Paul MilenkovicWhat does it say that we have the most sophisticated weapons? That was certainly not the case just prior to WW-II, and many brave Americans paid with their lives at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines for that. Why do we have the most sophisticated weapons now? Part of it was after reaping the fruits of isolationism, naive reliance on diplomatic agreements, and of a peace dividend where military preparedness was reduced, we vowed never again.
What does it say that we have the most sophisticated weapons? That was certainly not the case just prior to WW-II, and many brave Americans paid with their lives at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines for that. Why do we have the most sophisticated weapons now? Part of it was after reaping the fruits of isolationism, naive reliance on diplomatic agreements, and of a peace dividend where military preparedness was reduced, we vowed never again.
Couldn't resist jumping in here...
The isolationist sentiment in the US prior to Pearl Harbor was largely due to the Wilson administration's handling of WW1. One aspect was that Wilson's administration forbade any negative talk about the war effort (e.g. J. Edgar Hoover's Secret Service) and an intense propaganda effort was waged to drum up support (e.g. George Creel) which consisted of some outrageous lies about German behavior (the Germans for the most part were acting more humanely than either the French or British). The combination of the lies and death toll was enough to turn the American public from any involvement in European conflicts - much the same way that it would be unthinkable to get into another war in Southeast Asia.
A very good source for life in the US during WW1 is John M. Barry's The Great Influenza. The book also covers the development of the American university system as a prelude to the outbreak of the "Spanish" flu (which may be more accurately be called the Kansas flu).
Now what's this have to do with High Speed Rail???
WW1 and the USRA were two of the worst things that happened to American RR's in the first half of the 20th century, stopping a lot of projects (rail mileage peaked in 1916), greatly increasing costs (inflation) without a corresponding increase in revenue, and promotion of using trucks instead of rail freight.
The Great Influenza likely had a negative impact on RR passenger travel - being much safer traveling in a private car than with strangers possibly carrying the flu virus.
I respect the opinion that debating a national, high-speed rail network detracts from local needs. But unless we take some forward leaps with transportation, we will always be in catch-up mode.
Indeed, local or corridor problems will be solved out of dire necessity. For example, another Talgo between Seattle and Vancouver is planned for next year. But only because the Canadians are paying for infrastructure improvements to help their Olympics earn money! And am I the only one who fels a bit of shame that we must buy Talgo trains from Spain, when they were invented in the United States?
For more than a century, railroads "subsidized" passenger service. When this became too much of a burden, the system deteriorated and the government took over -- but it has continued to deteriorate instead of being improved.
Just because the seats on airplanes are what makes money, should the airlines be relieved of paying for the wings? Our transportation decisions are not rational. The most profitable systems -- cars and planes -- get support, while a national high-speed rail system is ignored. And the worst things we have lost are a sense of pride, freedom, and geographical identity.
ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES:
PRIDE--does anyone out there honestly take pride in the comfort of a coach seat on an airplane? And while national security should be an issue on an international journey, it is humiliating that I can only take so much deodorant when I visit my sister in a nearby city.
FREEDOM -- where the only transportation option is auto travel, it is unsafe and illegal to go to dinner in a nearby city and drink some wine.
GEOGRAPHICAL IDENTITY -- the true nature of America is invisible from an airplane. Why are all those horses in a corral, with a dog food truck driving out the other end?
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Well, I have to respond to Paul Milenkovic's comment, "Am I embarassed that the US is behind Europe in ferry boats?" YES, YES, YES!
The Washington State Ferry (WSF) system hauls as many passengers as Amtrak (about 25 million per year). It is in an equally shameful condition -- and I do NOT blame it on the good WSF workers, any more than I blame airport security invasion of privacy on TSA.
The sad condition of our ferry system became clear after some highly publicized events highlighting the rough conditions that the boats occasionally encounter. I think this inspired tighter inspections; in any case, it was found that the Steel-Electric class, built in 1929, was unsafe. These were "the oldest operating auto ferries in the world." Their wooden superstructure was replaced in the 1980's, but the original hulls were found to be in poor condition. Although the impacts were felt throughout the system, the biggest problem was on Whidbey Island, where the Steel-Electrics were the only boats with a sufficiently shallow draft. The poor condition of the ferry system impacted our national defense, since Whidbey Island has a crucial Naval Air Station with workers who commute by ferry.
And our ferry system has another problem -- the fare collection system was restructured recently, and instead of "off the shelf" technology, it was decided to "invent the wheel." While transit systems all over the world use magnetic-stripe tickets, WSF designed a bar-code ticket system. Of course it was delayed and there were cost overruns. But the new system has yet to provide the much-needed benefit of allowing reserved space. Thus, the prospect of spending six hours waiting in line for a boat at the start and end of a weekend getaway convinces some that they don't want to travel, and has an economic impact.
Another problem is that all the tickets look the same. An agent once accidently gave my wife a $10, single-use passenger ticket instead of a $125, five-use auto ticket. The old system used a book of color-coded, clearly labeled tickets. And while magnetic-stripe tickets print the remaining value after each use, it is a mystery how many uses are remaining on the bar -code tickets (I guess one can call WSF or look it up online...).
There are so many ways in which our country is not responding to its transportation needs!
If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails. If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail? It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway. With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups.
If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails. If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail?
It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway. With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups.
I wonder about those exact same questions.
