Amtrak funding

[Anonymous]

Rudy:

I disagree with your statement that HSR is meant only to compete against air transit. What about interstate travel? By far, it is the leading mode of choice for most Americans who travel- and most of these trips are in the below 1k miles

Example: Washington State chose to invest in the Cascades Corridor instead of adding capacity to I-5- it was much cheaper, and while it's impact is minor, it has produced a very successful and well used system.

Sharing tracks with one of the busiest PNW freight corridors, the joint line from Portland to Seattle, it operates at speeds below 79MPH and still manages to make it to town only about 30 minutes after the average car transit time. When investments in track structure and signalling are complete within the next decade, these trains will reach speeds of 90+, and be able to cut transit times to about 2.4 hours- faster than by auto and, couting terminal delays,competitive with Horizon shuttle flights out of PDX.

And anyway, the idea is for incrementalism, the 90mph limit being interim until better structure can be built. 90+ is certainly better than what Amtrak does now, so it would be an improvement over the status qou.

And of course, 90mph is much better than 0.

Best, Alexander

[Anonymous]

If people are not riding the trains, one has to ask why? I notice that some station on the Amtrak network only get trains 3 times a week! People can't rely on them. To encourage ridership, every town on the network needs at least one train a day in each direction. Obviously, for communters, you need a much higher frequency.

Aberystwyth is a small (14 000 pop.) town, but we get about 10 trains a day during the week.

If Amtrak is to be scrapped, then who would take over? The reason Amtrak was formed, as I understand it, was to remove the 'burden' of passengers from freight railroads. But they don't want it!

What about this: keep Amtrak as a bsic service, but allow other players to enter the field to run their own trains. This would require clarification of the track access position (and fees), as well as improvement to the lines.

I don't agree that the long-distance trains should be eliminated - after all, in the immediate aftermarth of Sept. 11, they were the onlty way for many airline passengers to get home (or near home).

Jason.

[Anonymous]

Former Elvis,

Yea-up, looks like there's a new 'share-ruff' in town.

Actually, this thread (quilt?) has been more productive than I expected it to be. I think several people have reconsidered their position in light of two facts which have been hammered on by a few of us; namely that roadbed construction costs a staggering amount of money and the distances are vast, and Americans don't want to ride a train (or any other public transit) given the other options they have today.

I think some studies should be done to identify where new or improved track could serve a demand, but I don't think it should be constructed unless the demand is there to support it. - Elvis II

[Anonymous]

What slows the Acela trains is the length of track from New York City to New Haven. From what I have heard, there are three old bridges gumming up the works, not to mention the slow unelectrified locals and freights....

This is a classic example of putting the buggy before the horse. Why buy expensive new fast trainsets and not speed up the track?

[Anonymous]

Look at Texas Jason. Amtrak operates a daily train, the Eagle, from San Antonio thru Dallas/Fort Worth all the way to Chicago. To get anywhere by train north and east this is the route. Amtrak also operates in Texas and east west route, the Sunset Limited, thrice a week. If anyone in Texas wants to make connections in San Antonio, one must waste a night there, because the Sunset Limited and Eagle don't make it there until the wee hours of the morning. At least they switch cars westbound, but eastbound they don't.

So if one wanted to get to Houston from Dallas one must wake up from their slumber in San Antonio and wait to board the eastbound train, at night, in the wee hours of the morning, without cover, and with the station closed, on the eastside of downtown, in the warehouse district.... It wouldn't be so bad if one could get inside the safe station....

If Amtrak is running on time, a big if, one catches the train in Dallas around 2 pm, and should arrive in Houston around 10 am. twenty hours later. One can drive 20 mph and get to Houston in 12 hours.

This might be one the reasons why Amtrak does not fare well in Texas. Putting in a local running directly from Dallas and Houston won't be fast on the slow UP track, but one would think if they left Houston or Dallas in the morning they might reach their destination before night fell.....

And to think Texas is now the second largest state in population, with the sixth and ninth largest metropolitan areas of the country. Texas might as well be a different country as far as Amtrak is concerned.

