Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

The USA will not settle for getting there before dark. It has to equal the airplane's time.

Drawing lines on a map is not transporation planning. If it were, any kindergardener with coloring crayons, or for that matter, any resident of a mental institution with a dull pencil could also plan a TGV system.

[Anonymous]

Amtrak is a failure because of its NE-centric management - it can't see the national picture.
The tremendous upsurge of intercity train ridership in California over the past few years was accomplished without any input from Amtrak and, in the early years, the opposition of the Penn Central refugees in Philadelphia HQ.

I also think you should look at the census and distances between metro areas. There are only six metropolitan areas with over 5 million population: NYC, LA, Chi., Bay Area, Phil. and Boston.

The USA had a better passenger rail system when we had many carriers. For that matter, we had a better air line network than we do with the obviously coming United/American monopoly.

A national system of many carriers and having HSR and long haul autoveyer trains serving particularized markets is just what the USA needs.

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

Sorry for the delay. I got kinda busy. I'm sure you know how it goes. Your math looks OK based on our assumptions, mainly that an express train has to earn $320k or more to 'earn its keep.' Your conclusion that sleeper service might make it and that coach probably can't is right along with what I have been saying all along. The economic conditions necessary to support passenger rail don't exist in the US right now.

Another fellow is proclaiming that an HSR network with the real fast trainset can make money, at least enough to cover the operating costs (what is that BTW, the fuel, crew, and engine maintanence?). I don't think so because it assumes there are enough people wanting to go to the same destination from the same point of origin and they all want to leave at about the same time. I don't think this is valid. The reason I think this is because the airlines can't fill a plane (in most cases) to go from one point to another and a plane holds far fewer people. That is why they use the 'hub system'. A plane load of Delta passengers leaves one location to go to a hub where they are placed on another flight to their destination. Both planes fly at near capacity. It is the ability of the airlines to shuffle passengers at the hub that allows them to make a profit. FedEx does the same thing.

If you translate that into the rail model, you can never get costs and travel times down where they are attractive. The result is that you have to only provide service on the prime routes. This leaves out a vast majority of the country. And this is why I object to the funding comming from the Federal Government. The system that operates at a near break even level provides service to a fraction of the citizens. The system that provides service to everyone loses money hand over fist. And this proposal still wants to take the cost of the roadbed off the books.

This is why I think the people who benifit from a successful Amtrak should bear the costs. It appears to me that it may be able to work in the NEC where commuter service can be provided and the cars will run with plenty of passengers. And if the NEC states want to form a regional authority to work this out with Amtrak then I can live with that. But I don't think it is wise or moral to waste money operating Amtrak at a loss. If it is moral to waste money like this in one industry, why not others? I'm not saying that money isn't being wasted in other industries, I'm just saying it isn't right. And Amtrak appears to be among the worste.

Nice chatting with you. - Roy

[Anonymous]

As I have said before, Amtrak should be a national system, not local. Amtrak should have the vision to build the long runs between NEC, Midwest, Texas, and Florida. To keep the west coast happy, between the Bay area and LA.

The only trains Amtrak should be operating today are the trains routes scheduled for upgrading to high speed rail. The rest should be killed. The longest leg in America I suggested will be around 900 miles. On every leg there are cities larger than 1 million in population. On every leg there are hub cities with at least 5 million in metropolitan population. Look at the census, look at the maps, this is the future.....

Get this, our DOT spent last year $7 billion for local rail and bus systems, and will again this year. Isn't it about time DOT spent $7 billion a year for a high speed rail Amtrak network I suggest?

[Anonymous]

TGV's orange train goes all the way to Marseilles now from Paris. The TGV Thalys train runs north of Paris to Calais and thru the Chunnel to London. The British have started and will be finished in two years upgrading its track to the Chunnel with high speed rail.

