Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote: Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable. I'm not sure you understood the gist of what I said. the point wouldn't be to take someone to and from LA, but to and from KC...or KC to Denver...more than once a day. It might not make money but it surely would lose less than long distance trains which hardly anyone takes and are extremely labor intensive. The point was, if you broke up the routes, for the same money, you could serve many more riders but it would serve different functions. If you're going to keep these old routes, don't call it transportation, call it vacation. get carnival in there to put up a gambling car, unlimited tabs, dome cars, real chefs, etc. It's a land cruise. Maybe I don't understand your point. Can we take the California Zephyr as an example? San Francisco to Chicago, one train a day, each way. As I understand it, you are advocating multiple trains between Chicago and Omaha, Omaha and Denver, Denver and Salt Lake City, and so on.Let's take Omaha to Denver. Currently the CZ provides one train each direction between those two cities every day. What would be the benefit of having multiple trains providing passage between those two cities each day? If you run three trains a day, the operating cost will be three times what it costs CZ to operate once a day. Since I doubt that you would end up with three times the current ridership, the net result is that even more than three times the current amount of loss would occur.
Suburban Station wrote: Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable. I'm not sure you understood the gist of what I said. the point wouldn't be to take someone to and from LA, but to and from KC...or KC to Denver...more than once a day. It might not make money but it surely would lose less than long distance trains which hardly anyone takes and are extremely labor intensive. The point was, if you broke up the routes, for the same money, you could serve many more riders but it would serve different functions. If you're going to keep these old routes, don't call it transportation, call it vacation. get carnival in there to put up a gambling car, unlimited tabs, dome cars, real chefs, etc. It's a land cruise.
Datafever wrote: Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable.
Suburban Station wrote:One wonders though, whether that moneywoudl be better spent funding multiple trains per day between sets of locations rather than one long train through all locations.
First of all, if one long distance train (LA to Chicago, say) a day is not making money, then I don't see how having multiple trains for each segment could possibly make any money. In addition, you then have to throw in the burden of getting luggage transferred, and the possibility of missed connections.
I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable.
I'm not sure you understood the gist of what I said. the point wouldn't be to take someone to and from LA, but to and from KC...or KC to Denver...more than once a day. It might not make money but it surely would lose less than long distance trains which hardly anyone takes and are extremely labor intensive. The point was, if you broke up the routes, for the same money, you could serve many more riders but it would serve different functions. If you're going to keep these old routes, don't call it transportation, call it vacation. get carnival in there to put up a gambling car, unlimited tabs, dome cars, real chefs, etc. It's a land cruise.
Maybe I don't understand your point. Can we take the California Zephyr as an example? San Francisco to Chicago, one train a day, each way. As I understand it, you are advocating multiple trains between Chicago and Omaha, Omaha and Denver, Denver and Salt Lake City, and so on.
Let's take Omaha to Denver. Currently the CZ provides one train each direction between those two cities every day. What would be the benefit of having multiple trains providing passage between those two cities each day? If you run three trains a day, the operating cost will be three times what it costs CZ to operate once a day. Since I doubt that you would end up with three times the current ridership, the net result is that even more than three times the current amount of loss would occur.
I think what he's talking about is the idea of eliminating LD trains but maintaining LD connectivity via a more hub and spoke system of intermediate distance trains. Use the 24 hour/overnight concept between cities via dedicated trains, and if someone is in it for the LD haul, they switch from the "Point A to Point B" train to the "Point B to Point C" train, etc.
Paul M
Go to this page on the Amtrak site and check out the monthly reports.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Title_Image_Copy_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1081442674477&ssid=322
The first thing Dave Gunn did when he became Amtrak President was to get the bookkeeping straightened out. At the time it was so bad that there was not even an accurate tally of the cash on hand.
Now it is not a question of what is spent so much as it is an issue of how the expenditures are to be allocated to any given part of the service. As with any other railroad, Amtrak is faced with the issue of having to allocate a substantial portion of the total expense that can't be directly attributed to one given service. That is a problem caused by the costs for shared facilities such as stations and maintenance operations, and management salaries and expenses. A good cost accounting system will have a reasonable basis for allocating these cost back to each service, but it can be an area of controversy.
To illustrate the problem, say a certain train is reported to cost $1 million per year but only generates revenue of $800,000. A prudent business practise says that the service should be eliminated, but suppose the amount that would be saved, i.e, the direct cost, is only $500,000. By eliminating the train revenue drops $800,000 but cost only drops by $500,000. The action reduces company total profits (loss) by $300,000. Kind of the spot between a rock and a hard place.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
For October, 2006 (the last month for which data is available):
NEC Ticket revenue $69.9M NEC Operating expenses $46.1M
Corridor Ticket revenue $24.2M Corridor Operating expenses $41.1M
LD Ticket revenue $27.1M LD Operating expenses $66.5M
Do we know what the costs are of operating passenger trains? How much does it cost to maintain a Superliner car? How much fuel does it take (not system averages but by route segment)?