[Anonymous]

Is it also a fact that Amtrak has to pay $$$ to the freight lines for using their rails to transport passengers outside of the NE Corridor? I can't if they did not have to, because, after all, those railroad companies have to maintain the rails and whatever Amtrak uses, they would get charged for it, right? They would the costs on to the passengers, and maybe our tax dollars, too.

[Anonymous]

Well I'd love to see additional operators! But I am not sure that either Amtrak or the Host RRs are in favor of that. I think you'd have to arrange it so Amtrak provides the crews and power for those trains, (or at least the crews,) on a contract basis.

As for the long distance trains, thye may have to go, even if they would be convenient, because they are a major drain on operational dollars. But perhaps these could be contracted out....

As for the freight roads taking back over, I wouldn't rule it out so fast. They wanted out from under passenger systems because of unfunded mandates- ICC regs requiring the continuation of passenger service despite hemorraging losses.

But if that mandate became funded.....

[Anonymous]

Well that's why I keep hammering on point- cut back to what works now, or what will work if given a little more time to develop, and cut the big losers. Then grow, slowly, from there, as demand warrants.

Realize that it was basically the government that killed passenger service, with it's ridiculous ICC regs. Meddling is not a good thing. Let the passengers decided with their wallets. Allready, by using newer equipment like the Spanish built Talgo sets, we can accomplish significant operational improvements that will gain ridership at a very low (realtively) cost, a cost which even states could afford, (especially California, Washington, Texas, Florida, etc... who all have healthy and rich economies.)

Passenger trains were done in by the ICC and then run into the ground of pork and graft by Amtrak for 30 years. It'll take far more than a few bills in Congress to straighten it out- it may take another three decades to undo the damage and bring it back on par with other, private transportation systems.

Still, at least we're ahead of air, which has yet ot undergo it's meltdown. Man, that will be scary- let us hope American does end up owning United, becuase a United bankruptcy would be even worse for commerce.

Alexander the Deposed

[Anonymous]

Up to a point I might agree. It takes a long time, the sooner we get started the better. Here is a little history of DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit)

