John WR If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses. But everyone doesn't.
If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses. But everyone doesn't.
Exactly. I work hard so I don't have to travel cheap and suffer.. If I can't afford to really enjoy a vacation, I won't go. Business travel is different, of course; I go where I am told when I am told!
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
Also rail gets associated with the "green" agenda and the agenda 21 crowd. I am personally not a fan of it and I hope others distance themselves from them. Many of these people want this stuff forced upon people but I do not see it as the solution. Cheers.
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSFIn terms of exceeding capital cost JR and Taiwan both did do that.
JR with the additional 'fillip' of Old Man Thunder lying through his teeth knowing full well it would cost a lot more! Perhaps some sort of fibbing with statistics could be 'ginned up for the World Bank or whoever to throw money at. Just do NOT give any sort of PG... ;-}
That said if HSR really isn't financially viable alternatives can be explored. ET3, Hyperloop, and Swissmetro can be built for less cost than HSR, use less energy, and require less maintenance.
The trick, I think, is to find some greater fools, like the initial enterprise that built the Eurotunnel. (And that is about the most extreme demonstration of a rail project with no comparable competition in its niche!)
Expect some fancy refinancing, and fleecing of initial fools, er, shareholders, for any company purporting to build HSR in the United States. Technically that applies to taxpayers on the amount of government assistance on capital construction. And we have not even started on the various issues of liability and risk...
oltmannd ontheBNSFThat's one proposal that isn't very good. Other passenger services have turned a profit. The first TGV route, maybe. The rest? Nope. They cover their cost above the rail (like Acela) but they can't pay back the capital. France is currently playing a "shell game" with who pays for what. The justification for spending the capital from tax money comes from examining the alternatives. It can be cheaper, in dense corridors, to build HSR rather than airports or additional highway. You can't start with "I like trains" and work backward to get the answer you want. Well, you can, but you'd be intellectually dishonest.
ontheBNSFThat's one proposal that isn't very good. Other passenger services have turned a profit.
The first TGV route, maybe. The rest? Nope. They cover their cost above the rail (like Acela) but they can't pay back the capital. France is currently playing a "shell game" with who pays for what.
The justification for spending the capital from tax money comes from examining the alternatives. It can be cheaper, in dense corridors, to build HSR rather than airports or additional highway.
You can't start with "I like trains" and work backward to get the answer you want. Well, you can, but you'd be intellectually dishonest.
In terms of exceeding capital cost JR and Taiwan both did do that. That said if HSR really isn't financially viable alternatives can be explored. ET3, Hyperloop, and Swissmetro can be built for less cost than HSR, use less energy, and require less maintenance.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR Paul, I generally avoid personal comments. However, with Don I must make an exception. He insists, absolutely insists, on using clearly stated sound arguments. That is intolerable. John
Paul,
I generally avoid personal comments. However, with Don I must make an exception. He insists, absolutely insists, on using clearly stated sound arguments. That is intolerable.
John
I'll try to do better!
ontheBNSFI have explained before you can't "fix" Amtrak atleast as it currently is. You could recycle the Amtrak brand name and use it for other things but the model Amtrak is set up as is a failure. Amtrak is designed to be a political football by its very nature. Amtrak is functioning exactly as it is supposed to be.
There are tons of things Amtrak could be doing on their own to improve their position. NARP is their enabler, however, and Amtrak has only shown to move when pushed.
