From tonights NBC News:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24374101#24374101
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Completely agree with the video. But I live in the Northeast Corridor.
Even here, it's the ancient overhead wires and mixing Acelas with local Commuter Trains that holds back full speed over the entire route. Or in othe words, MONEY.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
People are not flocking to passenger trains for a variety of reasons. Clearly, cost is a factor. One side of a multi-sided coin is the cost to improve the system to make it an attractive alternative to driving or flying. Another side is the real cost of gasoline. And a third is the ability of the country to pay for a better rail system.
Until the real cost of congestion, as opposed to the fancied costs argued by passenger train advocates, equals the cost of improving the system or building new systems, the economic justification for doing either is not there. Economic justification can be calculated using hard and soft dollars.
In addition, until the real cost of motor fuels gets a lot higher than they are now, most people in most areas of the country will choose to drive as opposed to getting on a train or any other form of public transport.
According to the Energy Information Administration, the cost of a gallon of gasoline in 1981, when adjusted for inflation, was equal to $3.29 in today's dollars. Factor in gains in average fuel efficiency -- 21 mpg today compared with 15 mpg to 16 mpg in 1981 -- and we're spending less on gasoline today: less than 3% of gross domestic product compared with 4.6% in 1981.
At a national average of nearly $3.50 per gallon, the real cost of gasoline has surpassed the 1981 high. But not by nearly as much as many people think. And even at $3.50 per gallon, it consumes considerably less than 4.6% of the gross domestic product.
It appears that we are a long way from justifying the cost of expanded or new passenger rail systems based on the cost of gasoline. It comes back to what I have said all along. Passenger rail may be justified where highway and air congestion is great.
A relief valve for highway congestion was the driver for selling the Dallas Area Rapid Transit referendum to the voters. I worked on the campaign. So I have a little insight about how it was done. It was also the driver for selling the Houston light rail project, and the Austin commuter rail project, which is schedule to initiate service late this year.
Samantha wrote:It was also the driver for selling the Houston light rail project, and the Austin commuter rail project, which is schedule to initiate service late this year.
So Samantha...when will we see commuter rail in San Antonio ala http://www.asarail.org
It seems to me the title of this forum is somewhat misleading. Passenger counts are up, in some cases substantially. New services have been added in California, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere, partially funded by nonfederal sources.
However, I think Amtrak is coming up against some real physical constraints. Among other things, there doesn't seem to be many more cars that can be recycled, in particular in the Superliner series. Train lengths may be limited by platform lengths. The number of trains that can be run is limited by a freight network that in many cases is having capacity problems. I'm sure others could add to this list.
I don't have a dog in this fight; I happen to live in the only contigious state that has never seen an Amtrak train (and probably never will). For those of you who happen to be in more favorable conditions for train service, I think it is in your court to insist on the kind of funding that would overcome the current shortcomings.
NBC screws up again.... NOT 33 Years old... Geneises are about 5-13 years old.....Acela trains may be slow but it is also the added luxury that you are paying for...Try craming in a Airline seat or over crowded commuter trains on the same line or driving US 1
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
transitrapid wrote: NBC screws up again.... NOT 33 Years old... Geneises are about 5-13 years old.....Acela trains may be slow but it is also the added luxury that you are paying for...Try craming in a Airline seat or over crowded commuter trains on the same line or driving US 1
...only railfan would assume that train = locomotive.
Looks like you screwed up again, too. Even worse than NBC (who probably got their numbers from their Kummant interview)
Amfleet I is 31-33 years old
Amfleet II is ~30 years old
Superliner is ~25 years old
Horizon is ~ 25 years old
Diners are ~60 years old
Baggage cars ~50 years old
Genesis is 12+ years old!
AEM7s are 29 years old.
Is 33 years so horribly off?
Phoebe Vet wrote:I wonder which oil company PR department Samantha works for?
Samantha's numbers are dead-on and her analysis is meaningful - IMHO.
Anecdotally, it works for me, too. I make 4x what I made in 1980 and drive a car that got 17 mpg back then and have a similar one now that gets 22 mph now. Gas is only 3X what is was then. So, I am working fewer hours per day to pay for gas to drive X miles than I did back then.
Given the facts, I'd expect Americans to be driving more now per person than they did in 1980. That's true, too, isn't it?
Well Phoebe Vet, your lucky. and so was I.
I started my working years in 1955 at $1.95 an hour --- Gas was .17 cents per gallon. One hours pay bought 11 1/2 gallons of gas. My first NEW car cost $2,000. When I retired 47 years later with a six figure salary gas was about $2.50 a gallon. An hours pay would buy 23 gallons of gas.
BUT what about today's Entry Level Employee? At $7 an hour he can't even buy 2 gallons of gas for an hour's labor. I will not pay to work if he must drive. Recessions/depressions start at the bottom of the income ladder and spread up.
