However yopu want to break down the subsidies that the air travel industry gets verses how much Amtrak recieves, airline STILL get a lot more in subsidies than Amtrak recieves. Sorry pal, the that explaination does NOT fly(excuase the pun!). Like it or not politics DO figure in who or whatever recieve subsidies. I suppose you will tell when I want to travel, you will tell me to either fly or drive, Right?
Isn't that what Joe Boardman want? No I don't want LD trrains killed. I regularly travel by train. I won't fly.
o Trolley how do yoy justify the very high subsidity for ADA compliance per person ??
Trolley FarmerThis IS the experience that Train riders WANT. people are riding the train because they are treated BETTER that the airlines do. They don't have to put up with the BS that flyers have to endure.
Well you saw the delightful little Amtrak 'ad' they're putting on the security checkpoint trays, didn't you? There are plenty of other ways to take revenge for that 'You'd be there by now on the AirShuttle' billboard in a benighted spot outside Philadelphia...
The TSA crap was perhaps the greatest gift ever handed to Amtrak. Unsurprisingly, it was a completely unintentional gift. I think that even if some kook person or group decides to start terrorist activity on trains, you wouldn't have anything more intrusive than better platform security/access.
Problem for many of the LD trains is that by definition they're going to involve sleeping cars, and all the added cost associated with them in these post-Pullman-section days. In my opinion at least, there comes a point, probably around 700 miles at most, where passengers have to start thinking about sleep. On the plane you'd be there. In a car you'd find a motel. On the train, especially with many of the 'capacity upgrades' being touted for cost-effective 'improvements', much of the enjoyment might be badly tempered by having to sleep in a seat with inadequate stretch-out room, no particular privacy, etc. etc. etc.
Flyers put up with the BS in order to get where they're going, in relatively minimum time. Where Amtrak shines is in those areas where flying can't deliver compelling time or service advantage over a train. That's in part where so many of these 'emerging corridors' are coming from, and why so much of the traffic involves intermediate points rather than major city destinations.
The long-term thing I'm watching now is the cost-effective self-driving car thing. Four passengers in a 30-mpg-plus car might even consume less fuel per capita than Amtrak uses on one of its trains (with so much infrastructure required for each passenger); the time required would be much the same between direct origins and destinations, and most of the baggage issue is moot.
Where I see the immediate *advantage* of the self-driving car is that it can be programmed (very easily!) to load itself quickly on rail equipment, either circus-style or into multilevel racks, without damage or attendants' predilections. That is going to be a key draw for long-distance services where the amenities of a cruise train are superior to what a self-driving car dependent on 'roadside attractions' or route diversions would access. You might need active suspension on something the size of an AutoMax (with better trucks!) running loaded at Amtrak speeds, but the money would be there.
Now all we need is more of the equivalent of four-quadrant marketing to induce the largest number of potential passengers not to let their cars do all the driving...
blue streak 1Trolley how do yoy justify the very high subsidity for ADA compliance per person ??
Streak,
That is an old issue. When the Stamford station was rebuilt a pedestrian walkway was installed above the tracks along with an elevator on either side. The Elevators were expensive and were put in to comply with ADA. Yet relatively few disabled people use the Stamford station. The Wall Street Journal had a fit arguing that it was just too expensive to accommodate people with mobility impairments. None the less the elevators were installed and are working today.
Just how do we decide how much to spend, not just on Amtrak but in general, to provide as close as we can for equal access for people with mobility impairments?
The only problem with a self-driving car is all the uncontrollable accidents now go to the courtroom. We do live in a society where bump interstate scams are considered a valid means of income by some. How much is that worth a mile?
Trolley Farmer However yopu want to break down the subsidies that the air travel industry gets verses how much Amtrak recieves, airline STILL get a lot more in subsidies than Amtrak recieves. Sorry pal, the that explaination does NOT fly(excuase the pun!). Like it or not politics DO figure in who or whatever recieve subsidies. I suppose you will tell when I want to travel, you will tell me to either fly or drive, Right?
Yes, airlines receive a lot more in subsidy in absolute dollar amounts than Amtrak. And yes, you and many other people prefer neither to fly or go by road transport for many long trips. Much of the "airline subsidy" is paid back through the aviation fuel tax and aviation ticket tax and through landing fees at airports, but there may be other indirect subsidies. So indeed yes, the total amount of direct and indirect subsidy may be difficult to "nail down."