I am going to toss out some rough-round numbers here, and I am sure they have shifted with both the increase in Amtrak load factors counteracted by he increase in Amtrak fuel costs.
A ticket on the Hiawatha costs/used to cost $20. The State of Wisconsin and State of Illinois chip in another $10. If you believe RPS to be accurate, and we can talk cost-shifting until the cows come home, but on a network basis, Amtrak has to pay its bills and it pretty much knows how much money it spends. Taking RPS as a given, I have seen some form of the cost of the Hiawatha ride at $50, indicating that Amtrak is chipping in another $20.
Out of that $20 ticket, or $50 ride that includes $30 in State and Federal subsidy, my understanding is that about $2 goes to Canadian Pacific Railway. In other words, I had seen that the track payment for this service is about 1 million/year, and if someone has more recent and accurate figures, lay them on me. The amount of subsidy is multiples of the cost of trackage rights.
If trains could somehow, sort of break even in an above-the-rails sense, I think a lot of people would be receptive to a kind of social contract that the government would pay for the tracks, a for-profit company or a government agency receiving modest levels of subsidy would take charge of everything above the wheel-rail contact patch. I think we have something like that with Amtrak in the NEC. Amtrak charges an arm and a leg to ride the Acela and a somewhat more modest amount for Regional. They break even or turn in some form of profit on an above-the-railhead basis.
What is so expensive about railroad passenger transport? The Hiawatha doesn't offer baggage service, lounges, sleepers or any of those amenities -- food service is a cart through the aisle where you buy stuff. What the State of Wisconsin is willing to chip in, and they get a lot of that money because the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor is an Air Quality Non-attainment Area and they can get funding to get people out of cars to reduce air pollution, that money should pay for what CP Rail wants and then some. Beyond that, the Hiawatha should have costs comparable to a bus company running the same route, and as far as I can tell, their above-the-rails costs are multiples of a bus company.
What gives? Don Oltmann might be on to something -- based on staffing levels at Beech Grove, it seemed that the maintenance hours per passenger mile on passenger cars exceeds by some margin that of airliners, and airliners are considered to be high-maintenance piece of equipment because as noted earlier on this thread, we cannot let them fall out of the sky. I am not faulting the men and women of Beech Grove that they are not working fast enough -- there may be something intrinsic to current generation railroad passenger cars that they need a lot of TLC.
Why should a railroad line be any different than a highway, and why could we not operate such a thing "open access."
The one way a railroad line is different is that one can consolidate a large number of individual railroad cars into a train, one has to maintain adequate separation of those trains. Buses on a highway can operate on much shorter headway with the other cars, buses, and trucks on the road. Part of this is that a rubber-tired bus can stop quicker, part of it is that a bus can swerve around a car stalled on the highway in a way that a train cannot. Thus trains are a highly "batched" mode of transportation and achieve efficiency by a high degree of batching, placing railroad cars into trains. By the same token, a single train occupies a much greater chunk of a rail line's capacity than bus does of a highway. This may place restrictions on "open access."
The big economy Amtrak achieves outside the NEC is that it only needs to pay nominal trackage fees to share rail lines with freight instead of having to "own and operate the entire highway." We can argue whether those fees are too high or too low, but I don't think they are that big a slice of Amtrak's total cost picture.
In return, Amtrak has to indeed share the tracks with freight, and outside the NEC (and Hiawatha Corridor), Amtrak is chronically late. Amtrak blames the railroads for "freight train interference", the roads blame Amtrak for "missing their assigned slot" and thus getting caught in the flow of freights that maintain much lower over-the-road speeds.
Maybe understanding Amtrak's cost structure is too tall an order for railfans, but understanding railroad dispatching and "slots" is probably well within the capabilities of the railfan community. I think we need to use our scanners and schedules and railfan train-chasing ability to get an independent view on why Amtrak has late trains and what it would take to run the trains on time.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet That didn't answer the question. If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails. If both freight and passenger paid the same tax per gallon as trucks and buses, how much subsidy would then be required for passenger rail? It does not cost any more per mile to build a mile of railroad than it does to build a lane/mile of highway. With the fuel tax model, the rails would be available to much smaller companies and startups.
That didn't answer the question.
Woodside Consultants, amongst others, believes the freight carriers that hoist most of Amtrak's trains charge transit rates that do not cover the full cost of moving the passenger carrier's trains over their systems.
If the government owned the rails, as it does the highways and airways, and it charged rates designed to recover the cost of the facilities, the cost structure for passenger trains would be little different than the current cost structure. In fact, it could be worse if it is true that the hoist rails subsidize indirectly Amtrak. This would be true if all forms of transport wore the same fuel taxes.
In most European countries, as well as those in Asia, the rail infrastructure is owned by the government. And in many instances the government supplies the electric power for electric powered trains or subsidizes the cost of diesel fuel. Yet passenger trains in these locales require the same level of subsidy or more than trains in the U.S.
daveklepper Again, I would like to make the point I have made several times. The National Park System does not pay for itself. And if its cost were divided among just those people who used the park (one year's costs for one year's visitors) the subsidy probably would be quite high. But we support the system because it brings side benefits. I believe a national railroad passenger intercity train service does the following. Opens up the country for many disabled and elderly who cannot fly Increase tourism, including tourism by overseas visitors Provides emergency service when planes cannot fly and during national emergencies such as floods. Provides a framework for uniting the regional high speed and commuter services that are absolutely necessary to avoid highway and airport congestion and even grid-lock On a per citizen basis the existing subsidy seems reasonable and not out of line with the benefits the overall nation receives.