There are huge benefits to such a high speed rail system, I once took a train from Paris to Marseilles, which is a distance of 600 miles. The journey took about 4 hours, giving rise to an average speed of a whopping 150 mph including many stops. I have known people who have decided to drive the whole way needing to make an over-night stop half way. Hence France doesn't have too much traffic problems. Naturally there are environmental considerations. Because of the high-tech low friction design of the train, once it is running, it needs very little energy to keep it going. At 165 mph the engines can be switched off, and the deceleration is not even noticeable.

The excellent track laying techniques of French engineers mean the train is as smooth as an aircraft in clear skies, and there are no vibrations at all, and so quiet you could hear someone whispering at the other end of the carriage.

Oh yes, overall this is a very remarkable train and is rightly the envy of the world.

By Oliver Keating
check out his web site at
http://o-keating.com/hsr

SO MUCH FOR 300 MILES, SO MUCH FOR 250 MILES......you do not have to beat the airliner, just get there today, before the sun sets! DO YOU HAVE A ROCK FOR A BRAIN?

[Anonymous]

Hate to burst your railfan bubble, but 300 miles is the effective range for HSR. Do you know of any 500+ mile routes in Europe or Japan? The enormous expense of building TGV-type ROW csn not be justified through thinly populated rural areas.

With NIMBY opposition, even 300 mile TGV corridors are going to be darn near impossible to implement. As a result, an evolutionary approach to HSR is what's going to happen in this country, and funding for this is scarce. No sense in doing any more day dreaming. Like it of not, there is a role for the airplane: travel markets of 400 miles plus.

Amtrak's Dallas-Chicago fare reflects the trade-off of the longer trip time. HSR will command a premium a la Acela. Six trainsets working Chicago-St.Louis can make more round trips and would not have the airplane for competition.

Direct NY-Atlanta flights (the kind the most people choose) can do the trip in three hours max.

Let Amtrak be abolished and an organizational off-shoot of Metra run the Midwest hub, with similar such groups for the Northeast, California, Texas, Florida, and the Piedmont corridor of Georgia-North Carolina. The freight railroads or cruise-type frims (AOE or Montana Daylight) should run the long-haul inter-regional autoveyer trains.

[Anonymous]

I have to disagree about the length of high speed rail. As I have noted before, one cannot fly from Dallas to any of the Springfields. These stops add at least an hour to an airline fiight., probably more. It is not given that a connecting flight will leave in an hour.

Recently I checked American Airlines web site for the cheapest fare, and Amtraks web site for the fare between Dallas and Chicago. American Airlines with any number of one stop flights ran $525 round trip coach, while Amtrak ran $274 round trip coach. Yes, the one stop flight took 5 and a half hours, whereas Amtrak if it ran a 150 mph average TGV Thalys trainset on dedicated track could accompli***he journey in 6 hours, practically the same time. Amtrak would be competitive...the distance is 920 miles. Yes, for a price, one could fly non stop to Chicago and save three hours.

I am willing to accept as a trial building the north and east legs first. I expect a huge increase of ridership on the high speed trains from the midwest to the northeast and from the southeast to the northeast. So much so, that the trains would run practically full and with more frequency. For example its 870 miles from Atlanta to New York City, slighly less than Dallas to Chicago. Air fares and train fares are given. Is six hours too long for travelers to get to New York City? One thing is for sure, they could not drive it in 6 hours. People in the large cities with the major hub airports might be use to flying nonstop, but people living in the smaller cities as small as 100,000 in population are use to one stop and two stop flights, and the downtime of an hour or more making connecting flights.

Why is it too long to take a six hour train trip, and it is not too long to fly six hours to get to one's destination?

It is the dollar, not the time of the journey that reflect ones choice of travel.....

As I noted before, Amtrak runs 6 trainsets on the Eagle today. With 8 Thalys trainsets averaging 150 mph, Amtrak could run a frequency of every two hours between Dallas and Chicago....both regional centers of over 23 million plus.....

Let Amtrak run this long distance parrelegram, let the states run the locals from these centers..... We'll have a rail network worthy of being called American.....

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I thoriughly agree. The purpos of high speed trains is to provide an altenative mode of transportation that is competitive in time with air travel in 200-400 mile corridors.

