Paul Milenkovic "A hundred million here, and a hundred million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money." Four projects at 100 million dollars each, and the BNSF line, maybe 200 million. A total budget of 600 million dollars? There is a document known as the Vision Report. It offers cost estimates for the kind of thing being proposed. A 100 million dollars gets you 20 route miles of this kind of upgrade.
"A hundred million here, and a hundred million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money."
Four projects at 100 million dollars each, and the BNSF line, maybe 200 million. A total budget of 600 million dollars?
There is a document known as the Vision Report. It offers cost estimates for the kind of thing being proposed. A 100 million dollars gets you 20 route miles of this kind of upgrade.
Not to blow my own horn, but I nailed the numbers (from a meeting in Garden City KS yesterday):
"Advocates of passenger rail service said their aim is to stay on track as they look for funding solutions to keep the Southwest Chief alive and running in this part of the country.
Brad Nading/Telegram Amtrak's Marc Magliari, right, talks with Reynaldo Mesa about what eastern states have done to aid in the funding of rail lines Tuesday after a meeting between Amtrak, BNSF Railroad, community and state leaders from Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico. Magliari is an Amtrak media relations manager for government affairs and corporate communications.
A portion of the cross-country route operated by Amtrak runs through western Kansas, southeast Colorado, and northern New Mexico, but is in danger of being re-routed south if outside sources of funding for the track's maintenance don't surface in the next few years.
That was the message from Amtrak authorities who met with a coalition of communities across all three states at a summit held Tuesday in Garden City, to spell out the funding challenges facing the government-owned corporation and to deliberate where the stakeholders move from here.
"We're here talking because it's not a panic. It's not like tomorrow we're going to have to do something different," Paul Vilter, assistant vice president of Amtrak, said during the gathering held at the Finnup Center for Conservation Education. "But within a pretty short time frame, within a couple years, we have to figure out how to move forward."
The uncertain future of the portion of the passenger rail route stems from ongoing struggles over maintenance costs of the rail track that is owned and operated by BNSF Railway, the second-largest freight railroad network in North America.
Vilter said Tuesday as BNSF has shifted its freight traffic in recent years to an alternative track known as the "Transcon" route, BNSF's "utility" of this portion of the track has decreased dramatically, shifting the burden for its upkeep to Amtrak.
The burden of maintaining, repairing and replacing the track line is estimated at about $10 million per year and $100 million in long-term improvement needs, funds that must spent to keep the Southwest Chief running through Garden City and a host of other communities in Colorado and New Mexico in future years, Vilter said."
I can not figure how you guys are coming in so low. Acording to the Chicago Tribune article the project will cost $4 Billion. On 247 miles that is $16,194,331 per mile. That is high, I think since I am sure there will be work done between Alton and St. Louis. As I read the article the budget includes nothing for equipment, which makes the entire project cost fixed plant investment.
Note that this project involves an existing line maintained for 79 MPH passenger train speeds. The route is generally tangent with gentle curves between Joliet and Alton, except through Springfield. Between Alton and St Louis there are some curves and some existing freight train congestion.
In the grand scheme of things this is a cheap route to upgrade.
Mac
schlimm OK, but that's only 37 miles so the numbers become 247 miles, or 4.86 mil. per mile.
OK, but that's only 37 miles so the numbers become 247 miles, or 4.86 mil. per mile.
After doing a little more poking around, it appears the Alton to St. Louis section will not be class 6 track as well, subtracting another 26 miles from the total. Getting closer to 5 million a mile.....
An "expensive model collector"
The 1.2 billion number is a little questionable.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-12-23/news/ct-met-high-speed-rail-1224-20101223_1_high-speed-rail-110-mph-service-louis-route
"The entire project is estimated to cost about $4 billion."
http://www.idothsr.org/about/funding.aspx
"Illinois’ signature high-speed rail route received $1.1 billion for corridor improvements between Dwight and St. Louis."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
[quote user="DwightBranch"]
As a matter of fact they are spending $1.2 billion to bring the entire 284 mile Chicago-St. Louis corridor up to Class 6 standards (110 MPH), or about $4 million per mile, infinitely more expensive versus the class four or five standard I was talking about.