1983
DART is created when 58 percent of voters in 14 cities and Dallas County cast 175,000 ballots in favor of regional transportation.
1984
The DART Board selects light rail as the preferred mode for the 147-mile network. Parson, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas is named DART's general engineering consultant.
1985
A major staff financial review reveals that revenue resources through 2010 will not be sufficient to build 147 miles of rail.
1986
The Board revises the DART Service Plan to provide 93 miles of light rail transit including seven miles of subways.
1988
The North Central Texas Council of Governments conducts a citizen survey on transit planning that demonstrates voter support for mass transit, but not for long-term borrowing. The DART Board shifts course to develop a system plan that would include immediate and future projects without long-term debt.
1989
The DART Board approves the new DART Transit System Plan, moving the agency from the planning modes to major construction. The Board also approves the local and technical assistance programs for member city regional transportation support.
1990
DART begins light rail transit construction with San Jacinto Street relocation.
1992
DART begins major construction with the Trinity River rail bridge and the North Central subway tunnels. DART begins construction on the West Oak Cliff rail line.
1993
DART begins utility relocation work for the 1.1-mile transitway mall in the Dallas Central Business District. DART receives $82.6 million in federal funding for the South Oak Cliff light rail project.
1994
DART's construction crews complete mining for final tunnel breakthrough on the second of two 3.5-mile light rail subway tunnels under North Central Expressway. The House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee recommends a bill allocating $38.77 million for DART's rail projects. DART's Board of Directors approves a $33.6 million construction contract to build a 2.9-mile light rail line through South Oak Cliff. DART holds public hearings to hear community rail concerns and present a neighborhood job program.
1995
More than 300,000 State Fair visitors take the public's first official look at a DART light rail vehicle.
1996
The 20-mile light rail transit starter system opens ontime and within budget, with weekend festivities followed by a week of free rides. Revenue service begins June 24, coinciding with the opening of the CBD West Bus Transfer Center -- the first of two such facilities scheduled to begin operation in downtown Dallas. Initial light rail ridership exceeds all expectations, averaging more than 18,000 daily passengers as opposed to the projected 15,000. DART opens the first 10-mile segment of the new Trinity Railway Express commuter rail service linking Dallas and Irving with a stop at the Medical/Market Center. Service will be extended to Fort Worth.
1997
DART extends the light rail system six miles northward along North Central Expressway (US Highway 75) between downtown Dallas and Park Lane. The new line includes a 3.5-mile subway from downtown to the new Mockingbird Station, making it possible for commuters to make the trip between Park Lane and downtown in just 14 minutes. The opening of the new line nearly doubles ridership on the new light rail system to approximately 30,000 passengers per day. DART completes the 20-mile light rail starter system with the opening of the three-mile long extension of its Blue Line through the South Oak Cliff section of Dallas. This section of track runs south from the Illinois Station in the center of Lancaster Road to the new Ledbetter Station with an intermediate stop at the VA Medical Center Station. DART is named Transit Agency of the Year by the American Public Transit Association, the highest honor in the industry. The U.S. Department of Transportation awards DART $13.7 million for the light rail extension from Park Lane in north Dallas to Plano. The DART Board orders 34 additional light rail vehicles (LRVs) from Kinkisharyo, USA, manufacturers of DART's original 40 LRVs. The value of the contract is $93.43 million. The LRVs are scheduled to begin service in June 1999.
1998
DART light rail sets a ridership record, transporting more than 36,000 passengers each weekday. The DART Board votes to purchase 21 additional LRVs from Kinkisharyo, USA. The new purchase is in addition to the 34 LRVs ordered in October 1997. This order brings the fleet size to 95. The contract price for the 21 vehicles is $60.21 million. More than 1 million passenger trips were made on
1999
DART begins light rail construction in Garland. Construction is underway on DART's first aerial station located at Park Lane and Greenville. The station on the north side of Park Lane will replace the temporary station on the south side of the road. U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater signs a $333 million Full Funding Grant Agreement to help pay for construction of an extension of DART's North Central rail line.
2000
Residents in DART's 13 member cities voted overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the agency to use long-term financing to upgrade and accelerate future light rail lines. More than 77 percent of the 33,603 voters casting ballots in the August 12, 2000, election supported the proposition. Trinity Railway Express Commuter Rail expands service to three new Tarrant County stations - the Richland Hills station, the Hurst/Bell station and the CentrePort/DFW Airport station. Cityplace Station, the Southwest's first subway station, opens. Cityplace Station has Texas-style dimensions, including six pairs of escalators. The tri-level facility reaches depths of 120 feet underneath the expressway. Bright lights and soothing pastel and white tiles throughout the station give customers a sense of safety, day or night. Original tile art on station walls at all levels reflect the area's rich history and diversity.
2001
White Rock Station, three miles northeast of Mockingbird Station, opens at East Northwest Highway and West Lawther Drive, the initial stop on the northeast rail extension to downtown Garland in 2002. The park-and-ride station is the first light rail expansion since the debut of the 20-mile starter system in 1996. Trinity Railway Express commuter rail service reaches downtown Fort Worth. The train, which has been operating at three stations in Dallas County since December 1996, and three Tarrant County stations since September of 2000, currently carries nearly 6,000 riders per day. The North Central Texas Council of Governments projects more than 11,000 riders each day by 2010.
2002
DART pushes past LBJ Freeway with the opening of LBJ/Skillman Station. DART's 23rd light rail station extends the Blue Line 3.5 miles from White Rock Station to serve Northeast Dallas. The station has 646 free parking spaces, passenger shelters, seating and telephones. The LBJ/Skillman Station celebrates the natural landscape of the region and the importance of transportation to Texas and the United States. DART reaches North Dallas and Richardson with seven new rail stations. The opening is part of one of the largest light rail expansions underway in North America. The seven new stations extend DART's Red Line by more than nine miles. In Dallas, new rail stops include a new Park Lane Station, Walnut Hill Station, Forest Lane Station and LBJ/Central Station. In Richardson, DART trains stop at Spring Valley Station, Arapaho Center Station and Galatyn Park Station. Richardson is the first North Texas suburb to welcome DART light rail into its city limits. DART light rail opens in Plano.
Southeast and Northwest Corridors Draft Environmental Impact Statement released. Southeast and Northwest Corridors Preliminary Engineering/Environmental Impact Statement Bulletin released.