[Anonymous]

Good point on the "auto-veyer" concept. Auto Train is our only example of this, but it is actually a common setup in Australia. Now whether it pays for itself is another matter, but certainly it is an operating scheme that would work, especially on western trains, which are primarily tourist oriented. Certainly they could serve regional attractions better, by extending the reach and usefullness of the train routes that allready run.

[Anonymous]

300 miles is the length for which high speed rail can be competitive with airplanes and highways!

1 - Dallas is the regional financial hub for the southwest. A Dallas-Austin-San Antonio HSR and a Dallas-Oklahoma City-Tulsa as separate spokes to the hub. HSR would not be competetive with flying for the Tulsa/San Antonio endpoints.

2. - Some elements of the Fed's HSR plan for the Piedmont are justifiable. Atlanta-Charlotte should be the top prirority. But 1,500 long HSR routes are not practical. One of the major operating defieciencies of Amtrak's NE Coridor is their trying to operate it as one corridor. NE Directs and even Acela trains that lose time south of Phil. delay service to New England and vise versa. Operate the NE Corridor as Boston-Phil., southern Connecticut-DC and DC to Richmond.

3 - If a route is longer than 300 miles it is courting potential disaster. For example, Chicago to Minneapolis is 400 miles via the present Amtrak route. Diverging to serve Madison WI adds another 50 miles. Diverging to serve Rochester MN adds another 50 miles. The interstate freeways in the Midwest (outside of the metropolitan centers) work very well, so the auto is much more of a competitor than it is in th Northeast.

Similarly no one would use the circuitous Chicago-Kansas City route via St. Louis, but develop them as two corridors and they could well be successful.

It could very well be that HSR should be developed as several unconnected hubs. Regional hubs that are hundreds or thousands of miles from each other are the province of the airplane. We can still have a national rail passenger network, but it would involve turning all the Superliner long hauls into autoveyer trains - cooperate with the motorist!

Many of the missing corridors don't have political sponsorship in Washington. On the other hand, the ones that are on the list that don't belong have sponsorship.

[Anonymous]

Well, if Euegen was added to get state funds, then the joke's on Amtrak! I chcukeld when I read that. They didn't get squat out of the Legislature.

Maybe next time they make that kind of calculation, they'd better check with someone on the ground who knows these Jokers first!

As for you comments on feeders, I agree. One of the stupidest things that our local transit agency did on their new light rail route was not build long term lots to serve it- and this is a line meant to access an airport. What, do they expect us to only fly out for a couple hours, and return? Sheesh!

I've always though that Amtrak should've had a hand hold with a rental car agency, to make sure that wherever you deboard, you will be met by, say, the Enterprise guy with you Chrysler convertable or whatever. But what do you expect from an organization that closes their stations at 8 pm when the train is due in at 11?

[Anonymous]

Maybe. How about DOT's plans to build a high speed rail line from Dallas to San Antonio, and from Dallas to Tulsa via Oklahoma City. Would you consider this one line or two? This corridor's total length is 580 miles.

Or how about DOT's plans to build a high speed rail line from Chicago to Saint Louis, and from Saint Louis to Kansas City. Would you consider this one line or two? This corridor's total length is 550 miles.

Why not connect the 240 miles between Kansas City and Tulsa?

I have also noticed on DOT's plans a high speed rail line from Houston to New Orleans (and beyond to Mobile), New Orleans to Washington DC thru Birmingham and Atlanta, Charlotte, and Raleigh. Would you consider this one line, two lines, or even three lines? This corridor's total length is 1500 miles.

SO MUCH FOR 300 MILES!

There are a few holes in DOT's planned high speed rail lines, politically motivated somehow. Why does the DOT not fill the holes between Dallas and Houston, Kansas City and Tulsa, Little Rock and Saint Louis, Mobile to Jacksonville, Jacksonville to Orlando, Pittsburgh and Cleveland, and Cleveland and Buffalo? Their plans make zero sense. Why build a line all the way south to Florida from Boston and not include the Jacksonville to Orlando corridor? Explain this please....

