..envelope please...

[Anonymous]

blue streak 1

Thoughts: A bus has the same wheel loadings as a truck ie 4000#+ per tire vs less than 800# for any car buit today. RWM tells us the road wear is to the 4th power of the weight so buses are being subsidized by automobiles now. (trucks also) . A bus is not paying its allocated share of road maintenance. 

Whether buses are subsidized by automobile drivers is debated vigorously by the American Bus Association.  There is some support for their position in studies done by the Texas Transportation Institution.  In any case, bus operators are motorists.  And motorists as a group receive a very small federal subsidy compared to the subsidy received by passenger rail.

[HarveyK400]

oltmannd

Which makes is an even more incomprehensible and confusing game to play. I don't think a single mile of interstate highway went through that kind of scrutiny when it was built. It was, "Here's the map. Here's the fuel tax to pay for it."

 

To a degree, a map was developed initially for an Interstate System; but some quantification may have been done there too to justify the program.  Certainly, driving costs, emissions, and environmental assessments were part of the process that followed for road and transit improvements.  I only had some peripheral involvement in that process.

[blue streak 1]

Thoughts: A bus has the same wheel loadings as a truck ie 4000#+ per tire vs less than 800# for any car buit today. RWM tells us the road wear is to the 4th power of the weight so buses are being subsidized by automobiles now. (trucks also) . A bus is not paying its allocated share of road maintenance.

[HarveyK400]

Responses to some of your questions:

Paul Milenkovic

blue streak 1

Do not want to get into the operating subsidity debate but:

Below rail and above rail costs are not entirely separated.

1. Who owns the station? - Few stations are owned by Amtrak in the Midwest.  Most are built, owned, and maintained by the community.  Some of the smallest stops, such as Plano, IL and Princeton, IL are simply shelters.  In the first case, the small shelter was built by the Burlington and is still in use while the brick station was leased or sold.  A bus-type shelter was erected at the latter, perhaps by the City, on railroad property and on a remnant of the railroad platform.  Amtrak may have bought the fences and hand-operated mobility device lifts.

2. Does AMTRAK have to pay any operating costs of the station? If so is the station energy efficient? - Certainly for Chicago Union Station, Glenview, IL, and Springfield, IL; but there is no operating or energy cost for Plano or Princeton.

3. Is station layout such that quick loading and unloading possible? Many larger stations are not! - A more pertinent question may be whether only attended doors and traps are used, especially now with train-side ticket and ID checking.  Low level platforms and passengers segregated in certain cars by destination or origin further slow alighting and boarding. 

Most Midwestern and Chicago suburban stations do not have controlled access.  On the other hand, Chicago and Milwaukee funnel all passengers (at least for the tracks dedicated to Amtrak) along the platform to or from the head house.  From Amtrak's perspective, this is not a problem.  It is a problem in that CUS is considered to be inadequate for anticipated future demand precisely because of inefficient utilization and lack of adequate capacity to move passengers on and off the platforms and the width of the platforms themselves.  Utilization of the run-through track was dismissed simply because it was used to store the Empire Builder.

4. reference to #3 is station well lit and laid out for quick passenger ingress and egress?

5. Are intermediate service stations (water, catering, fueling,maintenance, etc) laid out so as to be able to service quickly? Almost forgot termination stations.

6. Are the approach tracks to the station difficult with long restricted speed approaches, puzzle switches, curves, etc; or are the statoin tracks laid out for quick deceleration and acceleration? - I have not seen anything in the US that approaches the speeds in and out of even the older stations of Europe.

7. Is the station track layout such as to allow quick turns, addition, or deletion of some cars? - Metra can turn a push-pull in less than ten minutes.  I think Amtrak's foremost problem is low on-time reliability with occassional delays measured in hours.

8. Are the main line tracks smooth, with gentle curves to reduce cant deficiency, etc to the reduce rough track wear on the rolling stock? Would also apply to station tracks. - Host railroads have much better mainline track now.  Amtrak trains such as the Builder and Southwest take rougher secondary lines for a part of their respective routes in order to reach certain cities. 

As for gentle curves, nothing in the US to this day was built for anything faster than 100 mph.  The long tangents found in the Tidewater, Midwest, West, and Central Valley resulted in not having to go around some geological feature between points A and B.

9. Is the track speed consistent or are a lot of permanent slow orders in place?  - Yard Limits and municipal restrictions are other hindrances for passenger services.  These all can be part of a discussion about grade separation or railroad relocation for more than just HSR.