19 years after DART was borned, DART is becoming something to be proud of. Yet, DART is not safisfied, there are two more corridors underway....

[Anonymous]

William:

There has been so much traffic and so many replies I can't figure out which of my posts your message was replying to.

However, you suggest that Amtrak should pay for a portion of it's cost that it impacts agianst the freight companies, whose track it runs over. Am I correct?

I would say, yes, probably that is a good concept- BUT- not necessarily so. Let me put it this way- the freight road incurrs costs to support Amtrak, so there is a negative or "debt" on the books of the freight road Amtrak owes.

But instead of paying the freight road for their maintenance costs, Amtrak, or more specifically, US-DOT & Congress, could pay for infrastructure improvements such as better signalization, double and triple tracking, etc...., thus paying the debt in this manner instead. If there was, say, a trust fund for rail, these roads could receive credits in that trust fund equivilant to their Amtrak related subsidies, which would be redeemable in actual improvement to track structure etc.....

At least, that is one way of handling that.

[Anonymous]

Wow, Don! On time? Within budget? Man, where were your guys when we needed them up here? Phases 1 and 2 of Portland Tri Met's Max Light Rail went waaaaayyyyy over budget and was waaaaayyyyyy late.

The last extension, to the airport, was the best of the three. It stayed on target and on time and costs us very little- the Port of Portland traded land it owned for Bechtel to construct it. Still, we screwed up and didn't build any long term lots along it, but, , we never get it right up here. And likely that we won't get another deal like that, as Bechtel's investment in that ex-port property was a dud.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

That was essentially political. Amtrak had to maintain it's "glide path to efficiency" and so they wanted to get the Acela on line right away, perceiving it to be a cash cow, so they went ahead and installed the train w/o making improvements in track structure. What is really nasty is that some of those tunnels date from the Civil War!

The slow unelectrified locals and frieghts, I am told, run mostly at night, and don't gum up anything. But I'm a continent away so I might be wrong on that.

[Anonymous]

If you did get rid of the long-distance trains, what would replace them for people who can't drive, fly or go by coach? Would you have lots of local trains, resulting in about 10 or 20 changes going from, say, Chicago to the West Coast?

But having passenger services only thrice weekly is stupid - it would be better not to have any service since it is not reliable enough. Whoever thought up that schedule needs their head read! Hence, a decision needs to be made as to whether funding is available (State funding; lottery) to add services to fill in the missing days.

Jason

[Anonymous]

Don,

Are you argueing that there is plenty of demand for Amtrak and using the Texas Eagle as evidence since it is running full?

I doubt there are enough riders on the Texas Eagle to make a profit even if the two sleepers are full. A while back, Alexander and I looked at some numbers and it appears that Amtrak would need something like ten full sleepers on a single run to make a profit.

As I have said before, there is too little demand for Amtrak; not necessarily every run on every line, but in general not enough to support the current system. I believe this will continue to be the case until the skies fill up with so many aircraft that the only place to go is back on the ground. I am not argueing that Amtrak could never be a good thing. I am just saying the conditions don't exist today for it to work economically. It is because the air corridors are so clogged up in the NE that I think that is where Amtrak shows the most promise. This is also why I think the NEC states should be supporting the NEC portion directly without going through the Federal government. Amtrak appears to make sense given their congestion problems.

In my opinion, Amtrak should operate a run in each direction from a station every day, probably more like three or four, in order to justify having the station in the first place. I hear on this site that many stations only operate for a few hours three or four days a week. That sounds like it loses money. It also sounds like it is open because there is a vote in congress tied to that station being open.

