I went to Dallas and Fort Worth in part to see the DART and Trinity Express services and get a feel for the area listening to people. State-wide, intercity rail passenger service may be irrelevant to the majority; but that is not the case for for the Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio triangle. Just as other Texans want good roads, they want good trains as well. To these folk, a few good trains would be preferable to and cost less than the alternative of widening congested highways. You misrepresent this regional issue bringing in the whole state.
Let me clarify about small communities too. Intercity rail passenger service is a wholesale venture about amassing trainloads of passengers. A number of communities of 10,000-100,000 population are needed. It is about exploiting the existing infrastructure opportunities to serve a sufficiently large aggregate market within about five hours' driving time, at which point flying is much preferred.
Maybe driving 1-1/2 to 2 hours to an airport is a bear and taking a train to the airport would be more desirable.
Maybe the cost of driving to the airport or destination is more than the train.
Maybe that much time to get to an airport negates the advantage of flying.
Maybe the air fare from a smaller airport is prohibitively expensive.
Maybe the stress of driving is too great.
Maybe the car or bus gets stuck in urban congestion lengthening the travel time.
Ah yes, board members driving are not the same as planners as you must apparently know. Board members are part-time "civic leaders" appointed to give credibility to decisions that often do not come from the work of staff planning professionals, but from the appointing official. The other problem may be the lack of a reasonable transit alternative. In Chicago, almost everyone took transit. In Northwest Indiana, there was no bus service; and I frequently was obliged to go out of the office.
That a BRT may carry a higher volume than DART does not mean that the latter was not a worthwhile improvement.
You missed one.
Maybe the idiotic and bizarre paranoid security proceedures at the airport cause people to look for a more civilized form of mass transit.
I know that's why I now take the train when possible.
I will spend twelve hours in my car rather than go to the airport and be treated like I am a criminal.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
HarveyK400
I am keen to understand the methodology you employed to gage the level of interest for passenger rail service in the Texas Triangle.
Did you take a valid statistical sample of the population? How many people did you interview? What level of confidence did you use? What tolerance factor did you use? What error rate did you accept? Did you stratify the population? Did you use a questionnaire followed by a structured interview or did you rely exclusively on one or the other?
NARP, amongst others, claims that Americans want more passenger trains. They cite several surveys to support their claims. But when one looks at them closely, most of the surveys were conducted by telephone. They are very high level. And they are shallow. Drilling down would probably produce a different response pattern.
Many Americans say that they want to see more passenger trains, but when asked whether they ride them, outside of a few corridors, the answer is no. Moreover, if the interviewers had performed in-depth follow-up interviews, i.e. explained the cost (direct or indirect), locations, etc., they probably would have gotten a different response. For example, many people say that they want better public schools. But when they are told honestly how the increased funding requirements will impact their taxes, many of them have a change of heart.
The DART Board meets in the same building that houses DART's headquarters. They park in a garage underneath the building. Most of the executives and many of the professional staff park in the same garage. The DART red and blue light rail lines run right past the building. In fact, the Ervay Street Station is in front of the building. On occasion I have watched the board members and staff depart their meetings. I did not see many of them jump on the train.
The DART Board plays an active role in planning. It usually outlines a broad plan. The staff fills in the many details required to make it happen. They also make recommendations for the board to consider. After a suitable period of exchange a decision is made. Planning is an interactive process, but the Board approves the plan and authorizes the funding to make it happen.
DART's light rail line is an expensive solution to traffic problems in the Dallas Metroplex. It is so expensive that the expansion has run into a major stumbling block. The project is more than a billion dollars over budget. Moreover, at the end of the day, only a small percentage of the Metroplex population is able to use public transport.
The DART light rail system and the TRE were certainly a worthwhile investment for the people who use it. They get a nice fat subsidy, which is paid by millions of Metroplex residents who don't use it because it would be impracticable to do so.
I am all for commuter rail where it makes sense. I am all for light rail where it is a cost effective solution. I actively campaigned for passage of the DART referendum. But in many instances planners have jumped on rail or light rail as an optimum solution when in fact there are better alternatives.
There are all kinds of maybes. One could argue the issue until the cows come home. If there is a market for intercity rail in Texas, the best way to determine it is to open it up to private investors. This is the best way to allocate scarce resources. If it is doable, investors will jump at the opportunity to turn a buck on it. To date there have been no takers. And there won't be until congestion reaches a point that compels an alternative to driving and flying. And we are a long way from that point, even in the Texas Triangle.
Yesterday I flew from Austin to Dallas and return. It took me about two minutes to pass through security at the Austin Airport. It took about the same amount of time in Dallas for the return trip. Taking off my shoes is an inconvenience, but it is something that most air travellers have come to accept.
The flight took 40 minutes. Driving would have taken approximately 3.5 to 4 hours. Going on the bus would take about 5 hours. Going by Amtrak would take more than 6 hours, assuming that it ran on time, which is a rare event for the Texas Eagle.
