Amtrak's future

[Anonymous]

I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day.  Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)

Example:  Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.

How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required.  If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first.  If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.

Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.   

Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day.    That Carbondale and  GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.

Samantha said, "Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day.  That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases."

The population at the corridor end points, as well as population along the corridor, is only one indicator of the potential market for passenger train service. 

A significant determinant is corridor congestion and its impact on alternative modes of transport.  The potential corridors in Texas are not congested to the point where people are looking seriously at rail as an alternative.  At least not now!  People in Texas, for the most part, are happy flying or driving between the Lone Star state's major cities.

Population patterns are another important factor.  Although some people are moving to town, most of them live in the suburbs.  The location of the suburbs is a significant determinate in gauging the utility of passenger rail in the potential Texas corridors.  

The affluent suburbs in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as well as the better off neighborhoods, are north of downtown.  In Houston the pattern is the same.  A passenger rail corridor connecting the two cities would pass through the affluent Houston and suburban areas that are most likely to be a market for passenger rail.  But it would not serve the more affluent Dallas areas. 

The potential market, therefore, is not the Dallas SMSA or the Houston SMSA, but only the downtown communities, which are relatively sparse, as well as the southern portion of the Dallas SMSA and the northern portion of the Houston SMSA.  The residents of the Dallas SMSA most likely to be traveling on a commercial carrier to Houston would find it more convenient to go to Love Field and hop on Southwest, whereas the pattern would be reversed for Houston.  The residents south of downtown Houston would find it more convenient to go to Hobby Field to catch a flight to Dallas. 

Having lived in New York (I'll be there at the end of this month), I agree that expanding the highways and airways is a challenge.  But in Texas, as well as many other areas of the country, there is plenty of room to expand both.  In fact, a new toll road just opened east of Austin that carries motorists around the city.  And several new toll roads have opened or will open soon in the Dallas area.  This is why I think it will be a long time before there will be a market for three to five passenger trains movements a day between any of Texas' large cities, except for commuter operations.

[oltmannd]

I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day.  Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)

Example:  Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.

How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required.  If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first.  If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.

Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.   

Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day.    That Carbondale and  GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.

Samantha said, "Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day.  That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases."

The population at the corridor end points, as well as population along the corridor, is only one indicator of the potential market for passenger train service. 

A significant determinant is corridor congestion and its impact on alternative modes of transport.  The potential corridors in Texas are not congested to the point where people are looking seriously at rail as an alternative.  At least not now!  People in Texas, for the most part, are happy flying or driving between the Lone Star state's major cities.

Population patterns are another important factor.  Although some people are moving to town, most of them live in the suburbs.  The location of the suburbs is a significant determinate in gauging the utility of passenger rail in the potential Texas corridors.  

The affluent suburbs in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as well as the better off neighborhoods, are north of downtown.  In Houston the pattern is the same.  A passenger rail corridor connecting the two cities would pass through the affluent Houston and suburban areas that are most likely to be a market for passenger rail.  But it would not serve the more affluent Dallas areas. 

The potential market, therefore, is not the Dallas SMSA or the Houston SMSA, but only the downtown communities, which are relatively sparse, as well as the southern portion of the Dallas SMSA and the northern portion of the Houston SMSA.  The residents of the Dallas SMSA most likely to be traveling on a commercial carrier to Houston would find it more convenient to go to Love Field and hop on Southwest, whereas the pattern would be reversed for Houston.  The residents south of downtown Houston would find it more convenient to go to Hobby Field to catch a flight to Dallas. 

Having lived in New York (I'll be there at the end of this month), I agree that expanding the highways and airways is a challenge.  But in Texas, as well as many other areas of the country, there is plenty of room to expand both.  In fact, a new toll road just opened east of Austin that carries motorists around the city.  And several new toll roads have opened or will open soon in the Dallas area.  This is why I think it will be a long time before there will be a market for three to five passenger trains movements a day between any of Texas' large cities, except for commuter operations.

Texas is very rural in between the large cities, well, if the others are like Dallas, anyway.  That's not exactly the case further east.  It's not exactly empty between Buffalo, Cleveland Columbus and Chicago.  Charlotte to Raleigh/Cary/Durham is pretty much a congested mess the whole way on I-85 these days.

There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day.  (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville.  The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)

[Phoebe Vet]

Charlotte to Raleigh has 3 trains a day now and will have a 4th by spring.  The money has been apropriated and the equipment is currently being prepared.  Two of them go all the way to NYC, and the extention of the northeast corridor to Raleigh and possibly to Charlotte is in progress.

http://www.sehsr.org/

 

[HarveyK400]

There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day.  (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville. 

I would concur from our experience around Chicago that Atlanta - Jacksoville has potential has potential for at least two round trips.  A Charlotte, Chattanooga, or Birmingham - Jacksonvile round trip could fill in the schedule. A Chicago - Florida long-distance train most likely would pass in the night or run through Savannah.