10. Is track capacity such that there are not slow downs due to conflicting traffic? - Interesting insofar as host railroads don't like putting long freights through the diverging leg of a turnout, yet a second or third main track is not justifiable for a limited passenger service.  What can be worse is that limited passenger use of a siding may not keep the rust off the rails and not shunt grade crossing or ABS circuits, problems on the CHI-STL line hat I hope has been resolved.

11. Is the track a hogback or essentially a gradual grade?  - While hogbacks or hill-and-dale profiles might affect fuel consumption, it hardly affects schedules for short passenger trains that have reserve power for maintaining a cruising speed.  The reserve comes from a need for more power for quick acceleration.

 All these items and many more will have the effect to increase or decrease crew duty time and fuel/electric consumption, maintenance, turn times, which are certainly a measure of operating costs. I feel that many stations have one or more of the above noted deficiencys. Certainly many route tracks do. 

The cumulative affect of these factors may make a some difference - like having a more convenient, marketable departure or arrival time.  It also may make a difference in turning a round trip without another set of equipment.  To paraphrase Sen Dirksen, "A dollar here, a dollar there, can add up to serious money." 

All of those cited reasons are why it is "hard" (i.e. expensive) to run a train.  It is also "hard" (also expensive) to operate steam locomotives in mainline passenger service, and we aren't doing that anymore either.

What if a rubber-tire mode (motorcoach bus) is much "easier" (the Babler Family with those shiny blue-and-white motorcoaches they park in the cow barn).  The Bablers have loan payments on the "rolling stock", wages, insurance, fuel, maintenance, administration, etc.  And yes they are subsidized in the sense that the "tracks" are "for free."  Apart from the tolls going into Illinois.  And the tax on their diesel fuel.  And they have to fight Chicago traffic.

But somehow our neighbors the Bablers are able to eke out some slim profit as owner-operators of a small bus fleet, but small rail operations need subsidy.  And yes, there are trackage payments, but for the Hiawatha train, these payments are a small slice of the budget.

How about this thought experiment.  Contract with the Babler Family to run some kind of connecting bus service between Sturgeon Bay and Chicago Union Station.  Make some arrangement for trackage rights and pay that out of another budget.  How much would it cost to contract with somebody to run a train with the same number of seats?  Which costs more and why?

 

[oltmannd]

HarveyK400

oltmannd

...Suppose you place a value on "carbon reduction" and decide to pay the operator some money for each passenger mile operated. Sounds simple but what if the mere presence of the service induced the trip? There is no "carbon reduction" in fact, but a "carbon expenditure".

I think the best time to make these judgments is during planning.  Pick the projects and plans that provides the most benefits for the buck that have a shot at turning an operating "profit". It's easy to understand and most politically palatable, I think.

 

Society benefits and costs should not be just a well-intended planning decisions; but should be a part of well-considered, understood, and more stable public policy enacted by elected officials and referendum.

The case of induced travel and carbon expenditures needs to be weighed against the value of increased economic benefit through personal spending for other purposes.

Which makes is an even more incomprehensible and confusing game to play. I don't think a single mile of interstate highway went through that kind of scrutiny when it was built. It was, "Here's the map. Here's the fuel tax to pay for it."

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

How about this thought experiment.  Contract with the Babler Family to run some kind of connecting bus service between Sturgeon Bay and Chicago Union Station.  Make some arrangement for trackage rights and pay that out of another budget.  How much would it cost to contract with somebody to run a train with the same number of seats?  Which costs more and why?

I'll start with a piece of it. A new MCI 45 ft bus with 50 seats and bathroom is about $300,000 or so. A new RR coach is about $2.5M. To make things even, lets assume the bus has the same seating density as the RR coach - 25 for the bus and 80 for the train. That works out to $12K per seat for the bus and $31K for the train. ...for starters. I still have to pay for a locomotive for my train. Lets assume $3M for the loco and a five car train. That's an additional $8k per seat for the train.

But wait! You say, " that RR equipment will a last 3 decades vs. 5 years for the bus!" True enough, but the reason for that has to do with the high initial cost, not the other way around. Both the rail equipment and the bus will be worn out in 5 years. To rebuild the bus might cost 80% of a new one - and in 5 years the state of the art will have advanced, so it's "cheaper" to buy new. The rail equipment can be rebuilt in kind for about 1/3 of the new cost, so you'd need more than small advance in the state of the art to justify new.

And that's just the difference to purchase the equipment. A little later maybe I'll take a look at what it costs to keep it running...

[HarveyK400]

oltmannd

...Suppose you place a value on "carbon reduction" and decide to pay the operator some money for each passenger mile operated. Sounds simple but what if the mere presence of the service induced the trip? There is no "carbon reduction" in fact, but a "carbon expenditure".

