HarveyK400,
To operate a 4 hour Pittsburgh to Harrisburg passenger train, even with tilt technology, would require much upgrading of the existing route including its signal systems. Its been reduced to only 2 tracks for most of the distance and there is heavy (and slow) freight volume over the mountains. No way can that amount of spending be justified for a couple of round-trip passenger trains. Note: I previously forgot to mention that one of the reasons for the success of the PA Keystone service is there is practically no freight on the line east of Harrisburg so no interference with the passenger service.
VPayne,
I've considered the freight opportunity with intercity rail passenger service improvements in conjunction with the Chicago - Saint Louis corridor, now largely in the hands of the Union Pacific Railroad. It wasn't always so. The GM&O was acquired by the IC and faced downgrading. Eventually it was spun off to regionals before being picked up by the SP which, in turn, was acquired by the UP. For the period under a regional carrier, the questions beyond maintaining service were how could it be improved and how could it be financed.
I believed then a possible solution for financing construction of truly high speed passenger lines would be high speed intermodal where congruent with major freight "lanes." This would be more applicable outside the East and West Coast regions where the cost of dislocation would be a larger issue than topography. Population wouldn't support the intense frequencies that preclude capacity for freight abroad. Chicago - Saint Louis, Chicago - Twin Cities, and Chicago - Detroit proposals never considered more than hourly service.
Maybe pessimism comes with age and the fact that the national economy that was stuck in neutral is sliding backward. The US is conducting a costly war and growing world oil consumption is driving up the price. Financing for so ambitious a project as building very high speed rail lines is not foreseeable.
Limited resources limit solutions. I too think that existing rail infrastructure will provide the basis for future improvement opportunities. The reality is that few existing lines have alignments and stretches with no public or private crossings that would enable speeds greater than 110 miles per hour. In many cases, exploiting even this capability will depend on tilt technology. Easing curvature with re-alignment is costly; and extensive rebuilding may reach well beyond the additional revenue and social benefits from more riders.
Let's get out of the box on what high-speed freight can get by with.
The first thing that has to be discarded is the notion that an inexpensive 3-piece freight truck can be used. This gives you the proverbial feet of clay. This design becomes increasingly iffy over 70mph, and only less so with stability devices.
Wheels need to be inspected for wear more frequently and re-profiled or replaced more often. TALGO has a nifty system where whole trains can be run through a wheel shop.
Lateral motion control and long-travel springs are essential as much to soften impacts on the track structure, and resulting degradation of surface and line, as for a softer ride for the cargo. Passenger car trucks are designed with these features for high speeds. The same features are needed for freight trucks. Radial steering and tilt suspension can be applied as well. Passenger-like trucks can be put under inter-modal cars or highway trailers.
An 80,000 pound container or trailer is too much for a single axle, but okay for two axles.
Electronic braking can be applied as well.
The more difficult problem at higher speeds is air drag. This impacts the need for power and fuel consumption. Well cars leave a substantial air turbulence gap between containers. Multiple container sizes will not match every well or spine car. One solution may be a light weight, adjustable fiberglass or fabric cowling across the gap between containers. One seeming advantage of the RoadRailer concept is the close coupling of trailer and container-on-spine units.
Long-time Trains readers will remember John Kneiling touted the Tru-Train with fixed consists of cars and power modules. The idea of cab-power-car sets may have an application here. There is some similarity to gen-set locomotives.
Phoebe Vet wrote: I merely expressed curiosity about why you post here since every post that I have seen expresses the sentiment that rail is dead and we should move on. Basically, I don't understand why someone who feels that way follows the thread.
I merely expressed curiosity about why you post here since every post that I have seen expresses the sentiment that rail is dead and we should move on. Basically, I don't understand why someone who feels that way follows the thread.
I did not realize that agreement with the orthodox view on passenger trains, if there is one, was a requirement to participate in these forums.
I have repeatedly stated in numerous posts that rail is an appropriate option for relatively short, high density corridors. Boston to New York to Washington, LA to San Diego, Chicago to Milwaukee, etc. are good examples where rail is a viable alternative to relieve highway and air traffic congestion. There are other possibilities.
I only favor rail if it can cover its variable costs in the short run and all costs in the long run. Otherwise, it is a welfare program. By the same token, all forms of transportation should be self supporting. See my post on transport subsidies.
For the fiscal year ended 2007, only five corridor routes were able to cover their variable operating costs (NEC, Illini, Illinois Zephyr, Washington to Newport News, and Pere Marquette). As a group, however, after application of the fixed costs, they lost approximately $495 million. A big chunk of this loss was the depreciation and interest associated with the NEC. Nevertheless, the net loss for the other state and corridor trains was $127.6 million.
Those who propose an expansion of passenger trains without showing a clear need for them, or how they would pay for them, other than with government handouts, don't strike me as builders. They strike me as consumers of government (taxpayer) monies.