A tilt type train running along the existing rights-of-way would probably take 3 to 3.5 hours to get to Dallas. Given a choice, the overwhelming majority of Texans will opt for flying or driving.
The cost of the flight was about $45 less than driving. And that included the drive to the airport and parking.
Most business people in Texas don't have the time to drive from Dallas to Austin or Houston or San Antonio. They want to get there, get it done, and get home. This is why most business people fly. And this is why they will continue to demand excellent air service. They don't have 12 hours to waste driving, which is about what it would take to drive from Dallas or Austin to El Paso.
I don't remember the particulars or keep meticulous files about Texas. I had conversations with local people regarding the difficulties in reinstituting service, including the strong opposition of Southwest Airlines. I was told the surveys and polls that were conducted indicated a strong interest in reinstituting rail passenger service. I've read other accounts as well. But how can I possibly argue with someone from Texas, even if they do not provide the same level of documentation they demand from others?
As for living away from corridors and wanting trains but not riding, you twist away from the fact that you can't ride the train you want if it isn't there.
You argue that people say they are in favor of schools until they see the tax increase; that this corresponds to being in favor of rail service until they see the price tag. Very few leaders have come out to say what driving is really costing the public.
Opening rail passenger service to private investors would work as well as asking Southwest to raise the money to build its own airport and provide air traffic control.
Incidently, I was a little surprised that the air fare out of Austin was so low by your account. I Googled Austin and discovered the metro area population is 1.6 million, about four times what I thought. Apparently it's one of the fastest growing cities in the country and may be considered a major market.
Is it too much to ask that people go back and look at the original topic and the questions it asked?
Or would somebody like to start a thread called "Texas Talk -- Enter At Your Own Risk"? -a.s.
My point regarding the documentation is straight forward. The proponents of rail argue that they have documentation (marketing surveys) to show that Americans want more passenger trains. But when asked for it, they cannot or will not produce it.
I can ask ten people what they think about passenger trains. But their responses do not constitute a valid statistical sample, which requires a highly structured methodology, and therefore cannot be projected to the population as a whole.
Of course there is no documentation to show that people don't want passenger trains. That would require conducting a negative poll, which is not an acceptable methodology. The key question is whether the claim that Texans want passenger trains is properly supported.
Commercial airlines arguably get a small subsidy because they can fly from airports that were built with tax free financing. But it is smaller than most people assume. Most of the benefit is enjoyed by general aviation. At Love Field, for example, Southwest accounts for approximately 25 per cent of operations. The remainder is flown by general aviation and the military. This data can be verified from FAA documentation.
Passenger rail in Texas runs on tracks that were built for freight and passenger traffic. Without the freight component, the tracks would not have been laid down. Moreover, if passenger rail had been required to build its own tracks, it would never have happened. Passenger rail shares a right-of-way, just like vehicles share the highways and commercial airliners share the airways.
The Trinity Railway Express (TRE) runs on tracks that were originally owned by the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific. They were acquired by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) in a bankruptcy proceeding. Had the tracks not be built by the Rock Island, there would be no TRE. This claim can be verified by reviewing the history of DART and TRE.
Most of the railroad construction west of the Mississippi River received generous federal government subsidies before the turn of the last century. Calculating the present value of these subsidies and the present value of the subsidies to construct the nation's airports would be a difficult if not impossible task. But to claim or imply that only the airlines have received federal subsidies is in error. However, in both cases it is a sunk cost, which is an accounting way of saying that it does not matter. It is irrelevant for current and future decisions.
The best opinion poll is how people vote with their feet. Only a small percentage of the Texans served by public transit (includes all forms of rail) use it. For example, in 2006 (latest audited figures) approximately 11.65 per cent of the population in DART's service area used it. Interestingly, slightly more than 40 per cent of the bus riders did not have a choice. They did not have a car. Moreover, approximately 20 per cent of the people riding the light rail system were in the same boat. They did not have a car. And approximately 11 per cent of the people who rode the TRE had no alternative. This information is available on DART's web site or it was given to me last year, upon a request to DART management, for route performance numbers.
Most people don't know the full cost of driving. This is true. But most drivers' directly or indirectly pick-up the total tab. The majority of them pay federal, state, and local taxes in addition to fuel taxes and fees. The subsidies come from the federal, state, and local taxes, although it is true that wealthier motorists tote a large share of the subsidy than motorists who are less well off. By contrast, DART's light ride riders received a $3.66 per ride subsidy in 2006. And most of it was paid by people who do not or cannot use the system.
Al
The question was which to build if the President of Amtrak had an extra $2 billion a year to play with. Presumably some of it could have been spent in Texas. Nevertheless, this was the wrong question. The question should be where is commuter rail or intercity rail a valid solution to a transportation problem?
I am addressing the question through the eyes of a Texan because it is where I live. It is the place that I know best. It has been my home for more than 35 years. I have travel extensively throughout the state. I know a little bit about it.