Again, I would like to make the point I have made several times. The National Park System does not pay for itself. And if its cost were divided among just those people who used the park (one year's costs for one year's visitors) the subsidy probably would be quite high. But we support the system because it brings side benefits. I believe a national railroad passenger intercity train service does the following.
Opens up the country for many disabled and elderly who cannot fly
Increase tourism, including tourism by overseas visitors
Provides emergency service when planes cannot fly and during national emergencies such as floods.
Provides a framework for uniting the regional high speed and commuter services that are absolutely necessary to avoid highway and airport congestion and even grid-lock
On a per citizen basis the existing subsidy seems reasonable and not out of line with the benefits the overall nation receives.
The National Park Service, which last year saw more than 276 million visitors, is not designed to pay for itself. It is open to all the people.
The park service budget for 2008 is $2.75 billion. But the net cost to the taxpayer, after subtracting entrance and concessionaire fees, is approximately $1.12 billion, which results in a subsidy of approximately $4.08 per visitor. This compares to an Amtrak system subsidy of $53.48 per passenger in FY 2007, with a whopping average subsidy of approximately $135 for each long distance rider. Amtrak carried slightly more than 25.5 million passengers in FY 2007.
To compare the National Park Service to a transport system is mixing apples and oranges. The parks are open to and used by a high percentage of Americans. Amtrak is used by a much smaller percentage of the population that depends on many non-users for its support.
Those who argue that trains open up the country for many disabled and elderly who cannot fly, increases tourism, provides emergency services, and provides a framework for uniting the regional high speed and commuter services that are necessary to avoid grid-lock should quantify the value of these features of passenger rail.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails but rather paid the same tax per gallon or eqivalent per killowatt hour for electricity, what would be the subsidy required by passenger rail service?
If the railroads did not own and maintain the rails but rather paid the same tax per gallon or eqivalent per killowatt hour for electricity, what would be the subsidy required by passenger rail service?
The problem with that question is that except in the NE corridor, passenger railroads do not own nor maintain the rails. To obtain High Speed Rail perhaps a right of way will be acquired and the road constructed from scratch, as it appears California might do. However, in the majority of cases passage is rented from a freight railroad. Although the freight railroad may have an interest in improvements that aid their operations, HSR is irrelevant to them.
I keep telling myself to walk away from the political portion of this argument, but it is difficult, because I feel very strongly about it, as you can probably tell. But it is not in any way related to my support for passenger rail.
This is not a quetion in support of an argument, but rather is actually just a question:
Trucking companies and bus companies do not own and maintain the roads.
Paul Milenkovic Yes, I am embarrassed that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in trains, cars, electronics, cameras, medicine, etc. We used to be the leading edge, now we have become the caboose. We do, however, have the most sophisticated weapons. I wonder what that says about us? I teach at a university, and from my vantage point, I don't know anything we do here from cancer research to combustion in Diesel engines that is not leading edge. We even have an EV-1 on the engineering campus, donated by GM to further our program in advanced hybrid vehicles -- the picture of me standing next to one didn't upload as part of my "signature" for some reason. And judging from the many races of people I see each and every day, some speaking languages I recognize, others speaking languages I don't even know what they are, I see the rest of the world coming here to be at that leading edge. What does it say that we have the most sophisticated weapons? That was certainly not the case just prior to WW-II, and many brave Americans paid with their lives at Pearl Harbor and in the Phillipines for that. Why do we have the most sophisticated weapons now? Part of it was after reaping the fruits of isolationism, naive reliance on diplomatic agreements, and of a peace dividend where military preparedness was reduced, we vowed never again. The other part of it was that a certain Central European nation embraced a kind of racist vision and vented its frustrations against a certain ethno-religious minority. Many of them with the education and job skills that allowed them to leave did just that. Long before that racist vision turned to wanton killing, many could see what was going to happen. And they came here. And they helped give us the world's first atom bomb. And the world's first hydrogen bomb. And many other technical advances, both military and non-military in nature. And if it were not for these events outside our borders, America might still be an agricultural backwater, a sort of fly-over continent, where the nations leading in engineering and scientific discovery were France and Germany. As to the fears that we are becoming like that certain Central European tyranny, my parents lived under the heels of that tyranny as conquered peoples and knew what the real deal was. I also don't see anyone leaving here in haste, and I see a lot of people trying to get in, many of whom we are treating badly for their efforts. What does it say about us that we have the most sophisticated weapons? Being of immigrant refugee heritage myself, it says that America is still a land of freedom and a refuge to people cast off from distant shores. When a military tyranny rises up, the people who have the smarts to engineer the best weapons make their way over here. What does it say about us that our car industry is struggling? The Wall Street Journal reports that the car companies in Germany are also in financial trouble. But there is a portion of the US auto industry that is still doing OK, but it goes under names like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Not only do they have assembly plants in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and other places, but many of the car designs come from studios in California. The names are East Asian, but these car companies are multi-national. What does it say about us that we lack HSR? Both here in the US and in Europe, most passenger miles take place in private automobiles (90 percent vs 80 percent). Here in the US, the remainder of passenger miles not in an auto take place by air (about 10 percent) with a smattering of bus (less than 1 percent) with a frisson of Amtrak (.1 percent). In Europe, the non-auto share of passenger miles (20 percent) is pretty evenly split between air, train, bus, and ferry boat (roughly 5 percent share each). The largest growth has taken place in their domestic airlines with a slight decline in train travel overall in percentage terms. Are you embarassed because the US is behind Europe in ferry boats? Are you embarassed because the US lags Europe in patronage of intercity bus (I believe that the motor coaches buses used here are European designs if not outright imports)? I take it that trains are the things you are most worried about. Passenger trains may yet get to play a major role moving people in the US as our population grows as more people in the world move here (projected to to reach a half a billion within our lifetimes, largely driven by immigration). As advocates, I think we can move in that direction a bit more quickly if we adopt a more positive attitude.
