtrak's present route milage; compared to what other countries spend for their alignments for successful high-speed rail, that would be remarkably cheap, still, especially when compared to the cheapest new-build high-speed rail alignment, the LGV Sud-Est, which comes in at about $10 million per mile, just in capital costs. Then again, you have people like Alexander Kummant, whose $7 billion estimate for upgrading the Northeast Corridor to permit the Acela Express to run between New York and Washington DC in 2 hours and 20 minutes makes things look unattainable, at $31 million per mile; and of course John Mica, the Republican from Florida, who, on top of claiming that Amtrak is standing in the way of willing, voluntary, private-enterprise investment in high-speed rail, expands the costs for a whole new high-speed Northeast Corridor to $32 billion, or a collossal $71 million per mile, in essence saying that a high-speed network the size of Amtrak's would need $1.562 trillion of investment. That's the kind of misinformation we are up against.)
What about the 9-11 bailout? It was a one-time response to special circumstances; is there any one-time special appropriation that Amtrak could get, well below 1 billion as we are proportioning it to passenger miles, that would make Amtrak go away as far as requesting future operating subsidies?
Again, putting things in proportion to present passenger miles is a canard. Potential passenger milage over a certain corridor is dependent upon speed and frequency of service. What is stopping such investment in rail? It seems irrational, especially in the face of the revealed vulnerabilities of commercial aviation (which requires significant TSA funding to counteract—via sources such as a hotel bed tax among other sources?) not to mention the 13 billion gallons per year, on average, that get burned for domestic flights alone.
Furthermore, I was reading a copy of Flying in a dentist office, and it seems that just as the Bush Administration wants to zero out Amtrak, they want to zero out the FAA. Yes, zero out the FAA. They want to eliminate the 2 billion in FAA general revenue subsidy, reduce the airline passenger ticket tax to help the airlines, but impose all manner of departure and landing and use-of-air-traffic-control fees to transfer the burden to general aviation. Just as the Bush Administration ideologically believes Amtrak travel is a bunch of wealthy old dudes with a lot of time on their hands taking subsidized cross-country sleeper trips, they believe general aviation is a bunch of rich people with money to burn taking trips every which place in private jets
It's not just the Bush Administration that's a particular enemy of Amtrak, besides.
So you could argue that airlines pull their own weight (ticket and fuel tax) Reply daveklepper Member sinceJune 2002 20,011 posts Posted by daveklepper on Monday, July 30, 2007 3:25 AM Just because an argument has not been as effective as it should be, does not mean it is either wrong or won't be effective in the future. I think the fact that Amtrak still exist, that there is high speed service to Boston, and some places, certain California routes, where service is actually better than the best of the golden streamliner tdays, is a tribute in part to NARP and its programs. Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:21 AM The URPA? They do not have a stance regarding passenger rail. In fact, they instead of NARP are most likely a continued cause for a shrinking Amtrak system. They have no plans nor any "approach"; they've devolved into an "bash Amtrak, bash the Northeast Corridor" website. NARP is more together in terms of goals and strategies than the URPA, who have absolutely none whatsoever and (as it appears to me) have worked all this time to undermine NARP and other railroad passenger advocacy groups. When about 95 percent of the website is dedicated to a bash column titled "This Week On Amtrak", one can see that their name is a misnomer.Amtrak is no monopoly on passenger rail by any means; otherwise, state DOTs would not be creating their own railroad companies to run trains, nor would they be contracting out commuter rail to the private railroads (all the Class Is, and even a number of regionals, engage in same). Amtrak came to be because the politicians in DC literally decreed that it was not expedient for them to subsidize private railroad companies to run passenger rail, nor mandate them to do so and permit them to use it as a writeoff; not only that, but in the face of the evidence coming from overseas that increasing the speeds of trains was the way to go to offset deficits and return things to solvency, they took deliberate steps towards defeating, in all but one 450-mile corridor in the Northeast, the one classic advantage that pasenger rail manifested over all land-based forms of transportation, and that was high-speed capability with the greatest passenger-carrying capacity thereof. (NARP cites an ICC ruling dating back to 1950 that restricted all passenger operation on railroad lines controlled with CTC and wayside signals to 79 miles per hour—in Europe, the limit is 100 mph for the same setup—and imposed the burden for upgrading signals for higher speeds upon the railroads.)The Kenneth Mead "report"? Inspector general of the USDOT, who got his job via government appointment and most likely operated according to politcal biases? Are you seriously trying to tell this board that a lawyer is qualified to know anything about railroad operations, or efficient transportation investment? (Mead possesses a Juris Doctor from University of South Carolina.) Mead most likely would say, if auditing Coca-Cola during a sales downturn, that production has to be cut to save money after identifying specific markets where the beverage appeared to have been experiencing the greatest slowdowns of sales. Is that good business? The lack of implementation of his "recommendations" is testament to their validity, or lack thereof.As for "by-route cost accounting", please cite where this is missing from Amtrak's monthly performance reports. Contrary to the URPA's "agitating" (which is all they seem capable of; ranting, rather), the Northeast Corridor accounts for 56 percent of ticket sales (that's 450 miles out of 22,000, or 2 percent of Amtrak's total route milage); "other corridors" make up 20.3 percent whereas long-distance trains make up 23.5 percent. This comes from Amtrak's performance report from May 2007; now there are a number of conclusions one can draw from such figures. My chief one is, "if federal government would invest in LD and the 'other corridors' to the point that trains perform similarly to the Northeast Corridor speedwise and punctuality-wise, then those arteries would gain ticket sales comparable to the Northeast Corridor, both measured against route miles and revenue passenger miles". The speed of operations on the NEC is its chief unique factor—the fact that ridership suffers on the segments that Amtrak does not own (which, unsurprisingly, are slower—the parts owned and operated by Metro-North and the Connecticut DOT is what I herein refer to) is a testimony to the drawing power, and selling power, of speed. (And if the URPA is committed to deliberately distorting figures, then they appear dishonest, not merely disingenuous.) Amtrak's own figures show that if anything is "substantially expensive" when it comes to passenger rail operations, it is forcing trains to operate slowly, which appeals to few people versus many—not to mention that being forced to charge high fares for passenger service operating at commuter rail speeds (whereupon the commuter railroads get subsidized ten times more money per route-mile, as I mentioned already in this thread) drives all but the most hardcore passengers away, which forces Amtrak to limit the number of trains operated.The URPA's stance that the NEC is somehow separate from the rest of the LD system is flawed when one puts it as mildly as possible. Given that the NEC (and NYP in particular) is the starting point for a goodly number of long-distance trains, how can they make that claim? Yanking it out of the national system and handing it over to "the states" (who do not want it, for the most part) will turn the system into a copy of the fraught-with-slowness LD network (no commuter railroad has any incentive to keep ACSES active especially in the case of them having to pay for it, nor do they for the most part desire to keep four tracks or more on their railroad—note New Jersey Transit removing two tracks from the formerly four-track Erie Main Line in northern New Jersey back in the early 1980s, plus the missing track on Metro-North between Stratford and New Haven in Connecticut; there are other examples that do not come to mind at the moment). So, the Vermonter, Silver Service, Palmetto, Pennsylvanian, Carolinian, Piedmont, Cardinal, Crescent, Keystone Service, even Regional Service via the "Inland Route" and out to Newport News will have to find alternate routes to New York because the URPA has designated the NEC as a "transit corridor" arbitrarily, via the above-linked distortions in figures (perhaps via the B&O, Reading and CRRNJ/LVRR into Hoboken Terminal; imagine going to Camden Station in Baltimore for a long-distance