The section from Chicago to Joilet will not be a class 6 railroad.
YoHo1975 Dwight pulled a number out of his nether regions and Paul correctly called him on it, it is worth discussing.
Dwight pulled a number out of his nether regions and Paul correctly called him on it, it is worth discussing.
Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Okay, this is tedious, but the reason I yawned at his 'calling" me on my back of the envelope numbers is that they were only for discussion and had absolutely no bearing on the argument I was making. But If I were off by as much as a figure of ten it would make little difference for the grand total would still only be around 5% of what the US spent on highways in an entire year. As a matter of fact they are spending $1.2 billion to bring the entire 284 mile Chicago-St. Louis corridor up to Class 6 standards (110 MPH), or about $4 million per mile, infinitely more expensive versus the class four or five standard I was talking about. The BNSF line is already at 79MPH (and could be at 90 if they hadn't shut down the ATS a few years back) so at $5 million per track mile (as he is saying $100 million for 20 miles) it would be $3.5 Billion for the BNSF line between Newton and Gallup. But who is saying FRA Class Six track? Are you nuts, BNSF isn't paying one-tenth that to maintain class 4 track. And Amtrak is getting by for less than that on a line in much worse shape (the old GM&O). Once you subtract the cost of an elevated connection track and a bridge at Wyanet between the old Rock Island and the old CB&Q they are spending about $2 million per track mile on the 75 miles of the Rock Island for Chicago- Davenport service, and having seen that line up close (it is twenty miles from where I grew up) I can tell you it is a wreck, IAIS just set half a train full of ethanol on fire in Tiskilwa last summer because it is so bad..
The numbers Neal uses are generally based on assumptions that don't bear scrutiny, like his claim that the reason trains in Germany use one-third the fuel as cars is because Germans drive faster (never mind that they don't SUVs or 4wd pickups).
Marginal tax rates are relatively meaningless except for financial planning purposes, i.e. to determine the hurdle rate for financial modeling.
In 2009, when the marginal federal income tax rate in the U.S. was 35 per cent of adjusted gross income, the average effective tax rate for a median income family was 7.71 per cent. The average effective federal income tax rate for those with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million to $10 million was 24.95 per cent. Those over $10 million had a somewhat lower effective tax rate, all of which proves very little.
The effective tax rate as a per cent of GDP for the U.S. in 2010 was 24.8 per cent, vs. 24.1 per cent in 2009. From 1975 through 2010 the average rate was 27.3 per cent, with a median of 27.4 per cent and a standard deviation of 1.4 per cent. A Z score analysis suggests there were no outlier years. So what?
The other side of the equation is expenditures. At the federal level, in FY11, revenues were 15.4 per cent of GDP and expenditures were 24.1 per cent of GDP. For FY12 the number are 15.8 and 24.3. Again, so what?
Cross boarder comparisons are dicy. Australia has a two tier third party medical payment scheme. Basic medical services are paid for by Medicare, which is funded through general taxes. Since Australian Medicare does not cover all expenses, Aussies are given an incentive to buy supplemental third part coverage. In fact, if they don't buy it, they have to pay a Medicare surtax. In America most people are covered by so-called health insurance; it is really a third party payment system irrespective of the magnitude of the service received, which is a part of their compensation package. If the cost of third party medical coverage in the U.S. was added to the tax base, the tax revenue to GDP ratio would change. Which brings me to a key point.
It does not matter what they do in other countries, other than they may have some best practices worth looking at. At the end of the day the trains issue should be what works for America. Not what works someplace else! What works someplace else may not work very well here.