What are the on-train labor cost? The long-distance trains have much higher equipment utilization than corridor and especially commuter trains, but their labor must be more expensive because crews have to work odd ours far from home. What are the labor arrangements for the LD train crews (on time, off-duty time, layovers, deadheading) and how do they got paid for it, and how does that compare with corridor trains that seem more like 9-5 jobs?
I have said this before, but my dad has a neighbor, a truck driver turned farmer turned charter bus operator, and he has a barn full of shiny blue and white motor coachs. He advertises charters for various things. He must know what it costs to finance, maintain, pay for insurance and operate those buses, and as for the yuck factor of common-carrier buses, I am sure he has a well-mannered clientel who really enjoy those trips.
This charter bus operation doesn't need to pay track rights fees to the railroads, but the track rights fees are a small part of costs according the GAO and IG Meade and the lot.
What is so expensive of operating a train, both in capital and labor, compared with a charter bus operation? This charter bus operator must know the breakdown of his costs otherwise the bank wouldn't load him money for the buses -- how come Amtrak cost figures are so uncertain?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Interesting, CG9602.
What if Amtrak's mission were to be just a LD train operation? In rough terms, operating trains twice a day (in each direction) sea-to-sea and border-to-border/coast, making stops 20-50 miles apart as needed. Would the political support necessary be there?
Datafever wrote:Maybe I don't understand your point. Can we take the California Zephyr as an example? San Francisco to Chicago, one train a day, each way. As I understand it, you are advocating multiple trains between Chicago and Omaha, Omaha and Denver, Denver and Salt Lake City, and so on. Let's take Omaha to Denver. Currently the CZ provides one train each direction between those two cities every day. What would be the benefit of having multiple trains providing passage between those two cities each day? If you run three trains a day, the operating cost will be three times what it costs CZ to operate once a day. Since I doubt that you would end up with three times the current ridership, the net result is that even more than three times the current amount of loss would occur.
to build on the point that ridership build faster than costs, Equipment costs are much higher, labor costs lower as a % of revenue. I'd probably prefer to run Kc-Denver than Omaha-Denver. A daily Cincy-Chicago would be better then a three times a week NYP-Chicago via West Virginia in terms of providing what people want. I don't think that the Empire builder would do well split up though. The general idea is that instead of expensive long trains, you build ridership through shorter, more frequent service. more people ride the more frequent service and seats turn more often meaning more revenue. Ideally you have both, of course, but until the routes are all double tracked, they are going to continue to be poor peformers and hence...unreliable for shorter distances....thus much more expensive to operate. the GAO found the long distance trains to be what, 80% of the losses? 15% of the revenues?
daveklepper wrote:. There happens to be one Korean War Vet who lives near Alberguerque, NM. Once a year his relatives from Dallas drive up to visit him and once a year he uses an Amtrak sleeper to Chicago, one to Dallas, one back to Chicago, and one back to Alberquerque to return the visit. I think people like that deserve access to America.
. There happens to be one Korean War Vet who lives near Alberguerque, NM. Once a year his relatives from Dallas drive up to visit him and once a year he uses an Amtrak sleeper to Chicago, one to Dallas, one back to Chicago, and one back to Alberquerque to return the visit. I think people like that deserve access to America.
So, now you are claiming that the taxpayers have a duty to support Amtrak because some DAV's prefer passenger trains?
Often times I agree with you on issues, but this sure is not one of those times.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Oh. So it must be my fault your thought-expressing is so grainy that it allows you to cry "satire" and "sarcasm" and now the newly-tooled 'I was just being "facetious" ' every time someone questions one of your nebulous statements.
Oh. So it must be my fault your thought-expressing is so grainy that it allows you to cry "satire" and "sarcasm" and now the newly-tooled 'I was just being "facetious" ' every time someone questions one of your nebulous statements.
And it takes a big man to admit it, don't you feel better though?
I don't think that the statement in question was at all "nebulous", it was an obvious stab at the absurd. Just as absurd, in fact, as claiming the tax payer owes a duty to tourism .