DMUinCT wrote: Well Phoebe Vet, your lucky. and so was I. I started my working years in 1955 at $1.95 an hour --- Gas was .17 cents per gallon. One hours pay bought 11 1/2 gallons of gas. My first NEW car cost $2,000. When I retired 47 years later with a six figure salary gas was about $2.50 a gallon. An hours pay would buy 23 gallons of gas. BUT what about today's Entry Level Employee? At $7 an hour he can't even buy 2 gallons of gas for an hour's labor. I will not pay to work if he must drive. Recessions/depressions start at the bottom of the income ladder and spread up.
I think the difference is that 50 years ago, entry level, minimum wage employees did not live 20 miles from work and need a car to get there. Cheap gas over the intervening years seems to have changed how and where we live. Maybe, it's time for another change....
oltmannd
You are comparing the prices at the end of a similar explosive growth in prices caused by the oil embargo. Only 7 years earlier than the year you chose, gasoline was 35 cents a gallon. That makes today's price TEN times the price then, and climbing.
In 1974, I bought fuel oil for home heat 3 times. The first time I paid 17 cents a gallon, the second time I paid 55 cents a gallon, and the third time I paid 95 cents a gallon.
So, instead of looking at the single year that makes the BEST comparison for the oil company, lets compare oil prices to the day before we invaded one of the major oil producers and tore down their infrastructure. How many gallons could you buy with an hour's pay THAT day, compared to now?
Samantha wrote: In addition, until the real cost of motor fuels gets a lot higher than they are now, most people in most areas of the country will choose to drive as opposed to getting on a train or any other form of public transport.
I don't think it will make any difference how high the cost of a gallon gets. It could be $25 a gallon next month and I'll give everyone one guess why most people will not get on a train (it's kind of a trcik question to test your logic). Any takers?
blue streak 1 wrote:Why are all the out of service passenger not being returned to service? Its time for a supplemental appropriation from congress to see the results of more available capacity.
Talk about answering your own question.
Phoebe Vet wrote: oltmannd You are comparing the prices at the end of a similar explosive growth in prices caused by the oil embargo. Only 7 years earlier than the year you chose, gasoline was 35 cents a gallon. That makes today's price TEN times the price then, and climbing.In 1974, I bought fuel oil for home heat 3 times. The first time I paid 17 cents a gallon, the second time I paid 55 cents a gallon, and the third time I paid 95 cents a gallon.So, instead of looking at the single year that makes the BEST comparison for the oil company, lets compare oil prices to the day before we invaded one of the major oil producers and tore down their infrastructure. How many gallons could you buy with an hour's pay THAT day, compared to now?
Good point. In constant dollars, the cost of gasoline fell from the close of WWII through the early 70's - primarily because of refinery processes that increased the yield per bbl of crude. Then we go the OPEC embargo and Iranian hostage crisis that caused the price of crude to go up. Then the real price retreated to all-time lows and continued to retreat in real dollars as the OPEC-set price of crude collapsed. Would you believe I actually paid 69.9 for gas one time in early 1999?
Now we have, as you mentioned, a mess in Iraq, but add to that, India and China making a huge sucking sound on the world's oil suppy, plus Nigeria, where the workers aren't interested in pumping any oil, plus Iran, whose oil we don't like, plus Venezuela, who doesn't like selling us oil, plus oil company consolidation that has reduced excess refinery capacity to near zero...
...and what do you get...
Suprisingly, oil that is still more affordable than it was in the early 1950s. With auto ownership and the cost of gas a greater % of earnings then than they are now, people were moving to suburban living and away from passenger trains in droves.
Is it reasonable to expect changed behavior now?
It's gonna have to get a whole lot worse before it really starts to effect long term behavior.
Samantha, I don't dispute your numbers, even though I'm writing 6 months later. But gas is only about 1/3 of the cost of owning a car. To be accurate you must include depreciation, insurance, maintenance, and repair. The Auto Club of Southern California, which has no stake in making car ownership seem LESS attractive, pegs that total cost at 56.2 cents a mile.
I'll assume 50 cents a mile to make calculation easier. So when I drive from Anaheim to West Hollywood for a medical appointment (by the shortest route) it costs me $35. Plus at least $20 for parking. Taking Metrolink, the Subway, and a bus costs $5 to drive to and from the station, and $5.50 for a day pass that is good on all 3 systems. OK, I'm 67 and get the Senior discount. But if I pay full fare it's still only $11. At full fare that's $16 compared to $55+.
Yes, it takes longer, but it is also much less tiring and frustrating. And most of the extra time is because of wait time when changing modes, not travel time. If schedules here were more like those in NYC it would be quicker than driving.
If people look at the TOTAL cost of driving many more will ride transit. And if that transit is rail, more will ride than would take a bus.
