oltmanndTexas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism.
Japan Bank for International Cooperation has guaranteed a significant portion of the anticipated debt of the project (percentage unnamed) and the project has already been granted eminent domain powers by the Feds. Both are fairly significant legal developments for a pipe dream with no hope of being realized.
Fact is the project cannot release cost estimates until it decides on a route and selects the rest of the proposed infrastructure. Both items are in progress and the company has stated in the past it will not rush and put out inaccurate information but rather wait for solid based factual information to be released.
jclass And what's the problem with seeing a transportation mode used as an integral ingredient in business development. Elevators and their shafts don't make any money on their own ... It's about creating tomorrow's cities.
See PDN's comments in the "Transit-Oriented Development" thread (about 10 days ago in the Transit forum), then download and read the two papers he has provided links for, as a start. I think this is valuable in the current context, and also in the discussions regarding All Aboard Florida.
If the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competive, i.e.,wage scale comparable to freight lines, no sleepers, cheaper food service though using wage scales that are prevalent in the restaurant trade. It's happening in the NEC even on the Acela trains.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmIf the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competitive ...
What factor are you including for track occupancy and contribution toward wear and tear, etc. on behalf of the "track owners"? (Or what incentives would you provide a host railroad in lieu of payment?) I don't think it's entirely safe, or right, to assume a host railroad will allow passenger trains to use the track free.
What arrangement would be used where some infrastructure 'improvement' is needed to support the right level of passenger enablement (for example, to allow operation at 79 mph or some higher desired level) but for a cost much lower than that of full construction? I would presume some level of local-government or other politically-based subsidy or grant ... but I'd also presume there would be safeguards against the kind of situation that seems to have happened with BNSF and the Amtrak improvements that are essentially subsidizing heavier oil traffic (or whatever).
Wizlish schlimm If the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competitive ... What factor are you including for track occupancy and contribution toward wear and tear, etc. on behalf of the "track owners"? (Or what incentives would you provide a host railroad in lieu of payment?) I don't think it's entirely safe, or right, to assume a host railroad will allow passenger trains to use the track free. What arrangement would be used where some infrastructure 'improvement' is needed to support the right level of passenger enablement (for example, to allow operation at 79 mph or some higher desired level) but for a cost much lower than that of full construction? I would presume some level of local-government or other politically-based subsidy or grant ... but I'd also presume there would be safeguards against the kind of situation that seems to have happened with BNSF and the Amtrak improvements that are essentially subsidizing heavier oil traffic (or whatever).
schlimm If the capitalization for infrastructure does not need to be repaid, passenger operations ("above the rail") can be covered on the right (shorter) routes where they can be competitive ...
CMStPnPoltmannd Texas Central is really just a pipe dream. There is no funding in place or even a hope of a funding mechanism. Japan Bank for International Cooperation has guaranteed a significant portion of the anticipated debt of the project (percentage unnamed) and the project has already been granted eminent domain powers by the Feds. Both are fairly significant legal developments for a pipe dream with no hope of being realized. Fact is the project cannot release cost estimates until it decides on a route and selects the rest of the proposed infrastructure. Both items are in progress and the company has stated in the past it will not rush and put out inaccurate information but rather wait for solid based factual information to be released.
Thanks for the info. "Just beyond pipe dream", then. We have connect the dots, plus trip time estimates plus some level of support for some amount of funding.
I'd give pretty good odds they never turn a spade of dirt.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
It seems like chasing the goal of providing capital spending alone to generate above the rail "subsidy free" operations might actually cost more on a per-passenger mile basis.
Why not just just provide a set per-passenger mile funding level and let the providers figure out if it is best acheived by providing a new alignment with high capital spending or an existing alignment with high operating spending?
I just finished reviewing some of the Essential Air Service decisions nearby, and even for relatively long 400+ mile EAS hauls the per-passenger mile subsidy is $0.66 "above the runway" ($7.82 M-Federal Subsidy/11.85 M-RPMs) using ExpressJet CRJ200's.
When I back calculated using FHWA data the NPV of our infrastructure investment in the Interstates highways, I found that the difference in fuel taxes collected versus the costs to the governments (capital and gvm't accident costs) over the entire program life is $0.12/Automobile Mile, and the rebuildings need to kick into high gear now.
When benefits are discussed in EIS planning documents even today, they do silly things like account for time savings at the full wage rate at the highway speed limit instead of the actual trip average speed and real value of time. When the interstates were orginally justified they did not compare the benefits of driving versus say being a passenger on a 90MPH streamliner, but instead driving on over-capacity 1935 era 20' wide, 3' shoulder two-lane roads.
Imagine if IP was allowed to operate the City of New Orleans with an arrangement to get paid just say 85% of that $0.12 amount per equivalent passenger mile. Yes, they would need to have a liability shield for themselves (grade crossing accidents caused by commercial vehicles) and the host infrastructure owner (track defects), but the arrangement of a production variable scheme would promote a expansion of consists and perhaps additional trains on the route.
The original 1990's era renewable electric energy laws would provide $0.015/kW-hr for producers of renewable energy, which got a lot of sensible landfill methane programs going, without the government directly picking winners. Now I understand we give big chunks of money up front to the Solyndra's instead of only paying for success in a mix of capital and operations afterwards, when power is produced.