Here's hoping for a brighter future - Ed

[Anonymous]

Jason,

If we got rid of the long distance trains, people could drive, fly, take the bus or whatever else they would like to do. Your question implies that some have a right to ride a train wherever they want to go. And if someone has a right to a train, then others have an obligation to provide it. But that is not correct. Nobody in the US has an obligation to provide a train to anybody. As a matter of fact, many could argue that because Amtrak is federally funded it is obligated to provide everyone with a train wherever they would like to go. This is one more reason not to have a federally funded rail system. It is not economically possible to do so. Therefore, the best method for financing a rail transportation program is with private funds. Then let the free market decide where the lines should be built. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Alexander and William,

I thought the freight rails were paid for the use of their track, but at a rate determined by congress not the freight rails. I think it is better to handle it this way than to 'horse trade' as Alexander proposes because if you work in currency everyone can see the value of a particular proposal. If you work in barter system economics then it is hard to see if one side or the other is getting a better deal.

Working in ca***ransactions is a better way to compensate the freight rails. Tax breaks would be nice too but then that invites problems too. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Jason:

The Tri-Weekly originated due to budgetary and equipment realted concerns at Amtrak. No, it isn't convenient. But if it weren't for Tri-weeklies, some of these trains wouldn't run at all, so to preserve the system, they cut them back to this schedule.

As for the Long Distance trains? Well eventually we might work towards putting something back there, but I would either contract them out and let it be someone else's financial headache- and that might not be implausible, where the scenery justifies tourism dollars- or cut them. Most riders aren't long distance riders anyway.

Where does that leave the white knuckle flyer with no car? In a Greyhound bus. Pretty? Nope. But it functions, and that's all that is required.

If you worry about system interface issues, national networks and such, Amtrak does run a supplemental bus fleet now. Perhaps this could be expanded for connections. However, my point is to be ruthless and cut what doesn't work, and concentrate on what does, and then grow back from there.

When you prune a tree, some branches just can't be saved, but you can cut them and then encourage new growth to replace them. I think that our current LD train system is too "diseased" that it is irreperable. But, perhaps, not unreplaceable. But it will take time to "grow" a new branch, er, train, back.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Ed:

I understand where you come from, but I'm not saying, don't keep track of the dollars. I'm just saying, don't write any checks.

Still, I take your point. I was about to say that as long as the government books are transparent that it'd work.

Then I went in the other room and slapped myself.

Alexander

[Anonymous]

Ed:

Hold on tight! Gale force winds coming!

You just know that, espousing privatization, you are going to hear those dirty words "Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossings, AOL-Time-Warner," etc..... Oh, and forgot, "Harkin". Lol.

OK, now I'll issue a challenge. Give me (us?) a scenario for making a passenger system- any speed, any length- that'd be a profitable model.

(Hee hee the $640billion dollar question....)

Alexander the Deposed

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

"Then I went in the other room and slapped myself." - ROFL

And that is exactly my point. Since you can't trust both side to deal in good faith, you have to deal in cash. Otherwise, I have no problem with barter economics.

It's nice to have somebody hear who understands that even though I am not for a big government agency running a bloated Amtrak boondoggle(sp?), I am still pro-rail. Catch you on the flip side - Elvis II

BTW, when it hits 200, I will feel like The King. We spent several posts in this thread talking about how many posts there are and not the subject of Amtrak funding, so I am spotting you a few. But it looks like 200 will happen tonight.

[Anonymous]

Jason, the reason why Amtrak operates the Sunset Limited, Orlando to Los Angeles, as a trice weekly is become of its very long length. Amtrak operate 6 trainsets on this route, as it does for the Empire Builder, California Zephyr, and Southwest Chief. To provide everyday service on the Sunset Limited, Amtrak would need to operate 12 trainsets!

If you look carefully at the details of the Texas Eagles schedule, and the City of New Orleans schedule. you will notice that the Eagle's connection in San Antonio flows better westward, and the City of New Orleans' connection in New Orleans flows better eastward..... But that leaves Houston out in the dark both ways..... Another reason why there should be a local between Houston and Dallas!

Getting back to the first thought, if we eliminated these 24 trainsets on these two night long distance trains out west, can you imagine the frequency in service Amtrak could provide on the Cardinal, Capital Limited, City of New Orleans, and the Texas Eagle. The Cardinal currently has 2 trainsets, the Capital Limited, Texas Eagle, Coast Starlight, and City of New Orleans have 4 trainsets. 18 of the 24 trainsets could be used to double the frequency of these trains, notice that the Cardinal is a trice weekly train, we still have 4 more trainsets to provide this route a daily service with 2 trains which leaves us with just 2 Superliner trainsets left in reserve.

