Most important to do is divide the era's somewhere around 1940 to 1950. Private enterprises built the original subway lines before 1910-20. But State Legislators and City Boards controlled the poitics and regulation by having issued the charters allowing the building and operation of these lines. So when operators wanted more than a nickle they were denied. Thus the nickel held well into the 50's. Meanwhile, especially from after WWII, new highways were built and soon there were two cars in every garage and an infinite number of miles of roadway to drive them on with cheap gas thus luring people away from transit. If transit...and commuter rail...did not face the competion of public roads and the stifling regulation of governments and could have adjusted fares as needed, then the statement that raising fares causes a downturn in ridership would not be so true today: the government would not be providing the competition.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
schlimm Every time fares have been raised on mass transit or commuter lines, the result was a drop in ridership and only marginal increases in overall fare box revenue, at best. In some cases, the fare box revenue stream actually has decreased. So it is really not accurate to state that "part of the reason that the NY City subways system, as well as transit in other cities, failed as private enterprises is because the regulators would not allow them... to charge fares sufficient to cover their costs."
Every time fares have been raised on mass transit or commuter lines, the result was a drop in ridership and only marginal increases in overall fare box revenue, at best. In some cases, the fare box revenue stream actually has decreased. So it is really not accurate to state that "part of the reason that the NY City subways system, as well as transit in other cities, failed as private enterprises is because the regulators would not allow them... to charge fares sufficient to cover their costs."
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1 Part of the reason that the NY City subways system, as well as transit in other cities, failed as private enterprises is because the regulators would not allow them, for political as well as other reasons, to charge fares sufficient to cover their costs. So the burden of doing so was shifted from the user to the taxpayer.
Part of the reason that the NY City subways system, as well as transit in other cities, failed as private enterprises is because the regulators would not allow them, for political as well as other reasons, to charge fares sufficient to cover their costs. So the burden of doing so was shifted from the user to the taxpayer.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
True...in transit and regular rail...the inabilty of the operators to raise fares and rates to cover increased costs, etc., because of government interventions on the behalf of the public and shippers caused the downfall of private ownership of mass transit, especially in New York where all the NYC politicians as well as the State Legislature, had a hand in keeping the fare at a nickle!. Likewise, landgrants, charters requirements, and a host of other fine print and hand shake agreements, kept prices low; this was followed by the ICC oversight of rail rates. So it is an interesting postulation: what would mass transit, passenger rail, and freight rail, really be like in this country if it were allowed free marketing and a free hand in operating? By the end of WWI it was all virtually in the lap of governments as to what direction mass transportation was to follow. Then came the highway and roads with airports and air traffic right behind. Waterways, of course, had been under government controls for a long time, too. Americans, in effect, were always protected from dealing with the real cost of transportation so that when private enterprise claimed they could no longer afford to haul people, the government said, "OK", and formed Amtrak to sit next to the CAA, FAA, USACE, and ICC!
Sam1 oltmannd: Sam1: My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success. Because they can possibly provide benefits outside of the cash flow that provide for an overall benefit/cost ratio >1. Air quality, health, traffic congestion alleviation, CO2 reduction, reduction in dependence on imported oil, avoided public capital expenditure on highways (over and above that supported by increase fuel tax receipts), airports, et. al. Would you call the NY City subway system a failure? It is a collection of failed private enterprises. Part of the reason that the NY City subways system, as well as transit in other cities, failed as private enterprises is because the regulators would not allow them, for political as well as other reasons, to charge fares sufficient to cover their costs. So the burden of doing so was shifted from the user to the taxpayer. Local transit, i.e. light rail, commuter rail, buses, para-transport, etc., which is akin to a public utility, is different than Amtrak. Local transit is a societal necessity, and the taxpayers have to support it, although there are better ways to do so than the current model. Amtrak, on the other hand, provides intercity passenger transport services that are a nicety. They don't look like, walk like or talk like a public utility. Amtrak does not cover its costs. It does not even come close. Should it? Yep! With some restructuring of the nation's transport cost model, i.e. elimination of most subsidies and true interface pricing, it probably could in the NEC, at least. Perhaps elsewhere as well. But if its revenues cannot cover its costs, it should disappear. Given Amtrak cannot cover the cost of its services via the fare box, it is a challenge to describe any of its services as a successful, at least from an economic perspective. This is and was my only point with respect to success. I realize that success can be defined from several perspectives.
oltmannd: Sam1: My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success. Because they can possibly provide benefits outside of the cash flow that provide for an overall benefit/cost ratio >1. Air quality, health, traffic congestion alleviation, CO2 reduction, reduction in dependence on imported oil, avoided public capital expenditure on highways (over and above that supported by increase fuel tax receipts), airports, et. al. Would you call the NY City subway system a failure? It is a collection of failed private enterprises.
