Samantha, you've made your point many times over. You are obviously well qualified to analyze numbers. But numbers don't tell the whole story, and shouldn't be the sole basis for deciding what services should or should not be provided.
One fellow who serviced equipment in our workplace was barred from flying for five years after sinus surgery. I met a woman on the train with a heart condition who cannot fly, either. I have a relative who doesn't fly because she finds even the normal sensations of flight to be extremely uncomfortable, and she is also not skilled enough behind the wheel to drive long distances or in unfamiliar territory. And Greyhound these days is barely fit for man or beast. I would be very upset if people like these lost their ability to move about the country in comfort and safety just because the numbers don't work for you.
There are many other reasons why people choose LD trains. Some are Amish or Mennonites who don't fly. Many are traveling coach on limited budgets to attend to personal business, family matters or to shuttle to school (as I did many years ago). Many are combining their need to get somewhere with a desire to see the country along the way. Their reasons are quite diverse.
People aren't numbers. If you go strictly by statistics you get a distorted view of the world. Individuals have individual needs. You can't turn them into statistics and tell them to do what you think they should do. Some people choose long distance trains because that is the best option given their needs. My philosophy is that we're all in this together, that everyone is my brother or sister. Thus I have no qualms about spending money for a service that benefits a relative few, but that does, indeed, make life better for them. This is one reason why the politicians didn't pull the plug years ago.
As I've stated before, I believe there are steps that could be taken to improve the Sunset's bottom line, such as daily service, and I really wish Amtrak would take a more serious look at them. I want to make the long distance trains as efficient and useful as possible. But there's no way you're going to convince me with a set of numbers that they should just go away.
If the RAILROADS had been allowed to treat passenger trains as a business in the 1960's, I'm not sure there would be any intercity passenger trains left!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The number of riders on the Sunset Limited, as well as the corresponding revenues, did indeed increase in the fiscal year ended September 2007. The increases appear to be dramatic because the base was low.
The figures for riders and revenues are interesting. Although I did not mention them, I did not ignore them. But the key number is how much does it cost to provide the service and how well is the cost covered by the revenues, which is the best indicator of the social and economic benefit of the service.
The number of riders on the Sunset increased significantly in 2007, but given the poor performance in 2006, it is hardly surprising. It carried 63,336 riders in 2007, compared to 96,896 on the Cardinal and, interestingly, 68,246 on the Heartland Flyer. It had the lowest number of riders of any of the long distance trains.
The bottom line number for the Sunset, which is a key business indicator, improved in 2007. Nevertheless, at the end of the year this train racked up the most red ink per passenger mile of any of the long distance trains. It lost 48.5 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation compared to 57.2 cents per passenger mile in fiscal year 2006. By comparison, the Cardinal, which is the next worst performing long distance train, lost 35.9 cents per passenger mile.
As I pointed out, it is hard to see how the Sunset provides an important service to the communities it serves. Fourteen of the 19 stops between Los Angles and New Orleans have commercial air service, i.e. trunk carrier or commuter air. Four of the others are within a two hour drive of a city that has air carrier service. Only Lordsburg is more than two hours from a commercial airport; it is about 2.5 hours from Tucson. Moreover, all but one community - Sanderson, Texas - are served by an intercity bus company with two to four services a day.
The avoidable cost or subsidy for a passenger traveling on the Sunset from one end point to another, at $.535 per mile, which includes an estimate for interest and depreciation, is $1,067.33. The 14 day economy airfare from Los Angles to New Orleans on Southwest Airlines, for example, is $221. Or if a person acts quickly, as of today, he or she can get a $99 Internet special fare.
If Amtrak were permitted to operate like a business, it would have dropped the Sunset, as well as most if not all of the other long distance trains, years ago. Unfortunately, it is a political creature that must bow to the pressures of the politicians and a tiny percentage of the population who argue that America cannot live without long distance trains.
Interestingly, among all the facts Samantha cited, she neglected to mention that ridership of the Sunset Limited increased by more than 22 percent and ticket revenues grew by nearly 32 percent during FY2007. This is significantly outpaces the growth of any of Amtrak's other long-distance routes and many of the short-distance corridor routes.