Many of the posts seem to see only one side of the accounting equation (revenues) and miss the other side (costs). NARP, amongst others, talks about increases in revenues and riders, but it never talks about the millions of dollars that are lost each year because the revenues don't cover the costs
I was associated with a capital intensive industry for decades. We never started a project unless we had good numbers to show that there was a market for the output and had a workable program to finance it. None of our projects were financed with government money.
I take three or four Amtrak trips a year. This year, to date, I have taken the Sunset Limited from El Paso to Austin, the Pacific Surfliner (2) from LA to San Diego, the San Joaquin from Bakersfield to San Francisco, and the Capital Corridor from San Francisco to Sacramento. I have commented favorably on my trips in several postings.
Alphas,
I have wondered why service has been downgraded to a single train. This had been a good market.
The current schedule serves more as an accommodation for the Capitol than for meeting more specific market needs.
I can only wonder whether ridership would pick up with a non-electric powered, Acela tilt train that might might provide a 4-hour schedule between Pittsburgh and Harrisburgh, and an under six-hour schedule between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for same-day business. I know studies have been made; but I've never seen the results or the alternatives, such as tilt equipment, being considered.
Off hand, I say just buy the trains - they last three times longer than buses which should mitigate the difference in purchase cost (notwithstanding the current administrations's policy and regulation). The equipment can go into the NEC pool if improved service doesn't pan out.
I am bullish on improved rail sevice between Pittsburgh and New York and think that a third train from Cleveland could work.
While Amtrak's fleet is growing older, it still has some remaining service life.
No route improvements are needed. Just buying equipment is a no-lose situation. This is something low-risk that Amtrak could do with the extra money.
Samantha:
If you took my mention of you as an example as denigrating you or even your ideas, I apologize. It was not intended to single you out, and I did not invite or ask you to "bow out". I merely expressed curiosity about why you post here since every post that I have seen expresses the sentiment that rail is dead and we should move on. Basically, I don't understand why someone who feels that way follows the thread.
Others in here are offering suggestions on how to fix the things that are wrong with the current rail system.
To relate it to the original question, MY feeling is that the money infusion should be used to bring ONE high density route up to modern standards. Others in here feel that it would be better to improve the entire system with a more modest upgrade. Your suggestion seems to be that it's all wasted, because everyone wants to fly or drive.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The Express buses via the Turnpike on the Pitsburgh--Harrisburg route are about 2 hours faster if both meet their schedules. And cheaper than the train the last time I checked. The RR served larger intermediate areas of Greensburg, Johnstown, and Altoona have all gone through very hard times and the long term picture for them isn't promising. Lewistown used to thrive off the students from Penn State who took buses 30 miles to the Lewistown station but those days are long gone. Now the University helps subsidize direct bus service on Fridays and Sundays from State College to NYC (via I-80 so it only takes just over 4 hours), and to the Philly and DC areas--both of which have become much faster due to the final completion of all the scheduled major roadwork on US 22/322 between Lewistown and Harrisburg. (There's no question that not having the railroad run through State College is a big negative due to the size of the student population and that it is the only financially healthy and growing area of the state west of Harrisburg.)
I know an Amtrak supervisor and he's told me that they just don't see any market for a 2nd round trip between Pittsburgh and NYC (actually Harrisburg and Pittsburgh). If the Commonwealth of PA wants to subsidize it they will do it, but not otherwise. The chances of PA doing that are small right now because the estimated subsidy per passenger is substantial and the only real beneficiaies of the subsidy are the intermediate areas mentioned above plus the small towns of Latrobe and Tyrone.
The PA leg of the Keystone service works fairly well because of the population between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, its the fastest way between Harrisburg, Lancaster, etc. and downtown NYC, and its already electrified. But the population just isn't there west of Harrisburg.
As for the bus business, I'm friends with several of the College of Business Professors who specialize in transportation. They advise me that buses have various built in advantages for intermediate ground transportation. First, they are cheaper than RR passenger cars, second there is a resale market for them if in decent condition, third they can go anywhere there's decent highways so if one market doesn't pan out they can be switched to another route, fourth they don't really need stations built for them in the smaller towns, and fifth their labor costs are less. The USA hasn't directly subsizied commercial bus travel in the intermediate travel areas but the profs tell me that small subsidies, even in the form of tax breaks, could go a long way towards helping them serve this market. Of course, with the current high prices of fuel, it would only work for markets where the buses, like the airlines--especially the commuter ones, would run full or close to it.
Of course, buses just like Amtrak have been very hurt by the growth of the discount airlines and the effect they've had. Most of the curent US population has grown up with the airlines and is not interested in traveling longer distances on the ground when they can fly in a few hours and it isn't that much more expensive than the train or bus.
Granted, Detroit - DC is slow. I know, I've taken the Capitol before and since Amtrak. While this seems doable with conventional equipment, a tilt train would save hours in travel time.
The point is the unique nature of building small volumes from a number of major markets, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, to achieve a viable load level through the mountains to the Capitol. Washington, DC is a far more significant travel destination than the population would indicate; and should overcome the normally expected handicap of slow speed.
The Midwest Corridor segment between Detroit and Pittsburgh should stand on its own.