Jack
Like I said...
Forget all the rationazations and excuses issued by the oil company PR people. We got that same "corrected for inflation" smoke and mirrors in the '70s. They were making record profits then, too.
I don't care about comparisons to long ago or far away.
Compare the price of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline on March 19, 2003, with the prices today. Add the fact that the entire Bush family is heavily invested in the oil industry, the fact the Iraq USED TO BE a major oil producer. Then explain to me why you think it is India and China who are responsible for the skyrocketing oil prices.
To return to the original topic...
Speed and frequency are the keys to increased ridership
Electrification is the best defense against obsolescence as energy availability evolves.
Most people prefer driving to public transit, including commuter trains, for a variety of reasons, and they will, for the most part, continue to do so as long as they can afford it.
I am retired. I rode public transit to work for 39 of the 41 years that I worked for corporate America. I was, by the way, an accounting manager (CPA), controller, audit manager, IT audit manager, and Director of Internal Audit for the Australia subsidiary of a Fortune 250 company. My forte was cost accounting, business process engineering, and IT.
Advocates of public transit like to point out its many benefits, i.e. stress reduction, comfort, cost, etc. They talk about being able to read or snooze while avoiding the stress of driving. But in their zeal to promote public transit they overlook some of the downsides.
Over the years I have encountered many riders who were not very pleasant. Some must have believed that bathing was an inconvenient option to be exercised as infrequently as possible. Others did not know enough to stay home when they were sick, thereby infecting their fellow riders or at a minimum disturbing them with a hacking cough. Many didn't seem to know enough to cover their months while spreading their germs. People playing radios loud enough to hear through their ear phones, engaging in loud conversations, sprawling across several seats and daring people to ask them to move, are also features of riding public transit. And over the last decade, thanks to the cell phone craze, transit riders have been annoyed by jabbers yakking in their ear. Trying to read or snooze while a fellow passenger is shouting into his or her cell phone is a challenge.
Given an option most people who can afford to drive will continue to do so, even if it means traffic delays and the frustration that accompany them. Most of my friends who have tried public transit shun it. They would rather drive, with all of its hassles, because they believe it is more comfortable and convenient.
I participate in a continuing education program at the University of Texas. I take a commuter bus to school. But of the 1,500 people who participate in the program, fewer than 10 use public transit to get to the university. When I tell them that I take the bus to school, they look at me as if I have three eyes.
I have also noted with interest that many of those who advocate for long distance trains are those who can afford to travel first class. That is to say, they can afford a sleeper. I suspect their ardor for long distance trains would subside quickly if they had to sit up in a coach for a night or two.
Couldn't have put the tradeoff between auto and common-carrier modes of transportation any better myself.
The costs of owning and operating an automobile are certainly very high. One doesn't realize how much money is dropped into the care and feeding of that beast. On the other hand, the inconvenience of doing without a car entirely is something many of us don't want to consider.
One of the considerations of the high cost per vehicle mile of a car is a justification or perhaps rationalization for subsidy of common carrier modes. Many of us only think about the out-of-pocket gas cost when considering a car trip or perhaps weighing that trip against common-carrier options -- even direct costs such as per-mile maintenance and mileage life expectancy of a car are often not considered. On that basis, a heavily-subsidized transit trip may be competitive on total cost with an auto trip, which we internally subsidize as it were. To the extent that the transit or train trip has some social, environmental, or national-security-through-less-imported-oil benefit, transportation subsidies may be the correct policy choice.
On the other hand, members of the advocacy community can be prone to overstating the case. A car has per-mile and per-time costs -- you pay insurance, make loan payments, make mortgage payments on a house with a garage whether or not you drive very much. The actual per-mile direct costs are arguable, but I bet any report from an advocate will place those costs as high as possible in stating the case for trains. But as Samantha suggests, advocates may be overstating the case about a lot of things, including how a non-railfan passenger appreciates the amenities of train travel.
Trains are widely regarded or widely perceived as being either oil-saving or energy-saving. The electric Acelas are oil-saving, depending on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity, but I am not sure if they are energy saving, given their weight and the large amount of installed power required to accelerate to maintain schedules. The Amtrak average of 2700 BTU's per passenger mile is only a marginal improvement over the low-to-mid 3000 BTU range of auto and airline travel. There is a figure bandied about in a recent Parade article that trains use 1/5 the energy of cars. As far as I can tell, the Vision report made projections on an assumption that a single locomotive pulling a string of 8 Amfleet coaches uses 1.7 gallons of Diesel per mile, and making assumptions about load factor and seating density, works out to about 800 BTU/passenger mile, 1/5 the 4000 BTU/mile of a single occupant of a 30 MPH car, and about the same as intercity bus.