Datafever is correct. This was not only true of the CA&E but also of the Illinois Terminal streamliners, which due to a shocking design error, could not get to downtown Peoria but had to stop a streetcar ride across a bridge, and so the IT lost passenger business when they replaced conventional interurban cars with the streamliners. This was also true when the Red Arrow system decided the Lehigh Valley Transit Liberty Bell interurbans from Allentown could no longer access their high speed track to Upper Darby - 69th Street Market Street Elevated Terminal and forced passenger to make a simple same-platform change at Norristown. (Incidentally the much older freight box motors and trailers continued to run to the freight house near the 69th Street terminal!) A TRAINS article by Blossom in 1952 covered this situation. A one-seat ride is always preferred. And I am a skeptic on this use of a diesel railcar substitution for the Vermonter with change in New Haven. Not a good idea. Instead,I think Amtrak should look into an economical way of restoring the full Montrealer.
Handicapped access ramps and hard of hearing listening systems don't make money for theatre owners. Comparison with people who are lazy is insulting. There happens to be one Korean War Vet who lives near Alberguerque, NM. Once a year his relatives from Dallas drive up to visit him and once a year he uses an Amtrak sleeper to Chicago, one to Dallas, one back to Chicago, and one back to Alberquerque to return the visit. I think people like that deserve access to America.
As far as restaurants and tourist facilities somewhat removed from the Amtrak station, well there are local and connecting throughway buses, rental cars and taxis. But elderly and handicapped people shouldn't have to spend more than an hour or two in them to make the connections.
Datafever wrote: I personally would find a multiple train trip to be much less acceptable.
I think that most people would agree. One of the reasons that the CA&E shut down was the loss of passengers due to the lack of a one seat ride. Once the CA&E was not allowed into downtown Chicago and the passengers where made to transfer to a CTA train, the passengers found other ways into the city rather quickly.
Bert
An "expensive model collector"
TheAntiGates wrote: It was an intentionally facetious example (in rebuttal to the claim that there was a "duty" to seed tourism ), thank you for noticing
It was an intentionally facetious example (in rebuttal to the claim that there was a "duty" to seed tourism ), thank you for noticing
Poppa_Zit wrote: Would it not make sense for the government to provide health care to the affluent to safeguard the well-being of its largest contributors to the tax pool?
Would it not make sense for the government to provide health care to the affluent to safeguard the well-being of its largest contributors to the tax pool?
No, not at all.
Poppa_Zit wrote: Another silly premise. To follow your thinking, what about all the able-bodied people who are just too lazy to work? Should the government subsidize them so they can possess the same things hard-working people own?
Another silly premise. To follow your thinking, what about all the able-bodied people who are just too lazy to work? Should the government subsidize them so they can possess the same things hard-working people own?
Metra gets a certain operating as well as capital budget subsidy. Metra replaces X lanes of freeway. Shutting down Metra and building X lanes of freeway would cost Y bazillion dollars because you would have to purchase property, which costs money even when you exercise eminent domain, or you have to do the Big Dig thing and tunnel at huge expense. The high value of the land is reflected in the acquisition cost. You do the math and you decide to subsidize Metra as a very sensible thing.
As to the lost tax revenue for the land under the freeway, you have to balance that against the added property value to surrounding properties to being served by a freeway. The light rail/streetcar people make the same argument.
Intercity rail is far from such a thing except for NEC and possibly LA-San Diego. If they would speed up the Hiawatha train from 1:36 (is it?) to "about an hour" (actually it would be more like 1:15), the Hiawatha train would act as a commuter train giving further reach to have commuter access to the congested Downtown Chicago (and Downtown Milwaukee is rush-hour congested as well).
The long-distance trains and many of the corridor trains are really not about congestion.
I have long commented in these parts that I believe that there is a National Heritage aspect to the long-distance trains -- the foreign tourism fits into this as well as domestic tourism. I have long argued that we have National Parks and that the scenic Western LD trains could follow a similar rationale. My understanding is that the Canadians went through this angst about subsidizing LD trains: they are down to the one cross-Canadian LD train, they offer a top-quality first-class service - at a price, they use F-40's and they use Heritage equipment they got cheap (from Amtrak), and they run long consists (the maximize the amount of train service for the slot on the railroad network).
I guess there is the accomodation aspect. If you are offering sleeping car service, by all means, you have to make it ADA compliant. The question is offering dining and sleeping car service an accomodation. You could argue that there are people sufficiently frail or with disabilities for whom airline, bus, or even rail coach travel without dining car meals, is an unreasonable burden. It is just that the multi-hundred dollar subsidy for a long-distance sleeping car passenger is a tough sell politically -- most people have made their peace with airline travel. We don't subsidize trans-Atlantic ships (anymore) because Aunt Hattie is too medically-impaired to board a 777 to visit cousin Alfred in London before he passes on.