Cleveland - NYC is a little different. First, the trip through the montains was to me surprisingly fast for the most part. Secondly, the numerous medium-size towns along the route usually are inordinately strong travel markets. Finally, tilt trains would cut running time significantly if not an hour.
Dubuque - Chicago is slow and cannot be improved significantly. The good and bad news is that the train comes out of Chicago: bad because it would average less than 40 mph even in Metra suburban territory; and good because traffic on I-90 is congested and slow most of the time, and US-20 is a slow drive approaching Galena.
A stretch of the CN east of Galena suffers from extreme curvature as the line winds through the coulees. While tilt trains would be beneficial on the west end, a recent study projects a significant commuter demand between Rockford and Chicago suburbs for which gallery-type cars may be more appropriate.
I'm sure the present administration would love to substitute buses for all passenger trains.
Maybe cut-rate buses really aren't that much faster.
Maybe buses are faster because of the time of day they run.
Maybe bus travel doesn't suit the market.
I just see potential for day-time medium-distance rail travel markets as an adjunct to more typical corridor services. I have little feel for the bus business.
My experience leads me to think that the attraction of direct service to Madison may offset losses in other markets related to longer trip times; but this requires analysis.
The effect of longer trip times diminishes with the distance traveled; so while intra-state travel to Milwaukee may suffer a moderate loss, travel to Chicago or the Twin Cities would suffer a lesser decrease. Amtrak benefits from this effect with the Empire Builder routing through Grand Forks, ND regardless of other considerations. The same effect would be exploited with the longer routing through Rochester, MN, at least for two trains each way.
The routing through Madison does pose problems. It's 71 branchline miles from Watertown, WI to Portage by way of Madison compared to 48 miles via Columbus.
The Detroit to DC and Cleveland to Pittsburgh and on to NYC that HarveyK400 mentions just aren't practical. They are way too slow due to the mountainous terrain they have to travel. They would be a help in serving intermediate travel between cities and towns but I doubt that would generate enough revenue to avoid major operating expense losses.
As for the mentioned Dubuque to Chicago proposed route, is this the one that was talked about some months ago as averaging about 35 mph for the trip? If it is, its hard to believe its being seriously considered. But nothing politicians do anymore surprises me after they basically stoped most oil drilling in the USA the last 20-30 years and still refuse to do anything about it.
I suspect that the government could subsidize a bunch of new, and much faster, bus trips serving these locations for far less money than trying to do it by rail. Question: if these travel markets really were significant for public ground travel, wouldn't multiple bus operators, including the chinese cut-rate bus companies, already be trying to better service them?
Phoebe Vet wrote: Since we are all just voicing opinion, and no one in here actually has the ability to implement any of these plans, I don't understand why the nay sayers like Samantha (just an example, not an attack on her) hang out in here.
Since we are all just voicing opinion, and no one in here actually has the ability to implement any of these plans, I don't understand why the nay sayers like Samantha (just an example, not an attack on her) hang out in here.
The purpose of the forums is to share views on railroading. This subset is devoted to passenger trains. Telling me to bow out because I don't agree with the orthodoxy does not address the questions that I posed. Not a single one of my questions was answered.
This country was built by many different people. Some of them were entrepreneurs who saw an opportunity and exploited it. Others where organization people. Millions where hard working empoyees, small business people, etc. who have long been forgotten, but whose labor was critical to the development of this country. But most of the builders had one thing in common. They did not look to the government for handouts.
Edison, Westinghouse, Lindbergh, Carnegie, Douglas, Piper, as well as 10s of thousands of others used private capital to developed their products and convince the market place that they had a good idea. The market agreed. And it provided additional capital to bring the products and services to a market where people would buy them in an arms length transaction. They did not depend on government handouts.
Many people in the passenger rail community seem to know that its service will not sell without a healthy infusion of taxpayer money. So they use political leverage to fund what the market otherwise would not sustain. They argue for passenger rail services with scant market research data to support their vision.
Free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources. I support passenger rail where there is probable market for it, but eventually it should stand on its own. Free markets, by the way, go hand in hand with free societies. In a free society, to the maximum extent possible, the people decide what they want. Not a central planner in a transportation department in a national or state capital! And not someone who wants to build an expensive rail system without any idea of how much it would cost and whether the revenues would cover the cost.
Interestingly, the passenger rail community is one of the few that insisted the government save the passenger train. The Trans Atlantic steam ships were allowed to fold. Trailways was allowed to go out of business as a national carrier. Numerous airlines have collapsed. All sorts of businesses, when they are no longer viable, have been allowed to fold.
Had the passenger train been forced to stand on its own, most of them would have folded in 1971. And few people in the market would have missed them. The Northeast Corridor and LA to San Diego, as well as a numerous commuter rail operations, are possible exceptions. Had they been managed aggressively, i.e. better, faster, cheaper, they might have survived on their own. But the politicians created Amtrak to save passenger rail. To date it has drained the U.S. Treasury of more than $25 billion to cover its loses. And this for a system that is used by less than 1 per cent of intercity travelers.