If Amtrak were run like a business, the key question for investors is whether they (private for profit, private for non-profit, government, etc.) can retrieve the cost of their investment through the fare box or whether it requires on-going operating subsidies. All of the numbers that I have seen suggest that no matter what format the organization takes, passenger rail in the U.S. cannot cover its costs through the users. Thus, one way or the other it becomes a ward of the state.
Ok. But we're not orgaznized enough yet to get into it. So lets set our goals and some perameters: Our company is a private venture with the goal of providing rail passenger services other than commuter services, by owning and operating railroads and equipment, by contracting with railroads, transportation agencies, and others to provide the the equipment and personnel, or provide management and supervisory personnel to exisiting operations. By the way, we have not yet determined whether we are a for profit or non profit corporation yet, either.
With those guidlines we can refute the costs of the Portland servic state above because it is transit or commuter service with a lot of station costs we would not be involved in, Thus the price for a 15 mile segment of our operation would not resemble this example.
Lets also say, we have the opportunity to operate an approximate 400 mile service between two cities, one a major metropolitan urban area and another smaller major city. In between are: almost 70 miles of suburban territory, then another almost 50 semi suburban/rural area before reaching a good sized city, then 70 miles through rural area to a small city, rural to several smaller cities and towns over an 80 mile stretch, then rural the final 130 into the terminal city. Both end points already are connected by passenger service. An underused freight track already exisits over our supposed route but there would be signaling needed as well as maybe a half dozen sidings; being frieght, the blocks are a mile and a half to two miles long. Most of the track is up to 55 freight, 60 passenger speed. We need how much for a market survey along the route including the end points?
Before I go any further, let me ask that those who really know costs to come up with some figures for us to get this far. I should also add that this is not a totally fictional route.
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.
Henry, the value of that HSR link isn't to talk about HSR, but because it offers something akin to a pricing for construction and since Dwight pulled a number out of his nether regions and Paul correctly called him on it, it is worth discussing.
For the record, quickly skimming that report, it looks like it calculates 17.5 million Euros per kilometer of track as an average cost and the range is 6 million to 45 million. Doesn't list the median which would be most interesting.
And for those interested that works out, given what google tells me the current exchange rate is, to ~$37 million per mile of track for HSR.
Of course we're not building HSR here, but Dwight is I think very wrong on the costing here. Most of the lines he mentions are probably at best good for 25mph service. To get them to 90MPH would be a significant cost to say nothing of the various passenger platforms and PTC and everything else involved.
As an example, Trimet's WES service in the Portland Suburbs includes max speed of I think 60 MPH, PTC and upgraded signalling, a couple new bridges, station work, a Servicing facility and 3.5 DMUs. The entire length was 14.7 miles. The price tag for that was $166 Million. Even removing the cost overruns with Colorado railcar and the bailout Trimet provided, that works out to quite a princely sum for 14.7 miles of 60MPH track.
Although I do think that the Arrangement that WES operates under with PNWR providing the operations for the service is worth discussing as it relates to this topic.
However, it gives an idea of costs for building lines. Cheaper for lower speed lines, of course, or upgrading some of those unused lines like the ones Dwight mentioned above. And there are others.
But HSR is an entirely different topic and should not enter into our deliberations. Yet.
Here's a link to a paper examining costs for building HSR in various countries. I post without comment for informational purposes.