Another argument is that the first-class service on the Empire Builder pays its own way (or at least reasonable direct costs) and that the subsidized coach service on the train serves as a lifeline to communities on the route without airlines or good roads. The I.G. Meade report uses Amtrak accounting to show that first-class passengers are getting a hefty subsidy. URPA argues that Amtrak accounting is all bogus and that first-class pays its way, but they are sketchy on numbers.
My take is that if first-class service on LD trains is to be part of the mix, we need to get a handle on cost accounting to demonstrate that it at least pays its incremental cost according to some metric or come up with a compelling social rationale for the subsidy.
TheAntiGates wrote: 2.So is healthcare, but that doesn't mean it is the taxpayer's job to pay for the affluent to get poked, prodded, and probed 4 times per year
2.So is healthcare, but that doesn't mean it is the taxpayer's job to pay for the affluent to get poked, prodded, and probed 4 times per year
You would deny such necessary services to those in the income group ("affluent" -- however you define it) that provides a lion's share (let's say in excess of 70 percent) of the supportive tax dollars? Who has the right to draw an arbitrary line and determine "You already make enough money and therefore shall not share in necessary government services, even though your money pays for them?" In other words, "affluent" people should pay twice for health care? Would it not make sense for the government to provide health care to the affluent to safeguard the well-being of its largest contributors to the tax pool?
The main reason the government in a civilized society has to physically provide health care to the poor is because if we provided money for health services to the poor, it would in most cases be spent on other things.
TheAntiGates wrote:What about all the restaurants located away from rail destinations? does the taxpayer owe a subsidy to Greyhound, or is that a job for (subsidized) light rail?
What about all the restaurants located away from rail destinations? does the taxpayer owe a subsidy to Greyhound, or is that a job for (subsidized) light rail?
I think land valuation is a very broad brush that is too large a generalization to fit into a basis of evaluation unless it is on a case by case basis. It is a case of reductionism that may be a positive factor or may not be in promoting a case for high speed rail. Is the rail line on existing right of way or a new one? What is the basis of taxation, zoning, and local economy? New private development may require an increase in taxes for additional infrastructure or new public facilities. Fare box recovery as a basis of valuation of investment needs a basis of comparison in terms of long term sustainibility of competing modes of transportation and the indirect but attributable costs of enviromental damage, which may be a greater cost than land valuation in of itself. Light rail is more than capable of long distance transportation if one looks at history. The Red Devils of the CL&E, the Highspeeds of the Indiana Railroad, The Cincinati Car Co curved side lightweight cars, etc ran between Louisville and Indianapolis, and other long routes. A good read of Middleton's books would dispell this perception.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
daveklepper wrote:I already replied to Paul's criticism of long distance service and particularly first class long distance service on earlier threads. But he may not have read what I wrote.1. All discussion on this thread so far neglects the cost of LAND USE. Land taken for additional highway lanes, new highways, and airports may charge user fees and get tax money for upkeep, but this does not replace the real estate taxes paid by other uses of the land nor the taxes from income that other uses of the land provides. This element of land use costs has been totally neglected in transportation planning for about the last eighty years. The classic textblooks (one coauthored by an ex-classmate of mine and with the observation "Investment in public transportation does not make economic sense because it is not self-supporting from the fairbox.") don't even mention this loss to the economy. Improvement of long distance passenger rail in general does not take land.
I already replied to Paul's criticism of long distance service and particularly first class long distance service on earlier threads. But he may not have read what I wrote.
1. All discussion on this thread so far neglects the cost of LAND USE. Land taken for additional highway lanes, new highways, and airports may charge user fees and get tax money for upkeep, but this does not replace the real estate taxes paid by other uses of the land nor the taxes from income that other uses of the land provides. This element of land use costs has been totally neglected in transportation planning for about the last eighty years. The classic textblooks (one coauthored by an ex-classmate of mine and with the observation "Investment in public transportation does not make economic sense because it is not self-supporting from the fairbox.") don't even mention this loss to the economy. Improvement of long distance passenger rail in general does not take land.
And just how do you propose to take into account lost revenues due to land use? Particularly when you take into account that having a good transportation system - and that will include airports and freeways - will help grow the economy and raise property values. One could easily argue that any lost revenue from converting land to highways or airports is more than recovered by the boost that the economy receives, and that the housing market receives, from having a functional transportation system.
