SRen wrote: Phoebe Vet wrote: The attitude you describe is indicative of the "chicken vs the egg" senario the Amtrak faces.People don't ride the trains because the are too slow, too infrequent, and don't go enough places. Amtrak won't make the trains faster, more frequent, or add more destinations because not enough people ride them.So here we sit.It's not about how much money, it's about priorities. How many miles of high speed rail could we lay for the price of ONE aircraft carrier, or for the cost of the 23 new (european built) helicopters for the President's transportation desires?Big ditos and hazahs to Phoebe Vet. Samantha always uses the poor performance of underfunded Amtrak to argue against any need to invest in passenger trains. The reason why Texans think cars first and planes second is because infrastructure that suports autos and airlines is well funded. If rail infrastructure were funded on the par with highways and airways passenger trains would be a viable alternative for travel in Texas.Oh, by the way, according to my crystal ball that I have next to my computer we will soon be treated to a lecture by Samantha stating that Texans will never leave behind their cars for trains, she will probably throw in some comment about her red neck neighbors and their Smart cars.
Phoebe Vet wrote: The attitude you describe is indicative of the "chicken vs the egg" senario the Amtrak faces.People don't ride the trains because the are too slow, too infrequent, and don't go enough places. Amtrak won't make the trains faster, more frequent, or add more destinations because not enough people ride them.So here we sit.It's not about how much money, it's about priorities. How many miles of high speed rail could we lay for the price of ONE aircraft carrier, or for the cost of the 23 new (european built) helicopters for the President's transportation desires?
The attitude you describe is indicative of the "chicken vs the egg" senario the Amtrak faces.
People don't ride the trains because the are too slow, too infrequent, and don't go enough places. Amtrak won't make the trains faster, more frequent, or add more destinations because not enough people ride them.
So here we sit.
It's not about how much money, it's about priorities. How many miles of high speed rail could we lay for the price of ONE aircraft carrier, or for the cost of the 23 new (european built) helicopters for the President's transportation desires?
Big ditos and hazahs to Phoebe Vet. Samantha always uses the poor performance of underfunded Amtrak to argue against any need to invest in passenger trains. The reason why Texans think cars first and planes second is because infrastructure that suports autos and airlines is well funded. If rail infrastructure were funded on the par with highways and airways passenger trains would be a viable alternative for travel in Texas.
Oh, by the way, according to my crystal ball that I have next to my computer we will soon be treated to a lecture by Samantha stating that Texans will never leave behind their cars for trains, she will probably throw in some comment about her red neck neighbors and their Smart cars.
Texas can't be that much different than California when it comes to people in love with their four wheelers and Californians are turning to the train in record numbers.
The very best service ever provided by SP and AT&SF down the San Joaquin Valley four daytime trains. Amtrak California operates seven San Joaquins today and is looking to add probably two more. It is the same story with the Capitols and Surfliners. Record numbers of riders and the need for additional trains.
On this falls ballot HSR may become reality. Early polls show the measure has a better than 65% chance of passing. This is a 9 billion Bond measure to provide service between San Francisco and Los Angeles with connecting service between Sacramento and Los Angeles. Both services will operate through the San Joaquin Valley. If approved it will provide 7000 jobs at the height of construction. The proposed service would provide hourly service between San Francisco and Los Angeles and every other hour service between Sacramento and Los Angeles. There is already proposals on the table to extend the service from Los Angeles to San Diego and possibly from LA to Santa Barbara. One other proposal would extend the service north from Sacramento to Redding via the old highway 99 cities.
I for one believe that if fuel prices continue their upward trend, which looking in my crystal ball seems most likely Californians will be more than willing to park there cars and take the HSR. I would bet that if it is built and operates at the speeds proposed within two years the airlines will have half the flights they do today between LA and SF and LA and Sacramento. And I would go further and say the new service will eventually surpass the NE corridor for ridership between Boston-New York-Washington.
Al - in - Stockton
As far as the gas prices go, I assume it will go just like it did in the '70s.
Gasoline will quadruple in price, then will fall back 30 or 40% and everyone will say "now that's more like it" and be happy with the new "lower" price even though it's double what it was when they started.
I have another analogy, but it's political, so I will bite my tongue.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
California is to Texas as day is to night. One only needs to look at the political landscape to begin to get an idea of the magnitude of the differences.
Californians may be flocking to its state supported passenger trains, but they still loose a lot of money. They are on track to lose $37.5 million before other charges in 2008. They lost an average 14.2 cents a passenger mile during the first three quarters of FY008 whilst averaging 32.3 per cent of capacity.
For the first three quarters of FY08 the Pacific Surfliner, Capital Corridors, and San Joaquin's carried 3,974,111 riders. The population of California in 2006 (latest U.S. Census Bureau estimate) was 36,457,549. If the riders on these train were one time a year only passengers, approximately 10.7 per cent of Californians took to the rails, excluding the long distance trains, which carry a relatively small number of passengers. But a significant per cent of the riders probably take the train more than once a year. Many of the Pacific Surfliner riders, for example, are commuters. If the riders only took the train twice a year, the per cent of Californians who rode the train would drop to approximately 5.3; three times a year would drop to 3.6 per cent and so on and so forth.
Gasoline prices have dropped more than 30 cents a gallon in Texas. It is hard to predict where they will be next year. In time, however, they will increase as petroleum becomes more difficult to find and produce.
