A Pricy Ride

[daveklepper]

Of course your regular commuter who has a monthly pays far less for his ride than your one-way Metro North ticket/

From about 1970 through 1995 I was a regular commuter on Metro North, reverse commuting from NYC to White Plains N. Station.  I thought the service good and the fares reasonable.   On weekends | often served as a volunteer at Branford, and used Metro North to and from New Haven, usually only having to pay a step-up on my commuter ticket, which was good on the New Haven line as far as Harrison.   But on occasion, after a long day at Branford, I would spring for the extra cash and buy the far more expensive one-way Mew Haven - NY coach ticket to enjoy regular Amfleet coach comfort and the availability of a snack-bar.   Did not have the kind of income to do this very often, however.

One day I did do it, and on the platform, watched the GG-1 backing down on the train, with an old friend leaning out of cab window as engineer.   Got a cab ride to Penn Station as a result.   Did give the conductor my ticket at Penn Station.   The day happened to be the 75th Anniversary of the amalgamation the formed the New Haven Railroad, but by then it was Conrail or PC and operated for Amtrak.   I put that in my book along with rideing the very last eastbound UP City of LA.

[uphogger]

Uh, Sam, who paid for the highway the Bolt Bus travels on?  Your trip to the grocery store is subsidized by the taxpayer.  There is no transportation system in this country, save rail freight that is not subsidized in some way.  I run commuter passenger trains for UP under the Metra aegis.  Quite frankly, the passenger operations are the only things operating on our tracks south of Lake Bluff on the Kenosha Sub, and only a wayfreight east of Seeger on the Harvard Sub.  Those aren't going to pay the freight for the passenger operations, yet none of our riders would probably think the cost is too high to keep running the scoots.  We parallel the Edens and Kennedy for a few miles, always packed at rush hour.  If we were to cease our passenger operations, can you imagine what several thousand extra automobiles would do to that traffic?  I agree that money should be spent wisely and watched very carefully, especially in the light of the Phil Pagano affair and other scandals.  But that said, we need more than just air and highway modes for our future. 

[henry6]

Probably could be thought of more today as there is less variety, more standardization of equipment, more solidarity among the crews working for one railroad, etc.

[HarveyK400]

henry6

...Probably not, but the utilization of a trainset instead of sets which might otherwise be deadheaded, the service of one seat/one ticket ride through 30th St, or Newark or NYP or New Haven just might be both a marketable and an efficient transportation operation.    I am sure Chicago's METRA having taken over so many different railroad operations might be able to find through line ticketing and connections which would be an attractive service, too.

....

Some through services for Chicago were considered in 1973 but never pursued.  These involved running Aurora (BN) and Joliet (RI) trains through through Union Station to Fox Lake (MDN) and Elgin (MDW) respectively.  This followed ridership analyzes and forecasting for Cleveland and Chicago (L-DR & H-DR), the latter done by the IDOT Office of Research & Development instead of the Chicago Area Transportation Study.  Chicago had five separate suburban terminals between 1971 and about 1976 until the NW Orland Park train was taken over by Metra and shifted from the Polk Street Annex (Dearborn Station) to Union Station.

 

[henry6]

Amtrak got rid of the services and local, metropolitan transit agencies or authorities took over commuter operations, thus the disconnections.  Part of the reason for and the fun of my Ride With Me Henry trips it to utilize the connections and services which are not advertised and often not recognizable at quick glimpses of timetables.  Any place on NJT to Trenton, SEPTA to downtown Philadelphia or anyplace else on SEPTA is easy...as is across the platform (alright, up the stairs, across the mezzanine, down the corridor) to the LIRR at NY Penn then to anyplace on LI is just as easy.  On 5/16 we will come to NYP from Hackettstown, NJ then Amtrak to Poughkeepsie, NY, MNRR to Grand Central, subway to NYP or PATH to Hoboken, then NJT back to H'twn.  LInks in NJ include Hudson-Bergan LIght Rail, Newark City Subway, The River LIne,  PATCO in Philadelphia and Camden, bus when and where if needed.  There is no interline ticketing, no "connection" schedules published.  But, to me, that's the fun of Ride With Me Henry.