oltmannd ontheBNSF The main problem is that discussions always end up into "why the status quo must continue". There is always an excuse of some kind. The discussions get tiring. It is hard to explain the benefits of something when it continually runs into problems CAHSR being an example. It is hard to be an advocate of something when it fails at what it does (Amtrak). Yes, it is hard. So, you quit when things get hard? No. You get busy. My take is that Amtrak is a political reality. But, it is a hot mess in many regards which makes it an easy target for the "anti passenger" folk. I'd bet it's the reason some of the "antis" have their point of view. So, what to do? It think all attempts to "privatize" it wholly or in pieces are fantasy - or circus - or both. So nothing will come of them. What is more fantastical expecting the government to provide effective passenger service. The same government which nearly killed the railroads. The same government which has threatened to cut Amtrak funding the same government which has attempted re-regulation. The same government which subsidized roads and sprawl to the tune of billions of dollars. Privatization proposals have been successful in the past Conrail and Canadian national were both privatized successfully. JR was privatized (as private as anything is in Japan). So its not impossible. I also think that any thoughts about "making money" moving people are also fantasy. Even "all aboard FL". $145M in gross revenue can't pay for a $1.5B investment. There is something they are not telling us.... That's one proposal that isn't very good. Other passenger services have turned a profit. The only real answer, I think, it to "fix Amtrak". That's what advocates should do. Cheer Amtrak when they do well. Boo them when they do poorly. Hold them accountable. Expect continuous improvement to be generated internally. Expect wise investments. Write your congressmen. Tell your friends. So, how about it?
ontheBNSF The main problem is that discussions always end up into "why the status quo must continue". There is always an excuse of some kind. The discussions get tiring. It is hard to explain the benefits of something when it continually runs into problems CAHSR being an example. It is hard to be an advocate of something when it fails at what it does (Amtrak).
The main problem is that discussions always end up into "why the status quo must continue". There is always an excuse of some kind. The discussions get tiring. It is hard to explain the benefits of something when it continually runs into problems CAHSR being an example. It is hard to be an advocate of something when it fails at what it does (Amtrak).
Yes, it is hard. So, you quit when things get hard? No. You get busy.
My take is that Amtrak is a political reality. But, it is a hot mess in many regards which makes it an easy target for the "anti passenger" folk. I'd bet it's the reason some of the "antis" have their point of view.
So, what to do?
It think all attempts to "privatize" it wholly or in pieces are fantasy - or circus - or both. So nothing will come of them.
What is more fantastical expecting the government to provide effective passenger service. The same government which nearly killed the railroads. The same government which has threatened to cut Amtrak funding the same government which has attempted re-regulation. The same government which subsidized roads and sprawl to the tune of billions of dollars. Privatization proposals have been successful in the past Conrail and Canadian national were both privatized successfully. JR was privatized (as private as anything is in Japan). So its not impossible.
I also think that any thoughts about "making money" moving people are also fantasy. Even "all aboard FL". $145M in gross revenue can't pay for a $1.5B investment. There is something they are not telling us....
That's one proposal that isn't very good. Other passenger services have turned a profit.
The only real answer, I think, it to "fix Amtrak". That's what advocates should do. Cheer Amtrak when they do well. Boo them when they do poorly. Hold them accountable. Expect continuous improvement to be generated internally. Expect wise investments. Write your congressmen. Tell your friends.
So, how about it?
I have explained before you can't "fix" Amtrak atleast as it currently is. You could recycle the Amtrak brand name and use it for other things but the model Amtrak is set up as is a failure. Amtrak is designed to be a political football by its very nature. Amtrak is functioning exactly as it is supposed to be.
Sounds like more coaches should have BC seats installed. Or, BC rates should be higher - or have a steeper yield curve on price. Or, both?
More equipment would be "nice" but you'll lose your shirt if you "build for Easter Sunday". Ideally, you do your fleet size for the average and then vary your pricing to flatten the peaks and fill the valleys.
DON: looking at booking for this week about 1/2 of business class is sold out especiallyout of CHI. I do not think that it is an "Easter holiday" type demand.
Of course if some of the states do not pony up their share of the operating costs for short haul trains there may not be an equipment shortage ?
John WR oltmanndThe only real answer, I think, it to "fix Amtrak". That's what advocates should do. Cheer Amtrak when they do well. Boo them when they do poorly. Hold them accountable. Expect continuous improvement to be generated internally. Expect wise investments. Write your congressmen. Tell your friends. Don, It is hard to quarrel with you because you have an unpleasant habit of making your arguments crystal clear band basing them on the well known facts of the situation. Let me try to make a couple of small points. Amtrak is in fact a big and rather entrenched bureaucracy. Such things are not changed easily. Where they have good points that is good; when there have bad points it is not so good. Also, many people would like to see changes in Amtrak. However, not all of those people agree about what the changes should be. John
oltmanndThe only real answer, I think, it to "fix Amtrak". That's what advocates should do. Cheer Amtrak when they do well. Boo them when they do poorly. Hold them accountable. Expect continuous improvement to be generated internally. Expect wise investments. Write your congressmen. Tell your friends.