The DOT, FRA, and Amtrak do not have any plans to connect Dallas to Houston, or Houston to San Antonio, two thirds of the so called highly dense Texas triangle! Half of Texas' 20 million 2000 population lives in the metropolitan Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio, and does this without including Austin.

In my opinion it would be better to join the four major population centers east of the Rockies, Northeast, Midwest, Texas, and Florida with high speed rail, with an additional line between the Midwest and Florida. Four sides to the parrelegram, with a sla***hrough its shortest hubs. This would be better than anything FOT and the FRA have conjured up, i.e., incomplete corridors.

My hubs include the northeast corridor with enough population to have its high speed rail corridor built already, the Chicago Midwest is surely a large metropolitan area, take your pick of either Atlanta and Florida, plus Texas: Dallas and Houston both over 5 million in metropolitan area (it would be nice to connect the two so that you could include both as a hub).....DOT's plan misses these two cities big time......

[Anonymous]

Forget the concept of feeders, high speed rail is a line-haul form of transportation. Park and ride auto is its feeder mode, taxi and rental car is its distributor mode.

Eugen was added to get funding from State of Oregon, they didn't want just Portland to be their only poiint of service.

[Anonymous]

Anthony:

Ouch! Sting! Yowza!

Now, to your second point, on corridors for HSR whcih "do not have a million plus metropolitan area at each end."

Well two things- one, if some of these routes are feeders, the inention may be to gather traffic at the ends to feed into the higher desnity HSR segment.

However I agree that is not as effective as a city pair operational scheme.

For the latter, there are many ocrridors that violate that rule. One example is (sorry if I am being repetitive!) the Cascades Corridor. Does Eugene really deserve a daily train? Does Roseburg deserve to be called the southern terminus? No to both. Eugene is about, oh, 100-200k pop max. Waaaaayyyy too small.

But it's a pork barrell thing. The point was to a.) make the corridor look as big and impressive as possible, b.) stuff the corridor with "pre approvals" for fed funds, aka porking it up, and c.) placating the locals that "they are important too" to get their support in the next election.

I don't doubt this is similar to many other routes you critique. And yes there are also corridors that could and should be that aren't, because money that could be spent on, say, Houston-Dallas, is being wasted on Portland-Eugene.

Yet another reason to go to some form of funding requiring matching state funds- make the locals prove they're serious before you pour all your money down a hole.

[Anonymous]

Will someone please come back down to earth on this forum? Talk of high speed corridors hundreds and even thousands of miles long is ridiculous. High speed rail's potential is probably 300 miles tops even in Europe and Japan. The NE Corridor is actually two corridors - southern New England (Boston-Phil.) and Middle Atlantic (southern Connecticut-DC) There is very little through DC-Boston ridership. As for the absurd notion that people will drive from Memphis to Birmingham and then change trains several times enroute to do an all-day Memphis-NYC trip, that's what airplanes are for!

The tradgedy is that the politicians are just as bad as you railfans. Check the TRAINS website listing for all the federally approved high-speed corridors and see how many: A) are longer than 300 miles (either existing rail or interstate highway), or do not have a million-plus metropolitan area at each end (and consider how many such corridors meeting the above criteria are off the list)!

[Anonymous]

We could always add a lounge car. It is my favorite Superliner car. I wished the trains on the east coast, the Viewliner sleeper trains, had a sightseeing lounge car.....

[Anonymous]

Well yes, and in that respect, it would be better to increase poportionately the weight/mile tax, which would then keep lightweight loads (like ag- think hay) proifitable for smaller truckers & farmers, and also keep express shipments out on the road, but would discourage using triple (and potentially longer) trailer combos for heavy freight.

Course to do this one also has to provide for service to areas currently served only by truck, which may mean re laying track on abandoned grades...

Oops! Off topic again! Back to the sleeper car, er TGV lounge car!

(Know what I hate about Talgo and about TGV too? No observation car. Ok, elitest, isn't it? But still....