Having driven to Florida a number of times, the problematic part of an Atlanta - Jacksonville route is going through Jessup.  The more populous and viable route would be by way of Warner-Robbins, Cordele, Tifton, and Valdosta along the I-75 corridor from Macon.  In fact, Valdosta - Atlanta may support a pair of trains with a reasonable revenue/direct cost ratio.

I do not know why Georgia chose the Jessup route for study other than it being shorter in length to Jacksonville.  Why would the State target an out-of-state market 5-6 hours away that would have more attractive air service?  This is a failing of the "inter-city" mind-set.

Even so, the Conventional and Moderate Jessup Alternatives come in with a projected operating ratio of 30% and the High-Speed Alternative only achieves 49%.  It's understandable that this has not moved forward.  The State could minimize it's cost by half by choosing the Conventional Service instead of High Speed; but reach only a third of the potential riders. 

The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds:

From what I can glean from aerials, the Atlanta - Macon route is not engineering for extensive 79-mph speeds without tilt equipment, let alone 110-mph except for relatively short sprints.  Through Jessup may offer longer stretches of sustained 110-mph running; but the train can't fly.

[Anonymous]

I think there are quite a few where the poplulation could support 3-5 RT per day.  Just play "connect the dots" with metro areas >1M in population that are 150 miles or less apart and you'd have a pretty good network of corridors (is that contradiction in terms?)

Example:  Buffalo, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville, Louisville.

How you connect the dots and which dots get connected first would depend on the work required.  If an incremental upgrade of an existing route is available, then that would likely happen first.  If a geography and other factors mean a new route, then that would likely happen later.

Connecting dots that are greater than 1 million in population does not address the relative success and opportunities for intercity passenger services to places like Grand Rapids, MI and Carbondale, IL.   

Samantha was suggesting there weren't corridors worth 3-5 RT per day.    That Carbondale and  GR work so well suggests that connecting the 1M+ cities with more frequent and faster service would be even more sucessful.

Samantha said, "Outside of the present corridors, with a few exceptions, I don't think there are many high density corridors that could support three to five passenger trains a day.  That, of course, is likely to change as the population of the United States increases."

The population at the corridor end points, as well as population along the corridor, is only one indicator of the potential market for passenger train service. 

A significant determinant is corridor congestion and its impact on alternative modes of transport.  The potential corridors in Texas are not congested to the point where people are looking seriously at rail as an alternative.  At least not now!  People in Texas, for the most part, are happy flying or driving between the Lone Star state's major cities.

Population patterns are another important factor.  Although some people are moving to town, most of them live in the suburbs.  The location of the suburbs is a significant determinate in gauging the utility of passenger rail in the potential Texas corridors.  

The affluent suburbs in the Dallas Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as well as the better off neighborhoods, are north of downtown.  In Houston the pattern is the same.  A passenger rail corridor connecting the two cities would pass through the affluent Houston and suburban areas that are most likely to be a market for passenger rail.  But it would not serve the more affluent Dallas areas. 

The potential market, therefore, is not the Dallas SMSA or the Houston SMSA, but only the downtown communities, which are relatively sparse, as well as the southern portion of the Dallas SMSA and the northern portion of the Houston SMSA.  The residents of the Dallas SMSA most likely to be traveling on a commercial carrier to Houston would find it more convenient to go to Love Field and hop on Southwest, whereas the pattern would be reversed for Houston.  The residents south of downtown Houston would find it more convenient to go to Hobby Field to catch a flight to Dallas. 

Having lived in New York (I'll be there at the end of this month), I agree that expanding the highways and airways is a challenge.  But in Texas, as well as many other areas of the country, there is plenty of room to expand both.  In fact, a new toll road just opened east of Austin that carries motorists around the city.  And several new toll roads have opened or will open soon in the Dallas area.  This is why I think it will be a long time before there will be a market for three to five passenger trains movements a day between any of Texas' large cities, except for commuter operations.

Texas is very rural in between the large cities, well, if the others are like Dallas, anyway.  That's not exactly the case further east.  It's not exactly empty between Buffalo, Cleveland Columbus and Chicago.  Charlotte to Raleigh/Cary/Durham is pretty much a congested mess the whole way on I-85 these days.

There have even been studies showing Atlanta to Jacksonville could support 3 trains a day.  (the problematic part of the route is Jesup, GA to Jacksonville.  The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)

Your assessment of the "space" between Texas' major cities is largely correct.  However, there is one exception.  Between Dallas/Fort Worth and San Antonio there are several sizeable communities, i.e. Cleburne, Waco, Temple, Round Rock, Austin, and San Marcos.  This is known as the I-35 corridor, and it probably will be the first intercity corridor in Texas to see enhanced passenger rail service.