But I must add that MNRR-CONNDOT and NJT have been using NJT trainsets and through schedules/tickets from New Haven to Secaucus Jct. for NY Giant football games, and LIRR does through ticketing for same, on a trial basis.  It is a step in the right direction for regionalizing the rail network...Would anybody (besides Ride With Me Henry) actually ride Providence to Wilmington?  Probably not, but the utilization of a trainset instead of sets which might otherwise be deadheaded, the service of one seat/one ticket ride through 30th St, or Newark or NYP or New Haven just might be both a marketable and an efficient transportation operation.    I am sure Chicago's METRA having taken over so many different railroad operations might be able to find through line ticketing and connections which would be an attractive service, too.

NJT does have an inexpensive and unique ticketing of NJT interline connections.  Ticket cost is based on the longest line-ride segment.  But they don't advertise or promote interline ticketing as a money savings way to travel.  Say, Hackettstown on the Morristown/Montclaire-Boonton Line to High Bridge, NJ on the Raritan Valley line: $15.75, the same as Hackettstown to Hoboken instead of plus the trip to High Bridge.  And with the Sr. discount I can do it for $6.75!  But if it weren't for my doing the Ride With Me Henry excercises I would never have found that out!

 

[HarveyK400]

daveklepper

I don't believe there is anything equivalent to Bolt Bus between NY and Philly, but there probably is between NY and Washington.   The market for a Bolt Bus between NY and Philly is well taken care of by the connecting services of NJT and SEPTA, who make available each other's schedules at NEC stations and at least at one time (currently?) did provide through ticketing, and for a very short time through equpment.   No reason a commuter service cannot also carry long distance riders who want to travel more economically.   On a trip from my White Plains office I had business in Glencoe and Rocikford, IL.   I used Metro North to NYC, the subway to Penn Station, Lake Shore to Chicago,. Metra to both Glencoe and Harvard, where my Rockford client met me.... So the through service would serve three groups of passengers, those traveling between major cities wanting a bargain and willing to put up with longer travel times, people traveling between towns that are bypasssed by the regional and Acela trains, and the off-peak local riders that are riding now.

Amtrak and transit operators have compartmentalized rail services that railroads once blended to fit the need.  Until 1963(?) CNW ran an overnight mail train out of Chicago on the Harvard Line that departed at 11pm and made all intermediate stops.  Some Chicago-Milwaukee trains made a greater number of suburban stops than the 400's, including Cudahy and South Milwaukee in Wisconsin.

[daveklepper]

I don't believe there is anything equivalent to Bolt Bus between NY and Philly, but there probably is between NY and Washington.   The market for a Bolt Bus between NY and Philly is well taken care of by the connecting services of NJT and SEPTA, who make available each other's schedules at NEC stations and at least at one time (currently?) did provide through ticketing, and for a very short time through equpment.   No reason a commuter service cannot also carry long distance riders who want to travel more economically.   On a trip from my White Plains office I had business in Glencoe and Rocikford, IL.   I used Metro North to NYC, the subway to Penn Station, Lake Shore to Chicago,. Metra to both Glencoe and Harvard, where my Rockford client met me.... So the through service would serve three groups of passengers, those traveling between major cities wanting a bargain and willing to put up with longer travel times, people traveling between towns that are bypasssed by the regional and Acela trains, and the off-peak local riders that are riding now.

