Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[Overmod]

Daveklepper, keep in mind that I mean HIGH-speed rail -- TGV-class trains running under 'mandatory' 25kV catenary, and the like. Something I would very much like to see in the methodology of the 'six-times-a-car' study would be the effect of regenerative energy-storage, or 'peak-power buffers' like the UT MegaGen as used on locomotives, on the overall fuel efficiency.

The specific point I was trying to establish is that fuel economy is not a reason to envision construction of new 'ultraspeed' American mainlines, instead of additional highways or other systems that don't require the massive engineered infrastructure and severely limited use that a TGV-style new line would require.

Now, something to compare might be a combination of 'legacy' and new lines with mixed intermodal and passenger traffic, with TGV-compliant grades for ease in building but a maximum speed of something more conservative, say the FRA's 110mph. I note this still gives reasonable daily trip times between many city pairs, fuel consumption at that speed is dramatically lower, there would be plenty of 'emergency' reserve speed if needed for timekeeping or delay recovery (or, if need be, 'getting out of the way' of fast traffic more quickly).

This is, or was, the initial goal in many of the targeted rail corridors according to FRA priorities up to this spring. It has changed since then, I think in part because of the current Government dislike of passenger rail. I do think that in almost all respects the traveling public would find this kind of system more palatable than rocket trains going 'everywhere you aren't' and not stopping within a hundred miles of you... probably using time-tested Bombardier busted-flush-suspension heavy-as-lead technology?

[Anonymous]

A quick note from the Hoosier Cornyards in Knox, Indiana.
Remember, in Indiana if you go into a restaurant and ask to be seated in "no-smoking," they take the ashtray off your table. A problem for years with getting proper NICTD (South Shore Line passenger) funding has been that folks south of where I'm sitting just don't see a value in what they perceve as funding the commutation of secretaries to Chicago
from Hammond.
Mitch

[Anonymous]

Gabe,
I'd think that passenger rail would be viewed as a mode of transport that's a lot more accessible to these rural areas than airports. The airport even in the major (top 30) metropolitan area I live in requires a 45 minute to an hour's drive.

Someone living in Dodge City, Kansas, or La Junta, Colorado, for example, for reasonable air fares, would have to drive at least 3 hours or more to reach an airport with decent service when Amtrak provides service to those cities' downtowns.

Now, I know one train a day isn't great service, but it's a start. A second frequency, running 12 hours later, would be good, add more travel options for the public and provide areas such as Hutchinson, Kansas, that only have trains between 2:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. needed train service..

Also, rural congressmen often seem more interested in securing subsidies for their agricultural interests while blasting susbsidies given to other industries and facets of U.S. daily life.

This isn't a slam at ALL rural district representatives, but some. Rural areas, of course, have their strengths and weaknesses, just like urban areas.

The one that used to represent me, when I lived in that big agricultural district, after receiving my letter on proper Amtrak funding had a staff member CALL ME AT HOME to tell me they took my suggestions into consideration.

[daveklepper]

I know it is way off base to say a modern auto is six times more fuel efficient than high speed rail . Why do I know? Because public transit, and this is an average over all, with light rail and subways being more efficient than bus, is rated ten times more efficient than private cars. Now, admittadly, public transit is not high speed. And high speed at steady running is less efficient than normal speed. But not sixty times less efficient. And probably not less efficient at all when compared the stop and start running of public transit.

Recently the federal budget people did a study comparing bus rapid transit with light rail and the study was deliberately slanted to favor bus rapid transit. Here is how they slanted it:

1. They included typical power company losses in transmission from power house to user, Typical, not modern best practice, not what is typical for distribution to rail and transit lines, but power company averages over all, including to houses, rural dwellings, etc. And then they did not count the fuel used to deliver diesel fuel to filling stations where the busses tank up.

2. They compared the most efficient modern highbred buses with industry average of all rail.

3. They overestimated reasonable capacity on hybrid articulated buses and drastically underestimated capacity of modern light rail cars.

I suspect even worse shenanagans in any study that says personal autos are six times more energy efficient per passenger than high speed rail. I'd say probably the reverse is true.