[blue streak 1]

Samantha: I didn't realize DFW to SAT was the highest density corridor. Its been a while but isn't the ROW rather tight in certain locations? We all know extra tracks will be needed.

[Anonymous]

Samantha: I didn't realize DFW to SAT was the highest density corridor. Its been a while but isn't the ROW rather tight in certain locations? We all know extra tracks will be needed.

Approximately half of Texas' population lives along the I-35 corridor.  That is to say, they live within approximately 50 miles of the corridor, although most of them live closer than that.  The most recent Census Bureau estimate puts Texas's population at 23,507,000.

I am not sure what you mean by tight.  The current line is chockers with freight traffic.  Also, the line from Dallas to San Antonio is not direct.  It runs west from Dallas to Fort Worth, then south to Temple, then a dog leg over to Austin, and then south to San Antonio.

To implement rapid rail service between Dallas/Fort Worth and San Antonio would require, in my opinion, a serious upgrade of those portions of the existing lines that could be used, as well as a build or rebuild of lines that are not used for passenger service.   

[Anonymous]

When Amtrak operates over a frt road, they pay by the train-mile, so more trains proportionally increases costs.

Amtrak's game is won and lost on equipment and crew costs.  Generally, the faster you can cycle the equipment an crews, the lower the cost.

Faster service has higher value and faster equipment and crew cycles have lower cost.

...just look at Acela.

There are two kinds of costs when you operate a train.  Fixed costs, which you pay whether you ever move a train or not.  Fixed costs are the same whether you run one train a day, or 1 train an hour.  And direct costs which are incurred by actually running the train.  Fixed costs include stations, ticket agents, baggage handlers, janitors, maintainence facilities, calendar based maint. etc.  Direct costs include fuel, track mileage fees. train crews, mileage based maint. etc.

Running an additional train per day increases the direct costs by each trip, but has only a one time increase in fixed cost, which is the purchase of the additional train.

The total cost of running each train actually goes down because the fixed cost is now divided by two trains instead of one.  The fixed cost per train goes down with each additional train.  The only limiting factor is how many passengers will actually use the service.

Obviously, an empty train reduces net income.  That is why I suggested a small train for the local.  perhaps even a DMU.

Whether a cost is variable or fixed depends on the underlying drivers.  In the long run, however, all costs are variable.

The major categories of variable costs associated with the operation of a passenger railroad would be labor, fuel, and maintenance.  In addition, other costs tied to train miles would be variable, i.e. insurance premiums, reservation center units, etc.  The labor costs would include those for train personnel, maintenance personnel, station personnel, reservation center personnel, etc. 

The major fixed costs would include equipment (lease and depreciation), facilities, long term contracts, executive and management salaries, overheads not tied directly to train operations, interest, etc.

These are the general principles.  But there are plenty of exceptions.  Each item must be looked at to determine if it is variable or fixed or mixed.  For example, if any of the employees are covered by a union contract that pays them their wages for the life of the contract, even if they are laid off, the costs are fixed for the term of the contract.  By the same token, if the carrier incurs certain maintenance costs irrespective of whether the equipment operates, it would be considered a fixed cost.   

Determining whether overhead costs are variable or fixed is even more challenging.  If increasing or decreasing train seat miles changes the cost of the support services, i.e. HR, Procurement, Computer Services, etc., the costs are variable.  However, if the changes do not result in a change in the cost of the support services, the costs are fixed.  

The addition or deletion of one or two trains would spread the fixed costs over more seat miles, thereby lowering the attributed cost per seat mile.  But the change would not be dramatic in most instances.  However, if the long distance trains were discontinued, as an example, the fixed costs would change dramatically.  The fixed costs associated with the long distance trains would be gone, as would many of the overheads, i.e. reservation center labor, computer center labor, etc., as well as a portion of the facilities required to house them.   This is why accountants argue that all costs are variable in the long run.        

[blue streak 1]

Samantha: I was referring to ROW width, restricting curvature, freight sidings in the way, highway over and underpasses, close roads without grade seperation, etc.

[passengerfan]

Here in California we have three very successful corridors, San Jose - Sacramento, Oakland/Sacramento - Bakersfield, and San Diego - Santa Barbara. None of these routes prior to Amtrak operated the numbers of trains they do today. In fact all have been extended over there original pre-Amtrak routes. In the case of the San Joaquins they provide Amtrak Bus connections not only from Bakersfield to numerous destinations in Southern California but also operate Amtrak buses to Las Vegas. At Stockton there is connecting Amtrak bus service to San Jose.  

In addition we have numerous commuter services throughout the State that are showing almost daily increased ridership.