So I will continue to ask the questions. No one is forced to read them. And clearly no one is required to respond with a non-response.
This country was built by people who built things that others thought were too dangerous, too difficult or too expensive.
You wouldn't have over 100 channels on your cable TV if NASA had listened to the people who said it would cost a fortune to put a satellite in orbit just to relay telephone or TV signals.
People told Edison and Westinghouse that it would be too expensive and too dangerous to electrify an entire city. After all, gas was already availaile to light houses. And coal was cheap and available for heat.
Even the airplanes that seem to be the preferred mode of intercity travel in here were once considered to expensive and too dangerous for travel by the general public. Only really brave or foolish people went up in them. Lindbergh was challenging the fact that everybody KNEW transatlantic air travel was a pipe dream. No one would PAY to fly across the ocean when ocean liners already dominated the market in luxury and safety.
If the politicians, transport planners, and citizens of Illinois believe that expanded train service is a good deal for the Land of Lincoln, why do they need federal money to make it happen? The same question applies to the other Midwestern states that were mentioned. Surely the proponents of spending federal tax monies on enhanced passenger rail service have done the appropriate market studies and have found that a market exists for the expanded services; one that could be supported with state and private monies.
What market research data supports the premise that a pair of trains between Nashville and Chicago would draw a significant number of riders? This market is served by 54 nonstop plus 74 multiple stop daily flights. The flying time is approximately one hour and 25 minutes. The fares start at $104 one way.
Where are the markets studies that support a quartet of trains between Chicago and Pittsburgh? This market is served by 44 nonstop flights plus another 160 multiple stop daily flights. The flying time is approximately one hour and 20 minutes. The fares start at $76 one way.
It is approximately 460 miles from Chicago to Pittsburgh. Assuming an average speed of 82 miles per hour, which presumably would require a costly upgrade of the railway right-of-way; it would take a train 5.6 hours to go from Chicago to Pittsburgh. By taking a plane, a business person can fly from Chicago to Pittsburgh in time for lunch, plus several afternoon meetings, and be back in Chicago in time for a late dinner with his or her family. Why would he or she want to take a train?
Similar questions apply to the other markets that were mentioned.
Several other relevant questions come to mind reagrding the proposed increase in funding for Amtrak. Given the federal expenditure deficit, which is running at an annual rate of $540 billion through the first seven months of fiscal year 2008, where does the money come from? Also, how much would the Midwest projects cost? And how much money would be left over for the other areas of the country?
An Amtrak bill for $14.4 billion over five years is being considered in the Senate. This is for real. It would provides roughly $1.6 billion a year more than the current budget of $1.3 billion. Let me get the sacasm out out the way by saying yes, some of the money will need to go to fuel costs.
First, this certainly would go a long way in fulfilling Illinois' wish list and leave a lot on the table for the rest of the nation. Illinois is considering expanding service with new routes to Dubuque and Iowa City in partnership with Iowa, to Peoria, and to Springfield via Decatur, acquiring new equipment, improving line capacity, and implementing 110 mph service and increasing frequencies on the St.Louis route.
Outside the scope of Illinois 403(b) services would be the expansion of service from Carbondale to Memphis, a round trip from Evansville to Chicago, and a pair of trains between Nashville and Chicago. The latter two would seem to have good intermediate ridership potential.
Other opportunities around the Midwest are possible; but some states are facing severe financial problems that make irrelevant the availability of matching funds.
With tilt equipment and more frquencies, Chicago-Michigan services could be more attractive.
Basic Midwest services are needed between Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh. This would entail a quartet of trains between Chicago and Pittburgh, a round trip from Cleveland to Chicago and back. a round trip from Cleveland to Pittsburgh that could be extended to New York City, and a pair of trains between Detroit and Pittsburgh that could be extended to Washington, DC.
Wisconsin could get service to Madison and Green Bay as extensions of Hiawatha service, and a round trip from La Crosse to Chicago. Minnesota could get a morning train from Twin Cities via Rochester to Chicago, a morning train from Moorehead to Chicago via Red Wing, and an afternoon train from Moorehead to Chicago via Rochester. With eight trains, cab signaling for 110mph speeds from Chicago to La Crosse may be justifiable if 10-20% more riders can be attracted.
Missouri could get a pair of trains from Springfield to Chicago, and Oklahoma and Missouri another pair of trains from Tulsa via Springfield to Chicago with a shorter bus connection to Bramson. Missouri's biggest problem is capacity on the UP between St. Louis and Kansas City where more frequencies are needed. Tilt equipment would improve speed and attract more riders.
Indiana needs to support expanded service between Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Louisville. This would facilitate service extended to Nashville on a second route.
Ohio has an opportunity to launch a Hiawatha-like 3-C service where cab signaling and tilt equipment would be beneficial.
From gardendance's prior post: "Are you counting or discounting the benefit Chicago gets for the amount of its tax dollars that gets spent in Iraq? Or do we share equally in Iraq benefits regardless of where we pay and receive? haha."