A paper given in Noise Control Engineering by European authors some 14 months ago stated that energy efficiency was one of several reasons most Euorpean countries are encouraging rail rather than highway development to meed increasing passenger transportation needs. Admittadly, USA rail passenger cars are heavier than European ones, but so are American autos heavier and less fuel efficient than the average Euorpean automobile.

I guess I have some homework to do to give you a definit reference on this question and I will get with it.

[SALfan]

One reason people in rural or semirural areas don't support increased passenger rail service is that driving isn't a huge hassle there. If you drove 100 miles miles from my hometown you would hit only one city, and not a huge or terribly congested one at that. Driving 100 miles there is no big deal. Driving 100 miles around the Washington, DC Beltway during daylight, or driving 100 miles on I-81 in the Shenandoah Valley, or driving 100 miles from Washington on I-95 is MUCH LESS fun than walking barefoot on broken glass. Give me a train any day!

[gabe]

Ohlemeir,

I agree with your basic premise concerning views of government spending. However, I am not sure Indiana's use and exposure to passenger rail is really that miniscule.

I am not a native Hoosier, and one of the first thing that struck me when moving to Indiana is how every-day citizens regard the loss of the Monon Railway and Monon passenger service (it is not as if I go around anouncing I am a rail fan either). It is as if somone had shot their dog or something and never ceases to amaze me. Also, the northern part of the state has quite a bit of exposure to passenger rail. You should have heard the cry from South Bend when the South Shore Line threatened to take away passenger service.

Nonetheless, I think you are right. Hoosiers would much rather see such projects come from private enterprise than the government. I am not contending that is good or bad; just a way of looking at things. Arguing whether this is a good thing or a bad thing would just tend to get everyone dizzy. As discussed earlier, government subsidies to other forms of transportation muddy the contemplation of purely private rail travel to the point of obscurity.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by gabe
[br ]Ifs of late, it seems to me that some of the more ambitious Amtrak projects have had a great deal of State involvement. That is never going to happen in Indiana. Indiana hates to spend money. I love Hoosiers; but, if "penny wise and pound foolish" ever applied to a group of voters it is them.

Gabe,
One thing I've noticed, the committment to rail is much less in rural, farm states.

IND is a very big farm state, like Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and the Dakotas.

Those people don't see much use - or haven't been exposed to - for rail or any kind of transportation other than highways.

Government spending on anything other than the basics is considered evil.
They seem to think private enterprise is the answer for everything. When in fact, governmental investments in infrastructure, be it air, highway, sewer, water, electricity, education, etc., is what helps private industry expand and grow.

I say this having grown up in one of those farm states.

[gabe]

If I had a dollar for every time someone in Indy told me how crowded the I-65 corridor is, how awful Chicago parking is, and that they would love to take the train if it would just run on time at a reasonable hour, I would be able to implement the proverbial "60mph train with integrity" myself.

I shouldn't complain too much though. As of late, it seems to me that some of the more ambitious Amtrak projects have had a great deal of State involvement. That is never going to happen in Indiana. Indiana hates to spend money. I love Hoosiers; but, if "penny wise and pound foolish" ever applied to a group of voters it is them.

So, I suppose I should be a more active voter before criticizing the fact that I-65 is too crowded and Amtrak doesn't run a competent train to meet an apparent demand.

Alas, it appears as the ennui is beginning to affect my outlook.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting question. I unfortunatly live in greater MN where the only Amtrak train that even comes close to me is the Empire Builder, and the only time I can catch it is crazy early in the morning.

Now I don't live in a heavly populated area I know, so expanding service may not be feasible, however I would love to have a shorter distance train that would run from Fargo to Minneapolis but down BNSF's Morris and Wayzata subdivisions, maybe just 2 or 3 times a week. I know this probably will never happen, expecially since this state has a hard enough time getting light rail or the notherstar commuter rail to get off the ground (light rail has, northstar is coming???). But what a great mode of transit as opposed to driving to the cities and using my car, gas, cluttering the roads, etc...

