From today's Charlotte Observer:
Amtrak reported today that its trains carried more passengers in July than any month in its 37-year history. More than 2.75 million people rode trains in July, a 14 percent increase from a year earlier.
In North Carolina, the Piedmont route between Charlotte and Raleigh saw a 43 percent jump in July passengers. Ticket revenue increased by 48 percent, outpacing the national revenue increase of 18.6 percent.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet wrote: From today's Charlotte Observer: Amtrak reported today that its trains carried more passengers in July than any month in its 37-year history. More than 2.75 million people rode trains in July, a 14 percent increase from a year earlier.In North Carolina, the Piedmont route between Charlotte and Raleigh saw a 43 percent jump in July passengers. Ticket revenue increased by 48 percent, outpacing the national revenue increase of 18.6 percent.
NC is barking up the right tree with their train service. If only GA would catch on....
I'm jealous!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
We have the Amtrak Crescent, which comes through your fine City, and Two Trains run jointly by NCDOT and Amtrak.
The Piedmont which originates in Raleigh and comes to Charlotte and the Carolinian which originates in Charlotte and goes to NYC via Raleigh, Richmond and DC.
A 4th train, Joint NCDOT and Amtrak has been approved and the money appropriated, it will begin service sometime around the end of the year as soon as the rolling stock is overhauled. That is in progress now.
Now if they will just get that Southeast corridor high speed project done........(Not that it's really high speed).
Phoebe Vet wrote: We have the Amtrak Crescent, which comes through your fine City, and Two Trains run jointly by NCDOT and Amtrak.The Piedmont which originates in Raleigh and comes to Charlotte and the Carolinian which originates in Charlotte and goes to NYC via Raleigh, Richmond and DC.A 4th train, Joint NCDOT and Amtrak has been approved and the money appropriated, it will begin service sometime around the end of the year as soon as the rolling stock is overhauled. That is in progress now.Now if they will just get that Southeast corridor high speed project done........(Not that it's really high speed).
And, there's still interested in a train to Asheville, although that's a lower priority.
Reporting an increase in riders and revenues is only half the story. It does not provide a complete picture. Moreover, looking at just one month is not good analytics. Most operating and financial managers look at trends over four, six, and twelve month periods. A one month blip does not say much about long term trends.
Amtrak has released preliminary figures. The official figures will be released in a week or two with the monthly operating report, which is not yet available. Audited figures will not be available until the end of the calendar year. These figures are usually adjusted for a variety of factors.
For the first nine months of FY 2008 Amtrak's riders increased 10.97 per cent over the corresponding 2007 period. Ticket revenues increased 13.6 per cent, but the cost recovery ratio only increased by .001 per cent, which means the ticket revenues barely outpaced the increase in system operating costs. Cost is a key element in the accounting equation.
Ridership on the Carolinian and Piedmont increased 18.7 and 27.5 per cent over 2007. Ticket revenues on these two trains increased 23.3 and 24.5 per cent. But they lost .7 cents and 12.7 cents per passenger mile before the allocation of other charges. The Carolinian nearly broke even before the allocation of other charges. It had a 13.2 per cent decrease in loss per passenger mile compared to 2007, whilst the Piedmont realized a 90 per cent increase in the cost per passenger mile.
Ridership on the Crescent increased 11.7 per cent, whilst ticket revenues increased 11 per cent. The loss per passenger mile increased to 27.6 cents per passenger mile before the allocation of other charges vs. 23.8 per cent in 2007. This is an increase of approximately 16 per cent.
The average load factor on the Carolinian was an impressive 71 per cent, whilst the load factors for the Piedmont and Crescent were approximately 43 and 50 per cent.
Good heavens! Is public transportation about to become cool? - a. s.
There is something strange going on here. I don't see that Amtrak has put more cars into service or added more trains. I would guess that the ridership increase translates directly into higher load factor, which on any other mode would be either pure profit, or in this case, operating subsidy reduction.
What has changed is that fuel has gotten much more expensive for everyone, and trains use their share of fuel and are not exempt. But for a back-of-the-envelope calculation of fuel use, it seems to me that fuel would account for about half the 13.6 percent increase in total costs, whether recovered by fares or by subsidy. Where is the remaining half of 13.6 percent coming from?
What I am saying is that all things being equal, the costs are incurred in proportion to seat miles, and costs per passenger mile should decline in inverse relation to increased load factor. What else besides fuel is more expensive for Amtrak?