I think the best time to make these judgments is during planning.  Pick the projects and plans that provides the most benefits for the buck that have a shot at turning an operating "profit". It's easy to understand and most politically palatable, I think.

 

Society benefits and costs should not be just a well-intended planning decisions; but should be a part of well-considered, understood, and more stable public policy enacted by elected officials and referendum.

The case of induced travel and carbon expenditures needs to be weighed against the value of increased economic benefit through personal spending for other purposes.

[Deggesty]

oltmannd

Amtrak crews get paid by the hour. That change was made after Amtrak took ownership of the crews from the host roads somewhere in the early 80s (?)

Don, I do not remember the exact year, but the change was between September, 1984, when I took a three-week trip, and October, 1987, when I took my next trip.

[schlimm]

CSSHEGEWISCH

Also, labor contracts govern crew sizes and hours, split shifts may not be allowed which can make it difficult to get more than one or two trips out of a crew.

 I recall talking to a Metra conductors/trainman who worked a day job in the Loop between rush hour runs.

[Paul Milenkovic]

blue streak 1

Do not want to get into the operating subsidity debate but:

Below rail and above rail costs are not entirely separated.

1. Who owns the station?

2. Does AMTRAK have to pay any operating costs of the station? If so is the station energy efficient?

3. Is station layout such that quick loading and unloading possible? Many larger stations are not!

4. reference to #3 is station well lit and laid out for quick passenger ingress and egress?

5. Are intermediate service stations (water, catering, fueling,maintenance, etc) laid out so as to be able to service quickly? Almost forgot termination stations.

6. Are the approach tracks to the station difficult with long restricted speed approaches, puzzle switches, curves, etc; or are the statoin tracks laid out for quick deceleration and acceleration?

7. Is the station track layout such as to allow quick turns, addition, or deletion of some cars?

8. Are the main line tracks smooth, with gentle curves to reduce cant deficiency, etc to the reduce rough track wear on the rolling stock? Would also apply to station tracks.   

9. Is the track speed consistent or are a lot of permanent slow orders in place? 

10. Is track capacity such that there are not slow downs due to conflicting traffic?

11. Is the track a hogback or essentially a gradual grade? 

 All these items and many more will have the effect to increase or decrease crew duty time and fuel/electric consumption, maintenance, turn times, which are certainly a measure of operating costs. I feel that many stations have one or more of the above noted deficiencys. Certainly many route tracks do. 

 

All of those cited reasons are why it is "hard" (i.e. expensive) to run a train.  It is also "hard" (also expensive) to operate steam locomotives in mainline passenger service, and we aren't doing that anymore either.

What if a rubber-tire mode (motorcoach bus) is much "easier" (the Babler Family with those shiny blue-and-white motorcoaches they park in the cow barn).  The Bablers have loan payments on the "rolling stock", wages, insurance, fuel, maintenance, administration, etc.  And yes they are subsidized in the sense that the "tracks" are "for free."  Apart from the tolls going into Illinois.  And the tax on their diesel fuel.  And they have to fight Chicago traffic.

But somehow our neighbors the Bablers are able to eke out some slim profit as owner-operators of a small bus fleet, but small rail operations need subsidy.  And yes, there are trackage payments, but for the Hiawatha train, these payments are a small slice of the budget.

How about this thought experiment.  Contract with the Babler Family to run some kind of connecting bus service between Sturgeon Bay and Chicago Union Station.  Make some arrangement for trackage rights and pay that out of another budget.  How much would it cost to contract with somebody to run a train with the same number of seats?  Which costs more and why?

[schlimm]

One of the problems I recall in cost accounting is allocation of relatively fixed (unavoidable) overhead/administrative costs, as well as trackage use charges.  Many games have be played within this arena.  But this is clearly a place where higher frequencies of operation and more passengers can improve the picture.  Recall the pre-Amtrak days where a train on a line only slightly used for passenger trains often bore a disproportionate allocation share of expenses for track maintenance and other expenses.  SP and others used that ICC formula to show a "loss" to justify d/c'ing service.

[henry6]

I haven't been able to really get into the complete and thorough use of equipment on NJT but do see a lot of equipment seemingly underutiziled...one 7 car MU set for instance leaves Hoboken at 5AM and is back before 8AM then split 4 and 3 for evening trips 6 minutes apart to Gladstone returning to Hoboken after midnight and recombined for the 5AM cycle to repeat.  However, the train lies dormant from 8AM until 6PM while one would think it could cover or or two midday schedules to Montclair, Summit, Gladstone or Dover which would release the need of other equipment.  But as I said, there has to be a rhyme or reason which I cannot decypher from materials available to me.  Plus there are other equipment moves that behoove me!  As for crews, there are some assignments which concentrate the turn arounds, etc. into an 8 to 10 continuous hour day and others that are broken into two split shifts up to 6 hours apart giving plenty of rest time between runs, but still...not nice.  Also some cycles give two days pay, maybe even enchroach on rest time requirements, and therefore are every other day work.  Again...the AM/PM peaking of traffic causes all kinds of equipment and crew logistics.