train instead of Baltimore Penn, or West Trenton instead of Trenton in NJ…Plainfield or Bound Brook might become the new Metropark). The Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Lake Shore Limited and Maple Leaf will have to go back into Grand Central Terminal since they can no longer avail of the chief NYC station of "the corridor" (too bad the Lehigh Valley RR is in pieces west of Allentown PA; we could have sent the Maple Leaf out of Hoboken Terminal via its original route). That is what you will get with the URPA's dogged stance regarding the NEC being a "regional transit operator" despite the facts about the NEC.If any organization has a "preservationist stance", it is the URPA. They want to go back (yes, back) to fully private operation of long-distance trains, offering them no improvement whatsoever in terms of operating speeds; their "tax credits" argument is quite anachronistic, since most states (save New York) have rescinded their punitive taxes upon railroad rights of way; they have no plan to put the FRA into active funding of railroad infrastructure, as opposed to that organization's current stance as antagonist and regulator; and certainly, they fail to "grease" anyone's "skids" as you put it.Still waiting for this new approach, because thus far, all I see is rhetoric. What's the key to getting US politicians to spend money for higher-speed passenger rail operations over long distances? If you want a few ballpark figures, then the average speed of a Regional train (NEC) would get you from New York to Chicago in 10 hours via the former Broadway Limited's route; the fastest Acela Express over that same route would make the journey in less than 8½ hours. Build a high-speed rail corridor, and you could run from New York to Chicago in as little as 4½ to 5 hours. This is technology dating back decades, and if the NEC's cash flow is positive (see that Amtrak performance report again), the cash flow from such corridors can never be negative. Reply conrailman Member sinceDecember 2001 From: NS Main Line at MP12 Blairsville,Pa 830 posts Posted by conrailman on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 7:19 PM This Year the Highways is getting 40 Billion Dollars and Airlines is getting 17 Billion and Poor old Amtrak getting around 1.4 Billion Dollars. and Bush again is waste are money again in this Arms Deal to over Seas Countrys to tune of 45 Billion in Aid again and we all already give 200 Billion plus in aid every year to different countrys. Spent the money here in Good USA not over Seas Countrys? Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:39 PM For sake of argument, lets set aside the motor and aviation fuel taxes as being general-revenue taxes and not user fees and that the full budgets for highways and airlines (FAA) represent government subsidy.Highways get 40 billion. OK, passenger cars alone, leave out the role of trucks in freight transportation, are 500:1 over Amtrak in terms of passenger miles. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at 80 million per year.Air transportation gets 17 billion. Again, ignoring the role of general aviation providing everything from fire fighting, Med Flight, police patrols, and considering it all airlines, airline passenger miles are 100:1 over Amtrak. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at 170 million.Amtrak is subsidized at around 10 times the rate as the average of the other modes, making assumptions that are generous to Amtrak. Put another way, if Amtrak were funded to provide the passenger miles as highways, the Amtrak subsidy would be need to be 700 billion -- well past the defense budget and on the level of Social Security or Medicare. Put it on a passenger-mile basis and not only is Amtrak funded at 10 times the rate, switching our driving over to Amtrak would break the bank. Passenger trains for all of their amenities and comforts are a high cost way of moving people. If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks? Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 2:52 AM Paul Milenkovic wrote:For sake of argument, lets set aside the motor and aviation fuel taxes as being general-revenue taxes and not user fees and that the full budgets for highways and airlines (FAA) represent government subsidy.Highways get $40 billion. OK, passenger cars alone, leave out the role of trucks in freight transportation, are 500:1 over Amtrak in terms of passenger miles. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at $80 million per year. Air transportation gets $17 billion. Again, ignoring the role of general aviation providing everything from fire fighting, Med Flight, police patrols, and considering it all airlines, airline passenger miles are 100:1 over Amtrak. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at $170 million.False premise. You're comparing passenger miles when available seat miles do not match between Amtrak and highway vehicles or between Amtrak and airline seat miles—with the biggest culprit being lack of investment in Amtrak. The gulf between comparative route miles is also enormous. There's also out-of-pocket costs, one of the largest considerations for most passengers when it comes to transportation choices. You're also completely discounting growth of the rail mode and instead creating a pattern for further shrinkage.Amtrak is subsidized at around 10 times the rate as the average of the other modes, making assumptions that are generous to Amtrak. Put another way, if Amtrak were funded to provide the passenger miles as highways, the Amtrak subsidy would be need to be 700 billion -- well past the defense budget and on the level of Social Security or Medicare. I keep hearing the same argument over and over again about how highways and airways are so well-funded and how Amtrak is underfunded, but put it on a passenger-mile basis and not only is Amtrak funded at 10 times the rate, switching our driving over to Amtrak would break the bank. Passenger trains for all of their amenities and comforts are a high cost way of moving peopleYou won't let the false premise go, will you. Amtrak is artificially withheld from procuring passenger miles due to lack of investment in assets, plus artificially stifling competition via excessive regulation (note the FRA's role). Please cease with your biased sample fallacies.Is Amtrak underfunded for the level of service they are providing? No, they are lavishly fundedStating opinion as fact is an unforgivable fallacy.Are you saying that commuter rail is subsidized to 100 times the level of what Amtrak is subsidized 10 times the level?If the amount of money Amtrak is getting isn't enough to purchase needed rolling stock and maintain what they have, this is further evidence that passenger rail is an expensive mode of transportationBasing your whole argument entirely on Amtrak's status quo is specious; you are misinterpreting your facts and accusing them of being "evidence" of a flawed premisee. I see that you are reluctant to start comparing other, faster (even non-American) passenger rail systems, and continue to avoid speculating on what Amtrak would be like if all of its route miles were like the Northeast Corridor.Is the Amtrak network too small and too lean to achieve economies of scale, that an expanded Amtrak would require diminishing levels of subsidy per incremental passenger mile? Perhaps, that is why the cost accounting is so crucial, to determine incremental costs which indicate economies of scale. No such thing exists on the Amtrak Web site -- see URPA's explanation because I don't want to reproduce it all hereWhy haven't you linked URPA's "explanation"? I can't see any such thing on their website. All I can find on there are blanket statements and distorted data, which I linked in an earlier post.My premise is that, apart from two percent of Amtrak's current route milage, Amtrak's operations are too slow and too infrequent to achieve the economies of scale that those that seek profitability within its revenue stream plus sustainable funding for infrastructure coming from same are looking for. So why is the other ninety-eight percent of Amtrak unlike the two percent in the Northeast, and why has it not gotten sufficient investment to attain such a level?As far as URPA not having a plan, the do indeed have a plan. Again, URPA's Web site is easily accessible and people can go read it and draw their own conclusionsI did, and I posted my conclusions. If there's anything that I have missed, please link it here.The general reaction to the Meade (sic) Report is interesting in an of itself. Has anyone actually looked at the report, or are we going to say, some government lawyer doesn't know the first thing about operating a railroad? If so, are there railroad people who have critiqued the report and can point to specific deficiencies?This report you refer to seems to be strangely unavailable online in its entirety. However, I have looked at some statements to Congress by the former Inspector General Mead, and apart from his statements on food service and sleepers (which themselves were coming from false premises; related to food in particular, that it must be profitable in and of itself whereas on airlines, it's merely required to be break-even), Mr. Mead says exactly what "railfans" that