In 2010 GM, Nissan, Toyota, etc. will be offering plug-in hybrid vehicles that will get considerably better mileage than today's vehicles. As Americans move away from gas guzzling vehicles, with an increasing number opting for alterative fueled ones, the argument that high fuel costs will be an enabler of passenger rail, high speed or otherwise, will fall by the wayside.
If you had paid attention to my posts, you should know that I favor rapid corridor rail where the cost of upgrading highways and airways is prohibitive, and the market is sufficient to cover the operating costs. I don't favor a large investment in passenger rail, e.g. NARP and Passenger Rail Working Group, where there is little justification for it.
I have buttressed my views on passenger trains and public transit (pro and con) with numbers that can be validated. They are predicated on hours of homework as opposed to unsubstantiated opinions based on little if any analytics.
Accusing my neighbors of being red necks, without knowing any of them, is out of order and offensive. Texans can think for themselves. They tend to make choices that best suit their needs. This is the reason most of them have chosen highways and airways.
Samantha,
Regarding hybrid cars:
Maybe only 2% of all Californians take Amtrak.
HarveyK400 wrote: Samantha, Regarding hybrid cars: How good is the fuel economy of a plug-in hybrid after the first 40 miles? With the exceptions of Dallas-Fort Worth and a few other city pairs, 40 miles would be enough juice to get you to an Amtrak station for an intercity trip.The kilowatt hours aren't free either.Power generation still relies substantially on fossil fuels.Railroads are evaluating hybrid locomotives too.Maybe only 2% of all Californians take Amtrak.That doesn't mean 98% of the population uses California-99 during the year. The percentage of rail travel in given corridors rather than all travel in every direction would be considerably higher.One Surfliner accounts for at least a quarter lane capacity in peak hours.Harvey
Harvey
The current crop of hybrids gets about 40 mpg around town and 48 mpg on the highway. GM's new Volt will be able to run the first 40 miles on the re-chargeable batteries. After that a small gasoline engine will kick in to recharge the batteries whilst powering the vehicle with both systems. The Volt, however, is intended to be a commuter car, which should work well, since the average commute in America is just over 20 miles.
The idea that a significant number of Texans will give up their gas guzzling vehicles in favor of trains is not supported by the facts. What they are doing, however, is moving to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, as an interim step, with the ultimate goal being alternate fueled vehicles.
Most Texans don't want to drive to the railway station, get a train, and then wrestle with getting suitable transport when they arrive at their destination, which in this state is more often than not a suburban location. They will take a plane if time is critical, or they are going more than 250 miles.
Except to the extent environmental constraints increase the cost of driving or flying, they are not the primary drivers for alternate modes of transport. My argument is simple. Trains only make sense in highly congested corridors where the cost of expanding the highways or airways is cost prohibitive. There are no areas in Texas, with the possible exception of the mix master in Dallas, where this is the case. However, this is likely to change as the population of Texas increases.
Many Californians live outside the practicable service area for the corridor rail services and, therefore, cannot use them. Including them in an estimate of the percentage of people who ride the corridor trains understates the percentage of people who live within reach of the corridor who actually use the trains. On the other hand, California, has a high concentration of people in southern California and the Bay area, which are served by the corridor trains. I don't have the data to estimate how many people live there, as opposed to the rural areas of the state, but if the demographics are like other Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, it is a significant per cent of the state's population. Accordingly, it is probably fair to say that only a small percentage of Californians, including those who live near the corridors, use the trains. The relatively low load factors seem to support this view.
As you say, the plug-ins are intended for commter travel; and therefore are not germain to intercity travel.
What would be a significant number of Texans? Most assuredly, not even 5% of the State's registered drivers would be attracted to rail travel. On the other hand, could improved train service attracting an average of 300 passengers per trip be considered significant?
Furthermore, the question is not so much about owners of gas-guzzlers as all car owners. Owners sensitive enough to buy a fuel-efficient vehicle will be more sensitive to costs.
What facts does Texas give us? The two existing long-distance trains are too slow and erratic for any meaningful contribution to intra-state travel. People have switched to Amtrak with the cost of gas. The 14% increase in ridership is significant for Amtrak, even it it represents only about a 0.1% change in mode choice nationally. While the Amtrak network is not ubiquitous as are the roads, or frequent on most lines to accommodate the needs of most travelers, trains still attract and benefit riders that are significant in numbers with respect to the costs and markets of the service.
Even acknowledging that it's improper to compare all of California [for example] to the number of rail trips; the populations in the rail corridors themselves do not reflect the smaller overall corridor travel (intercity, non-local trips). Corridor trips for all modes is the truer base for measurement and more likely to yield a more relevant and significant proportion for rail use. The corridor demand itself does not include non-local travel to non-corridor destinations or the substantial proportion (~85%?) of the population not making a non-local trip.
The load factor is a fairly volitile measure. The average load for the Hiawathas is quite low; but this belies the packed rush hour trains. I think this has more to do with consumer sensitivity to fares rather than any aversion to train travel; but that's another discussion and a beef of mine.
The one thing Samantha failed to factor in about California is it is the Liberal bastion of the nation. We are nearly two months late getting a budget signed and the state is $15 billion in debt. The Govenator much to the chagrin of his own party has even offered the Dems a 1cent sales tax increase to be retired when the red ink is eliminated. The Dems are not willing to give up one penny of Pork in return. I have lived to retirement age and in my lifetime can't recall a sales tax increase ever being retired.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.