HarveyK400 wrote: The reality is that this country has competing priorities including a costly war on terrorism, health care, and education. This conflict is exacerbated by impacts on the public of the rising price for gas, the devaluation of the dollar from the imbalance in international trade, loss of manufacturing jobs, and immigration. Money probably will be too tight for anything as grandiose as a new high speed NEC or New York - Chicago Corridor. I cannot imagine a new suface route between Washington, DC and Providence, RI that would not involve massive dislocation. 400 miles underground would be more depressing than occassionally flying in clouds. The NEC may not be high speed, but it offers a respectable, competitive alternative to driving and flying.New York, NY - Mansfield, Ohio would require massive engineering work similar to the ICE lines across Germany even if it tied into a high speed line over the former PFW&C to Chicago. Whether the demand would be worth the costs including East-Midwest compatibility needs to be determined. (Curiously, what provision was made for UA Turbotrain passengers boarding at high-level platforms?) Los Angeles - San Francisco may become the only other high speed corridor if the State of California chooses to undertake the venture. This would afford branches through the Central Valley and the East Bay. The engineering challenge is much smaller compared to crossing the Appalachians.
The reality is that this country has competing priorities including a costly war on terrorism, health care, and education. This conflict is exacerbated by impacts on the public of the rising price for gas, the devaluation of the dollar from the imbalance in international trade, loss of manufacturing jobs, and immigration. Money probably will be too tight for anything as grandiose as a new high speed NEC or New York - Chicago Corridor.
Los Angeles - San Francisco may become the only other high speed corridor if the State of California chooses to undertake the venture. This would afford branches through the Central Valley and the East Bay. The engineering challenge is much smaller compared to crossing the Appalachians.
I regards to the UA turbos they had step down facilities for passengers boarding at high level platforms. At least those operated by CN and Via Rail did as the platform in Montreal was high level while those in Toronto were ground level.
Al - in - Stockton
Getting back to the original post by Don Oltmann, the question was, what would you do if you were Amtrak President and Congress voted an extra 2 billion/year over 5 years?
My vote was spread it around on 79 MPH trains to serve as many people as possible, and maybe I am thinking in terms of Congress and the next go-around of train expansion, and broadening the political base for trains at least in a geographic sense.
I got critiqued on that, with others arguing that spending a higher per-mile dollar amount for a lesser amount of 110 MPH service was better because the 79 MPH service was not going to be time-competitive with cars.
A bunch of other people picked 110 MPH on a Whiskey-Sexy-Democracy argument, that faster was intrinsically "better" or "more cool" or whatever. Other people groused that the 10 billion was not enough to do true HSR and weren't going to be happy unless they got what they wanted. We can complain how about how HSR is not taken seriously in this country, but there is some likelihood that Congress may come up with the 10 billion, and the question is what would you do, apart from complain that it is not enough.
Look, I am willing to accept the view that the Interstate gets a lot of cross-subsidy that the critics of Amtrak subsidy aren't taking into account, and that even building an HSR line may be cheap compared to adding Interstate lanes. The question the critics bring up, however, is whether the ridership on the HSR or other rail upgrade line will be anywhere near what you would get with added highway lanes, and I don't think we can simply be dismissive of those concerns that "those are all concrete and Cato Institute talking points."
When I was an age-11 charter NARP member back in the late 60's, I was into all of the rails-rule planes-drool mindset. When I was a child, I thought like a child and believed in what NARP was saying as a child, but with 40 years of life experience behind me, I would like to approach passenger train advocacy with a bit more sophistication than to be dismissive of airplane travel as being less-than-civilized owing to some security procedures or to view my fellow American citizens with the disdain implicit in remarks that we don't have HSR constitutes some kind of national shame relative to trading partners who do.
The question remains, there is 10 billion dollars to spend, how would you spend it on trains, to what purpose and to what effect, and why, and being angry that there is not more to spend is not an answer.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Samantha:
Like most people who quote poles you are stating the numbers in the way that seems to support your belief that you speak for everyone.
For example, when you state that 20% of people riding the light rail have no choice because they don't own a car what you are also saying is that 80% of the people riding the light rail DO own a car and have chosen light rail over their car to commute.
There is no statistic you can quote that can predict how many more would make that choice if the train went more places and ran more frequently.
Amtrak's ridership is increasing rapidly. I have found the trains out of Charlotte sold out on more than one occasion.
I just watched the bitter fight here in Charlotte over whether Light rail was a service we needed, or if it was a giant hole into which the county would throw huge amounts of money forever. The fight was long, and intense, and involved multiple court fights. Opponents pointed to the fact that the buses which ran once an hour seldom had more than 3 or 4 people on them, and the express buses from the outer edges to city center, which only ran during rush hour were also not drawing enough riders to pay their own way. One opponent actually said in an interview that it would be cheaper to buy each bus rider a car than it would be to build the light rail.
The first light rail line is now in operation. It runs every 15 minutes most of the day and every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour. The park and ride lots are overflowing. People are driving 2 or 3 stations up the line looking for a place to park so they can take the train. Condos and mixed office/condo high rises are popping up along the line like weeds. More than a million rides have been taken since it opened in November.