A number of 16-20 billion dollars/year was mentioned earlier as direct government support for airline operations in contrast with the much smaller 1.5 billion for Amtrak, or perhaps the 2 billion Amtrak is asking for next year. So again, yes, the amount of money going to support airlines is multiples of the amount going to support Amtrak.
But consider this. The amount of airline passenger miles in relation to Amtrak passenger miles is in the ratio of 100 to 1. The volume of travel, in that measure, is 100 times greater on airlines than on trains. I respect that you absolutely, positively do not want to fly, but on a passenger-mile basis, your choice, or your need, or your requirement not to fly is a minority position, a very slim minority position. Maybe a lot more people would express your preference for trains if there were many more trains to choose from. Also, we are a compassionate and reasonable society, and I am in not any shape or form wanting to take away the few trains we have left that you rely on, although I would ask that you could consider trades that may diminish service in some places to facilitate more service in other places.
Given these data, if the airlines are getting 20 billion dollars, a "fair" subsidy to trains would be 200 million dollars per year. That is essentially what President George W Bush "floated as a trial balloon" that has so many people angry at the former president -- actually, I think he was proposing much more than that, something like 500 million for Amtrak. We talk about "fairness" and that "if don't don't get our government money for trains, let's take away all of the government money to all transportation." But is a "fair" appropriation for trains really what we want?
And if we talk about fairness of government support and if we crunch the numbers, shouldn't we see proposals for drastic reduction in the Amtrak subsidy as something that will happen in the political process? We may disagree with such a cutback, but are we in any way justified in being angry when such a proposal gets made?
So, were Amtrak to receive absolute levels of subsidy comparable to the airlines, would it be reasonable that Amtrak generate a comparable level of passenger miles? Were we to increase Amtrak 10-fold, would it be reasonable to ask for a 100-fold increase in passenger miles? And does anyone have a plan to make such a thing happen?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Actually, the Five hundred million dollar subsidy was nothing more that a "starvation" subsidy. When GWB couldn't get the zero budget passed he hoped for the starvation budget go underhandedly go through. Fortunately, it was seen for what it really was. Bush was hoping for enough money for an "orderly shut down" Fortunately, it did not go through since Amtrak is a popular program with the exception of a few trolls. As you know Amtrak ridership has grown quite substantially whereas Amtrak has more business than it could handle. Therefore Amtrak needs more capital improvement and that's what Amtrak is asking for. To deny the funding for capital improvements such as new eguipment and facilities for disenfrancise a LOT of riders.
Paul M. is quite correct. We need a rail passenger system that can operate modern passenger service used by the public in large numbers. But we need one that operates efficiently. The capital infrastructure required will need to be provided through tax-exempt bond funding. Services such as the NEC and other corridors should be (and there is some evidence they are) models. As they develop, as in the case of the NEC, subsidies can become minimal or even unneeded. To do so, Amtrak will need to prune out the most wasteful LD trains (they can hardly be called services) or else use a combination of cutting sleepers and diners back and/or raising the fares to cover most of the costs. Bluntly, no one can be entitled to a 22 cent per mile subsidy so they can ride the transportation mode they prefer.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I wish everybody could just come clean on the amount of fixed costs baked into the Amtrak arrangement. Last time I tried to estimate such off the 2007 FRA rule making for PRIIA I got $1.9 Billion of fixed costs (NEC MOW, shared stations ($150 million alone) and non-operation costs). I will check my notes and make a separate post. Some of this fixed is variable over the longrun. Your not going to cut mainline NEC rails. Why act like you would?
I suppose some of you can remember the "FRA Defined Costs" of just 10 some years ago. Even in 1968 the ICC estimated that for carriers like SCL the long run avoidable cost of operating their trains was $44/trainmile ($2013), yet Amtrak now reports a Total of $75ish a trainmile. Fuel hasn't gone up that much! Too much fixed cost is getting baked in.
Roughly speaking the full subsidy (operations and depreciation) for the existing LD trains is in line with the cross-subsidy baked into the Interstate highway financing arrangement, local road users paying toward Federal taxes, then directed to intercity roads ($0.08 capital and $0.03 accidents) per VM. If the consists were expanded you could drive the intercity train subsidy number far below the highway number.