Today Amtrak could rework its long term stragedy. In my opinion Amtrak would be better off eliminating the two night trains, and attempt to turn around the one night trains east of the Rockies, and the Coast Starlight along the west coast. Providing another daily train 6 to 8 hours off their current schedule should improve ridership at stations when the trains today arrive after dusk and before dawn.

Interesting, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

I place all the credit to Roger Snoble. Some of his old television ads (quicktime) are still at the DART web site at http://www.dart.org
They will like him in LA too.

But did you notice that the federal government has paid for most of the DART construction? Part of that $7 billion each year DOT spends on buses and rail systems across America. What is bad though, is that some of these funds go to people mover systems at large airport terminals, on top of what the airports receive from DOT, you know, the $11 billion a year.

I bet if I checked out your Portland rail system's web site, it is probably being built with federal funds too. Why are some people against DOT building intercity high speed rail for the same amount of money each year that the DOT spends on innercity rail and buses?

Ed, where are you? The more one looks at how much DOT is spending elsewhere, one wonders why DOT don't spend more for intercity trains......and Amtrak......

Most of the opposition is against government ownership of intercity trains, yet, I hear nothing about innercity trains, and buses.....

I have only asked for $4-5 billion a year, I should be asking for the same $7 billion.

I do not think traveling 6 hours, 900 miles, by high speed trains is too long for most of us. As far as I am concerned traveling 12 hours by high speed trains is not too long to get to New York City? From Dallas, mind you. And that is about as far as my plan would take.....since this is the longest two sides of my high speed rail corridor parralegram..... I have driven further than 12 hours in a day....

[Anonymous]

Alexander,

Yea, you hit me where it hurts on that one ... "Give me (us?) a scenario for making a passenger system- any speed, any length- that'd be a profitable model."

But then you saved me with the post following. Like you, I think Amtrak should cut, or threaten to cut, everything that doesn't make a profit. I would make up a list by specific route name with everything I plan to cut and take it to the legislature(s) and put that on the table. If you want any of these routes, here's what it will cost you to keep it.

That would generate much weeping and knashing of teeth and I may be an asphalt and feather blob outside DC five minutes later but that is what I think would be the first step. Now, let's assume the worst case (the one I advocate BTW) happens and they tell me to "Shove It". Based on what they say here and my own impressions, all I have left is the NEC.

Then I inventory all my equipment and put the best stuff up there and operate for a year while I do market research on where a profitable line could be built. Meanwhile, I go to the govenors of the NEC states and tell them how it is. If they are interested in helping me out in the short term thinking we have a common interest, then I might build new up there earlier than I would have on my own.

But like you say in your other post, eventually another line becomes attractive, like from DC to Richmond VA through Fredricksburg and NoVa. When the market research shows it works, I build it to 150 mph standards wherever possible and include plans to upgrade the rest to 150 mph when the ridership is there. One problem is that I don't see much opportunity to get out of the NEC beyond Richmond, partly because I am not familiar with that part of the world.

In theory, I extend the tree from the 'Root Ball' in the NEC in a similar manner. In addition, I look for places where I can upgrade the service in the NEC since that is where the lion's share of the revenue will come from in the short term.

Now eventually, the NEC is going to demand a train to Florida. That's where part two of my plan comes in. I establish a bus service to serve the majority of the country. Newer buses which are linked to the rail network. In this way, I provide an intermodal network to the whole country and I can fill trains. How does this involve Florida? Initially I take all the yankees to Richmond and load up a few buses for the remainder of the trip. If the ridership on this route justifies it, I extend the line south to NC, then SC then Atlanta then Talahassee and finally Tampa and Miami.

Likewise, my bus system operates everwhere else possible. Eventually, I will be able to build a 150 mph line out of Phily headed west like maybe Chicago. Everybody in the NEC headed west can get to Phily and then ride a 150 mph train to Chicago. Then I put them on my bus headed to Denver or wherever.