Cute. Point is, we all support the fed government but do not receive benefit equally.
To me all human souls are precious. I do believe that DoD is the largest slice of the federal pie, but I may be wrong; it might be or Social Security slash Medicare. Hope that isn't too political! - al
al-in-chgo wrote: It is still the case that the Northern and Midwestern industrial states suffer a loss in their tax revenue that favors other states, Intermountain and Deep South mostly. (The last time I heard Chicago got about $.78 back for every $1.00 it pays; I am only counting federal income tax.) That twenty-two cents can be stretched a lot farther in a state with a small population. Sometimes it seems to me that residents of those states can be so libertarian because some of the basics are pre-paid. Just a suggestion; God forbid anyone should take this as politics.
It is still the case that the Northern and Midwestern industrial states suffer a loss in their tax revenue that favors other states, Intermountain and Deep South mostly. (The last time I heard Chicago got about $.78 back for every $1.00 it pays; I am only counting federal income tax.) That twenty-two cents can be stretched a lot farther in a state with a small population. Sometimes it seems to me that residents of those states can be so libertarian because some of the basics are pre-paid. Just a suggestion; God forbid anyone should take this as politics.
Are you counting or discounting the benefit Chicago gets for the amount of its tax dollars that gets spent in Iraq? Or do we share equally in Iraq benefits regardless of where we pay and receive? haha.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
blue streak 1 wrote:oltmannd has a very valid point about subsidies of all kinds of transportation. Didn't include city owned intercity bus stations. Al's suggestion of a post for Texas only is very valid. Let us expand it to states and/or regions. That may cover it much better. Since the western states get subsidized airports and roads much higher per capita than the east that is also to be considered. Now for the kicker for subdized air service: Aviation Week says that almost all regional airlines are in deep trouble even MESA which will run our of cash in about 11 months. The problem? full 50 seat aircraft are not making a profit. Fuel costs for a CRJ was an average of 44% of total operating costs.! This was on the JAN - MAR31 quarter average fuel costs. I'm scared to project it to now.
Samantha wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting. Governments should not subsidize any activity that could stand on its own or be provided by private enterprise. I have long opposed subsidies to sports teams, concert halls, etc., although I have been a symphony patron for years. The patrons should pay for these activities. I don't have a problem with underwriting public transit. It makes it possible for poor people, as well as some middle class people, to get around urban areas more efficiently and effectively. If Dallas or Austin, as examples, did not have bus service, many poorer citizens would not be able to work. They would become wards of the state. Whether light rail is the best urban transit option is debatable. Rapid bus technology, in many instances, may be a better option. Intercity passenger rail services that compete with airlines and bus companies should not be subsidized. They should stand on their own. Or at least the seat mile subsidy should not be any larger than the subsidy received by the airlines or bus companies. By the same token, all forms of transport subsidies should be rescinded. If that happened, we would have a more rational transport system.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting.
Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting.
Governments should not subsidize any activity that could stand on its own or be provided by private enterprise. I have long opposed subsidies to sports teams, concert halls, etc., although I have been a symphony patron for years. The patrons should pay for these activities.
I don't have a problem with underwriting public transit. It makes it possible for poor people, as well as some middle class people, to get around urban areas more efficiently and effectively. If Dallas or Austin, as examples, did not have bus service, many poorer citizens would not be able to work. They would become wards of the state.
Whether light rail is the best urban transit option is debatable. Rapid bus technology, in many instances, may be a better option.
Intercity passenger rail services that compete with airlines and bus companies should not be subsidized. They should stand on their own. Or at least the seat mile subsidy should not be any larger than the subsidy received by the airlines or bus companies. By the same token, all forms of transport subsidies should be rescinded. If that happened, we would have a more rational transport system.
Do you really mean recind all subsidies? If a municipality builds an airport or train station and that land it taken off the property tax books, then are the other land owners, in a sense subsidizing the facility? If the facility causes the need for more roads and traffic control, who pays? If the facility decreases air quality or generally degrades the quallity of life in the surroundings, who pays? These are costs not born by the direct provider.
Here's a real life example.
Atlanta has a choice to spend $10B on adding lanes to existing roads. They can get the same capacity for less than half that (net present cost) by adding a commuter rail line. The highway is all capital - near zero operating subsidy. The rail ine would be about 20% capital and 80% operating subsidy. Which is a better deal for the taxpayer?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Samantha wrote: The question was which to build if the President of Amtrak had an extra $2 billion a year to play with. Presumably some of it could have been spent in Texas. Nevertheless, this was the wrong question. The question should be where is commuter rail or intercity rail a valid solution to a transportation problem? I am addressing the question through the eyes of a Texan because it is where I live. It is the place that I know best. It has been my home for more than 35 years. I have travel extensively throughout the state. I know a little bit about it.
The question was which to build if the President of Amtrak had an extra $2 billion a year to play with. Presumably some of it could have been spent in Texas. Nevertheless, this was the wrong question. The question should be where is commuter rail or intercity rail a valid solution to a transportation problem?