But you still need to admit that a lot of the costs are not going away one way or the other without some discipline. I for one would like to see an Amtrak budget that has a fixed cost (similar to any other agency like the FAA) and a variable subsidy wrt passenger miles provided. Then you could target both for financial discipline. Maybe the new "performance measures" under MAP-21 could be rigged to do so for the FHWA and NRPC. Fun fact, the FHWA's fixed administration/research cost is a bit more than NRPC's subsidy.
Then any state DOT could take a look at their corridor and decide do we want to take the variable amount and invest it solely in infrastructure, to get HSR. Or do we want to do small upgrades to get a 90 mph mixed passenger/freight line with the remainder to be used for an operating subsidy. Or little if any infrastructure investment and mostly and operating subsidy. It really isn't an either/or question!
I need to remind all of you that many USA citizens want to subsidize Amtrak, and especially long distance trains, like the hospital or the police or the fire department "I don't use it. I prefer to drive or fly." But I want it to be there in case I need it." Unquote.
daveklepper I need to remind all of you that many USA citizens want to subsidize Amtrak, and especially long distance trains, like the hospital or the police or the fire department "I don't use it. I prefer to drive or fly." But I want it to be there in case I need it." Unquote.
You know, if this is so, I have an answer. Provide 'many USA citizens' with an instant setaside for Amtrak once a year. At tax time.
Put a little checkbox for a default amount, right under that $1 for Presidential elections, and perhaps a space for larger contributions later on the form -- but make it easy to find there. For real fun, since this is allocation of tax revenue, make this an optional deduction 100% applicable to that portion of tax payment not used for strictly national purposes (this used to be about 8-and-a-fraction %, higher now because of homeland security, AP ammo to FEMA, and so forth, but still relatively small).
Amtrak, to the extent its operations are not subsidized directly by state revenues, is a national entity. and so can be given priority over revenue to other types of Government spending... we'll let the politicians argue about whether it benefits some states more than others after adjustments are made for state contributions...
(This completely in parallel with a "Friends of Amtrak" tax-deductible organization, which can be used if additional legal deductions for charitable contribution can be made by a taxpayer. Set that organization up so that some fixed portion of the GROSS revenue, a large portion, goes directly to Amtrak's creditors or operating personnel.)
I suspect we would soon see a similar effect to those 'find a cure' organizations, as related in Proxmire's book...
RME
OvermodYou know, if this is so, I have an answer. Provide 'many USA citizens' with an instant setaside for Amtrak once a year. At tax time.
Bob,
I give you high marks for creativity. But allow me to suggest a variation on your theme:
Allow people a choice about how their taxes allocated to transportation will be used. We can choose if the transportation portion of our taxes go to air transportation, highways or to rail passenger transportation. We can even have more than one choice and direct a particular proportion of our transportation related taxes however we choose.
But I will not hold my breath waiting for your proposal or mine to be adopted.
John
Perhaps those who do choose to drive or fly ought to ride a long distance train. They might be surprised to find out that riding the train is, indeed, a pleasurable experience. At least you won't be treated like cattle as a flyer is. or you don't have to put up with traffic in urban areas nor the knucleheads that populate our "wonderful" highways. Sure many flyers want instant gratification just like a typical juvenile. I'm not talking about flying out of needing to be someplace ASAP but for pleasue. Ally I am saying, "Don't knock it until you try it!"
Alright, which of the LD trrains are wasteful? I f you say the Sunset ltd is "wasteful" you can blame the fact that the Sunset doesn't serve Pheonix. You can blame UP for taking the track out between Roll and downtown Pheonix for that situation. UP doesn't want passenger trains on their railoraod. Yes, you will say, "It's their perogative" Well, guess what! The land was GRANTED to the railroads to SERVE THE PUBLIC. Sure, you will say "That happened a hundred years ago" I don't care if it was a million years ago' the fact s that the land WAS granted and there is that stipulation that I previously mentioned and that is STILL a valid stipulation. In fact the State of Arizona is unfriendly towards passenger rail. When I rode the Sunset the patronage was by all means was substantial if not full. The Texas Eagle was FULL. The Southwest Chief which it's route is threatened has a lot of rider origionating and detraining on that affected trackage. Unfortunately the witch Gov. Susana Martinez can't or most likely refuses to see the need.