[Anonymous]

I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis' comment in "Mere Christianity" about being progressive. The first person to turn back the clock when it's realized that the wrong road is being taken is being progressive. He is going back to where he started so he can then take the better road.

Maybe this thinking about creating high-speed rail in America is a trip on the wrong road. I remember reading in Trains years ago that in Japan, despite the introduction of the bullet trains, a competing conventional overnight train using the old narrow gauge line and with a start-to-stop average speed of less than 40mph was heavily-used by travelers.

Maybe the right road (the optimal road when all factors are taken into consideration?) is a proverbial "train run with integrity at 60mph between Indy and Chicago". I recently drove from Wisconsin directly through Chicago and Cleveland to New England and back on interstate highways (55-75mph), and except for a construction zone hold-up (15 minutes) in Indiana southeast of Chicago, I experienced no appreciable delay. These interstate (mostly toll) highways were in good to excellent driving condition.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
If New England wants a high speed rail network, then let New England pay for it, so on and so on. Most of the South, Midwest and Intermountain West is totaly dependent on highways for economic survival, and what you are proposing (a two year moratorium on highway funding) would do more to destroy the U.S. economy than if Osama Bin Laden was elected president.

Highways are paid for by user fees in the form of fuel taxes and truckers fees. Airports are paid for via ticket taxes, as well as some of the highway trust fund.

Highway users pay for highways, airline users pay for airports, it is only fair that railroad users pay for new infrastructure.

Not according to the Congressional Budget Office and DOT. Highway taxes cover 60% of the costs of highways. And they pay zippo for law enforcement, court costs, the $35 billion a year the people pay for highway crashes, pollution, et. al.

Dittos for airports. So-called "user fees" don't foot the bill either - paying only 45%, though that's what people are led to believe.

Rail tickets do pay a substantial portion of Amtrak's costs, accounting from 60-80%, according to the figures I can recall.

To add insult ot injury, the feds taxes passenger train travelers during the 60s to build airports and highways. Therefore, I see no problem adding a penny or two to the gas tax - and to airline tickets - to help bulid the rail infrastructure and improve passenger service, since rail travelers were forced to pay for highways and airlines.

Regarding New England having to build its own high-speed system. That's not the way this country bulids transportation systems.

High-speed rail is indeed something the feds should very appropriately get involved in, built and maintain, since it did so with high-speed highways and airways.

For Interstate highways, airports and almost any new freeway, the feds pay about 80% of the costs.
Rail should not be exempt from this.

These links, for those interested, provide an overview of how much $$ the feds invest in the competitors to rail- passenger AND freight.,

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm
http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/essays/subsidies.htm

I don't mean to nit-pick but these myths and misperceptions about Amtrak need to come to a halt.

[Overmod]

Ye gods, Mr. Clark, are you going to wave a wand and build 8000 miles of TGV-capable track in two years? Either give me the wand or give me the pipe you're smoking!

In our present United States, the approvals, permits, and EQ impact studies would take at least 4 to 6 years, fast-tracked; then there are land acquisition costs, then there are construction costs. This might be reduced somewhat by using Interstate ROWs as you propose -- but the only 'practical' place to put the tracks would be in the median, which would involve fearful consequences if either vehicular or rail traffic suffer an 'incident', and would also require extensive revisions to bridges and drainage for the road network. There is a more important consideration: Interstate curvature, some of it intentionally provided to preclude 'highway hypnosis' or to optimize construction, is very often far too sharp to allow high-speed operation at the levels you anticipate.

Even with modern construction equipment and methods, a line with limited lateral curvature and properly-adjusted vertical curvature -- both of which are utterly essential to the high-speed operations you assume -- will be extremely difficult and co$tly across, say, the Alleghenies between New York and Chicago. Existing railroad rights of way (let me say this gently) are almost all worse than useless for your purposes. 'Tilting' trains can overcome track curvature issues up to a point -- that point being rapidly reached about 50mph shy of your 'goal' speed. Vertical-curve transitions are another thing altogether. As are railhead quality, lining and surfacing, and track lubrication at the required much higher incident forces. On top of that, there are safety and operating questions (at these speeds, I consider them in that order) regarding any other traffic on a conventional railroad. Can you say "no grade crossings"? Can you say "no trespassers"?