Now we are in a situation where the HSR bond will be voted on in November and all early indications point to Californians sinking further in debt. It is estimated it will pass by at least 60% of the vote. The HSR is a 200 - 220 mph system that will connect Los Angeles and San Francisco initially via the central valley, with a connecting HSR link to Sacramento from the Central Valley. In addition funding will be used to increase capacity on the Sacramento - San Jose corridor, the Altamont Commuter Express corridor and the San Francisco - Gilroy commuter service will be electrified and additional trackage added. In addition there is even talk of daily passenger train service between Redding and Sacramento now operated by Amtrak buses and Coast Starlight in the middle of the night.

I even believe for the first time Nuclear Power Plants have a chance at rebirth in this state.

There may be a lull in gasoline prices now but I believe Californians for the first time realize it will not last and gasoline is only going to continue to climb in price. The Highway lobby for the first time has been very silent. Drive by any used car lot and the numbers of SUVs is staggering. In fact some newer used SUVs are being loaded on railcars for shipment to states where there is a market. Dealers are telling customers that own SUVs to try selling them privately as they cannot use them as trade ins and expect to get anything like there actual worth for them. I have occasion to drive almost weekly to Sacramento and back and am seeing a drop in the numbers of cars on I-5 and even 99. I do not travel during the rush hours so cannot speak for those time periods but the hours I travel I see a dramatic drop in automobile traffic. If the train service operated in the times I need I would certainly ride it between Stockton and Sacramento. Maybe that will change.

Al - in - Stockton   

[henry6]

I have to reiterate my statement about the differences from one part of the country to the other if only because the above testemoney bears me out.  There are long stretches of rural , open areas especially west of the Appalachians with a few pockets of adjacent or close urban areas.  The east is virtyally totally urban as is the LA and SF areas of California.  Fort Worth-Dallas is apparently the largest urban area of Texas but otherwise the state wide open (I once read that there are places that at night you can watch the headlight of a train approach from a distince of at least 50 miles???!)  So there is no blanket statement about rail passenger service just like Amtrak is apparently neither a blanket panacea.  Regional Transportation areas (not commuter zones) seem to be something which has to be studied whether or not under the umbrella of Amtrak.

[Anonymous]

Samantha: I was referring to ROW width, restricting curvature, freight sidings in the way, highway over and underpasses, close roads without grade seperation, etc.

It has been about a year since I have ridden the Eagle north of Austin, so I am a little fuzzy regarding the items that you have listed.  Having said that, however, all of the problems that you show exist in varying degrees along the current route.  There are some particularly tight spots near Austin and Temple that come to mind. 

About 15 years ago a proposal was made to the Texas Legislature to build a high speed rail line from DFW to San Antonio.  As I remember it the proposal was for a largely new route.  The proposal was hinged on the legislature putting up some of the funding.  It was rejected.  

If Texas is to develop a viable rapid rail route between DFW and San Antonio, it would need to build new links between some of the cities, as well as upgrade most of the existing right-of-way that could be used. 

[HarveyK400]

I think there may be demand for a number of trains through North Carolina.  I have no idea at this time how these would relate to state-supported trains

• New Dp Charlotte 0700, ar Atlanta 1228; allows evening return with same train.  Alternative dp Charlotte 0600 & second train dp 0800.
  
• Move up Piedmont dp Raleigh 0630, ar Charlotte 0939, extend to Atlanta, ar 1523 & Birmingham 1856.
• New dp Raleigh 0930, ar Charlotte 12:39, Atlanta 18:23 & Birmingham 21:56.
• New Dp Washington 0700, dp Richmond 0915, Raleigh 1300, Greensboro 1435 & Ar Charlotte 1614.
• New Dp Washington 0915, Greensboro 1532, Charlotte 1730 & ar Atlanta 22:58.
• Run sb Carolinian 20 minutes later to dp Raleigh 1720.
• New Dp New York 12:25, Washington 1605, Greensboro 2222, ar Charlotte 0001 ahead of Crescent.  Alternative earlier dp New York 10:25 via Raleigh to Charlotte does not allow 1/2-day activity in New York in exchange for later train through Raleigh.

[blue streak 1]

Samantha:  Thanks it has been too long since business or pleasure placed myself on that route. The analysis of any route needs these things to be considered. Since NCDOT IS THE controlling agency for the Charlotte - Greesboro - Raleigh - Selma route they have speeded up the gradual upgrade of that route by being able to take care of highway relocations and grade crossing separations (several more proposed). Haven't ridden that route but suspect the public using it only has an expectation that they will be on schedule and expect the future upgrades may decrease the running times. Cab signaling or PTC may improve those seqments that can take higher speeds. Careful planning is what it is all about.

Had a wedding to attend in San Jose, Ca and yesterday being an off day took ACE to Stockton, bus to AMTRAK Stockton station, Amtrak to Emeryville, bus to SFO CALTRAIN, CALTRAIN baby bullet to San Jose. Even with a broken Signal we arrive at every stop ahead of schedule and the connections were very easy. That is what good planning will do.

