KCSfan Sam1 The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions. Amen Sam I agree 100%. True HSR in in the US is such a quantum leap forward that it is only a pipe dream of its advocates. Maybe some day but in the meantime concentrate efforts on more realistic and attainable goals - 1) dependable on time performance, 2) 70mph average speeds and 3) more frequent corridor service. Get train service up to a level that is reasonably comparable with auto travel and the riders will come. Mark
Sam1 The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people. We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
The U.S. would be better off if the passenger rail advocacy community urged planners and lawmakers to implement frequent, quick, economical, comfortable, and dependable passenger rapid rail in high density corridors, where there is a reasonable market for it, instead of harping about a super expensive high speed rail system that would be used by relatively few people.
We need affordable, workable solutions to our transportation problems. We don't need a system that will break the piggy bank just to say that we are keeping up with other countries that have different needs that require individual solutions.
Amen Sam I agree 100%. True HSR in in the US is such a quantum leap forward that it is only a pipe dream of its advocates. Maybe some day but in the meantime concentrate efforts on more realistic and attainable goals - 1) dependable on time performance, 2) 70mph average speeds and 3) more frequent corridor service. Get train service up to a level that is reasonably comparable with auto travel and the riders will come.
Mark
Maybe that same 25 Billion could be put to better use upgrading the rail lines that Amtrak travels on. Easing curves, additional and longer sidings, heavier rail where needed. I'm not talking about the long distance lines but those like the previous writers mentioned Dallas - San Antonio, Dallas - Houston, St. Louis - Chicago, Cleveland - Cincinnatti and others. They don't have to be HSR corridors but lets at least make them average 70 mph or there abouts. If one compares train times today with train times in the 1940's and 1950's over many of these same routes and others we are getting slower and slower. Another good example is the Missouri Mules between KC and St. Louis. Just look at the schedule today compared to the 1940's and 50's.
Don't be fooled by these exceptionally low gas prices at this time. Remember OPEC controls the prices and this will not last. It has been a long time since gas fell below $2.00 a gallon and it wasn't that long ago it was above $4.00.
Al - in - Stockton
I have read on the California HSR site that they are def. considering high speed freight service and apparently would seek a third party to operate it. What they seem to be talking about is shipping roll on air freight containers on special trains similiar to the French TGV postal trains. They may also be considering container service. The website mentions that any freight operations would be marketed to high end traffic like electronics.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Al-in-Stockton Maybe that same 25 Billion could be put to better use upgrading the rail lines that Amtrak travels on. Easing curves, additional and longer sidings, heavier rail where needed. I'm not talking about the long distance lines but those like the previous writers mentioned Dallas - San Antonio, Dallas - Houston, St. Louis - Chicago, Cleveland - Cincinnatti and others. They don't have to be HSR corridors but lets at least make them average 70 mph or there abouts. If one compares train times today with train times in the 1940's and 1950's over many of these same routes and others we are getting slower and slower. Another good example is the Missouri Mules between KC and St. Louis. Just look at the schedule today compared to the 1940's and 50's.
Curve easement is expensive.
First, more than a couple degrees of curvature will require additional ROW easement. At best this may take a few feet of some backyards; and more likely will incur costly dislocation costs for lineside homes and businesses. As the degree of curve decreases, the length of the curve increases. For example, easing a 1-degree curve to 0.5-degree will about double its length and the cost of reconstruction.
Second, often curve easement is not possible without a major relocation on a new ROW for a succession of curves. This gets back to the increased length of broader curves.
Any substantial program for curve easement could blow the budget in implementing fast regional intercity rail passenger service. An evaluation will be needed to determine if the service can be viable with few if any changes; if the service will remain viable over time with improvements for the competition; and whether there is a potential to reach a sufficiently larger market to justify the costs of relocations and future incremental improvements toward a high speed corridor.
I had forgotten the TGV postal trains.
Also, postal trains do not necessarily equate with a market for electronics shipments. What's the hurry for an iPod as compared to other goods? What about a collectable low-tech doll purchased on e-Bay? Or a birthday or wedding gift purchased at the last minute? A lot of mail that went express is going electronic; so how much of a market will there be?
I had an epiphany last night concerning economics of rail service: We are missing the boat on cruise ships. Some of the money spent on those vacations should be spent riding Amtrak's outdated equipment, which is due to be given away when the govenment builds our maglev system.
MAGIC CARPETTransportationTransportationTransportationWill be the keyWill be the keyWill be the keyTo make me freeTo make me freeTo make me free
Take the train Take the trainNot the planeEnjoy the rideNo need to hideCome insideTake a cruise?That's a bruiseOn the crewsYou'll abuseIn the future we can flyAs an arrow through the skyNo need to go much higherWhen the train runs on a wireCall it "Magic Carpet"We don't need your garbage!It's a magnetic carriageBeautiful as a marriage!-by me, Phillip Bose; inspired by a poem heard at Chicago Union Station Black History Day, 14 Februay 2000 (?); I was on my way from Hawaii to Ann Arbor for geofusion research.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
I don't think the plan refers to consumer electronics for retailers, it seemed to be more about shipping electronic components for manufacturing. After all the state still produces a lot of computer equipment as well as military electronic equipment. IIRC correctly the idea was to run these trains mostly at off peak times...