So tell me, where does Amtrak operate 8-car Amfleet trains with a single locomotive and without the added weight and air drag of a cabbage car for double-ended operation?
I am a railfan and a passenger rail advocate. I am also a Packer fan, but I like to maintain a realistic and not overstated view of the team's prospects, otherwise I get depressed when they lose games and I don't want sports to have that big an influence on my mental well being. I can't belong to a train advocacy group without getting a "rah, rah aren't trains great, ridership is way up, trains are going to solve the energy crisis" newsletter that I can't talk back to. It is hard to discuss the critics of Amtrak without being viewed as a traitor to the cause: I would like to be able to engage the critics of trains without having to treat them like Vikings fans.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet wrote: Like I said...Forget all the rationazations and excuses issued by the oil company PR people. We got that same "corrected for inflation" smoke and mirrors in the '70s. They were making record profits then, too.I don't care about comparisons to long ago or far away.Compare the price of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gasoline on March 19, 2003, with the prices today. Add the fact that the entire Bush family is heavily invested in the oil industry, the fact the Iraq USED TO BE a major oil producer. Then explain to me why you think it is India and China who are responsible for the skyrocketing oil prices.To return to the original topic...Speed and frequency are the keys to increased ridershipElectrification is the best defense against obsolescence as energy availability evolves.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Couldn't have put the tradeoff between auto and common-carrier modes of transportation any better myself.The costs of owning and operating an automobile are certainly very high. One doesn't realize how much money is dropped into the care and feeding of that beast. On the other hand, the inconvenience of doing without a car entirely is something many of us don't want to consider.One of the considerations of the high cost per vehicle mile of a car is a justification or perhaps rationalization for subsidy of common carrier modes. Many of us only think about the out-of-pocket gas cost when considering a car trip or perhaps weighing that trip against common-carrier options -- even direct costs such as per-mile maintenance and mileage life expectancy of a car are often not considered. On that basis, a heavily-subsidized transit trip may be competitive on total cost with an auto trip, which we internally subsidize as it were. To the extent that the transit or train trip has some social, environmental, or national-security-through-less-imported-oil benefit, transportation subsidies may be the correct policy choice.On the other hand, members of the advocacy community can be prone to overstating the case. A car has per-mile and per-time costs -- you pay insurance, make loan payments, make mortgage payments on a house with a garage whether or not you drive very much. The actual per-mile direct costs are arguable, but I bet any report from an advocate will place those costs as high as possible in stating the case for trains. But as Samantha suggests, advocates may be overstating the case about a lot of things, including how a non-railfan passenger appreciates the amenities of train travel.Trains are widely regarded or widely perceived as being either oil-saving or energy-saving. The electric Acelas are oil-saving, depending on the mix of fuels used to generate electricity, but I am not sure if they are energy saving, given their weight and the large amount of installed power required to accelerate to maintain schedules. The Amtrak average of 2700 BTU's per passenger mile is only a marginal improvement over the low-to-mid 3000 BTU range of auto and airline travel. There is a figure bandied about in a recent Parade article that trains use 1/5 the energy of cars. As far as I can tell, the Vision report made projections on an assumption that a single locomotive pulling a string of 8 Amfleet coaches uses 1.7 gallons of Diesel per mile, and making assumptions about load factor and seating density, works out to about 800 BTU/passenger mile, 1/5 the 4000 BTU/mile of a single occupant of a 30 MPH car, and about the same as intercity bus.So tell me, where does Amtrak operate 8-car Amfleet trains with a single locomotive and without the added weight and air drag of a cabbage car for double-ended operation?I am a railfan and a passenger rail advocate. I am also a Packer fan, but I like to maintain a realistic and not overstated view of the team's prospects, otherwise I get depressed when they lose games and I don't want sports to have that big an influence on my mental well being. I can't belong to a train advocacy group without getting a "rah, rah aren't trains great, ridership is way up, trains are going to solve the energy crisis" newsletter that I can't talk back to. It is hard to discuss the critics of Amtrak without being viewed as a traitor to the cause: I would like to be able to engage the critics of trains without having to treat them like Vikings fans.
There are a FEW places... Empire Service doesn't use those silly cabbages. The typical train is 5 or 6 Amfleet with a single P32. Apparently, it's no biggie to get thru the East River tunnel to go around the loop at Sunnyside and Buffalo, Toronto, Saratoga Springs, Schenectady, Rensselaer, Montreal and Rutland all have places to turn the trains.
http://jackbetts.blogspot.com/2008/05/nc-rail-ridership-climbing.html
If you took all of Big Oil's profits in the first quarter, and allocated 1/4 of it to the US and then applied all of it against the price of gasoline at the pump, it would reduce the cost from $3.60 to $3.35 per gallon.
That's it. 35 cents per gallon.
Sorry if that's an "inconvenient fact"!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.