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12397/1/MPRA_paper_12397.pdf
DwightBranch YoHo1975: As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use. A bit OT, but there are a few rights of way that would be perfect for Amtrak (I am not sanguine about the privatization idea so I won't comment on that aspect): 1. UP west of Phoenix (currently not in use but track in place), buy it, fix it up to 90 MPH, charge UP to run trains on it (instead of heading east and then west on the mainline). It would add the biggest city in Arizona and would solve a problem for both UP and Amtrak concerning freight train interference/ speed differentials. 2. Former PRR Broadway Limited route between Chicago and Ohio, almost abandoned by Conrail, now RailAmerica and virtually devoid of trains, I am sure they would love some money for track repairs in exchange for passenger trains. 3. Old Big Four between Cincinnati and Chicago, without trains in place and run by RailAmerica and KB&S in others. Could be part of a route to Florida. 4. BNSF across Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico, keeping it open would keep passenger trains from putting freight in the hole on the Transcon, it could be fixed up to run 90MPH as it used to be. And BNSF would have an overflow route. 5. Old Rock Island between Chicago and Omaha, could also be used as a route to Peoria IL. More trains on it now but IAIS would be happy to accept signal work in exchange for passenger trains, they have said so. What is required for this to happen? Government money, perhaps as much as $100 million for each, more for the BNSF line because it is longer.. And there is no way a private entity could do that without federal money. But all of these, if properly financed, could increase timekeeping (very few freight trains). And the money is a pittance in comparison to what we spend building highways each year.
YoHo1975: As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use.
As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use.
A bit OT, but there are a few rights of way that would be perfect for Amtrak (I am not sanguine about the privatization idea so I won't comment on that aspect):
1. UP west of Phoenix (currently not in use but track in place), buy it, fix it up to 90 MPH, charge UP to run trains on it (instead of heading east and then west on the mainline). It would add the biggest city in Arizona and would solve a problem for both UP and Amtrak concerning freight train interference/ speed differentials.
2. Former PRR Broadway Limited route between Chicago and Ohio, almost abandoned by Conrail, now RailAmerica and virtually devoid of trains, I am sure they would love some money for track repairs in exchange for passenger trains.
3. Old Big Four between Cincinnati and Chicago, without trains in place and run by RailAmerica and KB&S in others. Could be part of a route to Florida.
4. BNSF across Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico, keeping it open would keep passenger trains from putting freight in the hole on the Transcon, it could be fixed up to run 90MPH as it used to be. And BNSF would have an overflow route.
5. Old Rock Island between Chicago and Omaha, could also be used as a route to Peoria IL. More trains on it now but IAIS would be happy to accept signal work in exchange for passenger trains, they have said so.
What is required for this to happen? Government money, perhaps as much as $100 million for each, more for the BNSF line because it is longer.. And there is no way a private entity could do that without federal money. But all of these, if properly financed, could increase timekeeping (very few freight trains). And the money is a pittance in comparison to what we spend building highways each year.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Dwight...you are talking my language...well, almost. You found some lines that used to be private railroads, some even with passenger services. So what are we going to do about it? As a private passenger railroad service we'll have to do our market research, see if there is a need or possilbe use of passenger service, for starters. Maybe we have to form another company, a sudsidiary company, to buy and operate the track; maybe operate the service, maybe subcontract back to our main company to operate. But we don't want government money to purchase or rebuild, or even operate. At least not yet. We might talk some government or governments to contract with us to operate so that our costs are covered and a profit of some kind is earned (even if non profit, we'll need money to put into the company for growth projects).
YoHo1975 As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use.
PNWRMNM The reason we have relatively low tax rates is not that we are starving the Federal Government. It is that we have chosen to, so far, maximize individual choice and decision making by providing most goods and service through the private sector where both buyers and sellers can look after their interests relatively unhindered by the "elites" who know better than the "bitter clingers". All we have to do to get to the nirvana of 40% tax rates is let the Government take over health care, which is 15-16% of GDP. That will get us out of the dreaded third world tax burdens, put us right there with the European Statists, and give us Amtrak like health care. No one in their right minds would want to do that would they? What? Who? Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Husein Obama you say? Mac McCulloch
The reason we have relatively low tax rates is not that we are starving the Federal Government.
It is that we have chosen to, so far, maximize individual choice and decision making by providing most goods and service through the private sector where both buyers and sellers can look after their interests relatively unhindered by the "elites" who know better than the "bitter clingers".
All we have to do to get to the nirvana of 40% tax rates is let the Government take over health care, which is 15-16% of GDP. That will get us out of the dreaded third world tax burdens, put us right there with the European Statists, and give us Amtrak like health care.