CRUISE SHIPS are subsidized by laws that allow non-union workers to perform most jobs on board. Why do we allow these slave vessels to carry US citizens from US ports? This is a part of the "free market" which conspires against trains.
And those calculations about cost of highway travel -- do they include the cost of the car? It is not unusual for an American family to spend $10 or $20 per day on a second car for getting to work.
CRUISE SHIPS are subsidized by laws that allow non-union workers to perform most jobs on board. Why do we allow these slave vessels to carry US citizens from US ports? This is a part of the "free market" which conspires against trains. And those calculations about cost of highway travel -- do they include the cost of the car? It is not unusual for an American family to spend $10 or $20 per day on a second car for getting to work.
Is there a corollary to Godwin's Law that applies to invoking the Middle Passage to describe working conditions on a modern cruise ship? Maybe it is a "figure of speech" to relate low wages and long hours on a cruise ship to the appalling conditions on a slave ship, but persons who trace their ancestory to those ships may take personal offense.
And what do whatever subsidies, working conditions, or other factors on cruise ships have to do with Amtrak? Are you saying that if Amtrak got the same deal as the cruise lines that Amtrak would be self-sufficient?
That argument cuts both ways, along with the argument that "only fools think that a passenger train service anywhere in the world can make a profit." Keep hammering on the high cost nature of trains and we in the advocacy community may yet get Congress to pull the plug.
If you are going to blame the unions for Amtrak's cost structure, some will support subsidy money for Amtrak because they support unions, others will oppose subsidy money for Amtrak, arguing that those union wages are higher than anything a particular person could ever make in some other line of work. Saying Amtrak requires subsidy because it has a union wage work force sounds like a good plan for rallying opposition to Amtrak. The subsidize-GM-to-help-UAW-people-keep-their-contract-and-jobs argument sounds like it is sinking the proposed auto bailout, and this is with a pro-labor political party in charge of Congress.
About the high cost of a car. A car, famously, has high fixed costs and low (until the price of gas went up) variable costs. A good transit system may get people to forgo a second (or even a first car), but the availability of Amtrak or some HSR successor would have little impact on car ownership decisions.
I've got it. The connection between cruise ships and trains and public transit is this. When you are stuck in traffic behind a Madison Metro bus squirting plumes of Diesel smoke into the air, you can read this ad saying that if you have up a second car and rode Metro, you could save enough money to go on a warm-climate vacation every year, and they show these happy Madison, WI people running barefoot on a beach someplace. So trains and cruise ships are connected.
They actually give a number for the savings, which, I believe, is close to the upper end of your range, of $20/day spent on owning and operating car (something like 7K a year).
You know, if I had an extra 7K to spend every year, I would not waste it on a fancy vacation. I would take that money and pay for gas and lease payments on a nice, comfy SUV to drive to work every day so I could ride to work in rush hour without being in bodily contact with my fellow passenger in the next seat (if you think trains are better, you haven't been relegated to the "peanut gallery" upper-deck bench section of a Chicago commuter train).
If people make a free-market decision to get a first or a second car, and if we point out how much money they are spending on that compared to the amount of tax they are paying to subsidize Amtrak or transit, whether they favor it or not, are we really helping the cause of making people feel positively about trains, or are we scolding people that they are spending their own money, but in a way that we don't favor?
You take a car into Chicago, and the Ohio Street off ramp has a big billboard "could you have used Metra for this trip?" Back in the day, the Chicago and Northwestern Railway ran perky "Go Northwestern!" radio adds talking about how you could beat traffic by taking the train. Now that it is a subsidized agency, they are scolding you for not taking the train and adding to traffic congestion.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
This is straying from the topic; but I'd rather have a seat, and have a better chance, in the "Peanut Gallery" on Metra to or from Rogers Park than to stand on the CTA from downtown to Belmont or Addison. Also, I would rather have a fast, stress-free ride downtown on Metra, even if I'm rubbing shoulders, and invest some of the $4,500 saved not driving.
I like your point about positive commercials for commuting by train.
HarveyK400 This is straying from the topic; but I'd rather have a seat, and have a better chance, in the "Peanut Gallery" on Metra to or from Rogers Park than to stand on the CTA from downtown to Belmont or Addison. Also, I would rather have a fast, stress-free ride downtown on Metra, even if I'm rubbing shoulders, and invest some of the $4,500 saved not driving. I like your point about positive commercials for commuting by train.
I live in Rogers Park too, and I totally agree with you. Also no coming to work late via Metra.