Harvey: your schedule has merits however if NCDOT keeps the upgrading going maybe those times can be reduced.

[Phoebe Vet]

Harvey:

They are planning an aditional train between Raleigh and Charlotte.

Other than that NC is looking at more routs, not more trains on the one existing route.

http://www.bytrain.org/future/

 

[HarveyK400]

Re: Atlanta - Jacksonville

The rest of the route on NS has capacity and most is suitable for higher speeds: http://www.garail.com/Pages/pdf/2004jaxreport.pdf)

Having looked over the Georgia Rail study, my guess is tilt equipment was assumed for all conventional, moderate, and high speed alternatives between Atlanta and Jacksonville.  Travel times between Atlanta and Griffin are identical for all alternatives with travel time reductions occuring south of Griffin with more tangents and broader curves to exploit the 110-mph limit.  The 52-min schedule to Griffin comes close to a 65-mph limit for mostly 3-degree curves with tilt equipment; whereas conventional equipment limited to 50 mph may take around 65 min.

South of Macon, even the three 110-mph round trips average only about 50 passengers a train.

Another interesting facet of the study is the scheduling of a pair of trains to connect with the Crescent with a mid-morning departure and mid-afternoon arrival at Atlanta.  I suspect few travelers from western Virginia and the Carolinas would endure the late-night service to reach Macon or Jacksonville. 

A more typical single round-trip 79-mph/6-hr commuter schedule to Atlanta and back with tilt equipment offers benefits:

• Begins to capture the potential ridership.
• Still affords same-day service for Crescent connections.
• Offers convenient connections with extended Piedmont or earlier arriving/later departing Charlotte - Atlanta train.
  
• Uses only one train set.
• PTC offers lower-cost signaling for mostly low-volume and currently dark freight route.

 

[HarveyK400]

Re: Charlotte - Atlanta - Orlando

• New Dp Charlotte 0700, ar Atlanta 1228....
  

An Atlanta - Orlando train might connect with or serve as an extension of Charlotte - Atlanta train.  It would dp Atlanta 1300, ar Jacksonville 1915 and Orlando 2230. The return would have to dp Orlando at 0700 & Jacksonville 1030, to ar Atlanta at 1645.  This pushes the limit for daytime train travel as an adjunct to Carolina - Georgia services. 

• These are perhaps impractically tight connections for a reliable commuter schedule returning to Charlotte and intermediate destinations.
• A 1730 dp from Atlanta would reach Charlotte around 2300.
  
• 110-mph service would assure more reliable, convenient, and shorter travel, saving about 1-1/2 hr overall.
• Offers both an alternative and supplement to Jacksonville - Atlanta commuter schedule; but this depends on substantial connecting or through travel to outweigh weaker intrastate attraction.

Upgrade of route through Georgia may attract rail freight business and more efficient service.

 

[HarveyK400]

One possible long-distance expansion might be a Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati - Louisville - Nashville - Memphis connection for the Cardinal.  Cincinnati might become San Antonio-North; but it gives more cities eastern connections.

There is potential for regional service as well coordination with possible Chicago - Florida service.

[HarveyK400]

Tough economic times will bring cold looks at the average subsidy per passenger and per passenger-mile for Amtrak by the new administration, Sam1 and others.  President-elect Obama just said current federal programs will be reviewed for effectiveness and opportunities to reduce costs.  

Using the (fully allocated?) subsidy per passenger-mile and subsidy per passenger metrics out of the context of national policies and goals troubles me where the numbers of users are strongly influenced by fares.  Revenue optimization may bring in more dollars for each passenger; but the reduced number of passengers exacerbates the subsidy per passenger.  Higher fares deter ridership and may reduce overall revenue relative to the cost of the service.  Lower fares attract riders and also may reduce overall revenue beyond a point; but greater ridership can improve cost metrics.

Representative 1-way coach fares from the Amtrak Summer-2008 timetable

• Chicago-Seattle fares of $143-318 for 2,206 miles range from $0.065/mi to $0.14.4/mi;
• New York-Orlando fares of $113-251 for 1,124 miles range from $0.101/mi to $0.223/mi;
• Los Angeles-Houston fares of $131-256 for 1,632 miles range from $0.080/mi to $0.157. 
• Chicago-Milwaukee fare of $21 for 86 miles comes to $0.244/mi;
• Chicago-Saint Louis fares of $23-$65 for 284 miles range from $0.081/mi to $0.229/mi. 

To be continued. I gotta go now.

[HarveyK400]

I'd like to follow up on the previous post.