No one in their right minds would want to do that would they? What? Who? Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Husein Obama you say?
Mac McCulloch
Mac, you cannot bring contemporary Democrats into this. Nor contemporary Republicans. Americans have railed (pu intended) agains railroad rates and prices since time began. The Grange was founded by farmers wishing to fight agains percieved collaboration and high rates by the railroads...this led to the forming of the ICC to regulate common carrier's and thier rates. John Jacob Astor built a subway in New York City around 1900 and charged a nickle per ride. The City Solons and the NY State Legislature did not allow that nickle fare to be raised until almost 1950, long after the City had to take over all lines in its boroughs. Farmers get their prices while the public pays far less than costs because of agriculture protective fees. The American public has always run to its government to protect them from raising prices on anything and everything. Railroad rates, passsenger fares, are not the only thing, And today is a culmination of 250 years of past. No one can play the political card on today. And our convesation is trying to build a private company devoid of government entrapments.
Just a friendly reminder of policy for all participating in this worthy discussion...
- No political discussions or signature messages. We know, railroads are sometimes affected by politics. However, we’ve found that political discussions almost always turn into arguments. We have a common thread of being interested in railroads. Don’t let that common bond be destroyed by political differences.
Trust me I know it's very tough not to get into "political discussions" when talking about such things but as long as we all keep it civil all is good. No complaints, just been reading the posts and thought a reminder was worth mentioning before something got out of hand in Right vs. Left conversations is all...
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
YoHo1975 henry6: Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind. As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today. Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do. Henry we have to make assumptions or we don't have anything to talk about. As for unused track. I think you may be overestimating the amount of rights of way available for this type of project. Pick a corridor, any corridor, let's choose a popular proposal out west which is LA to Las Vegas. There are absolutely no existing tracks between those to cities that are not in use. We also have to deal with the route rationalization that Staggers and the mergers have given us. To take another example, since I live in the Sacramento area. 20-30 years ago, Sac to Stockton or Sac to Oakland had multiple options for a routing some better some worse, but they were there. Today, many of these tracks have been pulled up and subdivisions built over the top. As a new operator in today's market, we would need to construct new tracks in many cases. And how would you begin to build knew in the year 2012, for many of the corridor services we're discussing, there simply is very little realestate available at any price for these purposes. Unless you can convince the communities involved to allow eminent domain and then you get into those pesky governments and their legislators. And even where tracks are available, life is not so simple. When I was living in Oregon, there was clamor for an extension of the much maligned WES rail to McMinnville and maybe even a run out to the Indian Casino, but the PNWR west side line and Rex Hill would require millions in upgrades to meet basic operation needs much less safety requirements. The initial Capital outlay just to get the West side line up to snuff and install stations would make it nearly impossible to start service to say nothing of supporting ongoing Capex or Opex. I think these are the stumbling blocks for thinking of services like these. Perhaps, the 3 scenarios are good ones to frame some thoughts around? so rather than looking from the top down, Henry, do you have any thoughts on this? If the goal is to use dedicated rights of way, how do those get built?
henry6: Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind. As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today. Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do.
Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind.
As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today.
Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do.
Henry we have to make assumptions or we don't have anything to talk about.
We also have to deal with the route rationalization that Staggers and the mergers have given us.
To take another example, since I live in the Sacramento area. 20-30 years ago, Sac to Stockton or Sac to Oakland had multiple options for a routing some better some worse, but they were there. Today, many of these tracks have been pulled up and subdivisions built over the top. As a new operator in today's market, we would need to construct new tracks in many cases.
And how would you begin to build knew in the year 2012, for many of the corridor services we're discussing, there simply is very little realestate available at any price for these purposes. Unless you can convince the communities involved to allow eminent domain and then you get into those pesky governments and their legislators.
And even where tracks are available, life is not so simple.