That this train, with its tradition of late arrivals and myriad of other issues, can generate this kind of growth -- without any of those issues being resolved, speaks volumes about the importance of and need for this route. Yes, in many ways it is still the poster child for what is wrong with American rail travel (and having ridden it, I have no problem admitting that) but it must being doing something right to produce these numbers.
Oh, and for the record, I would, and plan, to ride this train again. Despite the problems, it was a fascinating and enjoyable adventure...as long as you aren't on a tight schedule!
West Texas is a large area. If by west Texas you mean Midland, Odessa, Monahans, etc., they are not much for scenery unless you are into flat and dusty. They are, however, interesting.
Fortunately west Texas is not just the Permian basin, where the aforesaid communities are located. Alpine, Fort Davis, and Marfa are located in the Davis Mountains. They are not as dramatic as the upper Rocky Mountains, but they are beautiful. The Guadalupe Mountains are equally beautiful. And the Big Bend area, which is about 110 miles south of Alpine, draws tens of thousands of visitors every year because of its awesome beauty.
Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Some people like mountains; others prefer the sea coast; some are awestruck by the plains; many like deserts. It all depends on what floats your boat.
Samantha wrote:Speaking of El Paso, make sure you go inside the station during the layover there. It is a beautiful example of a turn of the century station. It has been restored.The best scenary in Texas is from about 1.5 hours west of Alpine to about an hour east of Sanderson. The best of the best is from Marfa to Sanderson. I have been going there for more than 25 years to bicycle along the roads near Alpine. Make sure to grab a seat in the lounge car, although it should not be difficult to get one in February.
Speaking of El Paso, make sure you go inside the station during the layover there. It is a beautiful example of a turn of the century station. It has been restored.
The best scenary in Texas is from about 1.5 hours west of Alpine to about an hour east of Sanderson. The best of the best is from Marfa to Sanderson. I have been going there for more than 25 years to bicycle along the roads near Alpine. Make sure to grab a seat in the lounge car, although it should not be difficult to get one in February.
Keep the train runnin' and one of these days I'll do it!
I have taken the Sunset from LA to San Antonio, as well as Houston, approximately five times, although I have not ridden it from LA since its departure time was change from 10:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. I rode it twice last year from El Paso to Dallas; it is the Texas Eagle from SA to Dallas. Amtrak says it is the Texas Eagle from LA to SA, as well as the Sunset, but only two cars go north or west from SA as the Eagle.
A trip on the Sunset can be a nice experience as long as you are not bothered by delays. Make sure to take plenty of reading material.
I have been tracking the on-time performance of Number 2 since August 1, 2007. It has been late by an average of 119 minutes at El Paso and 108 minutes at San Antonio. It usually arrives late in New Orleans, but it makes up considerable time between SA and New Orleans.
Samantha wrote: As Wilbur Mills, former Arkansas Representative and Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee put it; a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know it adds up to some real money.
As Wilbur Mills, former Arkansas Representative and Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee put it; a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know it adds up to some real money.
Everett McKinley Dirksen.
We've beat this point to death, but I think a comment about money is appropriate. Lots of people glaze over when the issue of money is thrown on the table, but it is an ugly fact of economic life.
As Senator Dirksen put it, "A billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money." The more than $1.3 billion proposed for Amtrak is not the swing issue associated with deficit spending in the U.S., but it is part of a problem that has led to a large debt burden for this country. At best the debt has to serviced, which means taxes will be used to pay the interest on it. The taxes come from you and me.
If a person is over weight, he or she is not likely to lose it by increasing his caloric intake or reducing her exercise routine. Cuts need to be made all around. Discontinuing the funding of long distance trains, which have a low social value, would be a good place to start trimming our national debt binge.
Samantha, first, let me offer my apologies for saying you must be supporting the Iraq war. I shouldn't make such assumptions. At least we agree on something.
But I still think you're too eager to throw out the long distance trains just because your analysis finds no value in them. Plenty of people do find value in them. You dismissed the polls I cited out of hand, which showed fairly strong public support of Amtrak. And while there are exceptions, there are very few members of Congress in either party willing to let Amtrak die on their watch. If Amtrak's national network was as unpopular and irrelevant to joe voter as you suggest, Congress wouldn't be afraid to pull the plug.