Yes, I am embarrassed that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in trains, cars, electronics, cameras, medicine, etc. We used to be the leading edge, now we have become the caboose. We do, however, have the most sophisticated weapons. I wonder what that says about us?
We do, however, have the most sophisticated weapons. I wonder what that says about us?
I teach at a university, and from my vantage point, I don't know anything we do here from cancer research to combustion in Diesel engines that is not leading edge. We even have an EV-1 on the engineering campus, donated by GM to further our program in advanced hybrid vehicles -- the picture of me standing next to one didn't upload as part of my "signature" for some reason.
And judging from the many races of people I see each and every day, some speaking languages I recognize, others speaking languages I don't even know what they are, I see the rest of the world coming here to be at that leading edge.
The other part of it was that a certain Central European nation embraced a kind of racist vision and vented its frustrations against a certain ethno-religious minority. Many of them with the education and job skills that allowed them to leave did just that. Long before that racist vision turned to wanton killing, many could see what was going to happen. And they came here. And they helped give us the world's first atom bomb. And the world's first hydrogen bomb. And many other technical advances, both military and non-military in nature. And if it were not for these events outside our borders, America might still be an agricultural backwater, a sort of fly-over continent, where the nations leading in engineering and scientific discovery were France and Germany.
As to the fears that we are becoming like that certain Central European tyranny, my parents lived under the heels of that tyranny as conquered peoples and knew what the real deal was. I also don't see anyone leaving here in haste, and I see a lot of people trying to get in, many of whom we are treating badly for their efforts.
What does it say about us that we have the most sophisticated weapons? Being of immigrant refugee heritage myself, it says that America is still a land of freedom and a refuge to people cast off from distant shores. When a military tyranny rises up, the people who have the smarts to engineer the best weapons make their way over here.
What does it say about us that our car industry is struggling? The Wall Street Journal reports that the car companies in Germany are also in financial trouble. But there is a portion of the US auto industry that is still doing OK, but it goes under names like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Not only do they have assembly plants in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and other places, but many of the car designs come from studios in California. The names are East Asian, but these car companies are multi-national.
What does it say about us that we lack HSR? Both here in the US and in Europe, most passenger miles take place in private automobiles (90 percent vs 80 percent). Here in the US, the remainder of passenger miles not in an auto take place by air (about 10 percent) with a smattering of bus (less than 1 percent) with a frisson of Amtrak (.1 percent). In Europe, the non-auto share of passenger miles (20 percent) is pretty evenly split between air, train, bus, and ferry boat (roughly 5 percent share each). The largest growth has taken place in their domestic airlines with a slight decline in train travel overall in percentage terms.
Are you embarassed because the US is behind Europe in ferry boats? Are you embarassed because the US lags Europe in patronage of intercity bus (I believe that the motor coaches buses used here are European designs if not outright imports)?
I take it that trains are the things you are most worried about. Passenger trains may yet get to play a major role moving people in the US as our population grows as more people in the world move here (projected to to reach a half a billion within our lifetimes, largely driven by immigration). As advocates, I think we can move in that direction a bit more quickly if we adopt a more positive attitude.
I don't always agree with Milenkovic's views on passenger rail issues, but I respect them. He always presents logical and well support arguments for his point of view. This argument is a good example. If everyone posting to Trains' Forums followed suit, the level of discourse would be enhanced immeasurably.
Two unrelated arguments.
My statement about the neurotic paranoia gripping the country has nothing to do with my advocacy of high speed rail. And TSA (for whom by brother-in-law works) is only one facet of the paranoia.
Yes, I am embarrassed that the rest of the world is leaving us behind in trains, cars, electronics, cameras, medicine, etc. We used to be the leading edge, now we have become the caboose.
Americans ARE cowards, We are giving up everything that made us unique out of irrational fear.
From your remarks, I am making the inference that you are unhappy about a number of things, and you can tell me if I guessed wrong.
You are unhappy that your fellow American citizens, taxpayers, and elected representatives are not forthcoming with what you believe to be a necessary level of subsidy money for Amtrak. You are unhappy with TSA and believe that the current level of airport security screening is an over reaction to what you believe to be a one-time event. You are unhappy that our government is waging war, believing not only that the war is wrong, but that it is taking money away that could go to trains. You are unhappy with airline travel and wished that the alternative were more widely available. You are probably also unhappy that even among people who like trains, that is the people posting here, there is not uniform agreement on Amtrak subsidies and HSR.
I make these inferences because I have associates in the brick-and-morter advocacy world who express many of the same sentiments. Come February, I exhibit a small model train layout at a large model train show, featuring the Talgo, representing a type of modern, high-speed train that increased Amtrak funding could bring to our community. The audience is not mainly train advocates or even model railroad people -- it is mainly young familes with small children who come to see all the model trains.