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:
In addition to the fuel cost, don't forget the 35% pay increase retroactive to January 2000.
For the first eight months of FY 2008 train operating revenues were up approximately 12.5 per cent over 2007. Train operating expenses were up by approximately 12.9 per cent. I rounded the numbers. When calculated without the rounding, the train operating ratio is essentially unchanged, as I pointed out previously.
During the period Amtrak's train operations had significantly unfavorable expense variances compared to 2007 for salaries, wages, and overtime payments, offset partially by a reduction in employee benefits. Other unfavorable variances occurred in train operations, including access fees; fuel, propulsion power, and utilities; materials; facility, communication, and office; advertising and sales; casualty and other claims; and other expenses, offset in part by indirect costs capitalized to P&E.
Only two of Amtrak's 11 roll-up expense categories had favorable 2008-2007 variances. The largest variances occurred in wages and overtime, which were up nearly 23 per cent; fuel, propulsion power and utilities, which were up approximately 30 per cent; and other expenses, which rose by approximately 16 per cent.
Unfavorable expense variance. Gotta try that one on my wife. "Honey, I just got back from the model railroad hobby shop, and our family budget has experienced an unfavorable expense variance."
So Amtrak has experienced an increase in ridership, but any improvement in their finances has been offset by increased fuel cost, a pay increase for employees, and a bunch of other expenses. Not knowing about these other costs, seeing that Amtrak expenses grew in proportion to increased ridership may suggest that Amtrak is not seeing any productivity gains, which is not the case.
Owing to increased load factor, they are getting more fuel efficient and their labor is getting more productive, but this is offset with cost increases for fuel and wages. Kind of like joining a car pool and seeing your gas credit card bill stay the same. You are saving gas, but the price of gas has gone up too.
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
gardendance wrote:That's why proposals have a 'do nothing' scencario. Despite carpooling your gas bill did not decrease, but what would have happened to your gas bill if you hadn't carpooled?
If you have three people drive in one car, as opposed to driving individuallyin three cars, the amount of gasoline burned goes down for that portion of the trip where two of the drivers park their car and join in the car pool.
If the price of the gasoline increases, the reduction in the volume consumed is can be offset partially or completely by a price increase. In addition, depending on the size the the vehicle, the added weight may reduce the miles per gallon. And the driver may see an increase in his maintenance costs and insurance rates because he is hauling people to work, assuming that is where he is going, as opposed to driving solo.
This is what has happened to Amtrak. It is hauling more passengers with a slightly lower fuel burn per train mile and by implication per passenger. But the cost of the fuel has rising dramatically, thereby offseting the reduction in volume. In addition, most of the other costs associated with train operations have risen, some nearly as much as the fuel, thereby negating the gap between revenues and costs that one would have otherwise expected to widen.
At the end of the day one needs to look at all the costs.
Samantha wrote: For the first eight months of FY 2008 train operating revenues were up approximately 12.5 per cent over 2007. Train operating expenses were up by approximately 12.9 per cent. I rounded the numbers. When calculated without the rounding, the train operating ratio is essentially unchanged, as I pointed out previously. During the period Amtrak's train operations had significantly unfavorable expense variances compared to 2007 for salaries, wages, and overtime payments, offset partially by a reduction in employee benefits. Other unfavorable variances occurred in train operations, including access fees; fuel, propulsion power, and utilities; materials; facility, communication, and office; advertising and sales; casualty and other claims; and other expenses, offset in part by indirect costs capitalized to P&E.Only two of Amtrak's 11 roll-up expense categories had favorable 2008-2007 variances. The largest variances occurred in wages and overtime, which were up nearly 23 per cent; fuel, propulsion power and utilities, which were up approximately 30 per cent; and other expenses, which rose by approximately 16 per cent.
It sounds like some Amtrak fare increases are in order. Consider the following.
Later this month my wife and I will be making a round trip from Shreveport to Chicago on the Texas Eagle (thruway between Shreveport and Longview). With our senior discount the Amtrak fare is $354. While we've driven straight through before, 15 hours behind the wheel is a killer so we now take two days when we drive. Using just 1/2 the the IRS allowance for car usage plus a motel and additional meals enroute, the cost of this trip by car comes to $540. The undiscounted Amtrak fare could be increased 25 percent and still be cheaper than driving. If only one person were traveling, even with the fare hike, the cost of this trip by train would still be about half the cost by car. Of course driving is less costly if more than two persons are making the trip.