We all agree that Amtrak as it is now doesn't work as well as it could. But I prefer to find ways to make the trains work better rather than eliminate the trains whose numbers aren't to your liking. On this we'll have to agree to disagree. Numbers alone aren't enough to sway my position, because I find value in long distance trains, and some of those values can't be quantified economically. As Albert Einstein once said, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." It may not stand up to pure logic, but this would be a pretty dull world if everything was logical.
Samantha wrote:If Texans decide, as an example, that they want to invest in passenger rail in the Texas Triangle, why does it have to be managed and operated by Amtrak? If an Australian company, for example, can do a better job, they should be given a chance to do so.
If Texans decide, as an example, that they want to invest in passenger rail in the Texas Triangle, why does it have to be managed and operated by Amtrak? If an Australian company, for example, can do a better job, they should be given a chance to do so.
I agree in principle. I think competition could be a healthy thing. But the reality is that no host railroad in this country will allow anyone but Amtrak to operate passenger service on their tracks. There's no legal impediment to a competitor. Anyone with a train is perfectly within their rights to try to negotiate with the Class I railroads, but the railroads are also perfectly within their rights to turn them away without discussion. Whenever competition to Amtrak has been considered by various reform proposals, each and every host railroad has made it very clear they do not want to deal with any passenger operator other than Amtrak. And they understandably don't want to be caught in the middle of two or more competing passenger operators that want the best time slots. In order to have competition to Amtrak, this problem must be solved first.
In fact, UP won't even deal with the state of California when it comes to proposals for new routes. They always tell the state to submit their proposal through Amtrak.
oltmannd wrote: So, how do we keep the baby and throw out the bath water?
So, how do we keep the baby and throw out the bath water?
If I really knew the answer to that I'd already be the CEO of the largest corporation on earth!
However, I believe it centers around instilling in your management group a sense that change urgently is needed and a willingness to undertake that change. In any bureaucracy, a for profit company or governmental unit, that is a very difficult proposition; and Amtrak is a bit of both.
Without having the data to support it, I suspect the "half-life" of a successful corporate entity is getting shorter each year, creating the need for accelerating evolution of organizational form. Governmental units evolve even more slowly, which I suspect is one source of the discontent with which much of the federal and state governments are viewed.
Samantha wrote: What seems to be missing from this discussion, as well as others, is any serious analysis of the costs and benefits of long distance trains. For example, NARP talks about revenue and ridership increases, but never gets around to talking about costs and benefits. In business this is a sure fire prescription for financial disaster. But then come to think about it, Amtrak is not a business.
What seems to be missing from this discussion, as well as others, is any serious analysis of the costs and benefits of long distance trains. For example, NARP talks about revenue and ridership increases, but never gets around to talking about costs and benefits. In business this is a sure fire prescription for financial disaster. But then come to think about it, Amtrak is not a business.
Well, sure. Why would someone do a cost/benefit analysis on something that is nearly 100% political? The pretense that the LD trains were business proposition has been dead for 30+ years. They are pork, like the 1000's of other pet projects the gov't funds.
But, the pork could be leaner......
Samantha wrote: Whether Amtrak is more than the budget is arguable. It is not indispensable. Amtrak is not doing anything that could not be done by another entity or group of entities (government, quasi government, private enterprise).
Whether Amtrak is more than the budget is arguable. It is not indispensable. Amtrak is not doing anything that could not be done by another entity or group of entities (government, quasi government, private enterprise).
With what I know from the inside of RR operations and engineering, that statement leaves me very queasy. I'm inclined to disagree.
The government should create a framework that facilitates the development and implementation of a national transportation policy. It should promote the best transport modes for a given environment. Once the framework is implemented, the feds should get out of the way, other that to ensure that the playing field remains level. In time the government should require each mode of transport to stand on its own.
The conventional wisdom was that Pan American Airlines, Eastern Airlines, Northeast Airlines, etc. were the airline industry models to be emulated. That wisdom was wrong. Many of their customers fly on Southwest, Jet Blue, Air Trans, etc. These carriers did not arise by following the conventional airline business model. Maybe we would get a better product - corridor trains - if there was more competition in passenger rail.