One of the big benifits of this system is that it takes into account the best feature of our highway network (the fact that it already goes everywhere) and matches it to the best feature of the railroad (it is highly effecient once you have a full train load) and marries them together. It essentially emulates our airline hub model which allows them to make the biggest profit. If the coaches aren't full and operating on a regular schedule, then you are not going to make money. I don't think anything less than daily service in both directions is going to cut it.

Now, after the initial cries from congress and the people when I cut all the noproductive service, the next thing you will hear is the bus companies hollerin' because my model makes a serious impact on their business. This is because I can go anywhere they go, probably quicker, and with more luxury when my customers are on the train. If I can provide this service at or near the cost of a bus ticket, they are gone.

From this point, you keep executing the plan by doing the market research and building the line from the tree when the numbers are there.

Probably some ranting but this is my basic concept. Cut it back to the ground. Create a bus line subsidiary and provide transportation to your customers. When your market research folks and engineering department say it is time to build a line, you build it to HSR standards wherever possible with plans to make it 100% HSR when you have the equipment. Two points which I emphasize though, as little (preferable none) government involved and build it for HSR dedicated operation. I don't want to be on the freight RRs track any more than they want me on their track. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Do you think local trains and buses make money? Again, let us visit DART's web pages.

2001 Annual Operating Budget
$264.2 million

Total Employees
2,849 full- and part-time

Systemwide Ridership
95.7 million passenger trips

Total Revenue
(Bus & Rail)
33.8 million

Notice total revenues from bus and rail is $33.8 million, and buget is $264.2 million. It is the one cent sales tax that keeps DART afloat.

From your reasoning, we should sell DART to a private company or shut it down. Yet, I don't know of any one or any company that wishes to lose $200 million a year....

But one new under construction High 5 interchange at I-635 and US-75 will cost the state $261 million......With your thinking we should have a toll on this interchange, or for that matter every road the state builds.......

Or better yet, sell the roads to private enterprise and let them charge us a toll.....

[Anonymous]

You are right. The goverment does not have to provide a train service.

Yet, in the constitution, the government does have to provide for post offices and post roads. It would take a constitutional amendment to change this.

Here is the kicker. The government by no means have to provide this service for free. It can and does charge for stamps, tolls on turnpikes, and fares for trains. Not one of these services make a profit. Furthermore, neither do airports.

The question remains, does the public want the service? Does the public want the service for free, or as cheaply as possible to their own pocketbook?

Another kicker. Does the public want to pay some private enterprise to drive their car off of their own driveway?

One can carry private enterprise to the extreme. But most of us like having public roads, airports, buses, and trains.........

[Anonymous]

Don,

The reason I was under the impression that a rail project down in Texas made money was because some earlier posts made it sound that way. I was just taking the writer at his word. Based on your research, it appears that they are losing money hand over fist. Now if the local government wants to cover that thinking they are benefiting by not having those folks on the road, I am all for it. The money is all in the locality where it should be. This is the same reason I think the NEC operations should be handled by a regional authority representing the NEC states. Keep the dollars local, and you have more accountability where it should be.

As for the highways, I regret that I have to keep restating the point. Highway users are supporting the construction of their own roadway through user taxes at the pump. Some of the tax revenues go to DC and some go directly to your state legislature. DC puts this money in the hands of DOT and FHWA to build transportation. The money comes back to the states in matching funds when the FHWA approves a project. My only gripes have to do with waste along the way. It is the best model I can find for funding the highway program. So, in my opinion, there is little need for toll roads since the road construction has been paid for by the users already.

BTW Don, check out my recent post tonight to Alexander below. He challenged me to outline a plan for a functioning Amtrak. It has elements of your proposal, but I propose to do it without government involvement wherever possible. Also remember, we both want the same thing I think; a sucessful Amtrak system. We just have different ideas of how that should be accomplished. - Ed

[Anonymous]

Don:

I agree that funds are misappropriated but I think the reason is simple: Airports and bus systems, etc... are in the realm of cities. Cities like building things, especially bigger, more expensive things than their neighbors.