Cost isn't the only factor to consider. Allowing for the usual lateness of the Eagle, I figure our trip will take nearly 24 hours each way. Though it's slower, the train will take us only one day each way vs two days by car.
The cost comparisons for other routes will be somewhat different but, based on this example, I feel certain there are opportunities for Amtrak to increase fares and still be competetive with auto travel.
Mark
At least Amtrak's ridership and revenue increases could absorb most of the cost increases, particularly for fuel and labor.
How does a retro-active wage increase work? Is this a one-time charge in corporate overhead?
Will the absence of the one-time charge next year cushion a possible decrease in ridership when people can less-afford travel or gas prices fall?
I imagine Illinois' train performance is simliar to North Carolina's and will quell some anxiety over State support.
The retro-active wage settlement appears to have been charged to FY08 train operations.
If the settlement consisted solely of a lump sum payment for past wages, it would be a one time labor charge for FY08. If it is a retro-active adjustment of wages, the sum paid from the settlement date to FY08 would be a one off, but future labor costs would reflect the adjustment in the wages. In this case Amtrak's future labor costs, as well as any benefits tied to wages, would increase by the amount of the settlement.
Had Amtrak's costs not risen in line with the increase in riders and revenues, it would have realized improved financial performance. It would have lost less money on train operations. But its operating costs rose in parallel with the increase in revenues. This suggests that Amtrak is challenged to hold its train operating costs in line.
The train operating costs, by the way, are before other charges, e.g. depreciation, interest, infrastructure management, etc. It is these costs that turn some of the positive train operating results negative. For example, NEC revenues cover its train operating expenses and make a contribution to the other charges. Unfortunately, the other charges are so great that the NEC turns an operating profit into a NEC corridor loss.
The price of gasoline has dropped 24 per cent in August. What impact this will have on Amtrak's riders is not clear. It will depend on whether it is signaling a long term decline in the price of gasoline or whether it is a relatively short term price adjustment. If it is a downward trend that is with us for awhile, some of Amtrak's new found riders are likely to head back to their cars. A decrease in riders will result in a decrease in revenues unless Amtrak is able to offset it with a price increase. This is unlikely given the relatively weak economy. To compensate for any decrease in riders and revenues, Amtrak would have to decrease its cost in line with the decrease in revenues. Unfortunately, Amtrak, given the nature of its operations, would have a tough time accomplishing this goal.
A significant portion of Amtrak's costs are fixed, e.g. equipment, infrastructure, labor, management, etc. Normally, labor is a variable cost, but in Amtrak's case, because of labor contracts, it cannot shift its labor costs as quickly as a firm that is not bound by similar contracts. Moreover, due to the nature of its operations, it cannot shift the costs of its product line as quickly as its competitors.
Southwest Airlines has 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. If the economy goes south, it can reduce the number of flights to 40 or 50 and still have a viable operation. It can park the excess airplanes, layoff the crews, and save on the other variable costs, e.g. fuel, maintenance, etc.
Outside of the NEC, Chicago, and California corridors, Amtrak would be hard pressed to reduce its schedules, since they tend to be thread bare. Reducing the schedule of the Sunset Limited, for example, from three days a week to two days a week would be a challenge. Three days a week is a barebones schedule; reducing it to two days a week would make it even more so. On top of the economic and marketing considerations Amtrak would have to consider the political implications. If it attempted to reduce the schedule of the Sunset to adjust its expenses, it would be beset by an army of angry federal and state politicians representing the interests of the states that it passes through.
Setting fares is a challenge. Amtrak has to consider competing air and bus fares, as well as the cost of driving. Moreover, it has to consider time, convenience, and comfort factors. And it has to consider its cost structure.
I assume that your fare is for two seniors. I checked to see what it would cost you to travel from Shreveport to Chicago on September 3rd and return to Shreveport on September 10th. I looked at train, airline, and bus fares as well as driving a car similar to my Corolla. These are the factors that Amtrak has to consider in setting its fares.
On Amtrak a coach seat would cost $352, which is close to the fare that you quoted. The trip would take 21 hours and 14 minutes, assuming the Texas Eagle is on time. Don't bet the farm on it. It is infamous for running late. In addition to the coach fare, you probably will have some incremental meal expense in the dinning car, i.e. the difference between what it costs you to eat at home and what it would cost you to eat in the dinning or lounge car. A roomette would cost $737.60, but meals are included in the price of the room.