There is little evidence that the long distance passenger train is a critical antecedent for corridor rail. The number of passengers fed into or drawn from the corridors by long distance trains is marginal.
Dallas and Fort Worth (DART and T) implemented and operate the Trinity Railway Express (TRE) without any help from Amtrak. The TRE is not dependent on the late running, lightly patronized Texas Eagle. Passengers on the Heartland Flyer, however, are advised to use the TRE to extend their trip to Dallas. I suspect this is because of the uncertainty of the connection with Number 22.
Capital Metro in Austin will implement commuter rail service from Leander to Austin - 32 miles - in late 2008. The trains will run on the Austin and Western, which is owned by Capital Metro and Austin. Metro received no help from Amtrak and the Texas Eagle is not a factor. The equipment is coming from Europe.
A serious study is underway regarding the implementation of passenger rail service from Georgetown, which is about 30 miles north of Austin, to Austin, San Marcos, and San Antonio. The planners have not factored Amtrak or the Texas Eagle into their planning.
It is impossible to say what the Congress would do if the long distance train was buried. Would a Texas Senator vote to continue supporting the NEC sans the Eagle? He probably would if he got something in return, i.e. starter money for a Dallas to Houston corridor. Clearly, politics is about mutual back scratching. But to say that Amtrak would not have gotten the $1.3 billion subsidy from the taxpayers - you and me - is unknowable.
The key question is whether monies for corridor development would be authorized if the long distance passenger train was dropped. They probably would be if the case for them was made using the models that business organizations must use to stay in business.
Dakguy201 wrote: Oltmannd, your point about the mathematics of the Senate is right on. The NEC is 22 votes, without the LD trains I don't think that is enough to sustain Amtrak in its present form. Without the LD trains Amtrak might become what it already is in California, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere -- merely the operating agency of the state DOTs.However, your other point about losing the critical institutional knowledge is a two edged sword. Portions of Amtrak's institutional knowledge are part of the problem. When it was formed, Amtrak inherited some undesirable characteristics from the railroads. Among these were managers trained to slash costs above all else, indifferent to growth potential, and uncaring about customer service or satisfaction. It also inherited workforce with unions and union leadership unwilling to face the need for change in the industry and determined to resist changes at least until they were safely retired. I don't think we have any way of measuring what might have been without those factors, but it must be a terrible management challenge to overcome them.
Oltmannd, your point about the mathematics of the Senate is right on. The NEC is 22 votes, without the LD trains I don't think that is enough to sustain Amtrak in its present form. Without the LD trains Amtrak might become what it already is in California, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere -- merely the operating agency of the state DOTs.
However, your other point about losing the critical institutional knowledge is a two edged sword. Portions of Amtrak's institutional knowledge are part of the problem. When it was formed, Amtrak inherited some undesirable characteristics from the railroads. Among these were managers trained to slash costs above all else, indifferent to growth potential, and uncaring about customer service or satisfaction. It also inherited workforce with unions and union leadership unwilling to face the need for change in the industry and determined to resist changes at least until they were safely retired. I don't think we have any way of measuring what might have been without those factors, but it must be a terrible management challenge to overcome them.
Nicely put.
Some rebuttal, too.
Amtrak is more than "budget money." They are a national repository for expertise on passenger railroading. They also have the "critical mass" to be able to support a couple of backshops, and to keep a supply industry healthy. They also are the keepers of the working relationships with the freight roads who happen to own the ROW where most of the potential corridors (at least the ones that we can afford to build out) and the keepers of the hands-on, nuts and bolts of intercity railroading. This is valuable stuff! Parcel it out and you lose the "critical mass" of expertise to get the job done. This is why California partnered with Amtrak rather than going it alone.
No LD trains = no majority support in the Senate = no Amtrak (all that would be left would be the NEC and whatever IL and California wanted to do on their own. Even then, you might wind up with a Balkanized NEC...)
As for those corridors that need developed, do you think the fledgling Piedmont would have a shot if it weren't for the LD Carolinian, Silver Meteor and Crescent operating in the same corridor?