All the studies done before the decision was made said Charlotte did not have the population density for light rail. They said we were too spread out. Too suburban. All the surveys indicated that even the proponents weren't going to ride it. People surveyed said they were in favor of it so that some of the road traffic would be reduced and it would be easier for them to drive to city center. All the studies and surveys were wrong. Ridership is running about 50% above even the most optimistic estimates.
I suspect that there are more potential riders there than you think.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Like most people who quote poles you are stating the numbers in the way that seems to support your belief that you speak for everyone.Amtrak's ridership is increasing rapidly. I have found the trains out of Charlotte sold out on more than one occasion.
The numbers are verifiable. The key is to present comprehensive numbers and direct people to the source. How people interpret them, of course, is driven by perception and personal values.
You took one number, i.e. 20 per cent of the people who ride light rail don't have an alternative, as an indicator that 80 per cent of the people who ride it have an alternative. Of course! But in the larger context, what I was trying to show is that only 11.65 per cent of the people in DART's service area use public transit. And that percentage is reduced by the number of people who don't have a viable alternative. So about nine per cent of the service area population use the system. This is a pretty good indicator of what percentage of the population, at best, might use expanded passenger rail (heavy and light) in Texas. If you develop passenger rail between Fort Worth and San Antonio, some people will use it. But could it covers its variable costs? How much subsidy would be required to support it?
I was in Charlotte last week. And I rode the light rail system. Having lived there from 1968 to 1972, I never thought that I would see the day that Charlotte would have a light rail system. I was pleased to see and ride it. It is neat. But like the DART light rail system, I suspect the per passenger subsidy is pretty steep. DART's light rail riders got an average subsidy of $3.66 per ride in 2006. This figure is verifiable, but many of the supporters of light rail don't like to reference it.
Amtrak's riders have increased each of the last four years. So have its costs. Amtrak still loses more than $1.3 billion a year. The long distance trains lose more than $500 million a year. And they are on course to lose even more this year. Again, supporters of Amtrak quote the increase in the number of riders and revenues without talking about the costs.
So where do I favor trains? They are a solution for high density corridors where the cost of building additional highway and airway capacity is prohibitive. And where the variable operating costs can be recovered. There are two areas in Texas where commuter rail could be a good option in the next decade. On is the Houston to Galveston corridor; the other is the Austin to San Antonio corridor. But for now there is no money for them.
A business person would invest in rail where there is probable demand and a reasonable probability of earning a return on his or her investment. A politician would pony up $2 billion a year for ten years and build it on the premise that they will come. Maybe! But there are not many business people who would bet the farm on that model.
Politicians don't have to worry about blowing the farm. They don't have a P&L Statement to worry about, unless they are in charge of an enterprise fund. In Texas they are seldom held accountable for their big blowouts. If they are turned out of office for their mistakes, they can get a nice job as a lobbyist.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha:Like most people who quote poles you are stating the numbers in the way that seems to support your belief that you speak for everyone.For example, when you state that 20% of people riding the light rail have no choice because they don't own a car what you are also saying is that 80% of the people riding the light rail DO own a car and have chosen light rail over their car to commute.There is no statistic you can quote that can predict how many more would make that choice if the train went more places and ran more frequently.Amtrak's ridership is increasing rapidly. I have found the trains out of Charlotte sold out on more than one occasion.I just watched the bitter fight here in Charlotte over whether Light rail was a service we needed, or if it was a giant hole into which the county would throw huge amounts of money forever. The fight was long, and intense, and involved multiple court fights. Opponents pointed to the fact that the buses which ran once an hour seldom had more than 3 or 4 people on them, and the express buses from the outer edges to city center, which only ran during rush hour were also not drawing enough riders to pay their own way. One opponent actually said in an interview that it would be cheaper to buy each bus rider a car than it would be to build the light rail.The first light rail line is now in operation. It runs every 15 minutes most of the day and every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour. The park and ride lots are overflowing. People are driving 2 or 3 stations up the line looking for a place to park so they can take the train. Condos and mixed office/condo high rises are popping up along the line like weeds. More than a million rides have been taken since it opened in November.All the studies done before the decision was made said Charlotte did not have the population density for light rail. They said we were too spread out. Too suburban. All the surveys indicated that even the proponents weren't going to ride it. People surveyed said they were in favor of it so that some of the road traffic would be reduced and it would be easier for them to drive to city center. All the studies and surveys were wrong. Ridership is running about 50% above even the most optimistic estimates.I suspect that there are more potential riders there than you think.
I think so too, and while I'm no expert, I think Charlotte's relatively (and I emphasize "relatively") spread-out position may have helped LYNX gain traffic. There must have been condemnations to gain ROW, but I suspect the idea of using the verges of prior motor arteries or raiding as little parkland as possible was a good one to avoid doing any more of that than possible. LYNX didn't have to condemn industrial property or build huge new bridges unless I'm missing a good part of the story. A parking lot is a lot cheaper to build in a quasi-suburban area than downtown or in an industrial district.