"And what do whatever subsidies, working conditions, or other factors on cruise ships have to do with Amtrak? Are you saying that if Amtrak got the same deal as the cruise lines that Amtrak would be self-sufficient?"
High-speed rail would be more likely if Amtrak were more popular, and cruise ships take vacation dollars away from Amtrak. Cruise lines are able to offer low fares because they pay their foreign workers at a much lower rate than what would be allowed on a US-registered vessel. But at present, rail travel is an expensive and often inconvenient vacation option.
Economic arguments that high-speed rail should not be "subsidized" ignore many ways that other travel options are indirectly "subsidized" or otherwise supported by our government. Most other developed nations have figured out that passenger trains are important.
Now here's another point, and I don't have any statistics but just a few observations. I know that's a hornet's nest on this forum... People who ride trains are happier, and crime rates are lower in countries that promote high-speed rail. One who rides a train is moving in the same direction as and in intimate contact with his or her neighbors (yes, I have been on some uncomfortable train rides...). It is more obvious who is drunk or abused. And trains are okay for talking on the phone or reading.
Oh, and it's possible to have sex on a train; safely, comfortably, and privately. In some ways, faster trains and smoother track will be a disappointment...
Point taken.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Did I ever say trains should not be subsidized? Other people may have chimed in with that point of view, but I have never, ever stated that trains should not get subsidy.
What I have brought up, time and again, and there are a few on this Forum who back me up on this, is that the rate of subsidy is a serious problem in getting a political constituency for yet more subsidy to get higher levels of train service.
What is the argument for subsidizing Amtrak at the rate of 20 cents/passenger mile? What social benefit or combination of benefits (reduced energy use, and how much energy is Amtrak saving in percentage terms, by the way?) are worth that rate of subsidy?
Is there so much inherent goodness with train travel that any rate of subsidy is justified? What is the limit to spending that someone would say, gee, we are not getting enough in return?
As to crime rates being lower in countries with HSR, is that our new talking point, that Amtrak is a crime-fighting program? What is the return on the dollar from fighting crime by giving money to Amtrak vs the conventional methods (early childhood education, more police, tougher gun laws, etc,).?
I am just saying that trains are so much fun. Everyone in America should take a cross-country trip in a private room. It is better than a cruise, because one can actually experience the source of our bread and beef. Priceless...
Obviously, something is wrong with our economy, the environment, and a culture that responds to a live-webcam suicide with LOL and OMG. I think trains are an important part of the solution, and am struggling to get my opinions in a form that can be understood by your average federal decision-maker. I apologize for inappropriate references to slave ships.
Thanks for your time!
Pulama! (Hawaiian for shine bright as a torch; conserve as an eternal source of fire)
That's true.
Every time I tell someone that I have a train trip scheduled they respond with amazement. "We have trains in Charlotte?". "Yes, 3 trains a day." "Wow. Where is the train station?".
Most people outside a few high density corridors think passenger trains are already gone.
Transportation infrastructure, like medicine, is one of the many areas where we are falling rapidly behind the rest of the world while bragging that we are actually ahead of all those other countries.
Paul Milenkovic Economic arguments that high-speed rail should not be "subsidized" ignore many ways that other travel options are indirectly "subsidized" or otherwise supported by our government. Most other developed nations have figured out that passenger trains are important. Did I ever say trains should not be subsidized? Other people may have chimed in with that point of view, but I have never, ever stated that trains should not get subsidy. What I have brought up, time and again, and there are a few on this Forum who back me up on this, is that the rate of subsidy is a serious problem in getting a political constituency for yet more subsidy to get higher levels of train service. What is the argument for subsidizing Amtrak at the rate of 20 cents/passenger mile? What social benefit or combination of benefits (reduced energy use, and how much energy is Amtrak saving in percentage terms, by the way?) are worth that rate of subsidy? Is there so much inherent goodness with train travel that any rate of subsidy is justified? What is the limit to spending that someone would say, gee, we are not getting enough in return?
Ideally all transport subsidies could be phased out over five to seven years. They distort the market, which is the best way to allocate scarce economic resources. Each mode of transport would absorb its full cost and pass them on to the user in ticket prices and fuel taxes. Unfortunately, given the political nature of transport subsidies, this will not happen.
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, especially where the cost of constructing additional highways and airways is prohibitive. In these cases, subsidizing them is justified. But subsidizing long distance trains, which require an inordinate amount of support, while serving a small per cent of intercity travelers, is not justified. By the same token, pouring massive subsidies into high speed rail, especially for a nation that has the debt profile of the U.S. is, makes no economic sense.
Phoebe Vet That's true. Every time I tell someone that I have a train trip scheduled they respond with amazement. "We have trains in Charlotte?". "Yes, 3 trains a day." "Wow. Where is the train station?". Most people outside a few high density corridors think passenger trains are already gone. Transportation infrastructure, like medicine, is one of the many areas where we are falling rapidly behind the rest of the world while bragging that we are actually ahead of all those other countries.
Johnny
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).
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).
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
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
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).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.