Dave, asking railroad companies to pay to subsidize passenger service would be like asking Delta to pay for improvements at the Federal Express hub in Memphis. Operating railroad companies rather dramatically exited the passenger business many years ago, including Southern Railway, and I have seen no particular excitement about getting back into it, even via the NEC. You would be much, much better off (imnsho) advocating a Federal "passenger fund" into which would be rolled all support for pax-carrying modalities (this itself would require extensive political "negotiations", but might be done) -- this, for example, would include the Federal highway funding for passenger cars (and the Highway Trust Fund accrued principal/interest and income derived from passenger cars and 'consumer' light trucks) and the pro-rata share of air improvements related to passenger flight movements (as opposed to cargo flights). Someone with experience or distinctive competence might be able to figure out the contribution of water transportation (ferries, some running substantial differences; I can't think of much more until the Fall River Line comes back!)

This at least would be fair -- but making railroads pay for it wouldn't be appropriate. THEY have neither interest nor mission in the plight of American passengers, and since the formation of Amtrak and demise of the ICC the Government has not been in much of a position to require them to be interested or concerned in the matter directly. That might change if 80/20 Federal funding were available for infrastructure improvement... but few, if any, of the true high-speed ROW modifications are particularly significant for freight operating economy -- even when conventional freight of *any* kind can be tolerated or even operated on its precise geometry and rather extreme maximum gradients. Why would a railroad pay 20% of the tens of billions required to put 8 to 10% grades across the Alleghenies?

Now, I'd be very interested to see what the operating profile of modern tilting passenger equipment on, say, the proposed Pennsylvania new main line of the late '20s would be. (In fact, I'd like to see detailed grade and construction-detail documentation for that proposal, if anyone has it). But the fact does remain that such lines weren't built extensively, and the ones that were (the Lackawanna cutoff being one example) aren't particularly optimized for high speed in the modern sense, although they should be perfectly fine for 120mph or so.

Note that I haven't discussed why trains don't immediately go 186mph when they leave stations, or maintain that full speed the whole way. But answer me this: Where does the bullet train between New York and Chicago stop en route? Kind of pointless to shut out everyone between those two points -- or make them have to backtrack the odd hundreds of miles to get on the supertrain to save a few hours. I can assure you that a resuscitated People Express with a bunch of 737s (or modern equivalent) can blow holes in THAT operating model, just by servicing any high-speed demand from all the intervening communities directly. And they can be operating as soon as the capital is allocated, and the desired number of terminal or hub gate slots arranged -- not after All That Up-Front Money is spent building the railroad in order to run the first train. Wanna place a bet about which represents a better use of capital or lifecycle energy consumption?

There are statistics available (I don't have the cites, but there are people on the forum that probably do) that indicate that intermediate high-speed rail consumes about six times the energy per passenger that a modern automobile running the same distance does. I believe that calculation was performed using the 'typical' average number of occupants per vehicle, which I would guesstimate as between 'one' and 'two', and an average of large and small automobiles. If there is no big savings on energy, what's the advantage to Americans over the use of aircraft ... which can be flexibly redirected, have greater per-hour capital utility, benefit from a wide network of common parts and service availability, and have considerably more resale utility than a TGV trainset.

(By the way, please explain to me why running up freeway 99 and then running across to the Bay Area would add a full hour or more to the LA/SF trip time at your given speeds. P.S., REAL high-speed trains to SF won't terminate in Oakland, any more than real high-speed trains to New York would terminate at Hoboken...)

[Junctionfan]

I can't say for anybody else but myself but....

People don't mind spending the money unless they feel they aren't getting their money's worth. It is like paying taxes in Canada. Sure it is often regressive but we get to see our money work for us most of the time so people generally don't complain. However if they start seeing stuff go into stupid things, they scream "thief".