Sam1: My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success.
My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success.
Because they can possibly provide benefits outside of the cash flow that provide for an overall benefit/cost ratio >1.
Air quality, health, traffic congestion alleviation, CO2 reduction, reduction in dependence on imported oil, avoided public capital expenditure on highways (over and above that supported by increase fuel tax receipts), airports, et. al.
Would you call the NY City subway system a failure? It is a collection of failed private enterprises.
Local transit, i.e. light rail, commuter rail, buses, para-transport, etc., which is akin to a public utility, is different than Amtrak. Local transit is a societal necessity, and the taxpayers have to support it, although there are better ways to do so than the current model.
Amtrak, on the other hand, provides intercity passenger transport services that are a nicety. They don't look like, walk like or talk like a public utility. Amtrak does not cover its costs. It does not even come close. Should it? Yep!
With some restructuring of the nation's transport cost model, i.e. elimination of most subsidies and true interface pricing, it probably could in the NEC, at least. Perhaps elsewhere as well. But if its revenues cannot cover its costs, it should disappear.
Given Amtrak cannot cover the cost of its services via the fare box, it is a challenge to describe any of its services as a successful, at least from an economic perspective. This is and was my only point with respect to success. I realize that success can be defined from several perspectives.
I don't find it so easy to draw such bright lines around structures that are based in tradition rather than physical science.
oltmannd Sam1: My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success. Because they can possibly provide benefits outside of the cash flow that provide for an overall benefit/cost ratio >1. Air quality, health, traffic congestion alleviation, CO2 reduction, reduction in dependence on imported oil, avoided public capital expenditure on highways (over and above that supported by increase fuel tax receipts), airports, et. al. Would you call the NY City subway system a failure? It is a collection of failed private enterprises.
It's an interesting concept.
Given the snow here, I'll return to your lawn mowing: if you do it yourself, you can use a smaller mower or even electric or hand!! Less or no pollution and noise. And the cost to you out of pocket is low, too. But if you hire a landscape/mowing outfit, they'll do it faster (maybe carelessly, to), charge you more, to allow for salaries and a profit, and make a lot of noise and pollution. If you hired that same guy to do it with your mower, it might cost you the same or even less, but it would go into his pocket and no profit to the outfit.
schlimm oltmannd: Sam1: My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success. Because they can possibly provide benefits outside of the cash flow that provide for an overall benefit/cost ratio >1. Air quality, health, traffic congestion alleviation, CO2 reduction, reduction in dependence on imported oil, avoided public capital expenditure on highways (over and above that supported by increase fuel tax receipts), airports, et. al. Would you call the NY City subway system a failure? It is a collection of failed private enterprises. Oltmann: Nicely put. It is a difference in primary goals, which seem to get confounded. The goal of a business is to make a profit on capital by making something or providing a service. The goal of government endeavors like passenger rail is to provide a service, with additional indirect benefits you listed above.
Oltmann: Nicely put. It is a difference in primary goals, which seem to get confounded. The goal of a business is to make a profit on capital by making something or providing a service. The goal of government endeavors like passenger rail is to provide a service, with additional indirect benefits you listed above.
If you draw the control volume for a rail line tightly around the line itself, you get one "answer" if you draw it around the rail line and the parallel highway, you might get another.
Sam1 My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don't cover their capital costs, as a success.
It's interesting that someone made the comment on another thread with respect to the NEC or perhaps passenger trains likening them "to a public utility." My gas and electric service are what I guess are called a public utility. Even though these entities (remain) regulated, and even though some utilities are government owned in some way (TVA), they pretty much cover all of their costs through the bill I pay for service every month.
On the other hand, the street in front of my house is something that I pay for through, I guess, mainly property tax. If I don't pay the light bill, the power company has the authority to disconnect my service but I get to stay and shiver inside the house. If I don't pay the property tax bill, eventually I will get tossed out of the house. And then when I turn a key in my driveway, I start paying the gas tax, which goes to support other roads, such as the Interstate Highways along with some transit systems.
So I guess I am resigned to transportation subsidy and cross-subsidy. But I haven't given up entirely on the question of high cost of passenger trains.
That Acela train that covers its direct costs, what are the fares, about 50 cents/mile or so? I have asked before, what is so expensive about passenger train? Yes, the tracks are expensive to build, but once you have the tracks in place, why are the costs of a train so much higher than a bus -- what I call the bus-on-steel-wheels argument? What is so much more expensive about owning, maintaining, and operating a thing with steel wheels and flanges compared to that other thing with rubber tires?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
In FY10 the Washington to Lynchburg service was the only Amtrak service outside of the NEC that covered its operating costs. The Acela, which is a premier service designed to serve the business community, was the only other Amtrak service to cover its operating costs. If the Acela's wore their share of the NEC depreciation, they probably would be deep in red ink.