support Amtrak continue to say—that Amtrak's funding is insufficient to allow it to achieve the goals that the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 are imposing on it.BTW, it's not a fallacy to question a lawyer's knowledge of railroad operations. And defense of Mead now begs the question as to how qualified a lawyer is to interpret financial data, if at all.By they way, if you are the recipient of government monies, the devil's bargain is that at some point some government lawyer is going to profess knowledge of your operation and look your financials upAt no time during his inquiries was Mr. Mead saying that Amtrak's financial records were being audited. Seems to me that the OIG's faith in Amtrak's accounting bespeaks an aspect of Amtrak that would mute its detractors.The general impact of the Meade (sic) Report is that there is this assumption that while the LD trains are subsidized, and the rationale for that subsidy is the lifeline-to-small-towns-in-Montana, is is generally supposed that first class and sleeper service pays Reply alphas Member sinceAugust 2006 575 posts Posted by alphas on Thursday, August 2, 2007 4:25 PM As I've mentioned various times before on various forums, the various studies made by different universities over the years all basically say that the most efficient and cheapest way to go if the Feds want to subside longer distant non-air travel is to give bus companies small subsidies. The highways already exist and with the Interstate system as well as many other roads nowadays all having high speed limits, passenger rail is not as cost effective due to the cost of rail physical plant investment and having most existing freight lines at or near capacity. The exceptions to this are a few areas like the NEC where the road traffic is overwhelming the available highways. It hurts me to say this since I've been a railroad fan for 60 years but that's what the research shows. Other studies show that the loss of track in the '80's combined with the growth in rail freight is potentially a far greater problem. It will probably take care of itself if the Feds let the free market take its course but if the Feds give into the shippers and others, than the taxpayer will probably end up having to pay much of the bill. By the way, per an Amtrak contack of mine, as of this past May (I haven't talked to him since then), the PA upgrade from Harrisburg to Philly with some additional Harrisburg to NYC trains has led to better train times (the electric locos' acceleration really helps), less crowded conditions, more passenger satisfaction, but not the amount of additional revenue they hoped for. It still is somewhat early so that could change--but they were disappointed in that regard. Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Thursday, August 2, 2007 7:23 PM alphas wrote:As I've mentioned various times before on various forums, the various studies made by different universities over the years all basically say that the most efficient and cheapest way to go if the Feds want to subside longer distant non-air travel is to give bus companies small subsidies. The highways already exist and with the Interstate system as well as many other roads nowadays all having high speed limits, passenger rail is not as cost effective due to the cost of rail physical plant investment and having most existing freight lines at or near capacity. The exceptions to this are a few areas like the NEC where the road traffic is overwhelming the available highways. It hurts me to say this since I've been a railroad fan for 60 years but that's what the research shows.These "various" university "studies" seem to be contradicting themselves. Just because a piece of infrastructure is "already there" doesn't testify to its cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, you'll never have buses that will be able to travel at speeds between 125 and 220 miles per hour, nor a bus that you'll be able to walk about and stretch your legs on. (And oh yes, a train will be able to run to/from places that buses would never be able to reach in winter weather. Not to mention that buses last a mere 15-20 years whereas train rolling stock lasts quite a bit longer. Shall we get into comparative safety as well?)Other studies show that the loss of track in the '80's combined with the growth in rail freight is potentially a far greater problem. It will probably take care of itself if the Feds let the free market take its course but if the Feds give into the shippers and others, than the taxpayer will probably end up having to pay much of the billWhat's a "free market"? That's a term that people think is defined, but is not. Should railroads be permitted to run things as unsafely as the highways do? Are highways part of a "free market"—and if so, why are they paid for with tax revenue? Highways do not shrink in capacity due to lost/absent traffic, like the railroads do. (BTW, "loss of track" is not as catastrophic in the case of extant rights-of-way since it can be replaced for far cheaper than highway asphalt.)By the way, per an Amtrak contack of mine, as of this past May (I haven't talked to him since then), the PA upgrade from Harrisburg to Philly with some additional Harrisburg to NYC trains has led to better train times (the electric locos' acceleration really helps), less crowded conditions, more passenger satisfaction, but not the amount of additional revenue they hoped for. It still is somewhat early so that could change--but they were disappointed in that regard.They had better stop being so impatient. It took over three years before the Tokaido Shinkansen got the return that they were expecting. Reply Wdlgln005 Member sinceApril 2002 From: Nashville TN 1,306 posts Posted by Wdlgln005 on Thursday, August 2, 2007 8:08 PM Kevin C. Smith wrote: Mr. Toy wrote: Thus, as NARP often points out, there needs to be a funding source that will "prime the pump" until Amtrak can better stand on its own. One possibility: A 2-3 cent increase in the gasoline tax would enable Amtrak to expand significantly. Question: A penny a gallon tax (assuming no change in demand because of it) would raise how much money? A friend of mine calculted it once at a billion dollars/year. Is that about right? This came up during Bush 1's era. An Ampenny would yield about a billion a year. For most projects, you also need a 20-50% state or local match. Most highway & airport projects use a 20% matching formula. Clinton may have used the tax for "deficit reduction". Not sure what came of the program. Since then, the price of gas has nearly doupled to today's $3.00 average. Given our country's needs, I can bet the pols will try to raise the gas tax soon. It's time Amtrak & passenger rail got some of that money. Glenn Woodle Reply alphas Member sinceAugust 2006 575 posts Posted by alphas on Friday, August 3, 2007 10:02 PM JT22CW,You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the service; therefore, (2) what is the best "bang" for the tax dollar when it comes to supporting non-air long distance travel in most areas of the country? That's why their findings that small subsidies for long-distance bus travel normally makes the best sense financially if the Feds or State governments want to support non-air travel (like the NEC there are a few exceptions). If someone can ever figure out a way to acquire the right-of-way and build high-speed rail at an affordable price, that would change the scenario--but no one has figured that out yet. And with this latest bridge disaster probably resulting in far more funding on both federal and state level for the highway system, I doubt you are going to see the necessary high-speed rail public funding for a long time if ever. The NEC is different. Because of the existing dedicated rail line, averaging 100 mph excluding station stop times is possible if the government is willing to invest a lot of money. That would definitely increase the Boston to Baltimore/DC usage of the NEC but not have that much impact on intermediate usage of the NEC. Its probably not cost efficient to upgrade it that much but it could potentially cover its increased operating costs after the upgrade. However, rebuilding it to match what France, Japan, etc. have done speedwise is currently cost prohibitive. (And politicians being what they are, to spend the money neccessary to upgrade the NEC will cost a whole lot more as the senators and representativies from the states outside the NEC will demand funds for their states and districts before they support any expensive upgrade to the NEC.)Comparing the life of buses to trains isn't meaningful. Buses don't cost anywhere near as much to build or maintain so whether they last as long as the trainset components isn't a significant consideration. As for not being able to stretch your legs on a bus, that's a quality of travel issue, not a financial consideration. You can't really stretch your legs on most airplanes either but that doesn't stop people from flying. Winter weather is a concern in all forms of travel but not enough of a one in itself to justify high speed rail. And high-speed rail in bad weather conditions probably wouldn't be able to operate normally. As for patience, one thing American politicians lack is patience. Not when the majority of them face election opponents who are only to willing to point out the lack of success. Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Sunday, August 5, 2007 1:04 AM alphas wrote:JT22CW,You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the serviceI have overlooked nothing; although, as I have previously stated, these university "studies" have overlooked several points. And I loathe when people take it as a foregone conclusion that the costs of HSR alignment are somehow so exorbitant, even beyond that of the costs of highways, that the revenue of trains running on them will not recoup the costs, when examples over the world have proven otherwise.A four-lane highway, new-build, exceeds the costs of most high-speed railroads. I'll give you an example: The Lehigh Valley area of northeastern Pennsylvania complains that restoration of even conventional rail is exorbitant (connecting it to places like New York and Philadelphia as in the past—in the case of Philly, the recent past), but amazingly finds the money to build a 5.5 mile bypass of US Route 222 around Trexlertown (just west of Allentown), at a cost of $26.2 million per mile. Wonder what the cost estimates per mile of adding lanes to Route 22 will run?therefore, (2) what is the best "bang" for the tax dollar when it comes to supporting non-air long distance travel in most areas of the country? That's why their findings that small subsidies for long-distance bus travel normally makes the best sense financially if the Feds or State governments want to support non-air travel (like the NEC there are a few exceptions)That's a false argument. They're basing everything on the intransigence of the federal government regarding rail investment. Therefore, gauging the "best bang for the buck" has been artificially limited in scope.If someone can ever figure out a way to acquire the right-of-way and build high-speed rail at an affordable price, that would change the scenario--but no one has figured that out yet.No-one? I would say that the Germans have figured out a fine way of doing it. Note these photographs of the (ICE train ROW) Neubaustrecke. Building alongside the Autobahn not only reduces costs, it also increases visibility of the high-speed trains and keeps environmentalists at bay. And with this latest bridge disaster probably resulting in far more funding on both federal and state level for the highway system, I doubt you are going to see the necessary high-speed rail public funding for a long time if everThat's another foregone conclusion. If anything, the road bridge disasters have highlighted the fallacy of "throwing money at (the) problem".The NEC is different. Because of the existing dedicated rail line, averaging 100 mph excluding station stop times is possible if the government is willing to invest a lot of money. That would definitely increase the Boston to Baltimore/DC usage of the NEC but not have that much impact on intermediate usage of the NECA few things:The NEC is not different. As Yoda might say, "only different in your mind". It is the same main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, save the removal of some grade crossings in Maryland plus some upgraded track sections (to the unknown standards of "Class 8" per the FRA, specifics unrevealed, that supposedly can permit 160-mph operation).There are no "dedicated lines" on the NEC. Freight runs on the very same rails that the Acela Express does—and during the daytime hours to boot…as does commuter rail.If it's possible to upgrade the NEC to permit 100-mph average speeds (running from New York to Washington DC in 2 hours 20 minutes is an average speed of slightly over 96 mph, for the record), it's most definitely possible to upgrade other traditional rights of way to permit the very same. That includes maintaining all of the traditional slower rail operation alongside the fast rail. It's probably not cost efficient to upgrade it that much but it could potentially cover its increased operating costs after the upgrade.The NEC's high-speed operations are already covering costs and then some. The Amtrak monthly performance reports bear that out (see previous replies). The answer is to build more of same and improve the NEC, which will result in a favorable upturn of passengers on non-NEC corridors and attraction of more riders to current NEC services.However, rebuilding it to match what France, Japan, etc. have done speedwise is currently cost prohibitiveIf you mean the NEC by "it", that's not the intent and it never was.I urge you to refrain from blanket statements. It would not cost three times the cost of the LGV Sud-Est to upgrade the NEC to what it ought to be.(And politicians being what they are, to spend the money neccessary to upgrade the NEC will cost a whole lot more as the senators and representativies from the states outside the NEC will demand funds for their states and districts before they support any expensive upgrade to the NEC.)That's the ongoing political game. There are several high-speed rail initiatives on the table, and instead of exclusively focusing on the highways and airports as we have done since the 50s (which makes such focus an anachronism, since countries with high speed rail have figured out just how to focus on the same thing plus HSR), they ought to rapidly agree on intercity high speed rail ASAP, especially in light of its many benefits, its ret Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Sunday, August 5, 2007 9:18 PM JT22CW:You raise some very good points that we could have high-speed trains running alongside Interstate right-of-ways, and as the pictures show, these high-speed trains are high-powered to take Interstate grades, unlike the freight railroads with their low HP per ton that have to follow curvy water-level alignments in many cases.But if having these German-style trains connecting corridor cities is our desired endpoint, why is NARP defending the subsidy level of long-distance sleeper car service (NARPs deconstruction of the Kenneth Mead report)? Yes, I have heard all of the arguments about preserving the networks and the need to keep from losing any more trains so we can build towards this high-speed future. But isn't linking the current mode of low-speed long-distance train to a high-speed corridor train future putting us off message?If we view what we do in the passenger train advocacy community as a marketing campaign to get the broad based public support for trains to influence the politicians and other decision makers, is linking low-speed long-distance sleeper service, which many regard as a quaint mode of travel and "something to do some day" but nevertheless somewhat antiquated form of travel, with futuristic high-speed trains that could do something about that stressful automobile trip from Detroit to Chicago?All I have been trying to say all along is that we need to pick and choose our battles; in my opinion, NARP has been trying to fight every battle regarding passenger trains. You obviously have the facts that every critique of any aspect of Amtrak is wrong and all these battles should be fought, and this is very encouraging to those for whom the trains are very important. But this approach hasn't been winning friends and influencing enough people over the past 40 years. If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks? Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
The URPA? They do not have a stance regarding passenger rail. In fact, they instead of NARP are most likely a continued cause for a shrinking Amtrak system. They have no plans nor any "approach"; they've devolved into an "bash Amtrak, bash the Northeast Corridor" website. NARP is more together in terms of goals and strategies than the URPA, who have absolutely none whatsoever and (as it appears to me) have worked all this time to undermine NARP and other railroad passenger advocacy groups. When about 95 percent of the website is dedicated to a bash column titled "This Week On Amtrak", one can see that their name is a misnomer.
Amtrak is no monopoly on passenger rail by any means; otherwise, state DOTs would not be creating their own railroad companies to run trains, nor would they be contracting out commuter rail to the private railroads (all the Class Is, and even a number of regionals, engage in same). Amtrak came to be because the politicians in DC literally decreed that it was not expedient for them to subsidize private railroad companies to run passenger rail, nor mandate them to do so and permit them to use it as a writeoff; not only that, but in the face of the evidence coming from overseas that increasing the speeds of trains was the way to go to offset deficits and return things to solvency, they took deliberate steps towards defeating, in all but one 450-mile corridor in the Northeast, the one classic advantage that pasenger rail manifested over all land-based forms of transportation, and that was high-speed capability with the greatest passenger-carrying capacity thereof. (NARP cites an ICC ruling dating back to 1950 that restricted all passenger operation on railroad lines controlled with CTC and wayside signals to 79 miles per hour—in Europe, the limit is 100 mph for the same setup—and imposed the burden for upgrading signals for higher speeds upon the railroads.)