When I was living in Oregon, there was clamor for an extension of the much maligned WES rail to McMinnville and maybe even a run out to the Indian Casino, but the PNWR west side line and Rex Hill would require millions in upgrades to meet basic operation needs much less safety requirements. The initial Capital outlay just to get the West side line up to snuff and install stations would make it nearly impossible to start service to say nothing of supporting ongoing Capex or Opex.
I think these are the stumbling blocks for thinking of services like these. Perhaps, the 3 scenarios are good ones to frame some thoughts around?
so rather than looking from the top down, Henry, do you have any thoughts on this?
If the goal is to use dedicated rights of way, how do those get built?
Truthfully, I don't care. What I am trying to do here is get people to think in terms of private enterprise instead of changing Amtrak. I am playing Devil's Advocate as much as possible to see what people can come up with, to see how different people think in terms of passenger trains, railroads, railroading, Amtrak, and history. Anything and everything is fair game except using Amtrak or government as the banker and board of directors. You have made some points here, yes. I do disagree with conclusions of anykind when no railroad has been approached with any idea of running passenger trains, no end points nor middle points (routes) have been discussed nor level of service determined. So both everything said is fair or not viable. I want to see how many can think outside Amtrak and government, outside what used to be, and who can perhaps envision what could happen. Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks.
DwightBranch YoHo1975: Not to get off topic but, The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government. http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon? All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know. Bingo. Or here is an even more stark chart. You will note that at 24% of GDP for tax revenues (and thus government services we are only above two Third World countries, Chile and Mexico. Or I should say, other Third World countries, as we meet the criteria to be a Third World country. When people in the US (including my family) complain about the infrequent, understaffed service Amtrak offers (or anything else the State generally offers in advanced countries) I tell them the US is a Third World country, and so you can expect Third World services, until you stop falling for the "tax cuts on the rich will make us ALL rich" line. You get what you pay for, and Americans are notorious for wanting their cake and to eat it too, to get government services but not pay for them.
YoHo1975: Not to get off topic but, The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government. http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon? All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know.
Not to get off topic but,
The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government.
http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif
When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon?
All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know.
Bingo. Or here is an even more stark chart. You will note that at 24% of GDP for tax revenues (and thus government services we are only above two Third World countries, Chile and Mexico. Or I should say, other Third World countries, as we meet the criteria to be a Third World country.
When people in the US (including my family) complain about the infrequent, understaffed service Amtrak offers (or anything else the State generally offers in advanced countries) I tell them the US is a Third World country, and so you can expect Third World services, until you stop falling for the "tax cuts on the rich will make us ALL rich" line. You get what you pay for, and Americans are notorious for wanting their cake and to eat it too, to get government services but not pay for them.
With respect to taxes, tax rates, and government services, are you disrespecting the President of the United States?
The Speaker of the House prior to the 2010 election wanted to let the "Bush tax cuts" sunset, i.e. expire. In a static revenue analysis, that action would have pretty much plugged the "deficit hole" that everyone is worried about. That action would have been a broad-based tax increase on just about everyone, and given the sluggish economic recovery, it is not clear whether there would have been even more pain in terms of people being unemployed for longer periods of time.
The President, famously, didn't want that. He campaigned on only letting taxes rise on the wealthiest Americans but retaining or extending tax cuts to the middle class. He didn't get that plan either, but that plan would have raised only 1/4 the needed revenue.
With respect to taxing the rich, it is not that many of us have any serious aspirations or pretentions of becoming rich. There are two concerns. One is the definition of rich is that you have a certain amount of economic power that the rest of us don't have. Since the rich have wealth far beyond their basic needs, there are all kinds of games the rich can play with regard to how much of their wealth is in a taxable form and how much is not. The 70% tax rate during the 60's is kind of a mirage as that the truly wealthy had various ways of not subjecting their money to that rate. The second concern is that with the general level of inflation, a lot of people, admittedly at the upper end of "middle class" and people who don't think of themselves as rich, get boosted into those tax brackets and tax categories intended for the very rich. Without having the financial power to dodge those taxes they way the very wealthy can.