[daveklepper]

Note that I am simply suggesting (as is Henry) a way to use existing manpower and physical resources more effiently.   Off peak commuter trains can use extra business, and by connecting them and filling in the very short gaps, at least twice a day, some more cars will be taken off the highways because people will again find it convenient to go from Towsand Md to Branford, CT by train, where now three different tickets and two train changes are needed.   This does not mean that trains are necessarily competitive with buses for this type of bubsiness NE Corridor.   I am reaally mostly addressing Sam'scomplaint by wishing to balance Amrtak's desire to please  the most affluent (and serve everybody's interest in doing so) by pleasing the least affluent as well.

[HarveyK400]

henry6

You can't compare inter city service with commuter service because the two work on different business and operating models.  Equipment is different, schedules are different, distances are different, frequencies are different and varied.  Of course the customer may be the same but is purchasing a different service when he/she is going to and from work than when traveling to another city for business or for pleasure.  Can intercity be used for commuting or commuter be used for intercity?  Yes and yes.  But the comfort, speed, and time differences are often great, too.  For instance, an upcoming Ride With Me Henry trip this month includes NYC to Poughkeepsie.  In one direction we are using Amtrak @$23 in  1 hour 23 minutes the other we are using MNRR @ $15.75 in 1 hour and 47 minutes.  Aside leaving from NYP and returning via GCT, the ride and the service is quite different and our fellow passengers on each train will be different, too.  Sure, we're doing if for railfanning and we are not typical of the customers normally using either service, but those along with us will be able to experience and understand the differences for themselves.

Metra for one has express trains on some routes that significantly reduce travel time, just as for your Poughkeepsie ATK-MN example.  Granted, ATK seats are bigger too, and this affects train capacity.  As for business models that have a public benefit beyond the fare revenue, it makes more sense to maximize ridership and relevance to the public (which is a political component) if it doesn't affect the bottom line negatively.  On of my biggest gripes about the Hiawatha service is the high 1-way fare maximizing revenue per passenger and getting few passengers to justify a train while giving away a peak demand service with low monthly fares.  The Amtrak monthly pass is less than just the downtown Chicago parking cost, let alone gas & toll out of pocket costs.  That parking cost is not the case in Milwaukee and explains in part the lower ridership.

[henry6]

You can't compare inter city service with commuter service because the two work on different business and operating models.  Equipment is different, schedules are different, distances are different, frequencies are different and varied.  Of course the customer may be the same but is purchasing a different service when he/she is going to and from work than when traveling to another city for business or for pleasure.  Can intercity be used for commuting or commuter be used for intercity?  Yes and yes.  But the comfort, speed, and time differences are often great, too.  For instance, an upcoming Ride With Me Henry trip this month includes NYC to Poughkeepsie.  In one direction we are using Amtrak @$23 in  1 hour 23 minutes the other we are using MNRR @ $15.75 in 1 hour and 47 minutes.  Aside leaving from NYP and returning via GCT, the ride and the service is quite different and our fellow passengers on each train will be different, too.  Sure, we're doing if for railfanning and we are not typical of the customers normally using either service, but those along with us will be able to experience and understand the differences for themselves.

[HarveyK400]

oltmannd

 

daveklepper:

 

Commuter fares, for most of the passengers (who ride on monthly tickets), are more like one tenth of the fare on a mileage basis as compared with the average Acela fare.   Check it out!

 

 

NJT montly pass on NEC ~20 cents per mile

Acela NYP-WAS ~90 cents per mile

Amtrak Regional NYP-WAS ~50 cents per mile

Could rail fares be bus-competitive?  Assuming Acela at least breaks even at $0.90/mile with 1/4 the capacity of a multi-level suburban train,  the suburban train must come close to breaking even at $0.20/mile.  For Amtrak, the economy coach fare for a high-capacity economy train of multi-level cars still would be around $45 New York - Washington.

 

[henry6]

Yeah, I kinda overdid the bus bit in trying to be quick...truth is the bus vehicle is very comfortable and modern.  But the feedback is that neighborhoods where long distance bus terminals are are not very nice neighborhoods and a turn off to many would be riders.  Another problem with bus travel, and this is from bus drivers, is that more people get sick riding buses than any other form of transportation!!  At least that's what they told me.  Probably if only because one is unprepared for it unlike airplanes and knowing how one reacts in a car it may be true.  