The Kenneth Mead "report"? Inspector general of the USDOT, who got his job via government appointment and most likely operated according to politcal biases? Are you seriously trying to tell this board that a lawyer is qualified to know anything about railroad operations, or efficient transportation investment? (Mead possesses a Juris Doctor from University of South Carolina.) Mead most likely would say, if auditing Coca-Cola during a sales downturn, that production has to be cut to save money after identifying specific markets where the beverage appeared to have been experiencing the greatest slowdowns of sales. Is that good business? The lack of implementation of his "recommendations" is testament to their validity, or lack thereof.
As for "by-route cost accounting", please cite where this is missing from Amtrak's monthly performance reports. Contrary to the URPA's "agitating" (which is all they seem capable of; ranting, rather), the Northeast Corridor accounts for 56 percent of ticket sales (that's 450 miles out of 22,000, or 2 percent of Amtrak's total route milage); "other corridors" make up 20.3 percent whereas long-distance trains make up 23.5 percent. This comes from Amtrak's performance report from May 2007; now there are a number of conclusions one can draw from such figures. My chief one is, "if federal government would invest in LD and the 'other corridors' to the point that trains perform similarly to the Northeast Corridor speedwise and punctuality-wise, then those arteries would gain ticket sales comparable to the Northeast Corridor, both measured against route miles and revenue passenger miles". The speed of operations on the NEC is its chief unique factor—the fact that ridership suffers on the segments that Amtrak does not own (which, unsurprisingly, are slower—the parts owned and operated by Metro-North and the Connecticut DOT is what I herein refer to) is a testimony to the drawing power, and selling power, of speed. (And if the URPA is committed to deliberately distorting figures, then they appear dishonest, not merely disingenuous.) Amtrak's own figures show that if anything is "substantially expensive" when it comes to passenger rail operations, it is forcing trains to operate slowly, which appeals to few people versus many—not to mention that being forced to charge high fares for passenger service operating at commuter rail speeds (whereupon the commuter railroads get subsidized ten times more money per route-mile, as I mentioned already in this thread) drives all but the most hardcore passengers away, which forces Amtrak to limit the number of trains operated.
The URPA's stance that the NEC is somehow separate from the rest of the LD system is flawed when one puts it as mildly as possible. Given that the NEC (and NYP in particular) is the starting point for a goodly number of long-distance trains, how can they make that claim? Yanking it out of the national system and handing it over to "the states" (who do not want it, for the most part) will turn the system into a copy of the fraught-with-slowness LD network (no commuter railroad has any incentive to keep ACSES active especially in the case of them having to pay for it, nor do they for the most part desire to keep four tracks or more on their railroad—note New Jersey Transit removing two tracks from the formerly four-track Erie Main Line in northern New Jersey back in the early 1980s, plus the missing track on Metro-North between Stratford and New Haven in Connecticut; there are other examples that do not come to mind at the moment). So, the Vermonter, Silver Service, Palmetto, Pennsylvanian, Carolinian, Piedmont, Cardinal, Crescent, Keystone Service, even Regional Service via the "Inland Route" and out to Newport News will have to find alternate routes to New York because the URPA has designated the NEC as a "transit corridor" arbitrarily, via the above-linked distortions in figures (perhaps via the B&O, Reading and CRRNJ/LVRR into Hoboken Terminal; imagine going to Camden Station in Baltimore for a long-distance train instead of Baltimore Penn, or West Trenton instead of Trenton in NJ…Plainfield or Bound Brook might become the new Metropark). The Empire Service, Ethan Allen Express, Lake Shore Limited and Maple Leaf will have to go back into Grand Central Terminal since they can no longer avail of the chief NYC station of "the corridor" (too bad the Lehigh Valley RR is in pieces west of Allentown PA; we could have sent the Maple Leaf out of Hoboken Terminal via its original route). That is what you will get with the URPA's dogged stance regarding the NEC being a "regional transit operator" despite the facts about the NEC.
If any organization has a "preservationist stance", it is the URPA. They want to go back (yes, back) to fully private operation of long-distance trains, offering them no improvement whatsoever in terms of operating speeds; their "tax credits" argument is quite anachronistic, since most states (save New York) have rescinded their punitive taxes upon railroad rights of way; they have no plan to put the FRA into active funding of railroad infrastructure, as opposed to that organization's current stance as antagonist and regulator; and certainly, they fail to "grease" anyone's "skids" as you put it.
Still waiting for this new approach, because thus far, all I see is rhetoric. What's the key to getting US politicians to spend money for higher-speed passenger rail operations over long distances? If you want a few ballpark figures, then the average speed of a Regional train (NEC) would get you from New York to Chicago in 10 hours via the former Broadway Limited's route; the fastest Acela Express over that same route would make the journey in less than 8½ hours. Build a high-speed rail corridor, and you could run from New York to Chicago in as little as 4½ to 5 hours. This is technology dating back decades, and if the NEC's cash flow is positive (see that Amtrak performance report again), the cash flow from such corridors can never be negative.
For sake of argument, lets set aside the motor and aviation fuel taxes as being general-revenue taxes and not user fees and that the full budgets for highways and airlines (FAA) represent government subsidy.
Highways get 40 billion. OK, passenger cars alone, leave out the role of trucks in freight transportation, are 500:1 over Amtrak in terms of passenger miles. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at 80 million per year.
Air transportation gets 17 billion. Again, ignoring the role of general aviation providing everything from fire fighting, Med Flight, police patrols, and considering it all airlines, airline passenger miles are 100:1 over Amtrak. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at 170 million.
Amtrak is subsidized at around 10 times the rate as the average of the other modes, making assumptions that are generous to Amtrak. Put another way, if Amtrak were funded to provide the passenger miles as highways, the Amtrak subsidy would be need to be 700 billion -- well past the defense budget and on the level of Social Security or Medicare. Put it on a passenger-mile basis and not only is Amtrak funded at 10 times the rate, switching our driving over to Amtrak would break the bank. Passenger trains for all of their amenities and comforts are a high cost way of moving people.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:For sake of argument, lets set aside the motor and aviation fuel taxes as being general-revenue taxes and not user fees and that the full budgets for highways and airlines (FAA) represent government subsidy.Highways get $40 billion. OK, passenger cars alone, leave out the role of trucks in freight transportation, are 500:1 over Amtrak in terms of passenger miles. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at $80 million per year. Air transportation gets $17 billion. Again, ignoring the role of general aviation providing everything from fire fighting, Med Flight, police patrols, and considering it all airlines, airline passenger miles are 100:1 over Amtrak. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at $170 million.
Highways get $40 billion. OK, passenger cars alone, leave out the role of trucks in freight transportation, are 500:1 over Amtrak in terms of passenger miles. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at $80 million per year.
Air transportation gets $17 billion. Again, ignoring the role of general aviation providing everything from fire fighting, Med Flight, police patrols, and considering it all airlines, airline passenger miles are 100:1 over Amtrak. That puts the Amtrak subsidy at $170 million.
Amtrak is subsidized at around 10 times the rate as the average of the other modes, making assumptions that are generous to Amtrak. Put another way, if Amtrak were funded to provide the passenger miles as highways, the Amtrak subsidy would be need to be 700 billion -- well past the defense budget and on the level of Social Security or Medicare. I keep hearing the same argument over and over again about how highways and airways are so well-funded and how Amtrak is underfunded, but put it on a passenger-mile basis and not only is Amtrak funded at 10 times the rate, switching our driving over to Amtrak would break the bank. Passenger trains for all of their amenities and comforts are a high cost way of moving people
Is Amtrak underfunded for the level of service they are providing? No, they are lavishly funded
Are you saying that commuter rail is subsidized to 100 times the level of what Amtrak is subsidized 10 times the level?
