schlimm THERON WHITE Ever stop to think about all the money (50 to 60 BILLION) per year that highways loose each year? The distinction is infrastructure building and maintaining, an asset, vs. operations on that infrastructure. Personally we would be better off with all four major transportation modes' infrastructures nationally funded and maintained.
THERON WHITE Ever stop to think about all the money (50 to 60 BILLION) per year that highways loose each year?
I dunno, Schlimm, would you really like to see the rails subject to the tender mercies of federal funding, as truckers are? Or, if you're a barge line, to water-level decisions made by the Corps of Engineers?
It's a deck mostly stacked against the rails, to be sure. (They get to pay taxes on right of way they incurr the expense of maintaining for themselves.) But there's a lot to be said for the independence they enjoy by being able to put ROW resources where they're needed, when they're needed, in their best business judgment.
That independence, which has much to do with the present success of their business; taken with the nose of the camel that federal maintenance would represent; is a powerful argument against socializing the ROW.
northamericanexpress daveklepper but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost. Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations. We sorely need a David Gunn to run Amtrak at this moment . . . someone who's not afraid to speak truth to both Congress and the White House, unlike a yes man like Joseph Boardman.
daveklepper but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost. Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations.
but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost.
Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations.
We sorely need a David Gunn to run Amtrak at this moment . . . someone who's not afraid to speak truth to both Congress and the White House, unlike a yes man like Joseph Boardman.
David Gunn got fired for speaking truth to his own board.
THERON WHITEEver stop to think about all the money (50 to 60 BILLION) per year that highways loose each year?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
BaltACD From USA Today web site http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2014/11/05/amtrak/18471389/
From USA Today web site
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2014/11/05/amtrak/18471389/
"For a comfortable and pleasant travel experience I suggest -- Go Amtrak. You'll love it." Only if you don't care if you are on-time or as much as18 hours jate.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
In California, the newest state funded and sponsored commuter lines and next high speed rail system will offer serious competition. Unfortunately both Union Pacific and BNSF are disinterested in anything but more bulk freight rail loads over their congested single track lines going north, east, and south over some of the most beautiful and scenic territory in the world. The Capitols from Sacramento to San Jose operate 10 trains per day while Amtrak can only muster one train from San Diego to Seattle. The other routes eastward from Oakland to Denver/Chicago (California Zephyr) and Los Angeles to New Orleans (Desert Wind) are similarly challenged with even older and more dilapidated equipment and virtually no spares. Amtrak appears to be on a mission to commit rail passenger service suicide.
I had read an article recently about the DB problem in either the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung online or Die Welt online or Der Spiegel online, forgot which. The point was that in the push to show a profit, DB Netze AG, the entity within DBAG handling infrastructure, has greatly cut its spending.
From the above link... "In 1996 the DB monopoly over the regional German corridor lines was ended. The previous federal responsibility to determine and finance (i.e. subsidize) regional passenger rail services was spun out to state authorities. However, the states were protected financially in assuming the service. Financial resources were provided to the states for both infrastructure and operating subsidies"
What exactly was the financial mechanism to measure the production benefit of what was given out in Gemany?
krtraveler CSSHEGEWISCH I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak. To even utter that smacks of intellectual dishonesty. During the short-lived hysteria that followed the stimulus, First Group and Virgin Trains expressed interest alongside the (public) international HSR operators. After the tea party backlash all but killed the high speed rail momentum, Amtrak's commuter competitors formed their own organization as they aimed to compete with "America's Railroad" for intercity routes. Here are the real reasons for the disconnect over the last four years: 1. The gridlock in D.C. has resulted in uncertainity over passenger rail's overall direction. 2. The states outside of Indiana are so far unwilling to listen to what the private operators are proposing. If some had, we wouldn't have had the mad dash over Section 209 regulations last year. 3. The vast majority of the rail community has shown very little interest in supporting private operators who don't own infrastructure. Witness the near disaster with MAP-21 in 2012--the community was virtually silent when the Senate tried to drive private operators out of business. 4. The FRA's stringent rules. ======= When it comes to the question itself, it's well past time for Amtrak to be challenged--the question is exactly how such competion should be shaped. Other parts of the travel & tourism industry should be encouraged to get involved in train travel. Airport lines aren't getting shorter and America has built as many highways as it feasbily can. Either the British or German solution should be used as templates as to how competition can work here. It isn't rocket science. It's really a matter of political will.