Short distance trains  

• Current Milwaukee-Chicago fares:
• 1-way                       $22         $44.00 rd trip           $0.256/mi
• 10-Ride                   $165         $33.00 rd trip           $0.192/mi
• Monthly (44 trips)     $358         $16.28 rd trip           $0.095/mi
• Gas (23mpg@$2.50/gal) and tolls ($2.40) come to $18.70 for a round trip between Milwaukee and Chicago; but Amtrak's fare for a round trip is substantially higher.
• Competes only for the occasional trip to downtown Chicago where the cost of driving is around $50 with parking - only slightly more than for Amtrak.
  
• Discourages use for trips elsewhere in the region where parking is free or much less expensive, even before adding in CTA, Pace, or Metra fares.  The population outside the City is twice as great; and non-Chicago employment, as an indicator of business travel demand, is likewise greater. 
  
• Would a much lower fare, around $19 with a transfer to Metra, generate enough ridership to offset the per passenger loss in revenue and reduce the subsidy per passenger?
  

Long distance trains

• Many complain about the deficits long-distance trains rack up and drag down medium and short-haul corridor development; but has anyone noticed that Amtrak is giving away the service?  Rates are inversely proportional to the distance with long-distance fares being substantially cheaper per mile than the fares to Milwaukee and Saint Louis.  The comparison is even worse for deeply discounted promotions for LD trains where there is no 1-way discount for Chicago-Milwaukee other than for 10-ride and monthly tickets for frequent travelers and commuters. 
  
• Just what is the price elasticity; and could long-distance trains keep their riders while covering more of the cost? 
  
• At $0.16/mile used for short-distance services, the resulting fares would be proportionate with distance as for the representative origins and destinations.
•                                                                          Miles         $0.16/mi          Amtrak
  
• Chicago-Milwaukee                                                 86            $13.80                $21
  
• Glenview-Milwaukee Airport                                     60              $9.60               ---
  
• Chicago-Wisconsin Dells                                       195            $31.20               ---
  
• Chicago-St Paul/Minneapolis                                 417            $66.75          $54-119 
  
• Chicago-Detroit Lakes                                           610            $97.60               ---
• Chicago-Devils Lake                                              817          $130.75               ---
• Chicago-Williston                                                1055          $168.80               ---
• Chicago-Havre                                                     1366          $218.60               ---
• Chicago-Essex/Walton Lodge                              1573          $251.70               ---
• St Paul/Minneapolis-Essex/Walton Lodge             1156          $185.00               ---
• Chicago-Spokane                                                1877          $300.35               ---
• Chicago-Seattle                                                  2206          $353.00        $184-361
• St Paul/Minneapolis-Seattle                                 1789          $286.25        $143-318
  

[Phoebe Vet]

Are you seriously trying to say gas + tolls = cost of driving?

[HarveyK400]

Maybe I am being a simpleton.  Gas and tolls are the direct out-of-pocket costs considered by most drivers when considering travel alternatives - the car and insurance is paid for whether or not they use the car.  It's not like there is a meter on the car that bills by the mile.  I also understand this doesn't include energy, environmental and other costs.

Even if I had AAA figures on per-mile cost or US driving allowance, it's irrelevant for this point.  Now when I get around to whether it's cheaper to commute by Amtrak to a non-CBD destination such as around O'Hare or the 'burbs without a car, it'll be a different matter adding the full cost of car to the owner.

[henry6]

I think what phoebe is saying is that gas plus tolls is a very short way of figuring car cost.  But insurance has to be included because, theoretically, you would be paying a higher rate for insurance if you use the car to commute greater distances than if you just used it around town...and we are all honest about car insurance right?  Plus the cost of parking which in some places in some instances can go as high as 100 bucks a day but more normally is probably around $20 daily or $100 a week.  And if you drive 3 miles a day to and from work vs 50 or more miles, car wear, tire wear, etc., goes up, thus the real cost of driving goes up. And aside frome commuting, the same costs have to be included in the use of a car when you drive a hundred or a thousand miles: it all adds to the cost, it all adds up. And the intangable is how rested are you when you arrive at your destination when using a public form of transportation rather than doing the driving?  Businessmen used to overnight by train because they took into account the cost of a hotel room and the driving and the car costs  vs. train.  (I do wonder how that kind of accounting would stand up today when you can jet to and from most places in the country between breakfast and dinner?)

[blue streak 1]

Harvey: I don't know about your insurance but mine is pegged to how many miles a week I drive one way to work and also  every year the total miles I put on my car. Driving to work almost doubles my insurance rate.

[oltmannd]

If we are talking commuting, then you have to factor in the incremental cost of insurance as a short term variable cost in the transit vs. driving analysis.  But, for the occasional intercity trip, the variable cost of insurance is almost nil.

But, since we're talking about Amtrak, we're not talking about commuting.

There is some mileage-based depreciation, but that's very small compared to the time-based depreciation on a newer car.  You can get a sense of what this is by playing around with the on-line "blue book" calculators.  It's going to vary by the age and condition of the car.