Charlotte was a medium-sized city that has very quickly grown into a large city. As commutation patterns explode, so do traffic jams on the 40-year-old Interstate highways which were once developed under the assumption that they would take traffic away from or around the metro areas, not serve as their beltways or downtown commuter ramps. I'm sure it helps a great deal too that downtown Charlotte is vibrant and that the professional sports venues have been so intelligently built into the LRT framework.
All the politics must have been a really hard slug, but LYNX is definitely a hit. This is not to say that every medium-to-big city needs LRT desperately. If I am reading the little bit I am seeing about it correctly, St. Louis's system is hardly a hit and it had a number of infrastructural hurdles to clear (routing over bridges, roads, etc.) Did K.C. Missouri ever decide it wanted to tax itself for a new LRV route?
In Charlotte's case, and based on what you say, the next hurdle will get people used to the idea of using their cars not at all to get from home to downtown (usually it's downtown, isn't it?). This may involve closing or turning into rental or permit-parking some of the (partly residential, I guess) areas in people are parking on all day for free in order to ride the LYNX. It should be done with the conviction that it is a boon and a convenience and not just another thing those *** planners did to mess up people's commute. Readers of these posts will know that I admire Toronto for so well integrating the buses that serve the suburbs with the schedules of the GO commuter trains.
Congratulations to Charlotte; you have joined the big leagues of public transit, and people seem to be happy with it, too!
I used the Lynx light rail only as an example of the fact that the loud and persistant voices of opposition are not actually representative of the general population. I did not mean to make it a sales pitch for light rail.
Al:
The park and ride at I 485 (outer beltway which faced similar opposition that resulted in holding it up for 20 years greatly increasing the cost) is a 4 story parking deck. The rest of them are parking lots. The planners just under estimated the number of spaces needed. They are working on a way to resolve it.
Lynx did, in fact, have to build a number of bridges over several heavily traveled roads. They did build it along existing N&S tracks, but the next segment is going up the mall in the middle of route 29.
Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting. NYC subway doesn't break even, but the city could not function without it. Most Charlotteans don't go to Bobcats NBA games, but 300 million tax dollars went into building their arena.
From a prior post: "Al The question was which to build if the President of Amtrak had an extra $2 billion a year to play with. Presumably some of it could have been spent in Texas. Nevertheless, this was the wrong question. The question should be where is commuter rail or intercity rail a valid solution to a transportation problem? I am addressing the question through the eyes of a Texan because it is where I live. It is the place that I know best. It has been my home for more than 35 years. I have travel extensively throughout the state. I know a little bit about it."
. . . (emphasis by al-in-chgo)
Samantha, you've been very upfront about this post and what you want to do. I respect that, and I agree that what you did was change the initial question.
Certainly we have these long, long posts that mutate topic on the TRAINS boards. And I'm as bad as anyone if not worse in going OT. But I don't think either occurrence is much to be proud about.
In general, I think you'll reach more people and therefore probably attract more people to your thread (Texans, too!) if you begin a brand new thread and post the question you so succinctly posted above. Otherwise there might be people who open the post on page 1, see the matrix of $2 billion Amtrak options, and assume the post is about Amtrak.
Just IMO I believe and others have told me to that people in general should be more willing to post their own threads for their own topics. In this case, you would be saving your time as well as theirs if this is not the topic they wish to address. I hope as well you will forgive my earlier facetiousness. It was late and I was getting frustrated scrolling through long posts quoting long posts.
Best, Allen
PS: I lived in Houston as a boy and loved it. I was there when the Astrodome was built. Even then, the traffic was getting too heavy. My poor father commuted clear across town to the north in an airconditioner-less VW beetle -- at a time when the Loops hadn't been built yet!!
Phoebe Vet wrote: Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting.
Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting.
Governments should not subsidize any activity that could stand on its own or be provided by private enterprise. I have long opposed subsidies to sports teams, concert halls, etc., although I have been a symphony patron for years. The patrons should pay for these activities.
I don't have a problem with underwriting public transit. It makes it possible for poor people, as well as some middle class people, to get around urban areas more efficiently and effectively. If Dallas or Austin, as examples, did not have bus service, many poorer citizens would not be able to work. They would become wards of the state.
Whether light rail is the best urban transit option is debatable. Rapid bus technology, in many instances, may be a better option.
Intercity passenger rail services that compete with airlines and bus companies should not be subsidized. They should stand on their own. Or at least the seat mile subsidy should not be any larger than the subsidy received by the airlines or bus companies. By the same token, all forms of transport subsidies should be rescinded. If that happened, we would have a more rational transport system.
Samantha wrote: The question was which to build if the President of Amtrak had an extra $2 billion a year to play with. Presumably some of it could have been spent in Texas. Nevertheless, this was the wrong question. The question should be where is commuter rail or intercity rail a valid solution to a transportation problem? I am addressing the question through the eyes of a Texan because it is where I live. It is the place that I know best. It has been my home for more than 35 years. I have travel extensively throughout the state. I know a little bit about it.