CSSHEGEWISCH I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak.
I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak.
+1
But a cautionary note on the German solution. Recently it has become an issue that the conversion of DB to a profitable corporation has led to deferred maintenance/replacement of aging infrastructure elements, particularly bridges.
I think you raise some good questions, Mr. Payne, but introduce factors that really seem to overcomplicate things. If the US sensibly moves to more transportation powered by clean electricity, some of the interstates might well be freed up to construct electrified, higher speed rail RoWs, used in the daytime for passengers only (125-150 mph), at night for time-sensitive freight (90 mph).
It seems like chasing the goal of providing capital spending alone to generate above the rail "subsidy free" operations might actually cost more on a per-passenger mile basis.
Why not just just provide a set per-passenger mile funding level and let the providers figure out if it is best acheived by providing a new alignment with high capital spending or an existing alignment with high operating spending?
I just finished reviewing some of the Essential Air Service decisions nearby, and even for relatively long 400+ mile EAS hauls the per-passenger mile subsidy is $0.66 "above the runway" ($7.82 M-Federal Subsidy/11.85 M-RPMs) using ExpressJet CRJ200's.
When I back calculated using FHWA data the NPV of our infrastructure investment in the Interstates highways, I found that the difference in fuel taxes collected versus the costs to the governments (capital and gvm't accident costs) over the entire program life is $0.12/Automobile Mile, and the rebuildings need to kick into high gear now.
When benefits are discussed in EIS planning documents even today, they do silly things like account for time savings at the full wage rate at the highway speed limit instead of the actual trip average speed and real value of time. When the interstates were orginally justified they did not compare the benefits of driving versus say being a passenger on a 90MPH streamliner, but instead driving on over-capacity 1935 era 20' wide, 3' shoulder two-lane roads.
Imagine if IP was allowed to operate the City of New Orleans with an arrangement to get paid just say 85% of that $0.12 amount per equivalent passenger mile. Yes, they would need to have a liability shield for themselves (grade crossing accidents caused by commercial vehicles) and the host infrastructure owner (track defects), but the arrangement of a production variable scheme would promote a expansion of consists and perhaps additional trains on the route.
The original 1990's era renewable electric energy laws would provide $0.015/kW-hr for producers of renewable energy, which got a lot of sensible landfill methane programs going, without the government directly picking winners. Now I understand we give big chunks of money up front to the Solyndra's instead of only paying for success in a mix of capital and operations afterwards, when power is produced.
Or consider that the World Trade Center PATH station is now projected to cost $3.9 Billion. This fact beyond anything else goes to prove that if you do not consider the cost per unit of production, but instead just spend from a big-ol-pot of money, you get out of kilter, as there is no guiding compass to pull a project back and challenge it's designers to find a better way.
CMStPnPoltmannd Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism. Japan Bank for International Cooperation has guaranteed a significant portion of the anticipated debt of the project (percentage unnamed) and the project has already been granted eminent domain powers by the Feds. Both are fairly significant legal developments for a pipe dream with no hope of being realized. Fact is the project cannot release cost estimates until it decides on a route and selects the rest of the proposed infrastructure. Both items are in progress and the company has stated in the past it will not rush and put out inaccurate information but rather wait for solid based factual information to be released.
Thanks for the info. "Just beyond pipe dream", then. We have connect the dots, plus trip time estimates plus some level of support for some amount of funding.