My main goal at this event is to create a positive impression of the benefits of corridor train service to our community. To further that goal, my hope is that my colleagues maintain their "public face" and not make statements that "Americans ARE cowards" or otherwise express their frustration with TSA, airlines, American politics in general, that the Amtrak money we want has not been forthcoming, in this setting.
The fear and confinement to which I refer are the burdensome regulations that are the necessary response to terrorism. We are restricted in sizes of toiletries, and told not to congregate in the aisles. Tight air travel security is necessary because of the unique characteristic of airplanes that they fall so hard and far.
Because we do not have high speed rail, our travel freedom is restricted.
Violence is not new in society. London, during WWII had an attack worse than 9/11 almost every night.
Do you listen to any news beside's Fox? The Muslims have been saying they were going to attack Americans if we didn't stop our attacks inside Pakistan. When you send your military half way around the world to attack people, you shouldn't be suprised when they fight back.
30,000 people a year die on the highway, are you afraid to get into a car?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt, 1783
"Home of the afraid", what is that supposed to mean? Something about TSA?
The TSA is an issue because airplanes is what we do over here, and the "bad guys" go after our airplanes. If you have seen the news from Mumbai (Bombay), India today, you would have seen pictures of blood covering the marble floor in a train station because trains is what they do over there. But if there are people who hate enough, planes, trains, American, person living in India, white, person of color, West, East, it makes no difference.
If there is a case to be made about trains, and especially LD trains on the questions of aesthetics and national heritage, go ahead and make that case. Yeah, there are a lot of people who share your gripes about flying, only most of them are not convinced trains are the answer either. Calling people cowards for not being forthcoming with the the level of support for Amtrak we want, don't know how that is going to change any minds.
Maglev America that is land of the confined, home of the afraid, with gray sky's majesty.
America that is land of the confined, home of the afraid, with gray sky's majesty.
Amen. I agree. I will say no more for fear of derailing the thread.
Indeed, it is hard to make an economic argument of trains versus planes for high-speed transportation. But here are some more aesthetic factors to consider.
After 9-11, airline employee working conditions, pay levels, and retirement benefits deteriorated. I know a flight attendant whose plane from Japan to Honolulu on the morning of 9-11 was escorted by a fighter jet in case anyone on board had box cutters. Such a horrifying experience is simply not possible on a train. I know a pilot who was given a promotion at a lower rate of pay, so that was his last day working for the airlines. And many older airlines, with sentimental and historic value, cannot operate in the cut-throat air travel business. 60-year-old Aloha Airlines in Hawaii is just one example of a bankrupt airlines.
What are we getting for our air travel dollars? Cramped seats, lousy (or no) food, and no sense of pride in a system that disrespects its workers and customers. No sense of history.
What do trains offer? For example, seeing the wagon-train ruts from the California Zephyr. Picking weeds in the Reno yard to make a bouquet for our private dinner. Watching people wade across the Rio Grande. Plenty of time and space to get to know your fellow travelers (or to get away from them!)
My great-grandfather and grandfather took it for granted that the railroads would provide passenger service. They would be shocked to see that our transportation system represents an America that is land of the confined, home of the afraid, with gray sky's majesty.
KCSfan Sam1 The U.S. has a national transportation policy. It is called highways and airways with some rail where appropriate. It is also called let the people decide, which is what democracy is all about. Sam1, I agree with you on most points except the one quoted above. IMHO the US does not have a national transportation policy. "Let the people decide" is a paractice not a policy, at least not a policy akin to that of many European and Asian countries. If all the various forms of subsidies that the states and locals give to airline and highway transport could be quantified and added to the federal ones I'm certain the differences between total airline and highway and passenger rail subsidies would be narrowed. Also include the "bailout" monies the feds have given to the airline industry which you failed to mention. Mark
Sam1 The U.S. has a national transportation policy. It is called highways and airways with some rail where appropriate. It is also called let the people decide, which is what democracy is all about.
The U.S. has a national transportation policy. It is called highways and airways with some rail where appropriate. It is also called let the people decide, which is what democracy is all about.
Sam1,
I agree with you on most points except the one quoted above. IMHO the US does not have a national transportation policy. "Let the people decide" is a paractice not a policy, at least not a policy akin to that of many European and Asian countries.
If all the various forms of subsidies that the states and locals give to airline and highway transport could be quantified and added to the federal ones I'm certain the differences between total airline and highway and passenger rail subsidies would be narrowed. Also include the "bailout" monies the feds have given to the airline industry which you failed to mention.
Mark
Allowing the market place to determine the most suitable mode of transport is a policy. Just because it does not look like a European or Asian transport policy does not mean that it is not a policy. It is messier than more formal policies, but democracy, including free markets, is inherently messy.
Many passenger train advocates (groups and individuals) claim that the airlines have been bailed out, especially after 9/11. They also claim that the airlines receive a variety of subsidies. I have looked into some of their claims. Here is what I found.
Following 9/11 the federal government loaned the airlines approximately $86 million to help them recover from the impacts of the terrorist attacks. They carried a below market interest rate. All of the loans with interest were repaid as of December 31, 2007.
Also following 9/11 the federal government underwrote the difference between what insurance premiums cost the airlines before 9/11 and what they cost after 9/11. Given the extraordinary impact of 9/11, this does not seem unreasonable. Moreover, as the gap between pre 9/11 rates and today's rates has narrowed, the subsidy has largely disappeared.