Or consider that the World Trade Center PATH station is now projected to cost $3.9 Billion. This fact beyond anything else goes to prove that if you do not consider the cost per unit of production, but instead just spend from a big-ol-pot of money, you get out of kilter, as there is no guiding compass to pull a project back and challenge it's designers to find a better way.
I think you raise some good questions, Mr. Payne, but introduce factors that really seem to overcomplicate things. If the US sensibly moves to more transportation powered by clean electricity, some of the interstates might well be freed up to construct electrified, higher speed rail RoWs, used in the daytime for passengers only (125-150 mph), at night for time-sensitive freight (90 mph).
CSSHEGEWISCH I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak.
I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak.
krtraveler CSSHEGEWISCH I don't see any private firms champing at the bit to operate passenger service in competition with Amtrak. To even utter that smacks of intellectual dishonesty. During the short-lived hysteria that followed the stimulus, First Group and Virgin Trains expressed interest alongside the (public) international HSR operators. After the tea party backlash all but killed the high speed rail momentum, Amtrak's commuter competitors formed their own organization as they aimed to compete with "America's Railroad" for intercity routes. Here are the real reasons for the disconnect over the last four years: 1. The gridlock in D.C. has resulted in uncertainity over passenger rail's overall direction. 2. The states outside of Indiana are so far unwilling to listen to what the private operators are proposing. If some had, we wouldn't have had the mad dash over Section 209 regulations last year. 3. The vast majority of the rail community has shown very little interest in supporting private operators who don't own infrastructure. Witness the near disaster with MAP-21 in 2012--the community was virtually silent when the Senate tried to drive private operators out of business. 4. The FRA's stringent rules. ======= When it comes to the question itself, it's well past time for Amtrak to be challenged--the question is exactly how such competion should be shaped. Other parts of the travel & tourism industry should be encouraged to get involved in train travel. Airport lines aren't getting shorter and America has built as many highways as it feasbily can. Either the British or German solution should be used as templates as to how competition can work here. It isn't rocket science. It's really a matter of political will.
+1
But a cautionary note on the German solution. Recently it has become an issue that the conversion of DB to a profitable corporation has led to deferred maintenance/replacement of aging infrastructure elements, particularly bridges.
From the above link... "In 1996 the DB monopoly over the regional German corridor lines was ended. The previous federal responsibility to determine and finance (i.e. subsidize) regional passenger rail services was spun out to state authorities. However, the states were protected financially in assuming the service. Financial resources were provided to the states for both infrastructure and operating subsidies"
What exactly was the financial mechanism to measure the production benefit of what was given out in Gemany?
I had read an article recently about the DB problem in either the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung online or Die Welt online or Der Spiegel online, forgot which. The point was that in the push to show a profit, DB Netze AG, the entity within DBAG handling infrastructure, has greatly cut its spending.
In California, the newest state funded and sponsored commuter lines and next high speed rail system will offer serious competition. Unfortunately both Union Pacific and BNSF are disinterested in anything but more bulk freight rail loads over their congested single track lines going north, east, and south over some of the most beautiful and scenic territory in the world. The Capitols from Sacramento to San Jose operate 10 trains per day while Amtrak can only muster one train from San Diego to Seattle. The other routes eastward from Oakland to Denver/Chicago (California Zephyr) and Los Angeles to New Orleans (Desert Wind) are similarly challenged with even older and more dilapidated equipment and virtually no spares. Amtrak appears to be on a mission to commit rail passenger service suicide.
From USA Today web site
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2014/11/05/amtrak/18471389/
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD From USA Today web site http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/mcgee/2014/11/05/amtrak/18471389/
"For a comfortable and pleasant travel experience I suggest -- Go Amtrak. You'll love it." Only if you don't care if you are on-time or as much as18 hours jate.
daveklepper but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost. Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations.
but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost.
Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations.
THERON WHITEEver stop to think about all the money (50 to 60 BILLION) per year that highways loose each year?
northamericanexpress daveklepper but the expenses associated with forcing Amrak employees out of their jobs might more than wipe out the savings, and economies of scale and ability to shift equipment around for differrent demands would probabliy be lost. Better to find another David Gunn to bring more efficiency into current operations. We sorely need a David Gunn to run Amtrak at this moment . . . someone who's not afraid to speak truth to both Congress and the White House, unlike a yes man like Joseph Boardman.
We sorely need a David Gunn to run Amtrak at this moment . . . someone who's not afraid to speak truth to both Congress and the White House, unlike a yes man like Joseph Boardman.
David Gunn got fired for speaking truth to his own board.
schlimm THERON WHITE Ever stop to think about all the money (50 to 60 BILLION) per year that highways loose each year? The distinction is infrastructure building and maintaining, an asset, vs. operations on that infrastructure. Personally we would be better off with all four major transportation modes' infrastructures nationally funded and maintained.
THERON WHITE Ever stop to think about all the money (50 to 60 BILLION) per year that highways loose each year?
I dunno, Schlimm, would you really like to see the rails subject to the tender mercies of federal funding, as truckers are? Or, if you're a barge line, to water-level decisions made by the Corps of Engineers?
It's a deck mostly stacked against the rails, to be sure. (They get to pay taxes on right of way they incurr the expense of maintaining for themselves.) But there's a lot to be said for the independence they enjoy by being able to put ROW resources where they're needed, when they're needed, in their best business judgment.
That independence, which has much to do with the present success of their business; taken with the nose of the camel that federal maintenance would represent; is a powerful argument against socializing the ROW.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.