Several airlines are quoting $399 for two people from Shreveport to Chicago and return. Northwest has four flights a day that offer this fare. Continental has considerably more flights, but it wants $528 or $176 more than the coach train fare. The best flying time is 4 hours and 10 minutes. Excluding students and retirees, time is a consideration for most people. For them the difference between the airfare and train fare ($47) is immaterial. And for business people the $176 is immaterial. Time is very important for most business people.
Greyhound wants $275.10 for two round trip tickets from Shreveport to Chicago. The travel time is 20 hours and 50 minutes or slightly quicker than the Texas Eagle. In addition to the fare, you probably would have some incremental meal expense at the transfer points.
Driving a car similar to my Corolla would cost $473. This is the fully allocated cost, which includes fuel, maintenance, depreciation, insurance, etc. It also includes the number of miles over the life of the vehicle and its estimated residual value. The estimated driving time is 13 hours and 32 minutes according to MapQuest. In addition, you probably would incur some incremental meal expense on the road, depending on where you eat, and you would have the cost of a motel, since you don't want to drive all the way through.
When Amtrak sets its fares it has to take all of these factors into consideration. Its coach fare is more than the bus fare and only slightly less than the best airfare. When meals are factored into the matrix, the total cost of traveling by train could equal the cost of flying. Even the difference between driving and the train is not terribly significant ($121), excluding the motel cost. If you need to rent a car in Chicago, driving, even with the two extra motel nights, could be less than taking the train, depending on how long you rented the car in Chicago.
If Amtrak was a business, it would have to set its prices to cover all of its costs and provide a return to its shareholders. But it is not a business. It sets its fares to respond to the market factors discussed above, with the understanding that its federal and state government partners will cover its loses.
In a nutshell, if Amtrak raises its fares, it will drive some potential passengers to alternatives, i.e. planes, buses, and personal vehicles. The trick, which is more difficult than most people realize, is to raise the fares without chasing off so many passengers as to result in lower rather than higher revenues. Doing so is a big whoops!
Samantha wrote: Setting fares is a challenge. Amtrak has to consider competing air and bus fares, as well as the cost of driving. Moreover, it has to consider time, convenience, and comfort factors. And it has to consider its cost structure. In a nutshell, if Amtrak raises its fares, it will drive some potential passengers to alternatives, i.e. planes, buses, and personal vehicles. The trick, which is more difficult than most people realize, is to raise the fares without chasing off so many passengers as to result in lower rather than higher revenues. Doing so is a big whoops!
I fully agree but think, in the case of the Eagle at least, coach fares could be increased by 15 percent and still be competetive. Forget the business travelers and those for whom time is the major factor. They'd still fly even if Amtrak gave free rides. Amtrak's market is those who don't want to fly or endure the rigors of a long bus ride and those who want to see the scenery. For these persons it pretty much boils down to a choice between train and auto travel. I've driven between Shreveport and Chicago many times and 15 hours is about the time it takes. You could make it in the stated 13-1/2 hours if you had either a catheter or carried a tin can in your car and brown bagged it or ate only at Mickey D's along the way. Even 24 hours on the train spent relaxing, quaffing a drink or two, reading, playing cards, etc. is far more pleasent than that kind of a car trip.
KCSfan wrote: Samantha wrote: Setting fares is a challenge. Amtrak has to consider competing air and bus fares, as well as the cost of driving. Moreover, it has to consider time, convenience, and comfort factors. And it has to consider its cost structure. In a nutshell, if Amtrak raises its fares, it will drive some potential passengers to alternatives, i.e. planes, buses, and personal vehicles. The trick, which is more difficult than most people realize, is to raise the fares without chasing off so many passengers as to result in lower rather than higher revenues. Doing so is a big whoops! I fully agree but think, in the case of the Eagle at least, coach fares could be increased by 15 percent and still be competetive. Forget the business travelers and those for whom time is the major factor. They'd still fly even if Amtrak gave free rides. Amtrak's market is those who don't want to fly or endure the rigors of a long bus ride and those who want to see the scenery. For these persons it pretty much boils down to a choice between train and auto travel. I've driven between Shreveport and Chicago many times and 15 hours is about the time it takes. You could make it in the stated 13-1/2 hours if you had either a catheter or carried a tin can in your car and brown bagged it or ate only at Mickey D's along the way. Even 24 hours on the train spent relaxing, quaffing a drink or two, reading, playing cards, etc. is far more pleasent than that kind of a car trip.Mark
Taking the Eagle from Texas to Chicago is an attractive alternative to the bus or driving. I agree. I take the Eagle two or three times a year to Chicago and beyond.