The point of the question was to get people to think about allocation of scarce resources (gov't tax $$) w.r.t. passenger service. Too often, the knee jerk reaction is "Gee, France has really cool trains. We should get some here. Wouldn't that be fun?"
From what I've read, I think you, I, HarveyK400 and Paul M. (and a few others) are pretty close to being on the same page. That is, the weighing of costs and benefits is the key to figuring out what makes sense to do. We sometime reach different conclusions about the particulars, but practicality counts more than ideology or emotion.
A quibble: I always look sideways at those stats that show hardly anybody uses transit. They typically look at everybody in a region for the denominator. The proper denominator should be the market the transit serves. First, who are you aiming at for ridership? Then, how many of them are you getting? A market share number would be a better measure of success. Another would be a comparison to alteratives, including the 'do nothing' alternative.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Samantha wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting. Governments should not subsidize any activity that could stand on its own or be provided by private enterprise. I have long opposed subsidies to sports teams, concert halls, etc., although I have been a symphony patron for years. The patrons should pay for these activities. I don't have a problem with underwriting public transit. It makes it possible for poor people, as well as some middle class people, to get around urban areas more efficiently and effectively. If Dallas or Austin, as examples, did not have bus service, many poorer citizens would not be able to work. They would become wards of the state. Whether light rail is the best urban transit option is debatable. Rapid bus technology, in many instances, may be a better option. Intercity passenger rail services that compete with airlines and bus companies should not be subsidized. They should stand on their own. Or at least the seat mile subsidy should not be any larger than the subsidy received by the airlines or bus companies. By the same token, all forms of transport subsidies should be rescinded. If that happened, we would have a more rational transport system.
Do you really mean recind all subsidies? If a municipality builds an airport or train station and that land it taken off the property tax books, then are the other land owners, in a sense subsidizing the facility? If the facility causes the need for more roads and traffic control, who pays? If the facility decreases air quality or generally degrades the quallity of life in the surroundings, who pays? These are costs not born by the direct provider.
Here's a real life example.
Atlanta has a choice to spend $10B on adding lanes to existing roads. They can get the same capacity for less than half that (net present cost) by adding a commuter rail line. The highway is all capital - near zero operating subsidy. The rail ine would be about 20% capital and 80% operating subsidy. Which is a better deal for the taxpayer?
blue streak 1 wrote:oltmannd has a very valid point about subsidies of all kinds of transportation. Didn't include city owned intercity bus stations. Al's suggestion of a post for Texas only is very valid. Let us expand it to states and/or regions. That may cover it much better. Since the western states get subsidized airports and roads much higher per capita than the east that is also to be considered. Now for the kicker for subdized air service: Aviation Week says that almost all regional airlines are in deep trouble even MESA which will run our of cash in about 11 months. The problem? full 50 seat aircraft are not making a profit. Fuel costs for a CRJ was an average of 44% of total operating costs.! This was on the JAN - MAR31 quarter average fuel costs. I'm scared to project it to now.
It is still the case that the Northern and Midwestern industrial states suffer a loss in their tax revenue that favors other states, Intermountain and Deep South mostly. (The last time I heard Chicago got about $.78 back for every $1.00 it pays; I am only counting federal income tax.) That twenty-two cents can be stretched a lot farther in a state with a small population. Sometimes it seems to me that residents of those states can be so libertarian because some of the basics are pre-paid. Just a suggestion; God forbid anyone should take this as politics.
al-in-chgo wrote: It is still the case that the Northern and Midwestern industrial states suffer a loss in their tax revenue that favors other states, Intermountain and Deep South mostly. (The last time I heard Chicago got about $.78 back for every $1.00 it pays; I am only counting federal income tax.) That twenty-two cents can be stretched a lot farther in a state with a small population. Sometimes it seems to me that residents of those states can be so libertarian because some of the basics are pre-paid. Just a suggestion; God forbid anyone should take this as politics.
Are you counting or discounting the benefit Chicago gets for the amount of its tax dollars that gets spent in Iraq? Or do we share equally in Iraq benefits regardless of where we pay and receive? haha.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
From gardendance's prior post: "Are you counting or discounting the benefit Chicago gets for the amount of its tax dollars that gets spent in Iraq? Or do we share equally in Iraq benefits regardless of where we pay and receive? haha."
Cute. Point is, we all support the fed government but do not receive benefit equally.
To me all human souls are precious. I do believe that DoD is the largest slice of the federal pie, but I may be wrong; it might be or Social Security slash Medicare. Hope that isn't too political! - al
An Amtrak bill for $14.4 billion over five years is being considered in the Senate. This is for real. It would provides roughly $1.6 billion a year more than the current budget of $1.3 billion. Let me get the sacasm out out the way by saying yes, some of the money will need to go to fuel costs.