Don,
It is hard to quarrel with you because you have an unpleasant habit of making your arguments crystal clear band basing them on the well known facts of the situation.
Let me try to make a couple of small points. Amtrak is in fact a big and rather entrenched bureaucracy. Such things are not changed easily. Where they have good points that is good; when there have bad points it is not so good. Also, many people would like to see changes in Amtrak. However, not all of those people agree about what the changes should be.
Don has an unpleasant habit? What does he do, dip tobacco snuff and spit on the carpet?
Yes, there are probably "issues" with Amtrak that come with any large organization with that much of a government tie-in (cough, subsidy, cough).
I also thing there are "issues" with the advocacy community. Amtrak may or may not listen to us, but the advocacy community is well represented here that we can hammer out what it is that we should ask Amtrak to do.
On many rail-oriented boards there are always the naysayers. You say, "wouldn't it be neat if they had gas turbine trains" and someone says "gas turbines use too much fuel and are sensitive to coupling shocks." You say, "let's advocate for HSR" and someone says "it will never work, we don't have the population density" and so on.
I really don't think you can pin the naysayer label on Don. He has concrete ideas and proposals on what to do. He once suggested that Amtrak appoint a railroad liaison person with Norfolk Southern and other corporations. I had jokingly suggested that such a person be called a "Norfolk Southern whisperer." A "horse whisperer" is someone who has a gentle way in training and working with horses. The Norfolk Southern corporate slogan is "The Thoroughbred", a kind of horse. A "Norfolk Southern" whisperer would be someone who understood the corporate culture, who could get the host railroad to help Amtrak by knowing the people at the railroad and how to make their jobs a little simpler. Someone who could engage in some "horse trading" of things that would benefit the railroad in exchange of something to aid Amtrak, to excuse another bad pun.
Who boy! did that suggestion run into a buzz-saw of nay-saying criticism. Corporations and especially railroad companies are Evil don'tchaknowit and why doesn't the gummint just write Norfolk Southern a blank check to do what they want! The only way to train "The Thoroughbred" is with whips and electric jolts!
Don once suggested, no, he simply pointed out that Norfolk Southern employs one quarter the employees in its shops as does Beech Grove, for an admittedly apples and oranges comparison. Norfolk Southern probably follows in the tradition of Norfolk and Western that had the most Cracker Jack steam locomotive maintenance shops in history whereas Amtrak is, well, kinda like the gummint. Or more like the Pennsylvania RR that couldn't keep T1s on the road.
Or maybe, as I has suggested, there is something about the shock and vibration environment of railroads that make passenger equipment expensive in relation to the rubber-tire motorcoach bus. This is an engineering question and as a research engineer I simply live for asking and getting answers to such "big picture" questions.
But talk about naysayers when we consider the responses Don got. How dare you compare passenger trains to NS's freight operations. Passenger trains need that much more TLC (if passenger trains need all of that intensive servicing, 1) maybe that explains why Amtrak needs such high rates of subsidy, and 2) let's figure out why and maybe we can improve passenger trains to make them less costly that we can have more of them?) The naysayer mode is "passenger trains are what they are and just accept that, and the gummint should just pay the money to run them."
No, we are not going to get 100% agreement on passenger advocacy. But there is, in fact, a passenger advocacy "consensus" that is widely held, that consensus is broadly represented and expressed by NARP, and that consensus has had us "stuck in neutral" for the last 40 years of Amtrak.