Whether the Eagle could tolerate a 15 per cent fare increase is problematic. For the first three quarters of FY08, its occupancy rate was right at 50 per cent. The loss per passenger mile increased over the first nine months of FY07. Moreover, although I don't have the numbers for the occupancy rate south of St. Louis, based on my observations, the train carries a hefty load north of St. Louis, but the loads south of St. Louis are relatively light, and they are very light south of Fort Worth, except for the sleepers, in part because of its reputation for being tardy. Thus, a 15 per cent increase in fares might reduce the load factor and, therefore, the revenues even more.
Why is it always about the Eagle?
The abismal Eagle schedule has got to be a significant reason for not taking the train in Texas: 10:05 hours southbound from Dallas and 8:20 hours nourthbound from San Antonio - and it's only 314 miles. It's 2:31 hours for 83 miles just from San Antonio to Austin. The route is not all that bad to wind up with a 38mph average speed, and that's the faster northbound train. Get the the schedule down to six hours and maybe the load factor will improve.
A faster train also needs to be convenient for travel. The schedule does not permit a day trip between San Antonio and Dallas. However, the sb train would do better with the 12:20pm departure from Dallas getting people to San Antonio by supper time rather than by the late news. Unfortunately, the nb could be adjusted to arrive in Little Rock, Saint Louis, and Chicago an hour earlier; but unless the Eagle kills two hours in Dallas, Little Rock or St Louis, it would get in too late to afford travelers a useful afternoon.
What if the rail fare was reduced? The Amtrak fare between Chicago and Milwaukee is about $0.37 a mile one way while the monthly pass is just $0.08 a mile. The rushhour train carrying heavily discounted commuters is full and the others are virtually empty.
What's the use of running empty trains? The revenue may not increase, but the service will be relevant to a larger public.
Not only is the Texas Eagle schedule padded like a hockey goalie, especially in Texas, it cannot even keep to it.
As of August 15th Number 21 was late by an average of 104 minutes arriving into Fort Worth. By the time it got to San Antonio it was late by an average of 126 minutes. That's more than two hours, but who is counting? Instead of arriving in San Antonio at 10:25 p.m., it arrives usually after midnight. On 37 occasions this year it arrived after 2:00 a.m., and on two occasions it did not arrive until 7:30 a.m. Its departure time from San Antonio is 7:00 a.m. On those occasions when the train is expected to arrive in San Antonio after midnight, passengers connecting with Number 2 are taken off the train in Austin and placed on a bus that takes them to Houston.
Number 22 has not been much better. It has been late arriving into Fort Worth by an average of 67 minutes. At Chicago it was on time 0% during July. And it has only been on time 2.8 per cent of the time in 2008. Amtrak counts a long distance train on time if it arrives within 30 minutes of the advertised. This means that Number 22 was late at its end point by more than 30 minutes 97.2 per cent of the time.
The major culprit is freight train congestion on the UP and BNSF. The Eagle runs on a single track railroad for most of its route. It is chockers with traffic. Thus, Eagle passengers get numerous opportunities to watch Texas Longhorns from a stationary platform.
Another problem is a circuitous route between Dallas and San Antonio. Whereas it is only 275 highway miles between Big D and the Alamo City, it is 314 miles via the Eagle route. Out of Dallas the train heads west to Fort Worth, a distance of approximately 32 miles. Then it runs south on the BNSF to Temple, which is not the most direct route between Fort Worth and Austin or San Antonio. From Temple it runs over the former Katy line to Taylor, which is another dog leg. At Taylor it picks up the UP line for the run through Round Rock to Austin. And at San Antonio it has to loop around to get to the Amtrak Station, which is located on the old SP line.
Because of the schedule, as well as the train's inability to adhere to it, the Fort Worth crew gets off the train in Austin, together with the dinning car crew, and a new train crew takes the train from Austin to San Antonio. In the morning a train crew takes the train from San Antonio to Austin, where they hand the train over to a Fort Worth crew, and go back to San Antonio in a van. This just ups the cost even more of running the Eagle.