I am addressing the question through the eyes of a Texan because it is where I live. It is the place that I know best. It has been my home for more than 35 years. I have travel extensively throughout the state. I know a little bit about it.
The point of the question was to get people to think about allocation of scarce resources (gov't tax $$) w.r.t. passenger service. Too often, the knee jerk reaction is "Gee, France has really cool trains. We should get some here. Wouldn't that be fun?"
From what I've read, I think you, I, HarveyK400 and Paul M. (and a few others) are pretty close to being on the same page. That is, the weighing of costs and benefits is the key to figuring out what makes sense to do. We sometime reach different conclusions about the particulars, but practicality counts more than ideology or emotion.
A quibble: I always look sideways at those stats that show hardly anybody uses transit. They typically look at everybody in a region for the denominator. The proper denominator should be the market the transit serves. First, who are you aiming at for ridership? Then, how many of them are you getting? A market share number would be a better measure of success. Another would be a comparison to alteratives, including the 'do nothing' alternative.
From a prior post: "Al The question was which to build if the President of Amtrak had an extra $2 billion a year to play with. Presumably some of it could have been spent in Texas. Nevertheless, this was the wrong question. The question should be where is commuter rail or intercity rail a valid solution to a transportation problem? I am addressing the question through the eyes of a Texan because it is where I live. It is the place that I know best. It has been my home for more than 35 years. I have travel extensively throughout the state. I know a little bit about it."
. . . (emphasis by al-in-chgo)
Samantha, you've been very upfront about this post and what you want to do. I respect that, and I agree that what you did was change the initial question.
Certainly we have these long, long posts that mutate topic on the TRAINS boards. And I'm as bad as anyone if not worse in going OT. But I don't think either occurrence is much to be proud about.
In general, I think you'll reach more people and therefore probably attract more people to your thread (Texans, too!) if you begin a brand new thread and post the question you so succinctly posted above. Otherwise there might be people who open the post on page 1, see the matrix of $2 billion Amtrak options, and assume the post is about Amtrak.
Just IMO I believe and others have told me to that people in general should be more willing to post their own threads for their own topics. In this case, you would be saving your time as well as theirs if this is not the topic they wish to address. I hope as well you will forgive my earlier facetiousness. It was late and I was getting frustrated scrolling through long posts quoting long posts.
Best, Allen
PS: I lived in Houston as a boy and loved it. I was there when the Astrodome was built. Even then, the traffic was getting too heavy. My poor father commuted clear across town to the north in an airconditioner-less VW beetle -- at a time when the Loops hadn't been built yet!!
I used the Lynx light rail only as an example of the fact that the loud and persistant voices of opposition are not actually representative of the general population. I did not mean to make it a sales pitch for light rail.
Al:
The park and ride at I 485 (outer beltway which faced similar opposition that resulted in holding it up for 20 years greatly increasing the cost) is a 4 story parking deck. The rest of them are parking lots. The planners just under estimated the number of spaces needed. They are working on a way to resolve it.
Lynx did, in fact, have to build a number of bridges over several heavily traveled roads. They did build it along existing N&S tracks, but the next segment is going up the mall in the middle of route 29.
Very few government provided services make a profit or break even, and many government provided services serve only a small segment of the population. I don't see why the transit services should be expected to be self supporting. NYC subway doesn't break even, but the city could not function without it. Most Charlotteans don't go to Bobcats NBA games, but 300 million tax dollars went into building their arena.
Phoebe Vet wrote: Samantha:Like most people who quote poles you are stating the numbers in the way that seems to support your belief that you speak for everyone.For example, when you state that 20% of people riding the light rail have no choice because they don't own a car what you are also saying is that 80% of the people riding the light rail DO own a car and have chosen light rail over their car to commute.There is no statistic you can quote that can predict how many more would make that choice if the train went more places and ran more frequently.Amtrak's ridership is increasing rapidly. I have found the trains out of Charlotte sold out on more than one occasion.I just watched the bitter fight here in Charlotte over whether Light rail was a service we needed, or if it was a giant hole into which the county would throw huge amounts of money forever. The fight was long, and intense, and involved multiple court fights. Opponents pointed to the fact that the buses which ran once an hour seldom had more than 3 or 4 people on them, and the express buses from the outer edges to city center, which only ran during rush hour were also not drawing enough riders to pay their own way. One opponent actually said in an interview that it would be cheaper to buy each bus rider a car than it would be to build the light rail.The first light rail line is now in operation. It runs every 15 minutes most of the day and every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour. The park and ride lots are overflowing. People are driving 2 or 3 stations up the line looking for a place to park so they can take the train. Condos and mixed office/condo high rises are popping up along the line like weeds. More than a million rides have been taken since it opened in November.All the studies done before the decision was made said Charlotte did not have the population density for light rail. They said we were too spread out. Too suburban. All the surveys indicated that even the proponents weren't going to ride it. People surveyed said they were in favor of it so that some of the road traffic would be reduced and it would be easier for them to drive to city center. All the studies and surveys were wrong. Ridership is running about 50% above even the most optimistic estimates.I suspect that there are more potential riders there than you think.