What is refreshing about this Web site is the diversity of opinion. We need that if we are ever to achieve a "break out" with wide expansion of passenger rail.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
oltmannd So, what to do? It think all attempts to "privatize" it wholly or in pieces are fantasy - or circus - or both. So nothing will come of them. I also think that any thoughts about "making money" moving people are also fantasy. Even "all aboard FL". $145M in gross revenue can't pay for a $1.5B investment. There is something they are not telling us.... The only real answer, I think, it to "fix Amtrak". That's what advocates should do. Cheer Amtrak when they do well. Boo them when they do poorly. Hold them accountable. Expect continuous improvement to be generated internally. Expect wise investments. Write your congressmen. Tell your friends. So, how about it?
Reform! Reform! To be effective, that will mean some radical changes, not just same ol' same ol' as we have witnessed. for 40 years with a few breakthroughs. It means developing real corridor services in heavily populated areas where there is a short enough distance to be competitive at higher speeds. As speeds increase, the length of such corridors can increase as well. It also means not spending capital improvement money for long distance services, especially non-revenue, non-passenger items like 50 new baggage cars when a seat shortage apparently exists. Some rail fans might not like that, but it is necessary, IMO..
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
blue streak 1 Reference Business class. ------ Although Mother's day Sunday may skew results.for tomorrow ---- 1. Palmetto & Carolinian business class sold ou. 2. Some Downeasters sold out. 3. All NYP - Alb BC sold out + some BC trains sold out ALB - Buft 4. Most CHI BC outbounds sold out. however that may be skewed for Michigan trains as all coach sold out. Once again seems like a lack of equipment ?
Reference Business class. ------
Although Mother's day Sunday may skew results.for tomorrow ----
1. Palmetto & Carolinian business class sold ou.
2. Some Downeasters sold out.
3. All NYP - Alb BC sold out + some BC trains sold out ALB - Buft
4. Most CHI BC outbounds sold out. however that may be skewed for Michigan trains as all coach sold out.
Once again seems like a lack of equipment ?
Sam1Mathematical (statistical) models emulate the real world. And they give researchers insights into what is going on or what might be possible.
I guess I didn't make it as clear as I should have that the course was about creating mathematical models.
OvermodEven the qualitative things can be monetized. Thought the value may differ from person to person, the distribution of the value can still be used in models to do predictions and get useful results.
Sampling and surveying. Analysis of existing data. Correlation of inputs and outputs. Same way value of air quality is done. Same way cost/benefit of environmental regs is done. Not easy. Not precise, but as my Engr Econ professor said, "An imperfect economic analysis is better than none at all!"
Let me rephrase that so it says more of what I meant: He's getting at a claim that the proportion of business travel on Amtrak, outside of specialty destination pairs, is comparatively slight. He's saying it, not me.
I am of the opinion that much of the increase on services like the Carolinian is indeed business-related. Discussing exactly how much Amtrak traffic is actually business-related AND attracted from other potential modes is one of the reasons, I think, that the OP raised the question.
Overmod What he appears to be getting at is that the proportion of ''business travel' on Amtrak, outside the specialty-corridor or NEC trains, is comparatively slight.
What he appears to be getting at is that the proportion of ''business travel' on Amtrak, outside the specialty-corridor or NEC trains, is comparatively slight.
Routes have Business ? Surfliner, Cascades, Quincy, Missouri River, STL - CHI, Michigan, Carbondale, Pennsylvanian, Carolinian, Palmetto, Downeaster. The business upgrade is very reasonable and we again come up the problem of no spare equipment to allow for more business cars & their sales.. Don't the business seats sell out only or first especially the Palmetto ?
oltmannd Even the qualitative things can be monetized. Thought the value may differ from person to person, the distribution of the value can still be used in models to do predictions and get useful results.
Even the qualitative things can be monetized. Thought the value may differ from person to person, the distribution of the value can still be used in models to do predictions and get useful results.
But this 'monetization' is done by who? With what assumptions, and for what purposes (implicit or explicit)? With what bias or spin?