Samantha wrote: The federal budget deficit will not be cured by deficit spending irrespective of what drives it. Adding more debt inflames the problem, irrespective of its source, which you and your off spring will help pay for. Spending overseas or on highways or airways facilities, etc., is irrelevant to the question of what the country can and should spend on passenger rail.The amount of debt carried by a family in relationship to its income (debt ratio) is important for determining its ability to service the debt. The same concept applies to a nation. According to the Comptroller General of the U.S., the debt burden of American households, when factoring in the unfunded liabilities posed by mandatory government spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), is approximately $440,000 per household. This is nearly 10 times the median household income. It suggests, amongst other things, that funding projects with low social value is not a good idea. Highlighting the debt load is not a red herring. It is an indicator that we should take a very hard look at spending proposals, including the use of public funds to underwrite the loses incurred by Amtrak's long distance trains. I opposed the Iraq War from day one. Since you don't know anything about me, nor do I know anything about you, you only have my word for it.Proponents of long distance trains argue that passenger rail in the U.S. would go in the tank if Amtrak discontinued them. There is no evidence to support this proposition. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail system is not dependent on one chronically late, lightly patronized long distance train (Texas Eagle). Neither is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). They are doing well, albeit with significant subsidies, without any help from the Texas Eagle.Congress persons from New York might agree to fund or help fund rapid rail in the Texas Triangle in exchange for a subsequent funding of improvements in the Empire corridor. It was this kind of trade-off that made the Interstate highway system possible. In an ideal world, various modes of transport would stand or fall on their own economics. If all users were required to foot the bill through user fees, e.g. fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, facilities fees, etc., we would probably see a transport system that would look like this: Personal vehicles would be the mode of choice for most local trips, except for commuting in densely populated metropolitan areas; rail would be the choice for many people in high density corridors where congestion and cost would give them a natural advantage for many riders, and airplanes would be the mode of choice for long distance travel. The long distance passenger train, except possibly for some excursion trains or land cruise trains for those with deep pockets, would be given a decent burial, which is what should have happened on May 1, 1971.Unfortunately, we subsidize directly or indirectly all transport modes, thereby creating systems that are not optimized. They won't be until a wave of common sense blows through the land. Unfortunately, as long as politicians have undue influence in transport decisions, system optimization is unlikely.
The federal budget deficit will not be cured by deficit spending irrespective of what drives it. Adding more debt inflames the problem, irrespective of its source, which you and your off spring will help pay for.
Spending overseas or on highways or airways facilities, etc., is irrelevant to the question of what the country can and should spend on passenger rail.
The amount of debt carried by a family in relationship to its income (debt ratio) is important for determining its ability to service the debt. The same concept applies to a nation.
According to the Comptroller General of the U.S., the debt burden of American households, when factoring in the unfunded liabilities posed by mandatory government spending (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), is approximately $440,000 per household. This is nearly 10 times the median household income. It suggests, amongst other things, that funding projects with low social value is not a good idea.
Highlighting the debt load is not a red herring. It is an indicator that we should take a very hard look at spending proposals, including the use of public funds to underwrite the loses incurred by Amtrak's long distance trains.
I opposed the Iraq War from day one. Since you don't know anything about me, nor do I know anything about you, you only have my word for it.
Proponents of long distance trains argue that passenger rail in the U.S. would go in the tank if Amtrak discontinued them. There is no evidence to support this proposition. Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) light rail system is not dependent on one chronically late, lightly patronized long distance train (Texas Eagle). Neither is the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). They are doing well, albeit with significant subsidies, without any help from the Texas Eagle.
Congress persons from New York might agree to fund or help fund rapid rail in the Texas Triangle in exchange for a subsequent funding of improvements in the Empire corridor. It was this kind of trade-off that made the Interstate highway system possible.
In an ideal world, various modes of transport would stand or fall on their own economics. If all users were required to foot the bill through user fees, e.g. fuel taxes to reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, facilities fees, etc., we would probably see a transport system that would look like this: Personal vehicles would be the mode of choice for most local trips, except for commuting in densely populated metropolitan areas; rail would be the choice for many people in high density corridors where congestion and cost would give them a natural advantage for many riders, and airplanes would be the mode of choice for long distance travel. The long distance passenger train, except possibly for some excursion trains or land cruise trains for those with deep pockets, would be given a decent burial, which is what should have happened on May 1, 1971.