One advocate group claims that the government (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) has taken over the legacy pension obligations of the airlines that have declared bankruptcy as a result of 9/11 or other market drivers. They claim that this is a subsidy. In fact, the PBGC is an insurance program. Anyone with a legacy pension program, including the airlines, pays a premium to insure their pension plan. The airlines, having paid the premiums for years, were simply taking advantage of the insurance contract. The PBGC is a self funding agency. It is not a bailout.
The largest advocate group claims that general aviation benefited from a $1.5 billion FAA operating subsidy in 2007. They imply that the commercial airlines were the sole beneficiary of the subsidy. But they fail to mention that the commercial airlines are a minor user of FAA operations. For example, in 2005 (the latest audited figures) the airlines accounted for 26.1 of tower controlled operations and 35.1 per cent of air traffic control center activities. When adjusted for these figures, the federal largess realized by the commercial airlines would be approximately $696 million. The group does not appear to recognize the difference between general aviation and commercial aviation. I brought this fact to their attention. I am still awaiting a response.
Airlines and motorists receive federal, state, and local subsidies. But they pale compared to the subsidies received by all forms of passenger rail except for certain tourist operations.
I favor passenger rail in relatively short, high density corridors where the construction of additional highway and airway capacity would be cost prohibitive. And I favor subsidizing it to the extent that competitive modes of transport are subsidized. But I don't favor subsidies for operations that don't have a chance of covering their operating costs, i.e. HSR, long distance trains, etc.
I take the train where it makes sense. This year I have ridden the Sunset Limited from El Paso to San Antonio, the San Joaquin from Bakersfield to San Francisco, the Acela from Philadelphia to New York and return, and the Pacific Surfliner from LA to San Diego and back (2).
A good place to look would be the Illinios routes were the service was recently doubled and look for year over year improvements.
I may get castigated (again) for suggesting this, but in my opinion, the Amtrak RPS accounting system is such that you wan't see any of the economy-of-scale you are looking for.
You have URPA making a big deal about how the one-train-per-day-in-each-direction Empire Builder brings in 10 times the revenue of the 7-trains-in-each-direction-per-day Hiawatha. Yeah, but what about costs.
The Hiawatha train should, especially from an above-the-rails standpoint, have the cost structure of a motor coach service. What do they have, two train sets that they keep shuttling back and forth? What do they have for crew, one train driver and two ticket collectors? That crew gets to punch a clock and sleep at home every night, this is not like the Empire Builder where crews spend nights away from home base. Amtrak RPS costs this train at multiples of the cost of intercity bus, so what gives? Maybe RPS is goofy, but maybe trains are expensive. What does it cost to pay maintenance and mortgage payments on a motor coach bus, and what are the comparable costs for Horizon cars and Genesis locomotives?
There may be economies of scale if their is a major ramp-up of Amtrak that would allow massive car and locomotive purchases, and the Illinois trains don't put us there. Don, you also talked about the Amtrak Beech Grove operation and comparison to NS shops, and you got all the brickbats about "that is not fair!" and you are "comparing the apples of passenger cars to the pears of freight cars and locomotives." Someone suggests something looking into with regard to Amtrak's cost structure, and it lights a firestorm of criticism from within the advocacy community.
"Let the people decide" is a paractice not a policy, at least not a policy akin to that of many European and Asian countries.
If all the various forms of subsidies that the states and locals give to airline and highway transport could be quantified and added to the federal ones I'm certain the differences between total airline and highway and passenger rail subsidies would be narrowed.
Obviously air and higway transport benefits from economies of scale while passenger rail today is at the opposite end of that spectrum
Here and now, in the U.S., the passenger train advocacy community represents a minority viewpoint regarding the best way to get from Point A to Point B. We are on the outside looking in. Sure, we have NARP and surveys indicating a general feel-good about trains in response to polls. But specifically, we have a small number of people who really, really like trains, post on forums such as this, belong to NARP, MWHSRA, write letters-to-the-editor, and so on, and a much larger public out there that is largely indifferent to our point of view.
Our mission is one of persuasion, of bringing over a critical mass of people to our side to make things happen. We have been at this mission for at least as long as Amtrak has been in place, perhaps longer if you consider the founding of NARP. We have made some headway -- the fact that there is an Amtrak at all and it is still going, the NEC, the California and perhaps Illinois trains, the California vote on HSR, Lautenberg-Lott.
On the other hand, there is a great deal of frustration, about how people have been hammering away at the need for trains for so long, there is one step forward (Illinois trains) and to some, two steps backwards (Sunset, persistent late trains on Amtrak network). How come people in the U.S. can't see things our way? They certainly do in other countries, but why not here? Are people smarter in those other places and stupid here? So we express the view that satisfying what we regard as the popular view for more highways and airplanes as not representing a proper transportation policy. People who prefer cars and planes to trains can't be thinking straight on this, can they?
We preach to the choir of fellow advocates that the subsidy of Amtrak is justified by the subsidy of all of the other modes. That the rate of subsidy of Amtrak per passenger mile is orders of magnitude higher is an inconvenient truth that we don't want to face. This high rate of subsidy of Amtrak can't be right, can it, because we all know that trains are energy, space, and labor efficient, aren't they? If the subsidy of Amtrak is high relative to other modes, well that can't be right either; we must be missing all manners of indirect subsidy, don't have the exact figures handy, but they must add up to a substantial amount.