So why worry about taxing the rich if they can dodge taxes? One, the financial manipulations that avoid taxes can hurt the rest of us through depressed economic growth. Secondly, because the rich are, rich, meaning have financial power, they have ways of passing on their increased costs of running their businesses, so taxing the rich may turn out to be a trickle-down tax on the poorer among us who are consumers. You may not believe in a trickle-down theory that handing the rich big tax breaks will help the rest of us. Do you not believe in the trickle-down theory that the rich will always be rich and will figure out ways to pass on the costs if their taxes are greatly increased?
Finally, is scolding the American people that they are not doing what we think they should want, i.e. having very high consumption taxes that raise the cost of just about everything -- VAT, high gasoline tax -- so we can have the European system of trains, is that a wise advocacy strategy to get broad-based public agreement on more funding for Amtrak?
Every side of the political spectrum has their scolding, the American people are spoiled and don't know what is good for them mode. The Right Wing is into the big scold-mode regarding public employee pensions (i.e. police, fire fighters, teachers, municipal workers) and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. My prognostication for what it is worth is that the Right Wing will get their back side handed to them in the 2012 election, much as the President got his shellacking (his words) in the 2010 election. It is just that I don't think we should put passenger train advocacy in the middle of all of this.
henry6 Railroads are tight on space for trafffic. On well used freight routes. So, why not look at unused freight routes? Today's railroads are mergers after mergers after mergers with still some duplication of parrllel routes and redundent properties. So there just might be room for passenger trains on some of these "unused" or secondary or even abandoned routes. And I admit, this is assuming that passenger routes may also not or don't necessarily, mirror freight routes and pairs. Some railroads may not want to admit excess space availability but might jump at the chance to fill an empty track space with an income of some kind. As for the point concerning Congress not giving enough money for what is needed. Well, the idea is that our private sector railorad will set a goal of service with a corresponding goal of money to make the service viable or just not do it. The advantage of not kow towing to Congress is not just no pomp and circumstance but also the actual money in hand which should produce an income via a service where niether service nor income exist today. Again, this is 2012. Just like 1970, 1990 is far different than today. To make assumptions and assertions and, thus, decsions based on 20, 40 or 50 years ago are things we can't do.
YoHo1975 Not to get off topic but, The enemy of these amenities has been an absolute slashing of the Tax rates which has completely altered the revenue for the Federal Government. http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/nytimes_taxes_graph.gif When NASA was spending money to go to the moon, the Top Marginal rate was around 70%. Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if someone said we should go back to the Tax rate that got us to the moon? All of these things don't exist in a vacuum. A mistake that far too many politicians forget or don't know.
YoHo1975 henry6: Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet. Dwight makes a good point about the Freight railroads and one that hasn't changed since the 1990s. I think the first problem we face is figuring out how to convince the host railroads to let us operate. Even if we're no longer operating long distance trains. Amtrak has a federal mandate and years of proven track record backing it up. How does a new company sell themselves to the Freight Railroads without that government mandate? And if we're just talking about Corridor services, Well then it might certainly be that private organizations can provide better cost per passenger mile, but most proposals I've seen that say that still presuppose the might of the government forcing this issue. It seems to me that the only true advantage that a private passenger service organization has is that they would not be beholden to congress for funding, they could secure their own debt and make decisions based on value. But, in the end, that's only an advantage, because congress refuses to raise the revenue to support Amtrak. If Congress is going to demand a specific route, then they ought to pay for it, not make the demand on one hand and refuse to pay for it on the other.
henry6: Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet.
Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet.
Dwight makes a good point about the Freight railroads and one that hasn't changed since the 1990s. I think the first problem we face is figuring out how to convince the host railroads to let us operate. Even if we're no longer operating long distance trains. Amtrak has a federal mandate and years of proven track record backing it up.