As noted Number 21 gets 10 hours and 5 minutes to go from Dallas to San Antonio, whereas Number 22 gets 8 hours and 20 minutes for the reverse trip. By comparison MapQuest says that it should take 4 hours and 29 minutes to drive it, and Greyhound, which has 18 schedules a day between Dallas and San Antonio, runs it off in approximately 5 hours and 30 minutes. Most people, irrespective of the cost, are not going to spend more than 10 hours getting from Dallas to San Antonio when they can get there in a fraction of the time by alternative means.
Amtrak has been offering a $26 promotional fare from San Antonio to Dallas and a $31 dollar fare from Dallas to San Antonio. But the word is out. Who wants to arrive in San Antonio at 12:30 a.m. in a station where getting a taxi or public transport is difficult at best?
KUT Austin (NPR) reported recently on the increase in Amtrak's ridership. The reporter got many facts wrong, although the thrust of her reporting was correct. It was obvious that she has never been on the Eagle. She noted, however, that Amtrak has a reputation in Texas for not being able to run its trains on time.
The best way to improve passenger rail service in Texas would be to discontinue the Eagle, along with the equally dismal performing Sunset Limited, and use the monies, together with state funds, to begin developing a true rapid rail corridor in the Texas Triangle. People will use the train if it is frequent, reliable, safe, comfortable, and economical. But they will not flock to a consistently late running, once a day train, which serves stations with signs in the parking lots advising motorists not to park their cars there overnight.
Both Samantha and Harvey are right on target with their remarks about the Eagle. It's nb schedule of 31hrs-14min to cover the 1305 miles between San Antonio and Chicago equates to a blazing 41.75 mph average speed. But I think its chronic inability to maintain even that pathetic schedule is a greater disgrace. The performance report I remember seeing for the latest month indicated the Eagle arrived in Chicago at least 2 hours late every single day and it averaged arriving over 3 hours late on each trip that month.
The Amtrak website even has a "Service Alert" advising passengers to expect delays of 2-6 hours and suggests those traveling from St. Louis to Chicago should consider booking their reservation on one of the regional Lincoln Service trains rather than the Eagle.
Delays are primarily attributed to "freight congestion" and track work. Both Amtrak and Texas rail advocate groups have repeatedly complained to the Union Pacific about the train's delays. Despite UP assurances of improvement, the Eagle's performance hasn't gotten any better and may, in fact, have deteriorated recently. I personally think the UP would be delighted to have both the Eagle and the Sunset Ltd off its rails and wouldn't put it past them to purposefuly delay both trains in hope a decline in ridership will lead to their eventual discontinuance. If that's the UP's strategy it's at least temporarily been thwarted by high gas prices which have prompted recent increases in passenger numbers. Unfortunately new first time riders are likely to be turned off from future train travel after experiencing the miserable performance of the Eagle.
I would hate to see the Eagle discontinued since it's the only train serving my neck of the woods and we do ride it occasionally. I used to recommend to family and friends that they consider taking the train but no longer do so because I'm embarrased by its shortcomings. If there's no hope for future performance improvement it may be best to discontinue the train - just shoot the Eagle and put the poor thing out of its misery.
Samantha wrote: Southwest Airlines has 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. If the economy goes south, it can reduce the number of flights to 40 or 50 and still have a viable operation. It can park the excess airplanes, layoff the crews, and save on the other variable costs, e.g. fuel, maintenance, etc.
At least Amtrak's not going to decrease it's Dallas to Houston service anytime soon.
gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: Southwest Airlines has 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. If the economy goes south, it can reduce the number of flights to 40 or 50 and still have a viable operation. It can park the excess airplanes, layoff the crews, and save on the other variable costs, e.g. fuel, maintenance, etc. At least Amtrak's not going to decrease it's Dallas to Houston service anytime soon.
If Southwest can fill 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston, I see no reason why a 150 MPH Acela type service running 5 or six trains a day in each direction couldn't capture a significant portion of that. Surely big flat rural Texas could build a relatively straight ROW.
OK Samantha. You may now tell me why investment in such a service would be foolish.
Samantha didn't say Southwest fills their flights, she says they have 60 flights.