[Anonymous]

Yes, the TGV roadbed costs more to build, but in the long run its cheaper to maintain... Diesels are heavier, much heavier, than an electric locomotive....The cars the Cascades trains use are of lighter weight than the Superliner cars Amtrak uses.....

What tears up the highways, trucks or automobiles. I think you are seeing the picture. Now, if only we could keep the heavy freight traffic off the high speed lines.....(the high speed track would last longer).....

[Anonymous]

Benny:

Your thread threatens to become a rope!

And after all that math I expect an answer back, LOL.

Artie

[Anonymous]

Don:

I stuck with $60 because Amtrak fares one way coach Portland - Vancouver BC run $55 or so, as of last fall. And the nearest competition at this time is either Grayhound, Grey Line, (both buses,) auto, (much cheaper,) and air at about $125-$250 for that corridor. Could you get more than $60? maybe. But it'll have to bear a competitive price to other modes to jump the system to life.

Otherswise most of your figures raise no eyebrows with me. Problem will be capital costs- using diesel powered talgo sets is much cheper to buy and requires less roadbed upgrades than a TGV system.

Think of it not as the end system but as an in-between from today's setup to a true HSR. Incrementalism is the key to success, as you can "sneak in" a lot of progress that way.

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

Sorry about the Roy Orbison stuff. I am a fan of the big band era and I listen to Jazz. I know that I should know who he is but I don't know. But it is nice that you compare me to him, I think.

I just got back from playing golf. I'm gonna turn in early tonight. C U Tomorrow, - Roy

[Anonymous]

I hoped I have dismissed the 250 mile theory for high speed rail-the distance from Paris to Lyons. Even the French have extended this line to the Chunnel and Marsailles.

I have shown increased frequency with the same number of trainsets, frequency that reflect airline frequency. Amtrak would be able to increase the prices of tickets to reflect the prices of airline tickets.

I have shown that the distance time up to 1000 miles is equivalent to a non-nonstop airline journey. One cannot fly from Dallas to Birmingham for example without a stop in Atlanta....You will be downtown when you reach your destination, not at an airport a half an hour to an hour away.The food will be better on a high speed train.

My 4,000 mile plan can be built easily for under $120 billion, maybe built for as little as $85 billion. Yes, it is a lot of money, but its only three to four years of federal highway funding, seven to ten years of federal airport funding.
And like Europe, it will attract riders, so many riders we will probably have to double deck the single level cars before long.....

Will it earn a profit. Operationally yes, but for upkeep and capital costs probably no...
But our highways and airports don't make money either......

It will take a vision, a plan, and the will to fund it.

[Anonymous]

I checked Amtrak site for the price of a single adult ticket to Chicago from Dallas, its $137 one way coach, or $274 round trip coach. Distance some 930 miles.

I checked American Airlines site for the price of a single adult ticket to Chicago from Dallas, its $262.50 one way coach, or $525 round trip coach. Mind you, I checked the cheapest fare, and there is a stop inbetween, too many potential cities to bother with. The flight to the destination is 5 and a half hours.

A high speed trainset, TGV Thalys, on designated high speed rails, can beat this price and time......More than likely Amtrak would be able to increase the prices on its tickets, matching this price to an airline ticket.

It seems today Amtrak charges about half the price of an airline ticket, coach. Who says Amtrak would not be able to steal customers from the airlines? I have done one scenario, others can do the same for other scenarios. How about Dallas to Atlanta for example.

Alexander, $60 is a wee bit cheap! If you doubled this price to $120, you would not need 76 cars, would you. If the speed of the train was able to beat a non nonstop airliner, you could charge $240. Now we are down to 18 cars. Since high speed rail will use half the energy of an airliner if not less, and have a crew consisting of an engineer, a conductor, and a bartender, we can reduce this down to 9 cars.....TGV Thalys have 8 cars, some of the trains are doubled and have 16 cars.......Profit beyond your dreams of avarice.....

[Anonymous]

Yes and if they did maybe they wouldn't have been the low bidder and out all that money.