Unfortunately, we subsidize directly or indirectly all transport modes, thereby creating systems that are not optimized. They won't be until a wave of common sense blows through the land. Unfortunately, as long as politicians have undue influence in transport decisions, system optimization is unlikely.
Some questions:
Do you think Amtrak would have gotten $1.3B in yesterday's budget bill if trains only operated in a 20 states?
In the absence of LD trains, do you think there is a need for a National RR Pass Corp? Or, would regional agencies be a better choice? Would a regional approach require federal subsidy?
Thanks for pointing out that the money spent on other things or in other countries is a "red herring". I believe that the money spent on LD trains is a "red herring", too. Although it may be reasonable to assume that the money spent on "this" train or route might be available for "that" train or route, the political history of Amtrak shows that not to be the case. The LD trains are "pork" and, although politicians like to blather on about how bad pork is, they rarely 'fess up to their own pork. To them, it's not pork, it's just "the other white meat".
It's no too likely that any money saved from knocking off the Empire Builder to spend on corridors in Texas, would get much support from the Senators from the nothern tier states. You're more likely to get their support for YOUR new spending if you leave their pork alone! Start knocking off too much of the LD network, and Amtrak would collapse politically. IMHO, you need the institution of Amtrak, or similar, to provide a base of support for intercity rail, no matter what form it takes.
My questions is, and remains, "why does the pork have to be so fatty?" I would love Amtrak to have more control over routes and how and where to spend their subsidy. But, it appears that's not a political reality. I would also love for Amtrak and their employees be rewarded for finding and implementing operational efficiencies. There are likely a lot of things they COULD do, but who's gonna gore his own ox or shink his "empire" w/o some carrot on a stick?
As for funding new corridors or corridor improvements, I think each can stand on it's own merits for new funding. If the cost/benefit shows corridor developement to be better than the alternatives, then the money to do it should be there. There are a lot of barriers to overcome though. The notion that public capital spending is "OK" but operating subsidies are "bad" is one. Rail projects over exisiting ROW often show very good cost/benefit ratios, but cost is split between capital and operations whereas the alternatives are all capital. You can show that the "saved" capital is more than enough to pay for all the ongoing operations subsidy in perpetuity, but there is a strong mindset or ideology against it.
Increasing capacity on corridor trains, i.e. NEC, Los Angles to San Diego, etc., frequently results in increased use. It also increases cost. Capacity on the California corridor routes has increased significantly over the last decade. Yet they failed to cover their 2007 variable operating costs to the tune of $38.7 million before interest and depreciation.
Whether increasing capacity on the long distance trains would increase riders and market share significantly is problematic.
The Texas Eagle runs daily, whereas the Sunset is a thrice weekly train. The Eagle lost $25.3 million in 2007 or 19.4 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. The Sunset lost $29.8 million or 48.5 cents per passenger mile during the same period. Increasing capacity might draw more patrons, but whether the increased volumes would offset the increased cost, given the economics of long distance passenger trains, is doubtful.
Gasoline today costs about what it cost in 1980 when adjusted for inflation. Personal incomes have more than offset the increase in gasoline costs since then. Americans are getting use to $3.00 per gallon gasoline.
The nation's airports and airways are more congested than they were 10 or 15 years ago, although the worst bottlenecks tend to be in a few spots. Dallas/Fort Worth Airport is one of the busiest in the country. Yet it is relatively easy to get in and out of the airport if one knows where he or she is going. None of the airports in Texas are major bottlenecks except during severe weather, which occurs infrequently.
Telephone polls, because of their nature, are notoriously inaccurate. People will frequently say that they favor spending more money for roads, schools, trains, etc. when given an either or scenario or a simple multiple options scenario. But if the poll taker explains what it would cost the person responding to the poll, the answer frequently changes, i.e. people favor increased funding for schools until they find out that their property taxes are going to go up eight per cent. Most of the polls that I have read regarding the public's views of increased passenger rail service are surface scratchers. The key poll is whether people would use the trains.
How much the United States is spending in Iraq or on aviation or highway infrastructure is immaterial. How much other countries spend on passenger rail is irrelevant. The question is how much money should the U.S. spend on passenger rail, where should it be spent, and who should pay for it?