One of the things that has historically plagued welfare economics -- a far less 'hard' discipline than modelbuilding or synthetics -- is how you determine a reasonable value for nondeterministic factors. Here you seem to be implying that there are stochastic metrics that can be applied to populations to develop some 'average' monetization. That may work in some situations, but not at all in others, and a take-home point is you can't predict which outcome you will see from the initial conditions.
This even before you get into the order in which complex variables are defined and fixed when conducting the analysis. Or the order in which you 'defuzzify' items that cannot be given a certain value except when the mathematics requires it... if you don't want a conclusion with less effective resolution than the error implicit in the analysis.
I am certainly not arguing that you cannot make reasonable assumptions and derive 'useful results' from a subsequent analysis. Just that it isn't safe to conclude that 'monetizing' complex factors is an approach that even remotely guarantees the necessary kind of reasonable assumptions.
DeggestyDo you mean "their companies?" Please explain "errant mission." You also should have a verb following "choose to ride Amtrak."
I thought we'd agreed to eschew grammar fascism in favor of thought or points. I think it's pretty clear what he meant.
If I had to guess, I'd think he meant 'urgent' instead of 'errant' (in the sense of knight-errant, which is just about opposite the semantic sense of the way he used it). Perhaps he was thinking of 'errand' and conflated things. But the gist of what he said gets through.
And no, there hasn't had to be an actual verb following that last 'sentence' since the early days of magazine prose. The phrase affects the object of the previous sentence, "passengers" and is only set off by a full stop for rhetorical emphasis (I will spare you the trope - thank me now or thank me later).
What he appears to be getting at is that the proportion of ''business travel' on Amtrak, outside the specialty-corridor or NEC trains, is comparatively slight. I can think of several potential reasons why that might be so, including chronic lackadaisical arrival timekeeping or excessive fare for the travel time required. I do think this matter needs thoughtful discussion, whereas the poster's grammar does not.
Bonas Like the Idea of City Pairs,,,The bus goes places that Amtrak does not go. College Students and Leisure Travelers make up a huge portion of Amtrak Passengers. People who are not sent by there companys on some errant mission but choose to ride Amtrak
Like the Idea of City Pairs,,,The bus goes places that Amtrak does not go. College Students and Leisure Travelers make up a huge portion of Amtrak Passengers. People who are not sent by there companys on some errant mission but choose to ride Amtrak
Johnny
Sam1 John WR BonasStop Comparing Amtrak ridership with automobiles. You have to use % of "Common Carriers" that charge a fare for a seat like the Airlines and Greyhound. When I was a student I took a course about creating mathematical models. The professor began by pointing out "The whole truth about a thing is the thing itself." No model can ever be completely accurate. There is no truly accurate way to compare passenger transportation by rail, automobile and airplane. Yet when it comes to public policy we do make decisions about how much to spend on each form and we do need a basis for those decisions. What should the basis of our decisions be? Mathematical (statistical) models emulate the real world. And they give researchers insights into what is going on or what might be possible. There are numerous, verifiable ways to compare modes of transportation by rail, automobile, and airplane. The U.S. Transportation Department generates a huge volume of transportation statistics that show meaningful, quantifiable comparisons between modes of transportation, i.e. passenger miles, cost per passenger mile, etc. Understanding the models requires an understanding of the mathematics and statistics, but the comparisons are there for everyone to dig out. The qualitative variables are not comparable, i.e. the personal value of the privacy afforded by an automobile vs. the community dynamics of public transport, which includes all modes of commercial transport, or the value of time for a traveler.
John WR BonasStop Comparing Amtrak ridership with automobiles. You have to use % of "Common Carriers" that charge a fare for a seat like the Airlines and Greyhound. When I was a student I took a course about creating mathematical models. The professor began by pointing out "The whole truth about a thing is the thing itself." No model can ever be completely accurate. There is no truly accurate way to compare passenger transportation by rail, automobile and airplane. Yet when it comes to public policy we do make decisions about how much to spend on each form and we do need a basis for those decisions. What should the basis of our decisions be?
BonasStop Comparing Amtrak ridership with automobiles. You have to use % of "Common Carriers" that charge a fare for a seat like the Airlines and Greyhound.