First, this certainly would go a long way in fulfilling Illinois' wish list and leave a lot on the table for the rest of the nation. Illinois is considering expanding service with new routes to Dubuque and Iowa City in partnership with Iowa, to Peoria, and to Springfield via Decatur, acquiring new equipment, improving line capacity, and implementing 110 mph service and increasing frequencies on the St.Louis route.
Outside the scope of Illinois 403(b) services would be the expansion of service from Carbondale to Memphis, a round trip from Evansville to Chicago, and a pair of trains between Nashville and Chicago. The latter two would seem to have good intermediate ridership potential.
Other opportunities around the Midwest are possible; but some states are facing severe financial problems that make irrelevant the availability of matching funds.
With tilt equipment and more frquencies, Chicago-Michigan services could be more attractive.
Basic Midwest services are needed between Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. This would entail a quartet of trains between Chicago and Pittburgh, a round trip from Cleveland to Chicago and back. a round trip from Cleveland to Pittsburgh that could be extended to New York City, and a pair of trains between Detroit and Pittsburgh that could be extended to Washington, DC.
Wisconsin could get service to Madison and Green Bay as extensions of Hiawatha service, and a round trip from La Crosse to Chicago. Minnesota could get a morning train from Twin Cities via Rochester to Chicago, a morning train from Moorehead to Chicago via Red Wing, and an afternoon train from Moorehead to Chicago via Rochester. With eight trains, cab signaling for 110mph speeds from Chicago to La Crosse may be justifiable if 10-20% more riders can be attracted.
Missouri could get a pair of trains from Springfield to Chicago, and Oklahoma and Missouri another pair of trains from Tulsa via Springfield to Chicago with a shorter bus connection to Bramson. Missouri's biggest problem is capacity on the UP between St. Louis and Kansas City where more frequencies are needed. Tilt equipment would improve speed and attract more riders.
Indiana needs to support expanded service between Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville. This would facilitate service extended to Nashville on a second route.
Ohio has an opportunity to launch a Hiawatha-like 3-C service where cab signaling and tilt equipment would be beneficial.
If the politicians, transport planners, and citizens of Illinois believe that expanded train service is a good deal for the Land of Lincoln, why do they need federal money to make it happen? The same question applies to the other Midwestern states that were mentioned. Surely the proponents of spending federal tax monies on enhanced passenger rail service have done the appropriate market studies and have found that a market exists for the expanded services; one that could be supported with state and private monies.
What market research data supports the premise that a pair of trains between Nashville and Chicago would draw a significant number of riders? This market is served by 54 nonstop plus 74 multiple stop daily flights. The flying time is approximately one hour and 25 minutes. The fares start at $104 one way.
Where are the markets studies that support a quartet of trains between Chicago and Pittsburgh? This market is served by 44 nonstop flights plus another 160 multiple stop daily flights. The flying time is approximately one hour and 20 minutes. The fares start at $76 one way.
It is approximately 460 miles from Chicago to Pittsburgh. Assuming an average speed of 82 miles per hour, which presumably would require a costly upgrade of the railway right-of-way; it would take a train 5.6 hours to go from Chicago to Pittsburgh. By taking a plane, a business person can fly from Chicago to Pittsburgh in time for lunch, plus several afternoon meetings, and be back in Chicago in time for a late dinner with his or her family. Why would he or she want to take a train?
Similar questions apply to the other markets that were mentioned.
Several other relevant questions come to mind reagrding the proposed increase in funding for Amtrak. Given the federal expenditure deficit, which is running at an annual rate of $540 billion through the first seven months of fiscal year 2008, where does the money come from? Also, how much would the Midwest projects cost? And how much money would be left over for the other areas of the country?
Since we are all just voicing opinion, and no one in here actually has the ability to implement any of these plans, I don't understand why the nay sayers like Samantha (just an example, not an attack on her) hang out in here.
This country was built by people who built things that others thought were too dangerous, too difficult or too expensive.
You wouldn't have over 100 channels on your cable TV if NASA had listened to the people who said it would cost a fortune to put a satellite in orbit just to relay telephone or TV signals.
People told Edison and Westinghouse that it would be too expensive and too dangerous to electrify an entire city. After all, gas was already availaile to light houses. And coal was cheap and available for heat.
Even the airplanes that seem to be the preferred mode of intercity travel in here were once considered to expensive and too dangerous for travel by the general public. Only really brave or foolish people went up in them. Lindbergh was challenging the fact that everybody KNEW transatlantic air travel was a pipe dream. No one would PAY to fly across the ocean when ocean liners already dominated the market in luxury and safety.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Since we are all just voicing opinion, and no one in here actually has the ability to implement any of these plans, I don't understand why the nay sayers like Samantha (just an example, not an attack on her) hang out in here.
The purpose of the forums is to share views on railroading. This subset is devoted to passenger trains. Telling me to bow out because I don't agree with the orthodoxy does not address the questions that I posed. Not a single one of my questions was answered.