Like most people who quote poles you are stating the numbers in the way that seems to support your belief that you speak for everyone.
For example, when you state that 20% of people riding the light rail have no choice because they don't own a car what you are also saying is that 80% of the people riding the light rail DO own a car and have chosen light rail over their car to commute.
There is no statistic you can quote that can predict how many more would make that choice if the train went more places and ran more frequently.
Amtrak's ridership is increasing rapidly. I have found the trains out of Charlotte sold out on more than one occasion.
I just watched the bitter fight here in Charlotte over whether Light rail was a service we needed, or if it was a giant hole into which the county would throw huge amounts of money forever. The fight was long, and intense, and involved multiple court fights. Opponents pointed to the fact that the buses which ran once an hour seldom had more than 3 or 4 people on them, and the express buses from the outer edges to city center, which only ran during rush hour were also not drawing enough riders to pay their own way. One opponent actually said in an interview that it would be cheaper to buy each bus rider a car than it would be to build the light rail.
The first light rail line is now in operation. It runs every 15 minutes most of the day and every 7 1/2 minutes during rush hour. The park and ride lots are overflowing. People are driving 2 or 3 stations up the line looking for a place to park so they can take the train. Condos and mixed office/condo high rises are popping up along the line like weeds. More than a million rides have been taken since it opened in November.
All the studies done before the decision was made said Charlotte did not have the population density for light rail. They said we were too spread out. Too suburban. All the surveys indicated that even the proponents weren't going to ride it. People surveyed said they were in favor of it so that some of the road traffic would be reduced and it would be easier for them to drive to city center. All the studies and surveys were wrong. Ridership is running about 50% above even the most optimistic estimates.
I suspect that there are more potential riders there than you think.
I think so too, and while I'm no expert, I think Charlotte's relatively (and I emphasize "relatively") spread-out position may have helped LYNX gain traffic. There must have been condemnations to gain ROW, but I suspect the idea of using the verges of prior motor arteries or raiding as little parkland as possible was a good one to avoid doing any more of that than possible. LYNX didn't have to condemn industrial property or build huge new bridges unless I'm missing a good part of the story. A parking lot is a lot cheaper to build in a quasi-suburban area than downtown or in an industrial district.
Charlotte was a medium-sized city that has very quickly grown into a large city. As commutation patterns explode, so do traffic jams on the 40-year-old Interstate highways which were once developed under the assumption that they would take traffic away from or around the metro areas, not serve as their beltways or downtown commuter ramps. I'm sure it helps a great deal too that downtown Charlotte is vibrant and that the professional sports venues have been so intelligently built into the LRT framework.
All the politics must have been a really hard slug, but LYNX is definitely a hit. This is not to say that every medium-to-big city needs LRT desperately. If I am reading the little bit I am seeing about it correctly, St. Louis's system is hardly a hit and it had a number of infrastructural hurdles to clear (routing over bridges, roads, etc.) Did K.C. Missouri ever decide it wanted to tax itself for a new LRV route?
In Charlotte's case, and based on what you say, the next hurdle will get people used to the idea of using their cars not at all to get from home to downtown (usually it's downtown, isn't it?). This may involve closing or turning into rental or permit-parking some of the (partly residential, I guess) areas in people are parking on all day for free in order to ride the LYNX. It should be done with the conviction that it is a boon and a convenience and not just another thing those *** planners did to mess up people's commute. Readers of these posts will know that I admire Toronto for so well integrating the buses that serve the suburbs with the schedules of the GO commuter trains.
Congratulations to Charlotte; you have joined the big leagues of public transit, and people seem to be happy with it, too!
Phoebe Vet wrote: Like most people who quote poles you are stating the numbers in the way that seems to support your belief that you speak for everyone.Amtrak's ridership is increasing rapidly. I have found the trains out of Charlotte sold out on more than one occasion.
The numbers are verifiable. The key is to present comprehensive numbers and direct people to the source. How people interpret them, of course, is driven by perception and personal values.
You took one number, i.e. 20 per cent of the people who ride light rail don't have an alternative, as an indicator that 80 per cent of the people who ride it have an alternative. Of course! But in the larger context, what I was trying to show is that only 11.65 per cent of the people in DART's service area use public transit. And that percentage is reduced by the number of people who don't have a viable alternative. So about nine per cent of the service area population use the system. This is a pretty good indicator of what percentage of the population, at best, might use expanded passenger rail (heavy and light) in Texas. If you develop passenger rail between Fort Worth and San Antonio, some people will use it. But could it covers its variable costs? How much subsidy would be required to support it?
I was in Charlotte last week. And I rode the light rail system. Having lived there from 1968 to 1972, I never thought that I would see the day that Charlotte would have a light rail system. I was pleased to see and ride it. It is neat. But like the DART light rail system, I suspect the per passenger subsidy is pretty steep. DART's light rail riders got an average subsidy of $3.66 per ride in 2006. This figure is verifiable, but many of the supporters of light rail don't like to reference it.