It's a bit ironic that some of the talk on this thread is about how increased passengers has not overcome increased cost, and so has not resulted in increased surplus money, but that decreased passengers WILL result in decreased surplus money, or rather increased deficit money. I almost forgot myself and typed 'profit' and 'loss', forgetting that the passenger railroads we're talking about are not for profit enterprises.
Southwest's load factor in 2007 was 72.6.
They operate 3400 flts a day with 527 planes.
Amtrak gave the Dallas to Houston market a go. It failed. And the service was discontinued.
I was using an analogy to show that a business with a high demand has plenty of wiggle room to adjust its cost. Amtrak, outside of its major corridor operations, does not have the flexibility to adjust its cost structure like a real business.
Phoebe Vet wrote: gardendance wrote: Samantha wrote: Southwest Airlines has 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston. If the economy goes south, it can reduce the number of flights to 40 or 50 and still have a viable operation. It can park the excess airplanes, layoff the crews, and save on the other variable costs, e.g. fuel, maintenance, etc. At least Amtrak's not going to decrease it's Dallas to Houston service anytime soon.If Southwest can fill 60 flights a day between Dallas and Houston, I see no reason why a 150 MPH Acela type service running 5 or six trains a day in each direction couldn't capture a significant portion of that. Surely big flat rural Texas could build a relatively straight ROW.OK Samantha. You may now tell me why investment in such a service would be foolish.
Getting Texans to use trains will require two biggies.
The first will be a sea change in attitudes about taking the train. People in Texas think car first and airplane second. Less than one per cent, if that many, people in Texas think train. And until driving or flying become cost prohibitive - we are not even close to that point - trains are not likely to play a significant role in the Lone Star State, except for commuter rail.
The second is investment capital. Amtrak estimates that it would cost $25 to $40 million a mile to build high speed rail. And this does not include the real estate and equipment costs. Thus, a line that paralleled I-45 from Dallas to Houston would cost approximately $7.8 billion before real estate and equipment costs. The real estate costs would probably bring the figure well north of $10 billion.
Texas looked at high speed rail about 15 years ago. The fare box would not cover the cost; therefore, the proponents looked to the state for support, and the state said no. Given the debt loads being carried by Texans, as well as Americans, I doubt that the state would now say yes to high speed rail.
A more feasible albeit not ready for prime time plan would be rapid rail. But it won't work until the cost of driving and flying, driven by congestion, gets much higher than it is. Even it would require a significant outlay of money by the state and federal governments. And for the reasons cited I don't see it happening in the near future.
The most likely next passenger rail system in Texas will be the Austin to San Antonio commuter rail service and possibly the Houston to Galveston rail corridor. They will not be high speed. In fact, they probably won't even be rapid rail, which I define as trains that average 80 mph between end points.
Thanks Samantha:
I knew Eeyore wouldn't let me down.
The attitude you describe is indicative of the "chicken vs the egg" senario the Amtrak faces.
People don't ride the trains because the are too slow, too infrequent, and don't go enough places. Amtrak won't make the trains faster, more frequent, or add more destinations because not enough people ride them.
So here we sit.
It's not about how much money, it's about priorities. How many miles of high speed rail could we lay for the price of ONE aircraft carrier, or for the cost of the 23 new (european built) helicopters for the President's transportation desires?
Incidentally, that is not a criticism of either party, but of the entire beltway mentality. Twisted priorities.
Phoebe Vet wrote:The attitude you describe is indicative of the "chicken vs the egg" senario the Amtrak faces.People don't ride the trains because the are too slow, too infrequent, and don't go enough places. Amtrak won't make the trains faster, more frequent, or add more destinations because not enough people ride them.So here we sit.It's not about how much money, it's about priorities. How many miles of high speed rail could we lay for the price of ONE aircraft carrier, or for the cost of the 23 new (european built) helicopters for the President's transportation desires?
Big ditos and hazahs to Phoebe Vet. Samantha always uses the poor performance of underfunded Amtrak to argue against any need to invest in passenger trains. The reason why Texans think cars first and planes second is because infrastructure that suports autos and airlines is well funded. If rail infrastructure were funded on the par with highways and airways passenger trains would be a viable alternative for travel in Texas.
Oh, by the way, according to my crystal ball that I have next to my computer we will soon be treated to a lecture by Samantha stating that Texans will never leave behind their cars for trains, she will probably throw in some comment about her red neck neighbors and their Smart cars.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.