Whether the Lynchburg service operating margin ($2.1 million) was sufficient to cover any interest, depreciation, and other unallocated charges attributable to it is unknown. The average load factor on the Lynchburg service was 51.4 per cent.
The Keystone service, which had an average load factor of 38.9 per cent in FY10, lost $29.6 million before interest, depreciation, and other unallocated charges. The Capitols, with an average load factor of 27.7 per cent, lost $16.1 million before the aforementioned charges.
Rather then a second Capitol Limited (CHI-DC) , what might make sense is looking at a corridor or two with a minimum of 4 trains per day: PITT- DC and CLE-PITT. The CHI- PITT portion is not competitive with air.
oltmannd NittanyLion: It sure would be great if there was a second train a day on the Capitol Limited. A morning departure from DC so Pittsburgh and Cleveland weren't middle of the night arrivals. The second train between Pittsburgh and DC is the Pennsylvanian with a Phila connection. The second train from Cleveland is the Lake Shore with a NYP connection.
NittanyLion: It sure would be great if there was a second train a day on the Capitol Limited. A morning departure from DC so Pittsburgh and Cleveland weren't middle of the night arrivals.
It sure would be great if there was a second train a day on the Capitol Limited. A morning departure from DC so Pittsburgh and Cleveland weren't middle of the night arrivals.
The second train between Pittsburgh and DC is the Pennsylvanian with a Phila connection. The second train from Cleveland is the Lake Shore with a NYP connection.
Those don't help at all, to the extent that I wouldn't even consider them an option. They are neither time nor cost competitive with other modes of travel.
The Northeast Regional departs at 9:25 AM and you don't get to Pittsburgh until 8:05 PM. Eleven hours instead of seven and a half and you still arrive at night It also costs twice as much ($94 vs $45 for my next trip's date). And if you head to Cleveland, you take a 15 hour trip (instead of 11) and arrive at 3:27 AM (exactly 30 minutes later than the Capitol Limited). And you spent three times the money ($79 vs $240). Return trips get even worse when you head back to DC from Cleveland and have an almost 17 hour trip that gets you back into DC at 11:30 PM. Those aren't alternatives. They're actually worse in every way.
The PIttsburgh-DC segment is competitive with driving in time and cost and is absolutely cost competitive with the airlines. I haven't worked it out but I'd be willing to guess that door to door travel times from Dulles and BWI are competitive with the Capitol Limited. But not Reagan, because its downtown and on a metro line, which really helps. Although it does add frustration when the cheapest flight is IAD-DTW-PIT and you fly over Pittsburgh International (literally) on your way to your connection in Detroit. Anyhow.
If someone at Amtrak did go along with "instead of 20 new routes, 20 new trains on existing routes," Capitol Limited is the first one I'd look at.
NittanyLion It sure would be great if there was a second train a day on the Capitol Limited. A morning departure from DC so Pittsburgh and Cleveland weren't middle of the night arrivals.
Also notice that these successful services and corridors are where there are few freight trains or where Amtrak has more control of the track than where they lease the space/time.
schlimm 1. What are the criteria used to "grade out?" The West Coast is also doing a pretty good job of developing. 2. Overlapping would be a long time off because of Ohio's withdrawal. The state-sponsored routes seem to be the primary ones that are successful. Other states besides Illinois, CA, WA, OR, NC and the Northeast don't seem to be doing much.
1. What are the criteria used to "grade out?" The West Coast is also doing a pretty good job of developing.
2. Overlapping would be a long time off because of Ohio's withdrawal. The state-sponsored routes seem to be the primary ones that are successful. Other states besides Illinois, CA, WA, OR, NC and the Northeast don't seem to be doing much.
1. The usual criteria used for rail projects. Includes "soft" benefits like highway congestion mitigation and air quality.
2. Yes. It will be a long time. You can't grow a network by plopping down isolated lines.
The west coast has two networks and one line. The networks are in the south and the Bay area. The line is Eugene to Vancouver BC. I'm not sure there is much room for expansion of either network except for improvements on existing routes. All the "dots" have been pretty much connected, although Las Vegas and Phoenix might work. Eugene to Vancouver BC just needs more frequency and speed.
It is apparent that taking on big annual operating subsidies, no matter how good the cost/benefit ratio, is not politically palatable. It's not so hard to come up with the capital, though. That's what doomed Wisc and Ohio.