[Paul of Covington]

   henry6, I agree with much of what you have been saying about the need for an integrated transportation system, but you said something that I see as a big stumbling block:  "buses are creepy."    In talking with others, I frequently find a disdain for buses.    Maybe they are seen as the last resort for the "lower class," those who can't afford cars; or people just don't want to ride with a bunch of strangers, I don't know.   In the last 50 years or so we have been increasingly afraid of being too close to each other.   Many, as soon as they can afford it, buy into their dream: a couple of acres outside of town.    Well, enough psychology and sociology, but this living pattern makes a shift to more public transportation more difficult.

    Back to buses.   Rail is expensive and can't be justified without very high traffic density.    Before even starting a new rail service, a good justification for it would be an existing heavily patronized bus service along the route in consideration, and after it's built it requires a good network of bus service to feed it.    How do you make buses more attractive?   I don't know, but as much as I love trains, I'm also a believer in good overall public transportation and the value of different modes supporting each other.   

[henry6]

Dave, you are espousing my concept of regional rail.  Run through trains with certain express stops to change to "locals" on coordinated and complimentary schedules.  Almost like the NYC subway come to think of it, but we don't have to talk in terms of across the platform connections every five or ten minutes but across the platform connections just the same.  Increase equipment useage, utilize labor (come on now, this is a proposal, a concept, not a working plan) better and economically, just make it a service that people can and will use, help the environment as well as the auto/truck congestion on the highways. 

[daveklepper]

I don't want to take sides in the above argument at this time, except to say the if the USA has a transportation policy, it is inconsistant as applied the various modes, varies depending who happens to be in the White House and who in the Senate and Congress.  Despite all that, things still seem to work better overall in the USA than any other country on this planet, remembering that civilization is not just getting from here to there (and enjoying marvelous scenery) but includes food, housing, clothing, healthcare, longetivity, pleasent environments, and a general feeling of freedom, and other important matters as well.   My only point is that Amtrak, whatever mistakes they have made and may still be making, did the right thing to establish the Acela service and to charge a premium fare for it.   And that their doing so benefits the public at large, not just those using the service.  And it benefits the riders of Bolt Bus as well.   And I don't have any indignation, rightous or otherwise, about Bolt Bus or its riders, just to state that they benefit from Acela's high fares and the money spent by the people who use that service and those (often not the riders themselves) that provide that money, and the money of the Amtrak subsidy.

There is a rail alternative to Bolt Bus in part of the corridor.  One can ride cheaply and reasonably fast from New York to Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Newark DE, by using a combination of NJT and SEPTA (or use NJT and its River Line and PATCO from Camden to Philadelphia).   I would join Sam in saying that Acela should be only one end of  the service and a real rail equivalent to Bolt Bus all the way from Boston to Washington at the other end, specifically a twice daily all-stops local that operates as a regular commuter train where tracks are shared with the six different commuter authorities (Boston's T, Shore Line East, Metro North, NJT, SEPTA, MARC) and with the matching low fares.   College students might be the bulk of the low-fare through riders.   It is a needed service.   The NEC does not now benefit one who wishes to go from Aberdeen MD to Guilford, CT or Canton, MA, and it should.   They are helping to pay for it.   And it would be easy for Amtrak to do it.   And it just might be as cost effective as Acela if done right.

[Paul Milenkovic]

henry6

 And stop making it a liberal vs conservative problem!

In what way did I claim the choice of transportation mode to be a liberal vs conservative debate?  When I pointed out that with respect to intercity common-carrier transport, we have a transportation policy, that transportation policy is deregulated airlines, and this policy had the backing of President Carter and the support of Senator Kennedy?  In other words, a policy that some around here would attribute to a libertarian/conservative think tank is actually one of Senator Kennedy's legislative achievements?