In Canada, the whole sponsership scandal is a good example of money spent on things that don't matter to Canadians and so the government has been forced into an inquiry and likely will face criminal charges from the RCMP. Because we have spent all that money on taxes, if the government screws up that bad, we throw them into the slammer or at least try to.

With all that said, people don't mind as much if the funds and fares of Amtrak, meet the service they get. For so far, I would expect that a lot of people have been disappointed and so they don't use it. Than there are those rail biggots who feed on the customer's bad experience and frighten off any other potential customers. Plain and simple, Amtrak and Congress must unveil a plan to repair Amtrak's reputation and put a spin on the rhetoric from the rail-biggots. If people can't be swayed into thinking that you can deliver and you are actually keeping your promises, ridership will be much higher in volume and so Amtrak will be able to pay for more of its costs. I don't know if that will stop their losses, but it should at least decrease the losses. Shouldn't it?

[PNWRMNM]

Ooops

two years .5/1.15*1.15= 37.8 cents
three = 32.8 cents

Sum =$1.14 This is a good project as I gain 14 cents

As the project time horizon gets longer, the present value factors of the out years get very small. In addition your confidence that the will be realized shrinks. The simple solution is to ignore cash flows beyond some cutoff time. I doubt the BNSF even considers cash flows longer than 30 years on the transcon, perhaps even less.

The nice thing about this analysis is that it is easy to evaluate a stream of unequal payments, which is why it is generally used.

Mac McCulloch

[PNWRMNM]

Mark Hemphill

Net present value calculations are part of almost any business investment decision, including railroad.

First notion is what is the value of a dollar at some point in the future, say 1 year say 10 years. This is big question if you are double tracking the transcon. The future value of a dollar is calculated by the formula 1/(1+r) where the 1+r term is raised to the power equal to the number of years. This value is the "present value factor and you can quickly calculate it in an Excell spreadsheet. You also need to determine what your discount rate, or required rate of return is. For a "safe" railroad project assume 15% pre tax.

Simple example: Should I invest $1 in a projcet that will return me 50 cents in each of the next three years;

Present cost =$1
Present value of 50 cents one year out .5/1.15 = 43.4 cents
" two

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

The economic competing Asian and European nations have high speed rail.....and its about time America does too..... We are running out of airspace near the major airports, thereby making it imperative that we invest in inter city rail..... A moratorium on federal highway and airport spending in two years could build an adequate starter high speed rail system in America of some 7,000 to 8,000 miles, enough to build high speed rail from the NEC to Chicago, to Texas, to Florida, and back to the NEC, along with a leg in California and a direct line from Chicago to Florida, all the way down to Miami, plus a few short lines to Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, and to Minneapolis, not to mention others....

Once this high speed network of tracks is built, we can easily spend less on new airports and highways, and we won't miss any of the construction during the next two years....

And I am talking about a true high speed rail network, the TGV/ICE capability of 186 mph..... making it possible to ride a train from New York City to Chicago in less than 5 hours, from Chicago to Dallas in less than 6 hours, from Houston to Atlanta in less than 6 hours, and from Atlanta to Washington DC in less than 5 hours....or from Chicago to Atlanta in less than 4 hours..... The ability to ride a train from LA to Oakland in less than 3 hours.....well 4 hours if they build it alongside Hwy 99 instead of I-5....

Use as much as possible rural interstate highway right of way, and either commuter or light rail right of way in the major cities....

Any scheduled passenger network whether air, sea, or land.....needs a subsidy.....They all do, everywhere......

The argument against funding Amtrak falls on this fact....

Just how long will the airllines last if they had to pay for airport terminals and parking garages......Not very long.....

Who would fly at first class rates? Not many.....

If New England wants a high speed rail network, then let New England pay for it, so on and so on. Most of the South, Midwest and Intermountain West is totaly dependent on highways for economic survival, and what you are proposing (a two year moratorium on highway funding) would do more to destroy the U.S. economy than if Osama Bin Laden was elected president.

Here's another thought: If there was a two year moratorium on highway funding, would that include a two year moratorium on gas taxes? Probably not.