Thanks for your reply Paul. I agree that we ought to consider what the writer is saying, rather than attack his position or beleived position. One of the worst problems of becoming politicized is that intelligent discussions are never considered. it becomes a yes or no proposition. Either you're against Amtrak or for it which is damaging to everyone involved, not least of which is amtrak. A coupel fo things form my perspective:
1) It's important to note that amtrak was created for a number of reasons. To keep the Pennsy NEC alive and to act almost as a rail version of the PBGC. Let's face it, it was created so that railroads could stuff as many unwanted assets and unneeded employees (and strong rail unions had made sure there were plenty of those) into amtrak as possible. amtrak was a frankenstein. With that in mind, changing it's fundamental structure is what it needs. it was never created to do anything well, just to exist. Over the years things have improved (in the beginning train employees didn't even work directly for Amtrak, incidents had to be reported to their freight bosses). Warrington almost killed it, and Gunn brought it back from the dead. I do believe there is an element of truth that Gunn was unable to run it more like a private company since he had little experience with it.
2) Whether or not rail makes money anywhere is irrelevant to whether or not Amtrak runs an efficient operation. If 80% of its losses are form long distance AND it's inefficient, how much could it improve? If it were to improve, how much more service woudl we get for capital dollars?
3) the NEC seems to be managed to keep ridership constant. prices are constantly raised rather than trains added. I've noticed this over years of ridership on it. Moreover, Amtrak trains are expected to recover a portion of the cost even while they share their rail at cost to commuter rail. In effect, NEC amtrak riders help subsidize state commuter services. Would the corridor make as much or more at lower prices if all trains were market dictated?
4) IMO, rail needs to get out of its stuck in the past mentality. historical routes are nice, but decisions should be made based on today's needs not yesterday's failures.
5) High speed rail is a good idea for a number of reasons. One, it offers people a benefit they can't get in their cars...fast travel. the only route not on the NEC that has fairly fast travel speeds is the Keystone route. It remains to be seen what the long term impact is, but ridership and revenues are way up. I agree that the first step to high speed rail is get more routes up to the current maximum. However, successful routes like the Hiawathas shoudl be considered for speed upgrades. Where are you going to do more for the environment than taking people off the road twice a day, five days a week? and if the equipment is there for that, then you can justify running off peak services and weekends at lower costs. It shouldn;t be a question of either or, both transit and high speed, intercity rail are benefits. I do question the benefits of light rail. If you live in a major city, light railseems an imperfect solution. it's cheaper than heavy rail but it's benefits are far more limited. It is probably a good idea for smaller cities, esp where dedicated ROW's exist or can be created.
daveklepper wrote:I already replied to Paul's criticism of long distance service and particularly first class long distance service on earlier threads. But he may not have read what I wrote.1. All discussion on this thread so far neglects the cost of LAND USE. Land taken for additional highway lanes, new highways, and airports may charge user fees and get tax money for upkeep, but this does not replace the real estate taxes paid by other uses of the land nor the taxes from income that other uses of the land provides. This element of land use costs has been totally neglected in transportation planning for about the last eighty years. The classic textblooks (one coauthored by an ex-classmate of mine and with the observation "Investment in public transportation does not make economic sense because it is not self-supporting from the fairbox.") don't even mention this loss to the economy. Improvement of long distance passenger rail in general does not take land.2. Long distance trains service with firstclass service is part of a civilized society in America. Just like your theatre has handicapped access and a hearing-impaired listener sound system, often requring a paid operator's presense. Without such service, access to the continental USA by a large number of handicapped and elderly is denied them.3. It should be of a quality (and in certain cases even now it is of that quality) to promote foreign tourism in the USA and appreciation of the beauties of the country.
2. Long distance trains service with firstclass service is part of a civilized society in America. Just like your theatre has handicapped access and a hearing-impaired listener sound system, often requring a paid operator's presense. Without such service, access to the continental USA by a large number of handicapped and elderly is denied them.
3. It should be of a quality (and in certain cases even now it is of that quality) to promote foreign tourism in the USA and appreciation of the beauties of the country.
1. Airlines do not pay income tax in the states where flights originate?
3. Ahhh, so in order to lure the tourist's into this country, so Mel's diner can make a cool $8 on a $30 meal, it's the taxpayers responsibility to lose $135 on the train trip to get them there?
futuremodal wrote:Isn't the federal outlay for Amtrak less than the current federal outlay for freight rail assistance?
Why FM, are you trying to suggest that it shouldn't be? ( if in fact, it is)
Paul m.
Sorry that you are offended by my opinionated characterization of that group. I did use rather harsh terms and probably violated a liberal principal that name calling doesn't advance discussions of an issue. Of course, the use of the phrase "Raiding the Treasury" has no emotional connotations. Right?
You have stated your position rather well, however I am just going to say that I don't agree and cop out of further discussion.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.