When I was a student I took a course about creating mathematical models. The professor began by pointing out "The whole truth about a thing is the thing itself." No model can ever be completely accurate. There is no truly accurate way to compare passenger transportation by rail, automobile and airplane. Yet when it comes to public policy we do make decisions about how much to spend on each form and we do need a basis for those decisions. What should the basis of our decisions be?
Mathematical (statistical) models emulate the real world. And they give researchers insights into what is going on or what might be possible.
There are numerous, verifiable ways to compare modes of transportation by rail, automobile, and airplane. The U.S. Transportation Department generates a huge volume of transportation statistics that show meaningful, quantifiable comparisons between modes of transportation, i.e. passenger miles, cost per passenger mile, etc. Understanding the models requires an understanding of the mathematics and statistics, but the comparisons are there for everyone to dig out.
The qualitative variables are not comparable, i.e. the personal value of the privacy afforded by an automobile vs. the community dynamics of public transport, which includes all modes of commercial transport, or the value of time for a traveler.
Sam1 Bonas Stop Comparing Amtrak ridership with automobiles. You have to use % of "Common Carriers" that charge a fare for a seat like the Airlines and Greyhound. Amtrak competes for the traveler's intercity dollar irrespective of the mode. In FY10 (the latest numbers crunched by the U.S. Department of Transportation), passenger rail (mostly Amtrak) accounted for 13/100s of one per cent of the intercity passenger miles. Buses, including transit running more than 50 miles, racked up 1.08 per cent of the miles, and commercial air carriers rang up 11.6 per cent. The car came in at a whooping 87.18 per cent of the passenger miles. The biggest factor that contributed to the demise of the passenger train was the car. If intercity passenger rail is to have a viable future, it will be predicated in part on the ability to pry people out of their cars and onto the train.
Bonas Stop Comparing Amtrak ridership with automobiles. You have to use % of "Common Carriers" that charge a fare for a seat like the Airlines and Greyhound.
Stop Comparing Amtrak ridership with automobiles. You have to use % of "Common Carriers" that charge a fare for a seat like the Airlines and Greyhound.
Amtrak competes for the traveler's intercity dollar irrespective of the mode. In FY10 (the latest numbers crunched by the U.S. Department of Transportation), passenger rail (mostly Amtrak) accounted for 13/100s of one per cent of the intercity passenger miles. Buses, including transit running more than 50 miles, racked up 1.08 per cent of the miles, and commercial air carriers rang up 11.6 per cent. The car came in at a whooping 87.18 per cent of the passenger miles.
The biggest factor that contributed to the demise of the passenger train was the car. If intercity passenger rail is to have a viable future, it will be predicated in part on the ability to pry people out of their cars and onto the train.
Or, perhaps, the train will allow growth in areas where the highways are often at or near capacity.
John WR BonasThe bus goes places that Amtrak does not go. But Amtrak goes places buses don't go. And buses are going to fewer and fewer places these days. The discount operators make their profit by skimming the heavily traveled routes and ignore the people in smaller places.
BonasThe bus goes places that Amtrak does not go.
But Amtrak goes places buses don't go. And buses are going to fewer and fewer places these days. The discount operators make their profit by skimming the heavily traveled routes and ignore the people in smaller places.
Which is why Amtrak aught to look at it's LD routes as feeders to Megabus's hubs, not the other way around.
Sam1 Amtrak competes for the traveler's intercity dollar irrespective of the mode. In FY10 (the latest numbers crunched by the U.S. Department of Transportation), passenger rail (mostly Amtrak) accounted for 13/100s of one per cent of the intercity passenger miles. Buses, including transit running more than 50 miles, racked up 1.08 per cent of the miles, and commercial air carriers rang up 11.6 per cent. The car came in at a whooping 87.18 per cent of the passenger miles. The biggest factor that contributed to the demise of the passenger train was the car. If intercity passenger rail is to have a viable future, it will be predicated in part on the ability to pry people out of their cars and onto the train.
I agree, in densely populated corridors up to 300-maybe 500 miles maximum in length.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.