If the amount of money Amtrak is getting isn't enough to purchase needed rolling stock and maintain what they have, this is further evidence that passenger rail is an expensive mode of transportation
Is the Amtrak network too small and too lean to achieve economies of scale, that an expanded Amtrak would require diminishing levels of subsidy per incremental passenger mile? Perhaps, that is why the cost accounting is so crucial, to determine incremental costs which indicate economies of scale. No such thing exists on the Amtrak Web site -- see URPA's explanation because I don't want to reproduce it all here
My premise is that, apart from two percent of Amtrak's current route milage, Amtrak's operations are too slow and too infrequent to achieve the economies of scale that those that seek profitability within its revenue stream plus sustainable funding for infrastructure coming from same are looking for. So why is the other ninety-eight percent of Amtrak unlike the two percent in the Northeast, and why has it not gotten sufficient investment to attain such a level?
As far as URPA not having a plan, the do indeed have a plan. Again, URPA's Web site is easily accessible and people can go read it and draw their own conclusions
The general reaction to the Meade (sic) Report is interesting in an of itself. Has anyone actually looked at the report, or are we going to say, some government lawyer doesn't know the first thing about operating a railroad? If so, are there railroad people who have critiqued the report and can point to specific deficiencies?
BTW, it's not a fallacy to question a lawyer's knowledge of railroad operations. And defense of Mead now begs the question as to how qualified a lawyer is to interpret financial data, if at all.
By they way, if you are the recipient of government monies, the devil's bargain is that at some point some government lawyer is going to profess knowledge of your operation and look your financials up
The general impact of the Meade (sic) Report is that there is this assumption that while the LD trains are subsidized, and the rationale for that subsidy is the lifeline-to-small-towns-in-Montana, is is generally supposed that first class and sleeper service pays Reply alphas Member sinceAugust 2006 575 posts Posted by alphas on Thursday, August 2, 2007 4:25 PM As I've mentioned various times before on various forums, the various studies made by different universities over the years all basically say that the most efficient and cheapest way to go if the Feds want to subside longer distant non-air travel is to give bus companies small subsidies. The highways already exist and with the Interstate system as well as many other roads nowadays all having high speed limits, passenger rail is not as cost effective due to the cost of rail physical plant investment and having most existing freight lines at or near capacity. The exceptions to this are a few areas like the NEC where the road traffic is overwhelming the available highways. It hurts me to say this since I've been a railroad fan for 60 years but that's what the research shows. Other studies show that the loss of track in the '80's combined with the growth in rail freight is potentially a far greater problem. It will probably take care of itself if the Feds let the free market take its course but if the Feds give into the shippers and others, than the taxpayer will probably end up having to pay much of the bill. By the way, per an Amtrak contack of mine, as of this past May (I haven't talked to him since then), the PA upgrade from Harrisburg to Philly with some additional Harrisburg to NYC trains has led to better train times (the electric locos' acceleration really helps), less crowded conditions, more passenger satisfaction, but not the amount of additional revenue they hoped for. It still is somewhat early so that could change--but they were disappointed in that regard. Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Thursday, August 2, 2007 7:23 PM alphas wrote:As I've mentioned various times before on various forums, the various studies made by different universities over the years all basically say that the most efficient and cheapest way to go if the Feds want to subside longer distant non-air travel is to give bus companies small subsidies. The highways already exist and with the Interstate system as well as many other roads nowadays all having high speed limits, passenger rail is not as cost effective due to the cost of rail physical plant investment and having most existing freight lines at or near capacity. The exceptions to this are a few areas like the NEC where the road traffic is overwhelming the available highways. It hurts me to say this since I've been a railroad fan for 60 years but that's what the research shows.These "various" university "studies" seem to be contradicting themselves. Just because a piece of infrastructure is "already there" doesn't testify to its cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, you'll never have buses that will be able to travel at speeds between 125 and 220 miles per hour, nor a bus that you'll be able to walk about and stretch your legs on. (And oh yes, a train will be able to run to/from places that buses would never be able to reach in winter weather. Not to mention that buses last a mere 15-20 years whereas train rolling stock lasts quite a bit longer. Shall we get into comparative safety as well?)Other studies show that the loss of track in the '80's combined with the growth in rail freight is potentially a far greater problem. It will probably take care of itself if the Feds let the free market take its course but if the Feds give into the shippers and others, than the taxpayer will probably end up having to pay much of the billWhat's a "free market"? That's a term that people think is defined, but is not. Should railroads be permitted to run things as unsafely as the highways do? Are highways part of a "free market"—and if so, why are they paid for with tax revenue? Highways do not shrink in capacity due to lost/absent traffic, like the railroads do. (BTW, "loss of track" is not as catastrophic in the case of extant rights-of-way since it can be replaced for far cheaper than highway asphalt.)By the way, per an Amtrak contack of mine, as of this past May (I haven't talked to him since then), the PA upgrade from Harrisburg to Philly with some additional Harrisburg to NYC trains has led to better train times (the electric locos' acceleration really helps), less crowded conditions, more passenger satisfaction, but not the amount of additional revenue they hoped for. It still is somewhat early so that could change--but they were disappointed in that regard.They had better stop being so impatient. It took over three years before the Tokaido Shinkansen got the return that they were expecting. Reply Wdlgln005 Member sinceApril 2002 From: Nashville TN 1,306 posts Posted by Wdlgln005 on Thursday, August 2, 2007 8:08 PM Kevin C. Smith wrote: Mr. Toy wrote: Thus, as NARP often points out, there needs to be a funding source that will "prime the pump" until Amtrak can better stand on its own. One possibility: A 2-3 cent increase in the gasoline tax would enable Amtrak to expand significantly. Question: A penny a gallon tax (assuming no change in demand because of it) would raise how much money? A friend of mine calculted it once at a billion dollars/year. Is that about right? This came up during Bush 1's era. An Ampenny would yield about a billion a year. For most projects, you also need a 20-50% state or local match. Most highway & airport projects use a 20% matching formula. Clinton may have used the tax for "deficit reduction". Not sure what came of the program. Since then, the price of gas has nearly doupled to today's $3.00 average. Given our country's needs, I can bet the pols will try to raise the gas tax soon. It's time Amtrak & passenger rail got some of that money. Glenn Woodle Reply alphas Member sinceAugust 2006 575 posts Posted by alphas on Friday, August 3, 2007 10:02 PM JT22CW,You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the service; therefore, (2) what is the best "bang" for the tax dollar when it comes to supporting non-air long distance travel in most areas of the country? That's why their findings that small subsidies for long-distance bus travel normally makes the best sense financially if the Feds or State governments want to support non-air travel (like the NEC there are a few exceptions). If someone can ever figure out a way to acquire the right-of-way and build high-speed rail at an affordable price, that would change the scenario--but no one has figured that out yet. And with this latest bridge disaster probably resulting in far more funding on both federal and state level for the highway system, I doubt you are going to see the necessary high-speed rail public funding for a long time if ever. The NEC is different. Because of the existing dedicated rail line, averaging 100 mph excluding station stop times is possible if the government is willing to invest a lot of money. That would definitely increase the Boston to Baltimore/DC usage of the NEC but not have that much impact on intermediate usage of the NEC. Its probably not cost efficient to upgrade it that much but it could potentially cover its increased operating costs after the upgrade. However, rebuilding it to match what France, Japan, etc. have done speedwise is currently cost prohibitive. (And politicians being what they are, to spend the money