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine what just 2 high speed TGV Thalys trainsets could do on that corridor. Distance between Oakland and Los Angeles, downtown to downtown via interstate route is 380 miles. Even thhis scenario don't fit the 250 mile scenario. Over 20 million citizens live in these two large metropolitan areas. Two trainsets could have a frequency of every three hours easily, four trainsets could cut this down to an hour and a half, six trainsets could cut the frequency down to less than an hour, while it will still take two and a half hours to make the journey. The airlines want you to be at the airport two hours early! Amtrak only asks for half an hour. The question remains: Is it better to keep 6 two nighter Superliner trainsets between LA and Chicago of the Southwest Chief, or would it be better to have 6 Thalys trainsets between Oakland and LA doing it in two and a half hours?

One thing is for certain, Amtrak won't need as many employees as they do now.

[Anonymous]

The journey is not a race. As long as one can leave in the morning and arrive at their destination in the afternoon or evening, the journey will be competitive. I have heard for so long the 250 mile scenario, yet, in America we already have a 440 mile Acela northeast corridor. The mileage I used were from a Rand McNally road map chart, which uses interstates as much as possible and not necessarily the shortest route, which by the way is as the crow flies.

The 4,000 miles of high speed rail I propose will build rails from Washington DC to Miami 1040 miles(the norttheast corridor already exists to Boston), Atlanta to Dallas 790 miles, Dallas to Chicago 920 miles, Chicago to Philadelphia 770 miles via Cleveland and Pittsburgh , plus the slash in the parrelegram from Chicago to Atlanta 710 miles. Total is 4230 miles times $20 million per mile equals $84 billion 600 million dollars. Florida expected to build its high speed rail for $20 million per mile, Texas TTC reports expects high speed rail to cost $20 million per mile, DART is building light rail in an urban area at $20 million per mile. The TTC report includes the trainsets, track, and real estate into this figure. More than 90 percent of everyone living east of the Mississippi would live within 2 or so hours of the high speed tracks.

I used Memphis, a large city with a large airport as an example, but lets investigate another example of a small town without a large airport such as Jackson, Tennessee (the home of Casey Jones). The driving distance to Birmingham would be the same with the Memphis scenario except you would have to drive an hour to get to Memphis's airport to fly. Most citizens of Memphis would have to drive more than 15, even up to 30 minutes to get to the airport, while just about eveyone can get around Jackson, Tennessee in 5 minutes! Instead of finishing the journey in Washington DC lets end the journey in Charlotte, North Carolina. I doubt if there are any direct flights from Memphis to Charlotte, more than likely one would have to make flight connections in Atlanta. Surely, unless you owned your own aircraft, one cannot fly from Jackson, Tennessee to Charlotte, North Carolina directly. Keep in mind there is no more real estate at Memphis' airport to build another runway, nor much of any space to build another terminal either. FedEx selected Memphis for its hub in the first place because Memphis is not a hub of a lot of passenger traffic. Yet the FedEx flights clog its airspace....

So living in Jackson, Tennessee, one would have to drive an hour to park at an overcrowded parking garage at the airport in Memphis, get there two hours early to get through security, fly close to two hours to Atlanta, airlines like 2 hours of leeway with connections at Atlanta, and fly close to another hour to get to Charlotte and more than likely wait 30 minutes for your baggage. So your journey from Jackson, Tennessee to Charlotte, North Carolina took 7 and a half hours. Less distance, why is this more than a 2 hour flight to Washington DC? What if your destination was Rockingham, North Carolina. Add another hour to this trip!

See, as long as one can leave in the morning and arrive at their destination in the afternoon or evening hours, the journey will be competitive!

Railroads are linear, as they have found in Europe, and people do not necessarily travel the entire length of a train route. For example, recently I rode the California Zephyr. Westbound from Chicago more than half of the passengers departed at Denver if not before, and the trained filled up considerably at Reno and Sacramento. Eastbound, the same occured, the train emptied at Reno, and started filling up again after Denver.....