Highways are paid for by user fees in the form of fuel taxes and truckers fees. Airports are paid for via ticket taxes, as well as some of the highway trust fund.

If you really want what you are suggesting, then we should start by slapping a 50 cent a gallon fuel tax on railroads to pay for it, and maybe a per container fee along with it.

Highway users pay for highways, airline users pay for airports, it is only fair that railroad users pay for new infrastructure.

The whole idea of forcing individuals onto mass transit went out with the 70's, because the basis of that ideal is totaly un-American. Individualism is the heart and soul of America, at least outside the NEC.

[Anonymous]

The economic competing Asian and European nations have high speed rail.....and its about time America does too..... We are running out of airspace near the major airports, thereby making it imperative that we invest in inter city rail..... A moratorium on federal highway and airport spending in two years could build an adequate starter high speed rail system in America of some 7,000 to 8,000 miles, enough to build high speed rail from the NEC to Chicago, to Texas, to Florida, and back to the NEC, along with a leg in California and a direct line from Chicago to Florida, all the way down to Miami, plus a few short lines to Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, and to Minneapolis, not to mention others....

Once this high speed network of tracks is built, we can easily spend less on new airports and highways, and we won't miss any of the construction during the next two years....

And I am talking about a true high speed rail network, the TGV/ICE capability of 186 mph..... making it possible to ride a train from New York City to Chicago in less than 5 hours, from Chicago to Dallas in less than 6 hours, from Houston to Atlanta in less than 6 hours, and from Atlanta to Washington DC in less than 5 hours....or from Chicago to Atlanta in less than 4 hours..... The ability to ride a train from LA to Oakland in less than 3 hours.....well 4 hours if they build it alongside Hwy 99 instead of I-5....

Use as much as possible rural interstate highway right of way, and either commuter or light rail right of way in the major cities....

Any scheduled passenger network whether air, sea, or land.....needs a subsidy.....They all do, everywhere......

The argument against funding Amtrak falls on this fact....

Just how long will the airllines last if they had to pay for airport terminals and parking garages......Not very long.....

Who would fly at first class rates? Not many.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

A lot can happen in 10 years though. I don't know if it would be advisable to get rid of it just yet. There are a few possible things that amtrak could get into that might prove to be profitable for Amtrak.

I have a major problem with selling off assets only to repurchase things again. Railroads do this by ripping up track only to have to put it back again. Railroads say it is saving money but to me it is like spending 10 dollars to save a buck. How illogical is that? I wonder if what Amtrak could be doing the same kind of thing.

Granted that trailers do have a rather short "shelf life", but is that true for the Wabash Nationals that are not in use for an extended period of time and are covered up? What about the MHC cars? They are like anyother kind of rollingstock that has lasted for up to 50 years like a lot of the NYC rollingstock.

I must question you on how you have come to the conclusion that the roadrailer will be obsolete in 5-10 years.

I think for the roadrailers, it might be advisable if they are the owner of them, to lease their equipment if possible to Triple Crown if Amtrak can't find any customers that will get them into a unit "as required" express train.

I didn't mean Roadrailer service would be obsolete in 5-10 years, just the existing trailers. Sorry for the confusion. Unproductive assets are a HUGE no-no in a capital starved business. You just don't have the luxury of keeping stuff around "just in case". Let somebody else take the gamble and hold the equipment and pay a bit more to lease it back if you do need it.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CG9602

Originally posted by futuremodal

You fail to see a correlation between an increased funding for rail, increased opportunities to get cars off of the road, increased number of trains or other transport choices in the transport marketplace, and relief from highway congestion? Ever driven along I-5, or the roads between WAS - NYC? now, imagine what they would look like if amtrak didn't exist. How many more cars wuld you see then? how much more road rage?

Counting only Amtrak riders, you'd see 500-1000 less cars per hour on I-95 if the NEC didn't exist.. Not even a 1/2 a lanes worth of traffic. Maybe at peak times, a whole lane's worth. The existence of Amtrak isn't really a capacity issue as much as a service issue.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/) 

• Reply