I'd give pretty good odds they never turn a spade of dirt.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Wizlish schlimm If the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competitive ... What factor are you including for track occupancy and contribution toward wear and tear, etc. on behalf of the "track owners"? (Or what incentives would you provide a host railroad in lieu of payment?) I don't think it's entirely safe, or right, to assume a host railroad will allow passenger trains to use the track free. What arrangement would be used where some infrastructure 'improvement' is needed to support the right level of passenger enablement (for example, to allow operation at 79 mph or some higher desired level) but for a cost much lower than that of full construction? I would presume some level of local-government or other politically-based subsidy or grant ... but I'd also presume there would be safeguards against the kind of situation that seems to have happened with BNSF and the Amtrak improvements that are essentially subsidizing heavier oil traffic (or whatever).
schlimm If the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competitive ...
What factor are you including for track occupancy and contribution toward wear and tear, etc. on behalf of the "track owners"? (Or what incentives would you provide a host railroad in lieu of payment?) I don't think it's entirely safe, or right, to assume a host railroad will allow passenger trains to use the track free.
What arrangement would be used where some infrastructure 'improvement' is needed to support the right level of passenger enablement (for example, to allow operation at 79 mph or some higher desired level) but for a cost much lower than that of full construction? I would presume some level of local-government or other politically-based subsidy or grant ... but I'd also presume there would be safeguards against the kind of situation that seems to have happened with BNSF and the Amtrak improvements that are essentially subsidizing heavier oil traffic (or whatever).
schlimmIf the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competitive ...
If the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competive, i.e.,wage scale comparable to freight lines, no sleepers, cheaper food service though using wage scales that are prevalent in the restaurant trade. It's happening in the NEC even on the Acela trains.
jclass And what's the problem with seeing a transportation mode used as an integral ingredient in business development. Elevators and their shafts don't make any money on their own ... It's about creating tomorrow's cities.
See PDN's comments in the "Transit-Oriented Development" thread (about 10 days ago in the Transit forum), then download and read the two papers he has provided links for, as a start. I think this is valuable in the current context, and also in the discussions regarding All Aboard Florida.
oltmanndTexas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism.
Japan Bank for International Cooperation has guaranteed a significant portion of the anticipated debt of the project (percentage unnamed) and the project has already been granted eminent domain powers by the Feds. Both are fairly significant legal developments for a pipe dream with no hope of being realized.
Fact is the project cannot release cost estimates until it decides on a route and selects the rest of the proposed infrastructure. Both items are in progress and the company has stated in the past it will not rush and put out inaccurate information but rather wait for solid based factual information to be released.
jclass oltmannd Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism. What about Japan's interest in gaining an entry (for their top-shelf system) into a friendly, big-time economy, the US? They seem to have the patience to give a market time to develop where American companies often don't. Witness, Prius. And what's the problem with seeing a transportation mode used as an integral ingredient in business development. Elevators and their shafts don't make any money on their own. It's about creating tomorrow's cities. Today's is history at midnite.
oltmannd Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism.
There's nothing wrong with AAF or what Texas Central wants to do.
It's just AAF's funding mechanism isn't available to Amtrak and Texas Central doesn't have a funding mechanism at all.
So, trolling around asking questions about these operations vis a vis Amtrak gets the answer it deserves.
Midlandjim Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation.
Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation.
Tell me about the Q's passenger profits any time after WWII. I think it will be a very short story.
Mac
zkr123 So All Aboard Florida and Texas Central Railway are not competition? They're private funded companies creating high speed passenger rail service.
So All Aboard Florida and Texas Central Railway are not competition? They're private funded companies creating high speed passenger rail service.
I'll bite.
AAF is spending $1.5B for service that will gross (not net, gross...) $150M a year. Even if they have an outstanding operating ratio, there's no way that revenue can service that debt.
So, why are they doing it? FEC owns lots of land for development along the route. They will make money developing their real estate.
Amtrak doesn't have this luxury.
Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism.
It is extremely unlikely that any entity in the US can create a truly profitable HSR operation. That is, where ticket revenue funds all operating costs, capital costs and has any left over for investors.
About the best we might hope for is sourcing capital from public funds and generating some positive cash flow above the railhead. Acela does this.