Cheap is not the only means of measuring?  Then what is?  Land availability?  When airplanes largely navigate the skies between airports whereas a rail line requires a continuous strip of land in between stations?  CO2 emissions and imported oil when the energy efficiency of Amtrak is only marginally better than the airlines?  Congestion?  When rail lines have congestion problems all their own, and where the NEC is approaching capacity without multi-billion dollar Hudson River tunnel projects?

And if cost is no longer the consideration but a whole list of intangibles become the metric, how do we quantify those intangibles apart from engaging in a political process?

[henry6]

Each individual means of transportation has advantages and disadvantages compared against themselves and against other forms.  Cheap is not the only means of measuring.  And if we were to have planners to start planning from a board that has infrastructure but no service, there is a completely different set of measurements and results to be dealt with.  Problems and control with the environment are not being considered here nor have been until just recently.  Congestion now and projected for the future is another item that has to be explored and solved.  I don't live near an airport, there are no buses going my way, there is no train service.  I only have a car so it doesn't matter what is cheaper or cheapest to me.  But in center city there are buses, subways, and even taxi cabs to choose from.  To get in and out of the city there is the car plus bus and train services.  And intercity there are cars, buses, trains and planes.  So if I have a car I can drive it to my destination or to a station point for a bus, train, or plane.  Or to a bus that takes me to a train that takes me to a plane.  Or not.  And stop making it a liberal vs conservative problem!  Politics have to be put aside and reality of environment, congestion, raw materials, land availability, fuel, cost of building any given infrastructure, cost of given vehicles, cost of labor, and so many more things other than political positions that will make the decision process.  And yes, it will be a combination of public and private organizations, public and private money, and government and private enterprise people working together to make it happen.  And its going to be different than it has been in the past.

[Paul Milenkovic]

airplanes are the fastest way to travel

Airlines are actually the cheapest way to travel.  Trains Magazine was already telling that in the 1960's, that a Boeing 727 jet had the Denver Zephyr beat, not on some ICC fully allocated formula but on direct operating costs.  This ran counter to intuition, that a low-tech earthbound train should cost more to operate than some delicate jet needing all manners of specialized maintenance, but maybe in terms of trains we were all thinking coal hoppers rather than passenger coaches with specialized maintenance requirements of their own.  The one thing that the jet had, however was speed, which means the same plane and crew could carry more passengers per hour than the train.

That airlines are the cheapest way to travel finally made it in to national transportation policy, namely, Alfred Kahn, President Jimmy Carter, and noteworthy support from that lion of liberalism, Senator Ted Kennedy.  Airline deregulation was indeed a policy, a governmental policy.  The policy is that someone recognized the low operating costs of planes, and the plane went from being this fancy venue of the "jet set" to being a bus with wings.  Why, a major European consortium to build airliners decided to call their product the "Airbus."

The knock on passenger trains is not that they are quaint and nostalgic.  The problem is that they are expensive, both in the capital requirements on account of the tracks and in operating costs, for reasons that I would like to better understand.

[henry6]

Yes, I am telling you and everybody else that.  And I'm not the only one saying this and many, many more involved in transportation have been saying the same thing for 50 or more years.  There is no coordinated transportation system, each works in its own orbit with very little regard for the other.  Only recently has the truck and rail industry really begun to understand their interdependency and ability to prosper together.  In government at all levels the same ignoring of one mode over another has caused all kinds of confusions, overlapping, under-serving programs.  Why does Europe have a wonderful rail system?  Because it is coordinated with itself, with air, and with highway options. We have air fighting rail fighting bus fighting private auto for passengers and similar fighting for freight between and among modes.  The public is clueless but planners have been warning us for years that we've got to put aside the differences and work on coordinating for economy, efficiency, and for environmental reasons, too.  Things are changing but slowly.  Rail and truck companies have been able to understand how they should work together with intermodal containers and trailers; that together they can provide a service that is profitable for both and is what the customers want and need.  For passenger services, we have barely addressed it: airplanes are the fastest way to travel; trains are quaint and nostalgic; buses are creepy; and the family automobile is in my driveway and cheap and ready to go when I am.  That is basically our transportation policy: chaotic, undefined, self serving, underutilized, expensive.  I am not talking political ideologies, not talking likeing trains, not talking being anti this or that, am talking about working everything together to work for all.  Can it be public?  Can it be private?  Probably, if US history is any indication, it will be both.  More importantly, it has to be.