V.PayneEven in 1968 the ICC estimated that for carriers like SCL the long run avoidable cost of operating their trains was $44/trainmile, yet Amtrak now reports a Total of $75ish a trainmile. Fuel hasn't gone up that much! Too much fixed cost is getting baked in.
$44 in 1968 would be $293 today (CPI inflation calculator)
Diesel fuel was about 15 cents a gallon (w/o tax) in 1968. It's about $3.50 a gallon now (w/o tax)
Passenger rail might be able to get quite a bit of support for quite a bit of capital spending if they operating subsidy was near zero. None of the "ranters" goes on and on about the cost to electrify the north end of the corridor, or Amtrak's rail program. It's always the operating subsidy.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Trolley FarmerPerhaps those who do choose to drive or fly ought to ride a long distance train. They might be surprised to find out that riding the train is, indeed, a pleasurable experience. At least you won't be treated like cattle as a flyer is. or you don't have to put up with traffic in urban areas nor the knucleheads that populate our "wonderful" highways. Sure many flyers want instant gratification just like a typical juvenile. I'm not talking about flying out of needing to be someplace ASAP but for pleasue. Ally I am saying, "Don't knock it until you try it!"
So...Amtrak doesn't market their trains? Is that what you are saying?
There are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them.
The population has roughly doubled since the start of Amtrak and Amtrak still can't fill the LD trains every day. They can't even get to 60%, on average.
Don't get me wrong. I think LD train are very cool! I like that the Crescent runs through Atlanta everyday. There just isn't any set of rational arguments for it's existence - status quo. I know. I've hunted for them.
oltmannd Trolley FarmerPerhaps those who do choose to drive or fly ought to ride a long distance train. They might be surprised to find out that riding the train is, indeed, a pleasurable experience. At least you won't be treated like cattle as a flyer is. or you don't have to put up with traffic in urban areas nor the knucleheads that populate our "wonderful" highways. Sure many flyers want instant gratification just like a typical juvenile. I'm not talking about flying out of needing to be someplace ASAP but for pleasue. Ally I am saying, "Don't knock it until you try it!" So...Amtrak doesn't market their trains? Is that what you are saying?
Trolley; Don has a good point. I would like to elaborate on the no marketing inferrence. Any transportation system ( bus, train, plane, etc ) making multiple stops has one leg that is called the max load leg ( or another term ) for each trip. AMTRAK has indicated that many of their trips (especially its one a day trips ) have a max load leg greater than 90%. But that one leg causes the average load factor to decrease for that trip.
An example would be the Crescent. Before the Lynchburg trip was initiated the Charlottesville - WASH leg would sell out many days preventing any sales say ATL -- WASH. That sold out leg pulled down the average load factor into the 40%s. With Lynchburg started the CVS - WASH leg no loonger sold out and the legs CLT / ATL - WASH became the max load legs. So why would AMTRAK maket a train that is sold out ? The cross marketing of AMTRAKs many routes that have a leg that sells out many tiimes juat does not justify marketing.
The PRIIAs of various routes addresses these problems but nothing can be done without more equipment to carry passengers. Also turn backs of equipment are not easy at locations such as ATLANTA until new station facilities are built. I would expect Crescent loads to go above 60% if excess equipment was removed at ATL. To complicate some routes have more than one close to max leg. What are some solutions ? Get congress to stop starving AMTRAK of rolling stock equipment. Add more trips on parts of train routes ( ex add ATL - WASH TRIPS ). Have more turn backs of equipment, Then start real marketing nationally of AMTRAK.
Where multiple trains run a route not all trains need to run the whole route ( such as Southern Ca )
oltmanndThere are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them.
Don,
Good highways came in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt started building them to counter the depression. They weren't really all about transportation; they were all about giving jobs to some of the legions of unemployed men. So did people stop riding long distance trains in the 1920's?
The roots begin at least that early. Consider that railroads were the early owners of the various Greyhound bus operations and that motor cars were an early attempt at containing costs on lightly patronized trains.
John WR oltmanndThere are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them. Don, Good highways came in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt started building them to counter the depression. They weren't really all about transportation; they were all about giving jobs to some of the legions of unemployed men. So did people stop riding long distance trains in the 1920's? John
The "Good Roads" movement actually started in the bicycle era. Many roads were built in the prior to FDR. And, yes, people did stop riding LD trains in the 1920s as soon as decent roads gave them a place drive. A good example? When the Delaware River Bridge, US 30 and NJ 47 were completed, the ridership on the ACRR and WJ&S took a big hit. This was when cars were crude, slow, noisy and had no heaters or radios. It was a major reason in the creation of the PRSL less than 10 years later.