Whereas states often do not have one cohesive culture- NY, CA, heck even OR & WA have major urban/rural divides and major rivalries between cities in some cases. It's harder to get a state to agree on some capital project and then go after fed funds.

Lobbyist. There is a major inlfuence upon the DOT spending by lobbyists in the travel & tourism city booster field, the contractor field, the LRT construction field (read Bomberdier), etc... A train is too spread out, it's a bigger project.

And BTW transit is not unopposed or welcomed with open arems in all cases. There are strong anti-transit factions, who's grounds are mostly on wasteful spending. Sounds like the system you got didn't give much traction to the opposition as you actually made it on time and under budget. But, true, even amongst this opposition, there is no questioning of whether there should be public or private buses.

However, over the river, in WA, they have a public/private system which works light years better than ours. And we used to have a private system that worked and made a profit, as long as the dang city didn't charge them ridiculous franchise fees. Instead we drove them out of biz, shut them down, and then built a bunch of freeways in places we now wi***hey weren't- we actually tore one up- and design them with stop lights in the middle of some of them, which is just great at rush hour!

[Anonymous]

Don:

Surface streets are built at the city government level. So they are paid, at least here, through property tax. Dunno what you use for revenue there.

However: many cities have wanted to massively expand their road capacity- despite the fact their residents don't want thier roads any wider, thank you very much. But they plow ahead with plans for 6 and 8 lane surface streets. I kid you not.

But they can't afford it! So what do they want? A fee for every time you leave your driveway, or a frontage tax in addition to what you pay, or a meter on your car, or yet more gas tax, or a fee based on how many cars you have, tacked onto your water bill, or.....

You get the point. Your comment about paying some private company just got to me, cause it looks like some of our local councils are just as bad.

And yes, I knwo what you'll say- bad traffic can't be fixed with capacity. Wish i could convince them too. But it looks like I'll have to kis another 20 feet of my yard away instead.

Later, Alexander

[Anonymous]

OK, Ed, I am going to try and answer this one.

(Man that was a long post. Did you compose it elsewhere and then copy and paste it? Yikes. But I digress.)

Item, close down all routes with no "profit"- I assume you use a loose definition here. And we are discussing operational profits only, not over capital costs, sorrect?

So now you are down to, as you put it, mostly the NEC, plus perhaps the Cal Trans trains and the Cascades on the West Coast. Now you go to your meeting, probably with the state governors, and you'd come out of that with the NEC as your only Multistate, and with the Cascades being run entirely by Washington, with no PDX-Eugene Train, and the Cal Trans still operating, and probably an extra three Talgo sets from Oregon and from a few train cuts in WA to make it fit the budget.

I like your approach to the NEC states. Gutsy. It's probably how Hill or Harriman would've handled it. Direct- put up and I come to town sooner, otherwise, I'll take my show on the road to states that do want me.

And guess what? It works- how many cities bend over backwards in order to get the new _____ plant. We do it all the time up here. Right now Portland is liking Danish boot in order to get a windmill, er, turbine maker to move into here.

But I am looking at this from the finance stance, as in order to succesfully privatize, you have to have a profit plan for recovering costs and genreating a return above cost of living increases and inflation, when there is any.

If the govs say no, what do you do them? Problem with NEC is it's a capital costs drain. Are you proposing to be the NEC operator, or owner too? If you own, then you pay property taxes, adn you are burdened with track maintenance. Your killer problem will be getting those capital dollars.

You've not proven yourself, you're just the NEC's current owner/operator, no track record. The banks won't finance you without a track record. No improvement to NEC, then no new construction either. So your threat to take your show elsewhere doesn't have enough teeth.

So the big question in your theory is, how do you rebuild the NEC, and with whose money?

[Anonymous]

Sales taxes this year have not met expectations anywhere. In Texas, and in Dallas, for example, there is talk of tax and fee increases to make up the lost sales tax revenues. Another trick is to increase the value of your property, thereby increasing your property tax even though it is not being increased. Yet, they want to increase the property tax too.

One only has to look at Mexico for example to see how many roads can have tolls, and not just necessarily, multi-lane controlled access turnpikes.