neccessary to upgrade the NEC will cost a whole lot more as the senators and representativies from the states outside the NEC will demand funds for their states and districts before they support any expensive upgrade to the NEC.)Comparing the life of buses to trains isn't meaningful. Buses don't cost anywhere near as much to build or maintain so whether they last as long as the trainset components isn't a significant consideration. As for not being able to stretch your legs on a bus, that's a quality of travel issue, not a financial consideration. You can't really stretch your legs on most airplanes either but that doesn't stop people from flying. Winter weather is a concern in all forms of travel but not enough of a one in itself to justify high speed rail. And high-speed rail in bad weather conditions probably wouldn't be able to operate normally. As for patience, one thing American politicians lack is patience. Not when the majority of them face election opponents who are only to willing to point out the lack of success. Reply JT22CW Member sinceDecember 2006 302 posts Posted by JT22CW on Sunday, August 5, 2007 1:04 AM alphas wrote:JT22CW,You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the serviceI have overlooked nothing; although, as I have previously stated, these university "studies" have overlooked several points. And I loathe when people take it as a foregone conclusion that the costs of HSR alignment are somehow so exorbitant, even beyond that of the costs of highways, that the revenue of trains running on them will not recoup the costs, when examples over the world have proven otherwise.A four-lane highway, new-build, exceeds the costs of most high-speed railroads. I'll give you an example: The Lehigh Valley area of northeastern Pennsylvania complains that restoration of even conventional rail is exorbitant (connecting it to places like New York and Philadelphia as in the past—in the case of Philly, the recent past), but amazingly finds the money to build a 5.5 mile bypass of US Route 222 around Trexlertown (just west of Allentown), at a cost of $26.2 million per mile. Wonder what the cost estimates per mile of adding lanes to Route 22 will run?therefore, (2) what is the best "bang" for the tax dollar when it comes to supporting non-air long distance travel in most areas of the country? That's why their findings that small subsidies for long-distance bus travel normally makes the best sense financially if the Feds or State governments want to support non-air travel (like the NEC there are a few exceptions)That's a false argument. They're basing everything on the intransigence of the federal government regarding rail investment. Therefore, gauging the "best bang for the buck" has been artificially limited in scope.If someone can ever figure out a way to acquire the right-of-way and build high-speed rail at an affordable price, that would change the scenario--but no one has figured that out yet.No-one? I would say that the Germans have figured out a fine way of doing it. Note these photographs of the (ICE train ROW) Neubaustrecke. Building alongside the Autobahn not only reduces costs, it also increases visibility of the high-speed trains and keeps environmentalists at bay. And with this latest bridge disaster probably resulting in far more funding on both federal and state level for the highway system, I doubt you are going to see the necessary high-speed rail public funding for a long time if everThat's another foregone conclusion. If anything, the road bridge disasters have highlighted the fallacy of "throwing money at (the) problem".The NEC is different. Because of the existing dedicated rail line, averaging 100 mph excluding station stop times is possible if the government is willing to invest a lot of money. That would definitely increase the Boston to Baltimore/DC usage of the NEC but not have that much impact on intermediate usage of the NECA few things:The NEC is not different. As Yoda might say, "only different in your mind". It is the same main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad, save the removal of some grade crossings in Maryland plus some upgraded track sections (to the unknown standards of "Class 8" per the FRA, specifics unrevealed, that supposedly can permit 160-mph operation).There are no "dedicated lines" on the NEC. Freight runs on the very same rails that the Acela Express does—and during the daytime hours to boot…as does commuter rail.If it's possible to upgrade the NEC to permit 100-mph average speeds (running from New York to Washington DC in 2 hours 20 minutes is an average speed of slightly over 96 mph, for the record), it's most definitely possible to upgrade other traditional rights of way to permit the very same. That includes maintaining all of the traditional slower rail operation alongside the fast rail. It's probably not cost efficient to upgrade it that much but it could potentially cover its increased operating costs after the upgrade.The NEC's high-speed operations are already covering costs and then some. The Amtrak monthly performance reports bear that out (see previous replies). The answer is to build more of same and improve the NEC, which will result in a favorable upturn of passengers on non-NEC corridors and attraction of more riders to current NEC services.However, rebuilding it to match what France, Japan, etc. have done speedwise is currently cost prohibitiveIf you mean the NEC by "it", that's not the intent and it never was.I urge you to refrain from blanket statements. It would not cost three times the cost of the LGV Sud-Est to upgrade the NEC to what it ought to be.(And politicians being what they are, to spend the money neccessary to upgrade the NEC will cost a whole lot more as the senators and representativies from the states outside the NEC will demand funds for their states and districts before they support any expensive upgrade to the NEC.)That's the ongoing political game. There are several high-speed rail initiatives on the table, and instead of exclusively focusing on the highways and airports as we have done since the 50s (which makes such focus an anachronism, since countries with high speed rail have figured out just how to focus on the same thing plus HSR), they ought to rapidly agree on intercity high speed rail ASAP, especially in light of its many benefits, its ret Reply Paul Milenkovic Member sinceJuly 2004 2,741 posts Posted by Paul Milenkovic on Sunday, August 5, 2007 9:18 PM JT22CW:You raise some very good points that we could have high-speed trains running alongside Interstate right-of-ways, and as the pictures show, these high-speed trains are high-powered to take Interstate grades, unlike the freight railroads with their low HP per ton that have to follow curvy water-level alignments in many cases.But if having these German-style trains connecting corridor cities is our desired endpoint, why is NARP defending the subsidy level of long-distance sleeper car service (NARPs deconstruction of the Kenneth Mead report)? Yes, I have heard all of the arguments about preserving the networks and the need to keep from losing any more trains so we can build towards this high-speed future. But isn't linking the current mode of low-speed long-distance train to a high-speed corridor train future putting us off message?If we view what we do in the passenger train advocacy community as a marketing campaign to get the broad based public support for trains to influence the politicians and other decision makers, is linking low-speed long-distance sleeper service, which many regard as a quaint mode of travel and "something to do some day" but nevertheless somewhat antiquated form of travel, with futuristic high-speed trains that could do something about that stressful automobile trip from Detroit to Chicago?All I have been trying to say all along is that we need to pick and choose our battles; in my opinion, NARP has been trying to fight every battle regarding passenger trains. You obviously have the facts that every critique of any aspect of Amtrak is wrong and all these battles should be fought, and this is very encouraging to those for whom the trains are very important. But this approach hasn't been winning friends and influencing enough people over the past 40 years. If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks? Reply Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
As I've mentioned various times before on various forums, the various studies made by different universities over the years all basically say that the most efficient and cheapest way to go if the Feds want to subside longer distant non-air travel is to give bus companies small subsidies. The highways already exist and with the Interstate system as well as many other roads nowadays all having high speed limits, passenger rail is not as cost effective due to the cost of rail physical plant investment and having most existing freight lines at or near capacity. The exceptions to this are a few areas like the NEC where the road traffic is overwhelming the available highways. It hurts me to say this since I've been a railroad fan for 60 years but that's what the research shows.
Other studies show that the loss of track in the '80's combined with the growth in rail freight is potentially a far greater problem. It will probably take care of itself if the Feds let the free market take its course but if the Feds give into the shippers and others, than the taxpayer will probably end up having to pay much of the bill.