This country was built by many different people. Some of them were entrepreneurs who saw an opportunity and exploited it. Others where organization people. Millions where hard working empoyees, small business people, etc. who have long been forgotten, but whose labor was critical to the development of this country. But most of the builders had one thing in common. They did not look to the government for handouts.
Edison, Westinghouse, Lindbergh, Carnegie, Douglas, Piper, as well as 10s of thousands of others used private capital to developed their products and convince the market place that they had a good idea. The market agreed. And it provided additional capital to bring the products and services to a market where people would buy them in an arms length transaction. They did not depend on government handouts.
Many people in the passenger rail community seem to know that its service will not sell without a healthy infusion of taxpayer money. So they use political leverage to fund what the market otherwise would not sustain. They argue for passenger rail services with scant market research data to support their vision.
Free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources. I support passenger rail where there is probable market for it, but eventually it should stand on its own. Free markets, by the way, go hand in hand with free societies. In a free society, to the maximum extent possible, the people decide what they want. Not a central planner in a transportation department in a national or state capital! And not someone who wants to build an expensive rail system without any idea of how much it would cost and whether the revenues would cover the cost.
Interestingly, the passenger rail community is one of the few that insisted the government save the passenger train. The Trans Atlantic steam ships were allowed to fold. Trailways was allowed to go out of business as a national carrier. Numerous airlines have collapsed. All sorts of businesses, when they are no longer viable, have been allowed to fold.
Had the passenger train been forced to stand on its own, most of them would have folded in 1971. And few people in the market would have missed them. The Northeast Corridor and LA to San Diego, as well as a numerous commuter rail operations, are possible exceptions. Had they been managed aggressively, i.e. better, faster, cheaper, they might have survived on their own. But the politicians created Amtrak to save passenger rail. To date it has drained the U.S. Treasury of more than $25 billion to cover its loses. And this for a system that is used by less than 1 per cent of intercity travelers.
So I will continue to ask the questions. No one is forced to read them. And clearly no one is required to respond with a non-response.
The Detroit to DC and Cleveland to Pittsburgh and on to NYC that HarveyK400 mentions just aren't practical. They are way too slow due to the mountainous terrain they have to travel. They would be a help in serving intermediate travel between cities and towns but I doubt that would generate enough revenue to avoid major operating expense losses.
As for the mentioned Dubuque to Chicago proposed route, is this the one that was talked about some months ago as averaging about 35 mph for the trip? If it is, its hard to believe its being seriously considered. But nothing politicians do anymore surprises me after they basically stoped most oil drilling in the USA the last 20-30 years and still refuse to do anything about it.
I suspect that the government could subsidize a bunch of new, and much faster, bus trips serving these locations for far less money than trying to do it by rail. Question: if these travel markets really were significant for public ground travel, wouldn't multiple bus operators, including the chinese cut-rate bus companies, already be trying to better service them?
My experience leads me to think that the attraction of direct service to Madison may offset losses in other markets related to longer trip times; but this requires analysis.
The effect of longer trip times diminishes with the distance traveled; so while intra-state travel to Milwaukee may suffer a moderate loss, travel to Chicago or the Twin Cities would suffer a lesser decrease. Amtrak benefits from this effect with the Empire Builder routing through Grand Forks, ND regardless of other considerations. The same effect would be exploited with the longer routing through Rochester, MN, at least for two trains each way.
The routing through Madison does pose problems. It's 71 branchline miles from Watertown, WI to Portage by way of Madison compared to 48 miles via Columbus.
Granted, Detroit - DC is slow. I know, I've taken the Capitol before and since Amtrak. While this seems doable with conventional equipment, a tilt train would save hours in travel time.
The point is the unique nature of building small volumes from a number of major markets, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, to achieve a viable load level through the mountains to the Capitol. Washington, DC is a far more significant travel destination than the population would indicate; and should overcome the normally expected handicap of slow speed.
The Midwest Corridor segment between Detroit and Pittsburgh should stand on its own.
Cleveland - NYC is a little different. First, the trip through the montains was to me surprisingly fast for the most part. Secondly, the numerous medium-size towns along the route usually are inordinately strong travel markets. Finally, tilt trains would cut running time significantly if not an hour.
Dubuque - Chicago is slow and cannot be improved significantly. The good and bad news is that the train comes out of Chicago: bad because it would average less than 40 mph even in Metra suburban territory; and good because traffic on I-90 is congested and slow most of the time, and US-20 is a slow drive approaching Galena.
A stretch of the CN east of Galena suffers from extreme curvature as the line winds through the coulees. While tilt trains would be beneficial on the west end, a recent study projects a significant commuter demand between Rockford and Chicago suburbs for which gallery-type cars may be more appropriate.
I'm sure the present administration would love to substitute buses for all passenger trains.
Maybe cut-rate buses really aren't that much faster.
Maybe buses are faster because of the time of day they run.
Maybe bus travel doesn't suit the market.
I just see potential for day-time medium-distance rail travel markets as an adjunct to more typical corridor services. I have little feel for the bus business.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.