[Paul Milenkovic]

henry6

The US does not have a transportation policy...

And you are going to tell me that the US does not have an energy policy, or a housing policy, or any number of other important policies.

The US does indeed have a transportation policy, as pointed out by Sam1, but it is not the transportation policy you agree with or the transportation policy you want.  For example, the transportation deregulation of the late 1970's, formulated by policy guru Alfred Kahn, put forward by President Carter, and strongly supported by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, that constituted a transportation policy.  The Staggers Act deregulating the freight railroads was a transportation policy.  Nationalizing the bankrupt eastern railroads, amalgamating them into Conrail, spinning off the Amtrak-run NEC as a passenger railroad, and then privatizing Conrail into CSX and other entities was part of a transportation policy. 

But that the national transportation policy is not the one you want is no excuse to claim there is no transportation policy, especially after being informed of what the transportation policy indeed is.

And yes, the transportation policy is decentralized in its planning, with the consequence that connections and interfaces between modes become more haphazard than what you prefer.

I am not going to go on a tirade against central planning either.  There is a blogger who goes by the name "Mencius Moldbug" who is a kind of iconoclast in not fitting in with either the right-wing or the left-wing party line -- if you want to read his stuff you can search that name on Google.  He points out that central planning or authoritarian government is often associated with the decline and fall of the Soviet Union, but just because something is centrally planned or a government exercises authority does not mean that government is ineffective at bringing about prosperity.  Examples given are Francoist Spain, where after following the anti-left party line Spain was run into the ground, Francisco Franco brought in technocrats, folks belong to Opus Dei of all things, presumably their Catholicism separating them from the atheistic Communist left, who actually turned things around and brought about prosperity.  Or the very late stage New Deal, where the Roosevelt people were still committed to a strong Federal government, but they threw out the rule book of most of what they did in the 1930's and managed to ramp up industrial production in anticipation of the need to fight WW-II.  Or post WW-II Germany, on the brink of mass starvation by 1947, partly because of the occupation policies of the victors, partly because of what the Germans may have been doing, where this one guy put in place reform policies that brought about the "German economic miracle" of postwar reconstruction.  Or the autocrats who ran Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan (HSR anyone?) who brought about the reforms and prosperity of those societies.

But there are two principles working here.  One is, indeed, right-wing ideology of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and self-organizing systems and prosperity coming out of seeming chaos.  The other is that there are perhaps more examples of failed central planning than successful central planning.  But just because the US transportation policy is not the one you want, don't tell us that we don't have one.

[henry6]

The US does not have a transportation policy...it is a haphazard patchwork system with no coordination or rationale...there is not sign of  "service" but rather groups of services, companies, modes, etc. that don't necessarily work together for the benefit of the public.  It is based on political lobbying for some modes and with some modes wanting the public to stay away.  Political pork barrel favors will give one community preference over another, one mode over another.   We need to have buses meet trains meet airplanes in addition to trains meeting trains and buses meeting buses so that a person can travel from one place to another without hours or days of waiting for connections.  Having a vehicle leave a point even 30 minutes before another vehicle arrives which could have been a connection is absurd.  There are times when a bus is perfect, other times a train, and another time an aircraft.  But it all has to be rationalized, scheduled, coordinated.  The thing that has to be done is that planners must sit down and look at the infrastructures in place and pretend non of it is being used.  Then start plugging in vehicle schedules, beef up some infrastructure here and there, eliminate some in some places, build new where needed.  Forget about existing operations, schedules, subsidies, etc. and redesign the system to provide a transportation service for both public and industry.