Consider a local bus route. Out in the suburbs the buses roll empty, but ask anyone who rides the buses, the buses fill up as they approach downtown. Under your argument, we should only run buses one mile from downtown when they are full, yet, if the buses don't run out to the suburbs there wouldn't be anyone on the bus in the first place. Airlines hop, trains and buses don't.

[Anonymous]

Aw, c'mon, Ed, I don't buy it. The part about not knowing who Roy Orbison is, that is! Pretty Woman? Only the Lonely? Blue Bayou? C'mon!

Now, back to trains.

Now I understand where you are going.

So basically you are saying, $320k for a train. OK, now divide that by a reasonable ticket price for sleeper, say $640. Thats 500 passengers. Let's say the average sleeper holds 20 people. 500 / 20 = 25 cars. $320k / 25 cars = $12,800 per car. Might work.

Then take coach. Let's say a resonable ticket for a run of about 400 to 900 miles is $60. $320k / $60 = 5333 passengers. (yikes!) The average coach holds lets say 70 people. 5333 / 70 = 76 cars. (!!!) $320k / 76 cars = $4k per car. No way.

So according to this the formula that works for long distance is sleeper.

BUT these are all hypothetical numbers. Perhaps if Amtrak's accounting were more transparent we might know those figures.

[Anonymous]

Don,

I guess you want the Fed to pay the $120 billion? Why not the riders?

I am a little curious exactly where you are going to place your 4000 miles of track. My recollection is that it is 600 miles from Atlanta GA to Richmond VA and 400 miles from Atlanta GA to Jackson MS. How far is it from Atlanta GA to Miami FL? How about from Richmond VA to Boston MA? Then you have to get to Chicago IL and St Louis MO. You may want to bypass Jackson in favor of New Orleans. It just seems to me that you aren't finished after you have built 4000 miles of track. I just think that $120 billion is probably too low to make it happen and I don't think you can get popular support at the lowly sum of $120 billion. One thing to consider is that R/W is probably much less expensive in the Texas system then it will be in the Northeast. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Elvis,

You'll have to enlighten me about Roy Orbison. All I know is he is a rock-an-roller (was he in the Doors? Am I lighting your fire???).

Sorry if callin' you a 'joker' was a problem. That is the same as 'some fella' in my vocabulary. If I was trying to be condescending I would have been more plain. I just couldn't remember who posted the $8000 figure and I wasn't going to look it up with the speed of this board and all.

Anyway, I took your $8k figure and expanded it for the whole train of 40 cars, which I think is woefully small figure but it is a starting point. With 40 cars at $8k per car, the train is worth $320k. Now if it takes $320 in revenue to make a suitable profit, then that comes out to 320 passengers at $1000 each. That is the basis for the table and the table shows how terribly high the tickets have to be to make a profit. Remember though that the figure of $320k is based on a stack train having 40 cars. I would be surprised if an average express stack train had only 40 cars but I am want to be generous.

The reason I factor it on a train load instead of a car load is because alot of the costs are measured per train. I am also trying to hammer home the point that it takes a lot of passengers going the same direction to make a train load.

Back in the early days, when people couldn't travel by auto or airplane, then you could expect to get large numbers. But now, with all the choices you have you can't fill 'em up. This is a fundamental portion of the problem and why I keep saying the market conditions don't exist in the U.S. to make passenger train travel viable. And like you say, if people don't want to fix their roof in Montana (didn't want to say Colorado or Oregon) then why should the people in Rhode Island pay for it. - Roy(?) (a.k.a. Ed)

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Don:
I think your Memphis - Washington scenario with high speed trains is a little ambitious considering somebody could fly from Memphis to Washington in a little over two hours. You also forgot the one hour time change between Birmingham and Atlanta which would get you into Atlanta and points east an hour later.

In general a high speed train is only competitive with air travel on a portal - portal basis if the distance between final destination cities is in the 200 - 400 mile range, and the train makes very few stops. So this would rule out Atlanta - Washington which is greater than 600 miles. The Memphis - Birmingham or the Birmingham - Atlanta corridors may not have enough population to support hourly high speed rail service.