There is also some real, incremental cost of wear and tear on the vehicle that occurs for each mile driven - mostly the cost of oil-changes, tires and brakes.  That might come to a few cents per mile.  i.e. oil change might be $30 every 3000 miles, tires, $500 every 50,000 miles.

For a point of referrence, parking in Altanta runs $5-$10 a day (avg is closer to the bottom of the range), but you can park in a MARTA lot for free and ride for $1.75 to all those places were parking is that costly. Interestingly, MARTA rail is in the airport terminal, but does not stop near the Amtrak station even though the line passes within 1/4 mile of it.  If you want to use transit to the train, it's a fairly unreliable bus route that operates every 30 minutes off peak.

[henry6]

I often tell people that when driving into NY City they might be better off parking at a MNRR or NJT station and riding the train into the city for both the cost of parking and the freedom of movement.  Even a hotel room in the 'burbs and "commuting" in and out of the city could be less expensive and easier on the nerves especially if not used to city like driving.  Those who have followed the suggestion were very impressed and satisfied.  Those who don't, those who "diss" the idea, come back grumbling about how bad the traffic was, how costly the parking was in lots (and non existant on streets), and how much the tolls were!

But lets face it, we are not defining long distance train travel beyond running a train in most discussions.  Long Distance travel for tourism, for business, for day trips or other personal matters are each a seperate need and market.  Therefore there are different approaches that need be taken to supply a train for each purpose.  What we do now is run a Long Distance train and hope it catches all markets.  But a rationalized route of Long Distance supported by several shorter distance trains might be more viable in some instances either as feeder services or services unto themselves.  As long as our passenger rail system is politically driven rather than market dirven, there is no real panecea for costs and services.

[Anonymous]

The cost of driving compared to taking Amtrak depends on the actual cost of operating your vehicle.  AAA and IRS estimates for the cost of driving are based on a typical vehicle.  They rarely reflect the true cost of operating your vehicle.   

The cost of driving my 2004 Toyota Corolla is a function of depreciation (cost of the vehicle, including financing, amortized over the expected life of the asset), fuel, insurance, and maintenance.  Depending on where I am going, it could also include tolls and parking.   

The cost of taking Amtrak is the ticket price plus the cost of driving to the train station, as well as possible parking fees, or taking an alternative form of transport.  At my destination I would have to rent a car, use public transport, or have someone pick me up, in which case they would incur the cost of driving to the train station and in many instances paying to park.

Earlier this week I drove from Georgetown to Dallas and back.  The distance was 339.4 miles.  The cost per mile in my car is 23.82 cents, and the cost of driving was $80.85.  The roundtrip time was approximately six hours. 

Had I taken the train from Austin, which is the closest station to my house, a roundtrip coach class ticket would have been $48.00.  The trip time would have been 11 hours and 38 minutes.  The cost per mile would have been 10.3 cents per mile.  I would have had to drive to the Austin train station and park.  This would have added $20.34 to the cost of the train ticket.  In Dallas I could have taken DART to my destination.  This would have added another $3.50 to the cost, thereby bringing the total cost to take the train in coach class to $71.84 or $9.01 less than driving. 

Some would argue that had I taken the train I should have reduced the cost of the train trip by the fix costs on the car.  However, accountants agree that all costs are variable in the long run and, therefore, in most instances, accounting for small fixed costs is dysfunctional.

There is only one train a day between Austin and Dallas; therefore, it would have been impossible for me to complete the trip in a day.  But for comparison purposes lets suppose that there were four trains a day between Big D and Austin, thereby making a one day turn around possible. 

Had I taken a passenger with me, the cost of driving would have been essentially the same.  In fact, I could have taken three passengers for nearly the same cost.  Two people on the train, however, would have bumped the cost to $96.  Another $3.50 would have been needed to cover the DART fare, bringing the total cost for two people to $99.50 or $18.65 more than the train.  

As other scenarios that I have run showed, in many instances one person can take the train for less  than driving.  But with two or more people the cost advantage swings to driving, although it changes over long distances when motel and meal costs are factored into the accounting, and the passengers are traveling coach class v.s. first class.  Of course, the cost of meals on the train has to be included  for on long distance trips. 

If the known subsidies are factored into the equation, the cost of driving from Georgetown to Dallas would have been bumped by approximately three cents per mile, i.e. the cost of the city streets that I drove on are paid for with property taxes. 

Most of the trip was on federally funded highways.  The average federal subsidy in FY 2007 was .0138 cents per mile.  It is difficult to know the so-called subsidy embedded in the county roads and city streets, but it is probably around three cents per mile.  This would add 3.0138 cents per mile.  And it would have brought the total cost of driving to approximately $91.08. 