[Paul Milenkovic]

The other thing is that the suggestion that a bus company (Bolt Bus?) provides a cost effective common-carrier mode of transportation on the Northeast Corridor seems to evoke righteous indignation (I was going to call the use of exclamation points and all-caps emphasis something else, but would righteous indignation be sufficiently non-offensive to the parties involved?)

Yeah, yeah, the bus is subsidized in terms of using the highway, and yeah, yeah again, much of the highway subsidy is indirect (police patrols) rather than out of the gas-tax Trust Fund.  But the bus, to my knowledge, is receiving no subsidy from the wheel/pavement contact patch on up.  The only Amtrak train that appears to do the same thing is the Acela, which charges a much higher fare.  So to the extent that the Bolt Bus and the Acela pay their operating costs but depend on society at large to provide the roadway/track, by its much lower fare, the Bolt Bus is clearly the mode of transportation "for the rest of us" whereas the Acela appears to be a mode of transportation favored by the priviliged few, confirming the thesis of the grandparent post on this topic.

My question, however, is why a rail-borne conveyance could not be a Bolt Bus on steel wheels?  I don't know if Sam1 would go along with this, but suppose we level the playing field between modes by subsidizing the highways and in similar manner subsidizing the tracks and signals (and I will even throw in the stations as a "public good")  Why does the rail mode have to charge much higher fares than the bus in order to break even on the above-the-contact-patch costs?  Is there something technological about steel wheels on steel rails that is much more expensive than rubber on cement, or is the difference institutional?

[Anonymous]

henry6

Dave!  Your post above states exactly the problems with the US transportation policy: there isn't one and nobody understands the dependencies and independences of each mode.  While I know there is no zero point to go back to in order to redesign and replan, planners and the like have to mentally deesignate a date zero start planning, building and intergrating virtually from scratch, But they also need a good, down to earth, PR person who understands transportation and can explain in simple to understand terms to the populos! 

The U.S. has a transportation policy.  It is a framework that has relied on the wisdom of the people, as well as the free market system, to determine the winners.  The highways and airways won out for a variety of reasons.  Many of them can be summed up as better technologies.  There was no conspiracy to destroy intercity passenger trains.  They could not compete effectively after WWII, although they gave it a good go.   

If the United States has no transportation framework, how did it develop one of the best highway and airways systems in the world?  

Looking forward I would keep the same framework, except that I would make sure all modes of transportation at priced fully at the point where the user pays for them, i.e. ticket counter, pump, etc.  If the nation did this (it won't because of politics), then passenger rail might have a chance in relatively short, high density markets.  But it would be challenged given its cost structures.

In FY10 Amtrak passengers received a federal subsidy of 21.13 cents per passenger mile.  Airline passengers received a federal subsidy of 99/100s of one cent per passenger mile, whilst motorists (includes intercity bus operators) received a federal subsidy of 49/100s of one cent per vehicle mile traveled.  These were direct transfer payments from the federal government's general fund to Amtrak, FAA, and Highway Trust Fund or they were support services received from Homeland Security, Essential Air Services Program, etc.  

All modes of transport, including Amtrak, receive some indirect state and local funds to help defray their costs, although in the case of the airlines and motorists, because of their large population base, they pay the local funds through sales taxes, property taxes, etc.  Amtrak's passengers pay the same taxes, but there are not enough of them to complete cover the state and local fund sources.

Given the spread between the subsidies paid for intercity passenger rail and the subsidies paid for competing modes of transport, passenger rail would be challenged to compete in a free market, although with heavy restructuring it could be done.  But it could not stand on its own using the current methodologies.

Those who argue for a strong, centralized transport plan, are overlooking the fact that these arrangements have failed in most parts of the world.  Statism is out of vogue because it does not work. 