The last year US RRs netted a profit on passenger traffic was 1929.
But, the biggest hit of all was the suburban migration after WWII. "See the USA in your Chevrolet" beat Streamliners. Nobody was complaining - except the railroads - and that was about being forced to run unprofitable passenger trains. They dropped a bundle on those Streamliners only to see ridership dry up in less than a decade.
There wasn't anybody saying: "Interstate highways? What a lousy idea!" We weren't "robbed". We got what we wanted!
blue streak 1An example would be the Crescent. Before the Lynchburg trip was initiated the Charlottesville - WASH leg would sell out many days preventing any sales say ATL -- WASH. That sold out leg pulled down the average load factor into the 40%s. With Lynchburg started the CVS - WASH leg no loonger sold out and the legs CLT / ATL - WASH became the max load legs. So why would AMTRAK maket a train that is sold out ? The cross marketing of AMTRAKs many routes that have a leg that sells out many tiimes juat does not justify marketing.
True enough, but what of the Crescents LF before and after the Lynchburg train? Did it really move the needle? I can buy a coach seat from ATL to WAS for the next seven days. The train is not sold out on any leg north of ATL.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. This train is still running on it's 1950s Official Guide schedule. It needs to be a day train north of Atlanta, add to the frequency of the Piedmont corridor in a useful way. Run the ATL to NOL as a day train, too. Provide overnight accommodations with shuttle service in midtown Atlanta. Train operating costs go down. Ridership goes up. Equipment utilization goes up. Cost of a NOL to WAS ticket with overnight accommodations goes down. What's not to like?
oltmanndI've said this before, but I'll say it again. This train is still running on it's 1950s Official Guide schedule. It needs to be a day train north of Atlanta, add to the frequency of the Piedmont corridor in a useful way. Run the ATL to NOL as a day train, too. Provide overnight accommodations with shuttle service in midtown Atlanta. Train operating costs go down. Ridership goes up. Equipment utilization goes up. Cost of a NOL to WAS ticket with overnight accommodations goes down. What's not to like?
You have said it before, Don. When I rode the Crescent a year ago November as we arrived in Atlanta it was half or more empty. Then at Atlanta it filled up. We left Atlanta at 8:04 pm. I'm sure all those new passengers would have preferred an early morning departure arriving at Washington in the evening.
But the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way.
Don, I did the inflation adjustment, $6.50ish in 1968 to $44 in 2013. I hope you give me more credit than that... There was actually a bit of dissension so to speak beginning in 1958, just most of the history is written by the winners, BPR, now FHWA. Eisenhower even had a general working with a large staff on alternatives to running the interstates through the cities, but he got beat down in the administration. Then the urban highway revolts of the late 1960's and 1970's followed, and engineers such as myself lost a lot of credibility.
I still say if you work a nighttime schedule is good for a lot of people, daytime can work as well. It really shouldn't be either-or but both, and it was till quite late in the game on this route. That is the whole point in figuring out the implicit cross-subsidy of the interstates and letting that be applied to an expanded operation.
John WRBut the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way.
Because.... they are stupid? Stubborn? Playing a different game?
oltmannd John WRBut the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way. Because.... they are stupid? Stubborn? Playing a different game?
and as I pointed out before, properly marketed, day NO-Atlanta could have seats filled
V.PayneI still say if you work a nighttime schedule is good for a lot of people, daytime can work as well. It really shouldn't be either-or but both,
But, given that all there is is one train with no possibility of a second one any time soon, and all other things being equal, a day train is cheaper to run than one with sleepers, et. al. So.....
Overnight trains have their place. In the east, we should have them in the same ratio for daylight to overnight trains as they do in Germany.
daveklepper and as I pointed out before, properly marketed, day NO-Atlanta could have seats filled
Amtrak trains into Atlanta could be a nice feeder for Megabus's Atlanta hub. Amtrak would just have to get Megabus to make a curbside pickup by the station before heading out of town.
schlimm oltmannd John WRBut the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way. Because.... they are stupid? Stubborn? Playing a different game? Stuck in a time warp?
Not paying attention....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.