Amtrak's riders have increased each of the last four years. So have its costs. Amtrak still loses more than $1.3 billion a year. The long distance trains lose more than $500 million a year. And they are on course to lose even more this year. Again, supporters of Amtrak quote the increase in the number of riders and revenues without talking about the costs.
So where do I favor trains? They are a solution for high density corridors where the cost of building additional highway and airway capacity is prohibitive. And where the variable operating costs can be recovered. There are two areas in Texas where commuter rail could be a good option in the next decade. On is the Houston to Galveston corridor; the other is the Austin to San Antonio corridor. But for now there is no money for them.
A business person would invest in rail where there is probable demand and a reasonable probability of earning a return on his or her investment. A politician would pony up $2 billion a year for ten years and build it on the premise that they will come. Maybe! But there are not many business people who would bet the farm on that model.
Politicians don't have to worry about blowing the farm. They don't have a P&L Statement to worry about, unless they are in charge of an enterprise fund. In Texas they are seldom held accountable for their big blowouts. If they are turned out of office for their mistakes, they can get a nice job as a lobbyist.
Getting back to the original post by Don Oltmann, the question was, what would you do if you were Amtrak President and Congress voted an extra 2 billion/year over 5 years?
My vote was spread it around on 79 MPH trains to serve as many people as possible, and maybe I am thinking in terms of Congress and the next go-around of train expansion, and broadening the political base for trains at least in a geographic sense.
I got critiqued on that, with others arguing that spending a higher per-mile dollar amount for a lesser amount of 110 MPH service was better because the 79 MPH service was not going to be time-competitive with cars.
A bunch of other people picked 110 MPH on a Whiskey-Sexy-Democracy argument, that faster was intrinsically "better" or "more cool" or whatever. Other people groused that the 10 billion was not enough to do true HSR and weren't going to be happy unless they got what they wanted. We can complain how about how HSR is not taken seriously in this country, but there is some likelihood that Congress may come up with the 10 billion, and the question is what would you do, apart from complain that it is not enough.
Look, I am willing to accept the view that the Interstate gets a lot of cross-subsidy that the critics of Amtrak subsidy aren't taking into account, and that even building an HSR line may be cheap compared to adding Interstate lanes. The question the critics bring up, however, is whether the ridership on the HSR or other rail upgrade line will be anywhere near what you would get with added highway lanes, and I don't think we can simply be dismissive of those concerns that "those are all concrete and Cato Institute talking points."
When I was an age-11 charter NARP member back in the late 60's, I was into all of the rails-rule planes-drool mindset. When I was a child, I thought like a child and believed in what NARP was saying as a child, but with 40 years of life experience behind me, I would like to approach passenger train advocacy with a bit more sophistication than to be dismissive of airplane travel as being less-than-civilized owing to some security procedures or to view my fellow American citizens with the disdain implicit in remarks that we don't have HSR constitutes some kind of national shame relative to trading partners who do.
The question remains, there is 10 billion dollars to spend, how would you spend it on trains, to what purpose and to what effect, and why, and being angry that there is not more to spend is not an answer.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
HarveyK400 wrote: The reality is that this country has competing priorities including a costly war on terrorism, health care, and education. This conflict is exacerbated by impacts on the public of the rising price for gas, the devaluation of the dollar from the imbalance in international trade, loss of manufacturing jobs, and immigration. Money probably will be too tight for anything as grandiose as a new high speed NEC or New York - Chicago Corridor. I cannot imagine a new suface route between Washington, DC and Providence, RI that would not involve massive dislocation. 400 miles underground would be more depressing than occassionally flying in clouds. The NEC may not be high speed, but it offers a respectable, competitive alternative to driving and flying.New York, NY - Mansfield, Ohio would require massive engineering work similar to the ICE lines across Germany even if it tied into a high speed line over the former PFW&C to Chicago. Whether the demand would be worth the costs including East-Midwest compatibility needs to be determined. (Curiously, what provision was made for UA Turbotrain passengers boarding at high-level platforms?) Los Angeles - San Francisco may become the only other high speed corridor if the State of California chooses to undertake the venture. This would afford branches through the Central Valley and the East Bay. The engineering challenge is much smaller compared to crossing the Appalachians.
The reality is that this country has competing priorities including a costly war on terrorism, health care, and education. This conflict is exacerbated by impacts on the public of the rising price for gas, the devaluation of the dollar from the imbalance in international trade, loss of manufacturing jobs, and immigration. Money probably will be too tight for anything as grandiose as a new high speed NEC or New York - Chicago Corridor.
Los Angeles - San Francisco may become the only other high speed corridor if the State of California chooses to undertake the venture. This would afford branches through the Central Valley and the East Bay. The engineering challenge is much smaller compared to crossing the Appalachians.
I regards to the UA turbos they had step down facilities for passengers boarding at high level platforms. At least those operated by CN and Via Rail did as the platform in Montreal was high level while those in Toronto were ground level.
Al - in - Stockton
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.