[henry6]

In your's and my mind zero point is today, Harvey, but the real zero point is when we allow planners, governements, and business to sit down and do what has to be done from that day on.  Yes, the ideiological framework you describe is the crux of the matter which is the part that has be be brought to zero to start the proccess or building anew (not rebuilding, but building anew).  It is not a matter of ripping out and replacing but about realocating and redesignating and reusing in new ways.

[HarveyK400]

henry6

Dave!  Your post above states exactly the problems with the US transportation policy: there isn't one and nobody understands the dependencies and inter-dependencies of each mode.  While I know there is no zero point to go back to in order to redesign and re-plan, planners and the like have to mentally designate a date zero start planning, building and integrating virtually from scratch, But they also need a good, down to earth, PR person who understands transportation and can explain in simple to understand terms to the populous!

The zero point is today; and it's what we do hereon out that is the important thing.  We have a lot of sunk investment in transportation; and the art is to use it as well as possible.  We can't afford to rip out and replace in most cases; but we can modify and enhance what we do have.  The ideological framework for small government and deregulation makes any central planning next to impossible.  Draw your own conclusions.

[henry6]

Dave!  Your post above states exactly the problems with the US transportation policy: there isn't one and nobody understands the dependencies and independences of each mode.  While I know there is no zero point to go back to in order to redesign and replan, planners and the like have to mentally deesignate a date zero start planning, building and intergrating virtually from scratch, But they also need a good, down to earth, PR person who understands transportation and can explain in simple to understand terms to the populos!

[daveklepper]

And Bolt Bus "covers its costs" and makes money for its owners only because ALL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION IS SUBSIDIZED.    Including Bolt Bus.    If it weren't for the NEC passenger trains traffic would be at a standstill anyway.   So in a sense the subsidy to the Amtrak's NEC also subsidizes Bolt Bus.    Beyond the lack of real estate taxes on superhighway land, beyond the police protection that is not covered by highway taxes, beyond State congribution to highway repairs that comes from the general fund and not highway taxes.

And the NEC upgrade was needed for decent Northeast Regional service as well as Acela and the Boston electrification was opened only with regular Amfleet operations.   Much of the upgrade, and any Amtrak expert will tell you this, was comonsation for long-deferred maintenance.

Long distance trains may be controversial, high speed in the midwest may be controversial, but everyone knowledgeable knows the NEC is essential to the east coast economy (and the USA in general) and needed an upgrade, still incomplete, very very badly.    And charging a premium price for the best service to cross subsidize the other services just makes excellent business sense.  Amtrak should be applauded for doing the right thing by all its customers, as well as the taxpayers by doing so. 

[HarveyK400]

I'm sorry I don't have notes; but some presentations at Northwestern U on Friday and at the Midwest High Speed Rail Association meeting Saturday  addressed the issue of public economic benefit justifying transportation infrastructure improvements for high-speed rail in particular and by extension Amtrak and transit generally.  Case in point: a $200M hotel and conference center opened adjacent the Normal, IL transportation center still under construction and before the Chicago-Saint Louis Corridor sees 110 mph service.    Long-term additional tax revenues from induced redevelopment and economic activity in cities are expected to outweigh the public cost for HSR improvements.  US population is expected to rise by 70M by 2035, almost all in urban areas, and bringing the urban proportion to 80%.

[schlimm]

Dave:  You said it!   sam1 makes some good points but keeps pushing the goal line.  The determination of full capitalization recovery costs in transportation seems a very murky area, even for accountancy experts.  Sticking with examination of the covering of operational expenses is reasonably transparent and pretty clearly Acela succeeds in doing so and maybe one or two of the other corridor services [CHI-StL and WASH-LYNCH] do also, with tiny surpluses.  In the case of Acela, its surplus over OE allows the entire NEC operation to have made $62.9 mil in FY 2011 through Jan.