I think it's a reality that has to figure into what should get pushed and what shouldn't
schlimm The Midwest has some reasonably successful corridors. Why ignore them? Lynchburg train 12.6K; Vermont services 11.4K. CHI-MILW 68.7K; CHI-DET 44K; CHI-StL 49.7K; CHI-Quncy 19.4K.
The Midwest has some reasonably successful corridors. Why ignore them? Lynchburg train 12.6K; Vermont services 11.4K. CHI-MILW 68.7K; CHI-DET 44K; CHI-StL 49.7K; CHI-Quncy 19.4K.
Chicago is another good place to do extensions/expansions, but I suspect most candidates there wouldn't "grade out" as well and NEC extensions on a cost/benefit basis.
I would suspect, that if you kept after it long enough, the NEC and Chicago networks would start to overlap.
Don't ignore them. I didn't mean to imply that VA and NC were the only ones doing it right. I am just an outsider who believes in public transportation, and on reading the posts about these states, the good sense approach stood out. The Chicago area has the population density and history of doing a good job on commuter and transit, and as far as I can tell, are following similar policies.
It just so happened that I had recently read about these two cases, and they matched what I thought was the sensible approach. It's impossible to justify the cost of HSR comparing it to other modes of transportation, but this approach gives you a relatively decent return for your buck, and can be upgraded incrementally as needed. Sometimes I think the proposal for HSR has actually hindered progress in providing better rail service because it's high cost has stirred up opposition to anything rail-related.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington When I first saw this thread, I said, "Oh, no, not another one." I had pretty much given up on the Amtrak and passenger discussions, since they all seemed to wind up going in the same circles, but after reading it and remembering Phoebe Vet's description in the " Fred W. Frailey:..." thread next door about the NC services and plans, I decided that these are two states who are doing it right. Instead of spending a fortune on glamorous-sounding HSR, you provide basic service where needed and upgrade as needed, using existing facilities and equipment as much as possible. This philosophy does not provide the opportunity for high-profile ribbon-cutting ceremonies or photo-ops, but it is the path to follow for the most efficient use of funds.
When I first saw this thread, I said, "Oh, no, not another one." I had pretty much given up on the Amtrak and passenger discussions, since they all seemed to wind up going in the same circles, but after reading it and remembering Phoebe Vet's description in the " Fred W. Frailey:..." thread next door about the NC services and plans, I decided that these are two states who are doing it right. Instead of spending a fortune on glamorous-sounding HSR, you provide basic service where needed and upgrade as needed, using existing facilities and equipment as much as possible. This philosophy does not provide the opportunity for high-profile ribbon-cutting ceremonies or photo-ops, but it is the path to follow for the most efficient use of funds.
Spend the money on NEC extensions. Harrisburg upgrade, success. Lynchburg train, success. New Norfolk train coming. Hopefully, Richmond to Raleigh someday. Improve service from the NEC to NY, Conn, Mass, heck, even VT. The key is to leverage what you already have that works.
I agree that a much better investment for Amtrak would be to add trains to their existing routes. One train a day is not useful transportation. But Politicians don't think that way. If you give them enough money for 20 new trains they will add one train a day on 20 new routes.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I hear that the Lynchburg service has been quite a success in its first year or two of operation. However, for some reason, there are those that don't think the train can continue to be subsidized, despite it's low(er) cost of operation than some services. I hope that this train can become a model for newer services and that it is not cut, as speculated by some.
I think that in some places where there is only one train each day, additional frequencies should be added in order to drive ridership. Some routes that already have long-distance service should add some shorter-running trains such as Chicago-Twin Cities and Chicago-Indianapolis (I know that the Hoosier State is there, but it is combined with the cardinal). As a student attending Purdue in West Lafayette, IN, I hear that Chi-Ind is a city pair that could use more options for people to get from one to the other and back.
With all of the recent discussions on this forum about the future of Amtrak and HSR, I am reminded that it is possible to have a successful passenger train service that doesn't need billions in start-up costs and can be reasonably sustainable over the long-term. I'm thinking of the Lynchburg, VA regional service. The train is an extension of an existing Boston to Washington NEC service. From the beginning the train has been very well patronized and has not needed the projected state funds that were anticipated when the project was planned. We have ridden this train round trip from Lynchburg to Rte 128/Boston and we were pleased with the trip. The equipment is ordinary Amfleet I coaches and a snack car. From what I learned recently, the train-set would be stored overnight in DC if it didn't come to Lynchburg. The route infrastructure was already in place since the Crescent uses the same tracks.
So, I guess my point is that good passenger service can be done without spending billions and waiting years. I'm glad they didn't propose HSR to Lynchburg - we wouldn't have this train that makes sense for the taxpayers and the traveling public. Are there other places around the country where the same type of service could be developed?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.