There is the matter of economy of scale. Amtrak is such a shoestring operation, if we gave it more money and scaled it up, surely the subsidy per passenger mile would decline, wouldn't it?
Then we have such things as the Vision Report, where spending something close to half a trillion dollars is proposed, to bring the Amtrak share of passenger miles from .1 percent up to 1 percent. The Vision Report has as all jumping for joy because someone out there on the periphery of government policy sees things our way, a decent amount of money for trains, yay!
Have any of us read the Vision Report and taken a hard look at the numbers? Where do they get their cost figures anyway? Maybe it has something to do with the appendices talking about European trains.
The way I see it, they got their cost figures from the subsidy rates of the European trains. 30-50 billion/year, comparable to what the EU spends on passenger trains subsidies and comparable to the US Federal Highway budget, gets you 5 percent of total passenger miles (in Europe). Something north of 1 billion/year gets you .1 percent of total passenger miles (in US). Spending on trains at the Federal highway budget rate is perhaps a pipe dream, but a rate of 10 billion/year, well, a program that size is considered "chump change" in the Federal budget, and maybe we could get something like that through.
If you see passenger train advocacy as being merely about money, in other words, using whatever tools of persuasion and motivation to get U.S. taxpayers to part with more money to get more trains, I see us having been hammering away at that approach for over 40 years to limited results. From my vantage point, the train advocacy community has to come to deal with the problem that passenger trains are a high cost, high rate-of-subsidy means of providing service, and we have to think more creatively about what we do than engaging in letter writing campaigns against prefab food on LD trains.
I'm not certain that Amtrak, as currently managed, would have any economies of scale. A good place to look would be the Illinios routes were the service was recently doubled and look for year over year improvements. There should be two factors driving economy of scale there. One is the doubling of train service over a fixed route, the other is overall increased demand due to the cost of gasoline.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Obviously air and higway transport benefits from economies of scale while passenger rail today is at the opposite end of that spectrum along with rafting and canoeing. I am convinced there are niches in the transortation market where passenger rail service is the better alternative to building more highways and airports. The curret emphasis on environmental issues and reducing dependence on foreign energy sources adds to the argument for more and improved rail service. These two issues are only going to increase with time. Throw in growing poulation densities and it's clear, to me at least, there has to be increased emphasis on passenger rail. This traslates into a need for substantial initial subsidies for the necessary rail infrastructure improvements with lesser ongoing financial help needed as ridership grows. Distasteful as this may be to some, the alternative is eventual gridlock in some locales as more highways and airports are not going to solve the transport problems that lie ahead.
The fact is that, with the exception of freight railroads, all modes of transportation in the US are directly and/or indirectly subsidized. Was the interstate highway system built, expanded and maintained solely with users fees paid in the form of licenses and fuel taxes? I think not. Were commercial airports and the air traffic control system built, maintained and operated using only user fees and taxes on tickets? I think not. Were the dams and locks built, channels straigntened and dredged solely with barge user fees? I think not. Why then shouldn't passenger rail service whether it be transit, corridor or long distance be similarly subsidized? If left solely to free market competetion the Nation's transportation systems would be in a state of chaos that would make the current "crisis" in our financial institutions look like a Sunday School picnic.
Is the rate of subsidy ever important? Is the inherent social benefit of trains so high that the rate of subsidy is unimportant? What do trains bring to the table that merit ten to one hundred times the rate of subsidy of the other modes? Is there any rate of subsidy in cents per mile, below which the social benefit is a good value for the amount of subsidy dollar, above which trains do not pay? If trains are underfunded at the current rate of subsidy in that Amtrak is barely able to keep their current fleet maintained and they are badly in need of new equipment, what rate of subsidy beyond the current 24 cents/mile do you believe is justified? Can that rate of subsidy be justified by the energy savings and alleviation of road usage by trains, or do other intangible factors need to be taken into account?
If something does not make a profit, and according to its advocates can never make a profit, does this mean that there are no reasonable limits on cost? Or should trains simply receive whatever level of subsidy money is required to provide a level of service (dining, lounge, and sleeper cars on LD trains, low seating density in coach to provide that "stretch your legs and walk around room" valued by train enthusiasts) deemed necessary?
Were trains to receive funding at the level of the Federal Highway budget, and this is the rate at which trains get public money in the European market, what is your reasonable expectation of the percent of passenger miles that would go on trains? In other words, if we spent 30-50 billion/year Federal money on trains, and there are those in the advocacy community who believe we should do this, what multiple of the current 5 billion passenger miles/year do you expect to get in return for that level of expenditure?
Since the early days of the Republic most forms of transport, including the railroads, especially those built west of the Mississippi after the Civil War, have received some form of subsidy. These are sunk costs and are irrelevant. The key question is how much subsidy is currently required to support our transport systems, and is it a good use of scarce resources?
In FY 2007 Amtrak received federal and state subsidies to the tune of 24.45 cents per passenger mile. By comparison the airlines received a federal subsidy of .049 cents per passenger mile whilst motorists garnered a federal subsidy of .013 cents per passenger mile. These numbers can be verified by information found at Amtrak, FAA Statistics, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Homeland Security, and the Department of Transportation. They require a bit of number crunching.
In addition to the federal subsidies the airlines and motorists received state and local subsidies, i.e. airports built with tax free bonds and roadways funded by property taxes as opposed to fuel taxes. So too did Amtrak in the form of stations owned by local authorities and refurbished by tax free municipal bonds. Determining the amount of state and local subsidies is a nearly impossible task.