Midlandjim Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation. Scheduling and well maintained equipment can bring the passenger business back to the rail carriers. In the 50's and 60's the rail management of most railroads wanted out of the passenger rail business.As the airlines offered cheap and inexpensive fares. So they let the equipment fall apart (I always heard complaints about dirty, poor conditioned equipment on the Penn)but when the equipment was clean, the trains on time, I always heard positive comments (ATSF). The Santa Fe did not want to join Amtrak, but were forced to for any number of reasons.There is a way to operate at a profit.
Having worked for one of the great passenger railroads (CB&Q), in the passenger traffic department, and having been a part of an attempt to start up passenger rail service between Denver and Salt Lake City via Southern Wyoming in the 1980's. I feel that good passenger service can be accomplished by any carrier that sees the profit in such an operation. Scheduling and well maintained equipment can bring the passenger business back to the rail carriers. In the 50's and 60's the rail management of most railroads wanted out of the passenger rail business.As the airlines offered cheap and inexpensive fares. So they let the equipment fall apart (I always heard complaints about dirty, poor conditioned equipment on the Penn)but when the equipment was clean, the trains on time, I always heard positive comments (ATSF). The Santa Fe did not want to join Amtrak, but were forced to for any number of reasons.There is a way to operate at a profit.
Johnny
So what are the benefits of the commercial air system that elevate the subsidies above reproach?
In my part of the world (SE USA) most city pairs are at least one connection away by a regional jet, which is very sub-optimal when you compare the flight cost, disutility of the passenger's time, number of transfers, and general harassment.
Our largest real estate corporation moved away as the connections had declined (the guys I know cited a lack of direct NYC flights as most important). Those direct flights that were left are often twice a days to the hubs only, with limited capacity airframes, to the point that 4 executives were loading up in a car and driving to Atlanta in one instance (6 hours) instead of flying. Part of their illustrative decision is also due to the pricing scheme used, where direct flights, when available, are priced in many instances higher than a two hop flight comprised of one part of the very same schedule (which fits with the time dis-utility model).
The operational cost, per passenger mile, of short stage (Less than 750 mile direct flights) are forcing major pullbacks in airline schedules, but the fixed cost of airports is still there for the US. It is getting to the point where the only real option for the middle class is driving, as we have practically no passenger rail network.
I would welcome a competitive rail environment for the rest of US, based on a passenger mile compensation scheme, where the operator had access to a large loss liability pool (for a PSGM fee) that shielded the host as well, some type of nationwide access agreement, and the station buildings were locally provided while the platform was owned by a trustfund.
The giant hole that is being left for 200 to 700 mile trips does need to be filled. Funny how the new NARP lead used to be the editor for Aviation Week Intelligence Network.
ACY So transportation by water isn't subsidized? Just how much does it cost to run the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, anyway?
So transportation by water isn't subsidized?
Just how much does it cost to run the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard, anyway?
The key point is how much of the so-called subsidies to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Coast Guard benefits Amrak's competitors. The relevant metric is subsidy per passenger mile, although there are some other metrics worth considering. One of them is benefit per passenger mile.
One of the mistakes made frequently when comparing subsidies, i.e. aviation, highways, etc., is to assume that commercial transport is the only beneficiary of the subsidy. NARP makes this mistake. It implies that all of the transfers from the General Fund to the Aviation Trust Fund benefit the commercial airlines. Not true!
The commercial airlines use approximately 30 to 35 per cent of the air ways - includes airports - and air traffic control system outputs. The remainder is used by general aviation and military aircraft operating in civilian air space. So only the portion of the subsidy that directly benefits the airlines should be considered.
NARP also overlooks the benefits of the commercial air system when discussing aviation subsidies. It should talk about the cost/benefit ratio. This also applies to those who talk about subsidies to motorists - commercial and personal, etc. They winge about the subsidies but overlook the benefits to the nation as a whole.
Passenger rail makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding the airways and highways is prohibitive. Very few areas meet this criteria. This is where the nation should invest its scarce transport dollars. Whatever subsidies flow to other modes of transport are largely irrelevant to this decision.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.