The average per mile subsidy for Amtrak's long distance trains in FY 2007 was 20.57 cents per mile.  If Amtrak had to recover its costs, the cost of taking the train from Austin to Dallas and return would have been $143.4.  If Amtrak had corridor trains between Austin and Dallas, as per above, assuming the per mile subsidy for the state and other corridor trains in FY 2007 of 12.98 cents per mile, the cost would have been $108.23.  Both amounts are higher than the cost of driving my Corolla.  Of course, the cost of driving other vehicles could be be considerably higher, thereby chaning the dynamics of the comparison.          

If Amtrak reduced its fares, it might increased the number of riders and, therefore, reduce the subsidy per passenger mile.  On most of its trains it appears to have the potential to do so, i.e. the load factors are no where near capacity.  However, if it had to add capacity, it would incur the additional cost of doing so, which would drive up the per mile cost of the service.

No matter how the numbers are sliced and diced, passenger rail in the U.S., as well as throughout most of the world, is not supported by the fare box.  It requires significant subsidy.  Most forms of transport in the U.S.are subsidized, but the amount of subsidy per mile and per passenger required by rail is much greater than the subsidies required by the other forms of transport.     

[HarveyK400]

There is commuting on Amtrak in the case of the Hiawatha service and elsewhere; and discounted monthly and 10-ride frequent rider tickets are offered.  The monthly ticket between Chicago and Milwaukee costs $358 which works out to $17.05 a day for an average of 21 days a month.  The 10-Ride costs $165 which comes to $33 a day. 

What is incredible to me is the high 1-way fare of $22 that effectively constrains ridership chiefly to the downtown Chicago travel market.  Even ridership to downtown Milwaukee suffers from a fare that exceeds the out-of-pocket cost for gas, tolls, and I assume much cheaper parking than the $32 in Chicago.  The high 1-way fare explains the low average ridership for the Hiawathas despite carrying around 350 commuters on #330 and #339.  The result may be high revenue per passenger; but fewer passengers also result in a high cost per passenger.  The 1-way fare can be more on a per mile basis than a roomette to Seattle!

If the public is supporting rail passenger service, isn't the goal to maximize the number of riders to achieve greater effectiveness in benefits and relevance and a lower cost per passenger?  How does a focus on revenue per passenger contribute where the number of passengers and total revenue may suffer?  Conversely, why incur the cost of the other six round trips if hardly anyone shows up?

Another issue is the relevance of the Hiawatha service for the Chicago metropolitan area's 9.8 million and Milwaukee-Racine-Waukesha area's 1.9 million populations for non-CBD trip ends.  This does not include the populations of 162,000 in Kenosha County and 713,000 in Lake County that are without direct service despite being on the line.  While the monthly pass allows some wiggle room for the cost of transit connections, the 1-way fare is a serious deterrent for most occassional travelers throughout the respective regions and a burden for those who are unable to drive. 

One-way fares need to be below half the average out-of-pocket cost of $19 for driving, at least in the off-peak for trains except #329, #330, #339, and #340, to divert travel in appreciable numbers.  Allowing at least $5 for transit connections due to circuitry, a round-trip excursion fare between Chicago and Milwaukee would need to be around $14 to be competitive on cost.  This works out to a little over $0.08/mile. 

If the non-peak fare was reduced to 1/3 the present level, would ridership increase by 3 times or more?  Even if revenue from fares stays the same, the cost per passenger would be lower with more passengers.  Since about half of all the riders are regular commuters, overall ridership could double and the cost per passenger would be cut in half.  

The current monthly pass comes to $0.10/mile; and an allowance for transit connections still is competitive with driving to non-CBD destinations in the peak, assuming 22 mpg in traffic. 

Doubling the excursion fare to $0.16/mile for the peak would result in a daily cost of $27.50 which is less than the cost of driving and downtown parking, even if higher than just gas and tolls to non-CBD destinations.  The resulting 10-ride would be $123.75, bringing down the effective daily cost to $24.75.

The proposed peak fare comprises a significant reduction and may attract some potential riders.  Occassional peak rider increases may offset the lower fare and reduce the cost per passenger. 

Does this all begin to sound like peak pricing?

[Phoebe Vet]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NY_RAIL_SERVICE_NYOL-?SITE=NYBIN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

 

[AmtrakRider]

I just wanted to add that if  increased passenger train capacity is to be the "wave of the future", something HAS to be done about educating drivers re: riding across tracks in front of an approaching train.  Four automobile collisions in the same Tampa-Orlando stretch of Florida in the last 6 months resulted in automobile deaths and serious damage to trains.  Amtrak's schedule and passengers were shaken up.  In three of the cases drivers drove around or through train gates into the path of oncoming trains.  I mention these examples because they happened in a relatively concentrated area over a relatively short period of time.  If passenger trains are going to be a greater part of everyday life, people who are driving need to learn to stay out of their way, not only to protect their own lives, but also to protect the lives of innocent train workers and passengers.