Passenger rail requires a larger subsidy than any other form of transport in America. Moreover, whilst airline passengers and motorists (the users) pay most of the federal taxes that are transferred to support their preferred mode of transport, rail passengers, especially commuter and light rail passengers, depend on large subsidies from non users.
Most people abandoned passenger trains for the airplane because it is swifter and better suited for long distances or the automobile because of convenience, comfort, and economics. This is why, barring a technological break through, trains only make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of constructing additional highways or airways is prohibitive.
If success is defined by ridership and revenues, the Northeast, Illinois, California, and North Carolina corridors, as well as several others, are successful. However, if it includes covering the cost of the service, they are a failure. For FY 2007, the state and local corridors required an average subsidy of approximately 15 cents a passenger mile, with the exception of the NEC, which required a subsidy of 20.99 cents per passenger mile.
I don't have any problem with subsidies.
A well developed transportation infrastucture benefits the country as a whole, whether or not YOU actually directly use it.
Sam1 I have no argument against high speed rail. I have an argument against using taxpayer money for a commercial activity that is only used by a very small percentage of the population and does not have a prayer of standing on its own. As I have argued in other posts, the best outcome for the U.S. would be to slowly stop subsidizing all forms of transport and allow the most competitive forms to emerge in the markets that they are best equipped to serve. This is not likely to happen. But taking taxpayer money to build HSR is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. At the end of the day the subsidy matrix grows and becomes more complex, with the taxpayers holding the bag. Imperfect as it is a smartly regulated competitive market, in the long run, will force a better use of scarce economic resources than any other economic model.
I have no argument against high speed rail. I have an argument against using taxpayer money for a commercial activity that is only used by a very small percentage of the population and does not have a prayer of standing on its own.
As I have argued in other posts, the best outcome for the U.S. would be to slowly stop subsidizing all forms of transport and allow the most competitive forms to emerge in the markets that they are best equipped to serve. This is not likely to happen. But taking taxpayer money to build HSR is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. At the end of the day the subsidy matrix grows and becomes more complex, with the taxpayers holding the bag.
Imperfect as it is a smartly regulated competitive market, in the long run, will force a better use of scarce economic resources than any other economic model.
Is long distance rail passenger service irrelevant today? In a word, yes. And that's largely because it is undependable, slow and infrequent. IMHO a look back in time might be beneficial. Had the playing field been leveled and the railroads received some subsidies to match their competetiors, the decent passenger trains of the post WW2 perod might stil be running today. It's a chicken or egg question whether riders deserted the trains because the service became so crappy or passenger sevice deteriorated because the riders vanished. Sure, Amtrak has its short comings but it saved passenger service from total oblivion and it's what we have to work with and through today so we have to make the best of it.
IMHO opinion what is sorely needed and totally lacking is a national public transportation policy. One that recognizes that there are market niches that can best be filled by each mode of transportation whether it be air, bus or rail. Such a policy should encompass the issues of cost, convenience, environmental impact, fuel economy, etc. and reflect the realities of rail capacity and overcrowding at airports and on the highways. We've got to learn to walk again before thinking about running so for the time being put HSR on the back burner and concentrate on corridor rail service. I think the success of corridor services in California, Illinois, North Carolina and, of course, the NEC demonstrates this should be the major goal of passenger rail advocacy at present time. The multitude of unserved or underserved corridor routes offer great potential for making the public aware of the advantages of rail travel which will be necessary to engender support for later HSR projects. Concurrently LD trains must be improved with respect to speed and schedule dependability and where possible their frequency.
Like many of you I dislike subsidies but in the public transportation realm they are a necessary evil today and in the foreseeable future. Whether it be air, bus, transit or rail, fares alone cannot cover the cost of the service todays riders expect, much less the infrastructure required to provide it.
Maglev A national network of long-distance trains is important because it would tie all the corridors together. The sum is greater than the individual parts. For example, Cleveland to Chicago is a corridor, and Philadelphia to Harrisburg is a corridor. But if those corridors are connected through Pittsburgh, suddenly there is a viable rail connection from New York to Chicago. An increase in frequency would allow convenient times at intermediate points, which is an obstacle to train use in Ohio now. Sacramento to Bakersfield and Santa Barbara to San Diego were once "intercity" routes. Now they are more like commuter corridors. If a Coast Daylight were added to the mix, there would be an exponential increase in availability of trains for long-distance travel (in addition to improved scenery).
A national network of long-distance trains is important because it would tie all the corridors together. The sum is greater than the individual parts.
For example, Cleveland to Chicago is a corridor, and Philadelphia to Harrisburg is a corridor. But if those corridors are connected through Pittsburgh, suddenly there is a viable rail connection from New York to Chicago. An increase in frequency would allow convenient times at intermediate points, which is an obstacle to train use in Ohio now.
Sacramento to Bakersfield and Santa Barbara to San Diego were once "intercity" routes. Now they are more like commuter corridors. If a Coast Daylight were added to the mix, there would be an exponential increase in availability of trains for long-distance travel (in addition to improved scenery).
The LD trains would certainly be more relevant if they spanned or bridged corridors. You can probably play that "connect the dots" game east of the Miss. and on the west coast, but outside of that, it's the tail wagging the dog.
Check out Jim McClellan's prognostication....http://transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2008/2008.11.18.McClellan.Presentation.pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.