By the way, per an Amtrak contack of mine, as of this past May (I haven't talked to him since then), the PA upgrade from Harrisburg to Philly with some additional Harrisburg to NYC trains has led to better train times (the electric locos' acceleration really helps), less crowded conditions, more passenger satisfaction, but not the amount of additional revenue they hoped for. It still is somewhat early so that could change--but they were disappointed in that regard.
alphas wrote:As I've mentioned various times before on various forums, the various studies made by different universities over the years all basically say that the most efficient and cheapest way to go if the Feds want to subside longer distant non-air travel is to give bus companies small subsidies. The highways already exist and with the Interstate system as well as many other roads nowadays all having high speed limits, passenger rail is not as cost effective due to the cost of rail physical plant investment and having most existing freight lines at or near capacity. The exceptions to this are a few areas like the NEC where the road traffic is overwhelming the available highways. It hurts me to say this since I've been a railroad fan for 60 years but that's what the research shows.
Other studies show that the loss of track in the '80's combined with the growth in rail freight is potentially a far greater problem. It will probably take care of itself if the Feds let the free market take its course but if the Feds give into the shippers and others, than the taxpayer will probably end up having to pay much of the bill
Kevin C. Smith wrote: Mr. Toy wrote: Thus, as NARP often points out, there needs to be a funding source that will "prime the pump" until Amtrak can better stand on its own. One possibility: A 2-3 cent increase in the gasoline tax would enable Amtrak to expand significantly. Question: A penny a gallon tax (assuming no change in demand because of it) would raise how much money? A friend of mine calculted it once at a billion dollars/year. Is that about right?
This came up during Bush 1's era. An Ampenny would yield about a billion a year. For most projects, you also need a 20-50% state or local match. Most highway & airport projects use a 20% matching formula. Clinton may have used the tax for "deficit reduction". Not sure what came of the program.
Since then, the price of gas has nearly doupled to today's $3.00 average. Given our country's needs, I can bet the pols will try to raise the gas tax soon. It's time Amtrak & passenger rail got some of that money.
JT22CW,
You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the service; therefore, (2) what is the best "bang" for the tax dollar when it comes to supporting non-air long distance travel in most areas of the country? That's why their findings that small subsidies for long-distance bus travel normally makes the best sense financially if the Feds or State governments want to support non-air travel (like the NEC there are a few exceptions). If someone can ever figure out a way to acquire the right-of-way and build high-speed rail at an affordable price, that would change the scenario--but no one has figured that out yet. And with this latest bridge disaster probably resulting in far more funding on both federal and state level for the highway system, I doubt you are going to see the necessary high-speed rail public funding for a long time if ever.
The NEC is different. Because of the existing dedicated rail line, averaging 100 mph excluding station stop times is possible if the government is willing to invest a lot of money. That would definitely increase the Boston to Baltimore/DC usage of the NEC but not have that much impact on intermediate usage of the NEC. Its probably not cost efficient to upgrade it that much but it could potentially cover its increased operating costs after the upgrade. However, rebuilding it to match what France, Japan, etc. have done speedwise is currently cost prohibitive. (And politicians being what they are, to spend the money neccessary to upgrade the NEC will cost a whole lot more as the senators and representativies from the states outside the NEC will demand funds for their states and districts before they support any expensive upgrade to the NEC.)
Comparing the life of buses to trains isn't meaningful. Buses don't cost anywhere near as much to build or maintain so whether they last as long as the trainset components isn't a significant consideration. As for not being able to stretch your legs on a bus, that's a quality of travel issue, not a financial consideration. You can't really stretch your legs on most airplanes either but that doesn't stop people from flying. Winter weather is a concern in all forms of travel but not enough of a one in itself to justify high speed rail. And high-speed rail in bad weather conditions probably wouldn't be able to operate normally.
As for patience, one thing American politicians lack is patience. Not when the majority of them face election opponents who are only to willing to point out the lack of success.
alphas wrote:JT22CW,You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the service
You overlook the key points of the studies: (1) the cost of acquiring the land and building dedicated lines for passenger high speed rail over any major distance is currently too great, even in areas where the passenger base exists to support the operating costs of the service
A four-lane highway, new-build, exceeds the costs of most high-speed railroads. I'll give you an example: The Lehigh Valley area of northeastern Pennsylvania complains that restoration of even conventional rail is exorbitant (connecting it to places like New York and Philadelphia as in the past—in the case of Philly, the recent past), but amazingly finds the money to build a 5.5 mile bypass of US Route 222 around Trexlertown (just west of Allentown), at a cost of $26.2 million per mile. Wonder what the cost estimates per mile of adding lanes to Route 22 will run?
therefore, (2) what is the best "bang" for the tax dollar when it comes to supporting non-air long distance travel in most areas of the country? That's why their findings that small subsidies for long-distance bus travel normally makes the best sense financially if the Feds or State governments want to support non-air travel (like the NEC there are a few exceptions)
If someone can ever figure out a way to acquire the right-of-way and build high-speed rail at an affordable price, that would change the scenario--but no one has figured that out yet.
And with this latest bridge disaster probably resulting in far more funding on both federal and state level for the highway system, I doubt you are going to see the necessary high-speed rail public funding for a long time if ever
The NEC is different. Because of the existing dedicated rail line, averaging 100 mph excluding station stop times is possible if the government is willing to invest a lot of money. That would definitely increase the Boston to Baltimore/DC usage of the NEC but not have that much impact on intermediate usage of the NEC
It's probably not cost efficient to upgrade it that much but it could potentially cover its increased operating costs after the upgrade.
However, rebuilding it to match what France, Japan, etc. have done speedwise is currently cost prohibitive
I urge you to refrain from blanket statements. It would not cost three times the cost of the LGV Sud-Est to upgrade the NEC to what it ought to be.
(And politicians being what they are, to spend the money neccessary to upgrade the NEC will cost a whole lot more as the senators and representativies from the states outside the NEC will demand funds for their states and districts before they support any expensive upgrade to the NEC.)
JT22CW:
You raise some very good points that we could have high-speed trains running alongside Interstate right-of-ways, and as the pictures show, these high-speed trains are high-powered to take Interstate grades, unlike the freight railroads with their low HP per ton that have to follow curvy water-level alignments in many cases.
But if having these German-style trains connecting corridor cities is our desired endpoint, why is NARP defending the subsidy level of long-distance sleeper car service (NARPs deconstruction of the Kenneth Mead report)? Yes, I have heard all of the arguments about preserving the networks and the need to keep from losing any more trains so we can build towards this high-speed future. But isn't linking the current mode of low-speed long-distance train to a high-speed corridor train future putting us off message?
If we view what we do in the passenger train advocacy community as a marketing campaign to get the broad based public support for trains to influence the politicians and other decision makers, is linking low-speed long-distance sleeper service, which many regard as a quaint mode of travel and "something to do some day" but nevertheless somewhat antiquated form of travel, with futuristic high-speed trains that could do something about that stressful automobile trip from Detroit to Chicago?
All I have been trying to say all along is that we need to pick and choose our battles; in my opinion, NARP has been trying to fight every battle regarding passenger trains. You obviously have the facts that every critique of any aspect of Amtrak is wrong and all these battles should be fought, and this is very encouraging to those for whom the trains are very important. But this approach hasn't been winning friends and influencing enough people over the past 40 years.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.