How does a new company sell themselves to the Freight Railroads without that government mandate?
And if we're just talking about Corridor services, Well then it might certainly be that private organizations can provide better cost per passenger mile, but most proposals I've seen that say that still presuppose the might of the government forcing this issue.
It seems to me that the only true advantage that a private passenger service organization has is that they would not be beholden to congress for funding, they could secure their own debt and make decisions based on value.
But, in the end, that's only an advantage, because congress refuses to raise the revenue to support Amtrak.
If Congress is going to demand a specific route, then they ought to pay for it, not make the demand on one hand and refuse to pay for it on the other.
First thing to remember if you are about to create a NEW passenger service. Existing freight railroads between the Origin-Destination pairs you would be operating are currently operating at near maximum capacity with the freight traffic they are handling. Freight railroads do not have 'excess capacity' to give up to a passenger operation. A passenger SERVICE will have to bring it's own trackage to the game, one way or another - either constructing it's own right of way or getting an agreement with existing freight carriers to build the capacity necessary along the freight route.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
henry6 Dwight. Lets define public transportation as that which is provided by government be it highway, air or intercity and commuter rail. And lets define our excercise here as private enterprise. And that the latter has nothing to do with the former and the former has nothing to do with the latter. We must also understand that at this point we know nothing about costs, etc. because it has not been done since Amtrak was formed, we are not replicating Amtrak nor past operations, Costs right now mean nothing because we haven\'t planned anythng, bought anything nor know what contracts we will be getting into, if any. Maybe a trillion, maybe a billion, maybe a zillion; we don't know if only because what we are about to do has not been done here in the USA yet.
dakotafred To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
To me, the enemy of amenities such as Amtrak -- not to mention the heroic enterprises that used to characterize America, such as space exploration -- are the resources-gobbling entitlements whose best friend is DwightBranch's preferred party.
MidlandMike YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains. The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
YoHo1975: Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
Sam1: The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The FY10 average net operating results per passenger, which are a function of revenues minus costs before depreciation, interest, and other expenses, were $4.96 for the NEC, due in large part to the positive operating results for the Acela offset by losses for the regional and the special trains, compared to a $16.67 loss for the corridor trains and $128.61 loss for the long distance trains.
The inference that I have gotten from some of the posts in this thread is that since the long distance train's cost are 6 times more per passenger than corridor trains, then they are that much more wasteful of taxpayers dollars. However, there does not seem to be any passenger-miles component in the figures. Since many LD routes are 6 times longer than corridor routes, if you look at costs per passenger mile they may possibly be comparable. Do we know the average passenger trip length on the different types of service?
This discussion has seemingly run on for ever. Finding this post was time consuming.
Per my calculations, which assume that 80 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation, interest, and other expenses are allocable to the NEC, with the remaining 20 per cent being allocable equally to the state corridor trains, mostly state supported, and the long distance trains, the average loss per passenger mile for the NEC in FY10 was 20.8 cents vs. 16.5 cents for the state trains and 23.1 cents for the long distance trains. Unfortunately FY11 numbers are not available as explained in another post. In any case, the argument that the cost (loss) per passenger mile to run the long distance trains is not much greater than the NEC appears to be true.
Assuming Amtrak had to cover all its allocable costs through the fare box, it would have to raise the average fare per passenger on the NEC by $48.67 vs. $21.68 for the state trains and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Needless to say, average fare increases of this magnitude would drive away a significant per cent of the long distance train riders, as well as the NEC passengers, making the trains even less price competitive.
Contribution per passenger mile or seat mile is valuable for comparing mode efficiencies, especially between different modes of transport, but at the end of the day the deficits between revenues and costs have to be made up with real money. I see nothing in the figures to suggest that the argument for discontinuing the long distance trains is not valid, especially in light of the fact that less than one per cent of Americans choose the train for intercity trips of 50 miles or more, as per the 2009 National Transportation Statistics, which is published by the USDOT.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.