There are a number of ways to finance a better passenger rail system. And I favor doing so where it makes economic and social sense. By now most people who have been reading this forum know that I believe the future for passenger rail is in high density corridors. They also know that I think spending money on long distance passenger trains is bad policy.
Money spent on long distance trains takes resources away from the enhancement of existing corridors and the implementation of new ones. Whether savings from discontinuing the long distance trains would be redirected to the corridors is a legitimate question. If enough people twist the arms of their elected representatives, assuming that public financing is the only option, which it is not, money for corridors would probably be forthcoming.
The other key element, of course, is whether people use the trains. If the money people see that people use the trains that they say they want and will pay to do so, the money to fund new trains will be there. This is the reason the U.S. spends heaps of money on aviation and highways. It is what the people want.
The Vision for the Future, U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050, which I presume you have read, lays out an ambitious vision for passenger rail in the U.S. It will cost a lot of money. If the amount of money lost on long distance passenger trains was redirected to the implementation of rapid rail or high speed rail in the corridors outlined in the Vision, it would add up to $38,776,519,374.22 by 2050, assuming average inflation of three cent per year, which is the rate used by the authors of Vision..... The money could build a lot of rapid and high speed rail.
MichaelSol wrote: oltmannd wrote: conrailman wrote:Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can't find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don't worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further! Amtrak needs fixed.A little back of the envelope analysis. Assuming that the average Amtrak passenger travels 400 miles. This allows us to extrapolate the highway measure of "vehicle miles traveled" into a "something" that may or may not be comparable to Amtrak. But, if the Amtrak average measure is taken against the highway mileage racked up, we can derive a number of highway equivalents to Amtrak. For airline travel, we have a number of passengers flown, but no reasonable estimate on mileage. But, distributing the subsidies granted to an average Amtrak passenger, to a reasonably equivalent highway user, and to an airline passenger, the subsidies work as follows, per person:Air: $17Highway: $6Rail: $48That's a pretty rich subsidy for "poor little Amtrak".
oltmannd wrote: conrailman wrote:Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can't find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don't worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further! Amtrak needs fixed.
conrailman wrote:Too: Samantha we give the Airlines 15 billion and the Highways 40 billion a year and can't find little 1 or 2 Billion for amtrak every year? This year end Oct 2007 Amtrak carried 25 Million people. We needs to Stop giving all this Aid to these over Seas Country 80 to 200 Billion a year and this Waste of War almost 500 Billion Dollars. Think what we could do with extra 700 Billion dollars a year in USA? We needs to spent money here in Good USA not over Seas? Samantha don't worried about Amtrak little 1 or 2 billion, you need to be worried about Aid to these country waste of money 200 billion a year and War 500 plus billion dollars not Poor little Amtrak.
A billion dollars subisdy to move 25M passengers is not a very good deal. It would be a lot easier to squeeze some more dollars from Congress if each dollar went a lot further!
Amtrak needs fixed.
A little back of the envelope analysis. Assuming that the average Amtrak passenger travels 400 miles. This allows us to extrapolate the highway measure of "vehicle miles traveled" into a "something" that may or may not be comparable to Amtrak. But, if the Amtrak average measure is taken against the highway mileage racked up, we can derive a number of highway equivalents to Amtrak. For airline travel, we have a number of passengers flown, but no reasonable estimate on mileage.
But, distributing the subsidies granted to an average Amtrak passenger, to a reasonably equivalent highway user, and to an airline passenger, the subsidies work as follows, per person:
Air: $17
Highway: $6
Rail: $48
That's a pretty rich subsidy for "poor little Amtrak".
Here's some real numbers from Amtrak (http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0709monthly.pdf) to put on your envelope - maybe there's room on the front:
for year ending 2007
riders 25,847,000
Pass-miles - 5,653,581,000 (avg trip = 218 miles)
train miles - 37,336,000 (151 avg passenger load)
load factor 48.9%
OR = 1.45
"farebox" recovery factor = .69
(and, as an aside, their locomotive out of service ratio is 16.9% and 15.0% for the car fleet. Gee, do you think it's fair to compare locomotive out of service ratios with the frt RRs? Or use the loco and car OOS numbers as a proxy for maintenace costs? Hmmmm. )
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.