The DL&W reportedly had a morning crew out of Washington, NJ which arrived in Hoboken about 8:30A and then off until the 5:30P departure for home arriving around 7:30P. So the crew changed clothes in the crew room and hopped the Ferry to Barclay St. and played  worked the stockmarket all day! 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Equipment costs can be a killer in suburban service.  A rule of thumb that I've often run across is that two-thirds of the equipment makes only one round trip per day, it's operated to cover the peak service periods and sits the rest of the day and on weekends.  Also, labor contracts govern crew sizes and hours, split shifts may not be allowed which can make it difficult to get more than one or two trips out of a crew.

[HarveyK400]

oltmannd

schlimm

I don't think most folks expect train revenues to cover the operating costs, because there are other benefits.  Ditto with transit systems

I think you are dead wrong. Most folks who ride my commuter bus are shocked to find out that their $4 fare doesn't even come close to covering the operating costs. They know their tax dollars went to buy the buses, but they think the fares cover the operating costs, and then some. Even when they do the mental math, they only take into account driver's wages and fuel....

 

Let's see, assuming 35 bus commuters paying a $4 fare comes to $70k a year.  That seems pretty close to me.  Now if you transfer to or from another bus, that adds cost.  If the buses make other trips, that adds revenue.

Metra mental math:

Even if I'm a little off, it looks like Metra should be making money at least above the rail.  Things like terminal and station operation and track, signal, and building maintenance costs may be scaled to volume in some cases and benefit by economies of scale in others; but one still is left wondering where does all the revenue go?

Zone C monthly pass $90.45 and 500 passengers comes to $482,700 annually.

Zone D monthly pass $102.50 and 750 passengers comes to $922,500 annually.

Zone G monthly pass $139.05 and 1,260 passengers comes to $2,102,400 annually.

I don't rally know what Metra wages and crew sizes average; but l'll assume annual wages and benefits comes to $450k for a crew of three (engineer included), $600K for four, and $750K for five.

If a four car train carrying 500 passengers makes two Zone C trips with a short turn, crew is only 47% of the revenue.

For a six car train carrying 750 passengers and averaging Zone D revenue, crew comes to 65% of the revenue.

For a nine car express carrying 1,250 pasengers and averaging Zone G revenue, crew comes to just 36% of the revenue. 

[henry6]

One of the slight of hands here is how the cost is determined.  Out of pocket costs is what costs are attributed just to the train: crew, fuel, equipment, for starters.  But, if you add track time, supervisory time, etc.in porportion to the rest of the trains, crews, and railroad operation, then you will get a different figure.  So a train pays for itself out of pocket only if consider the fact that the railroad and its infrastructure of people and track already exists.  When you apply track time (doesn't matter that the track is already there and maintained), dispatcher time (doesn't matter dispatcher is already working and being paid), and supervisory time (doesn't matter that the Trainmaster, et al. are already working and being paid), and any other already on going costs and charges, then the actual costs and profits may change.  No one has discerned such cost and profit allocations in any of these arguements including the Lynchburg train story.  So the question arises: when do you take into account...and what do you take into account...when deciding profit and loss of existing service(s) and new service(s)?

[oltmannd]

schlimm

Good question.  What are the actual operating expenses for a train?  Labor, fuel or electricity for sure, maintenance, but also signaling charges from the home rail line and the reservation system.  What else?  Does Amtrak or do the states pay rent to the host railroad?  It still seems to me that more passengers and greater equipment utilization through much higher speeds would lower the per passenger mile costs a great deal.  Perhaps a better analogy would be if an airline only used a plane for 1-2 round trips on a short (under 500 mile) flight per day.

Along those lines, how is an Acela crew paid?  Do the steam age labor rules about a short distance (150 miles?) = an 8 hour day still apply? And if so, why?

Amtrak crews get paid by the hour. That change was made after Amtrak took ownership of the crews from the host roads somewhere in the early 80s (?) But, the hourly rate leaves them with pay equivalent to the old mileage/"days pay" system.

[schlimm]

henry6

TRAINS' Newswire 2/16 story on Lynchburg train making a profit is quite intrestng on several notes. First that it is making a profit in its second month negating the need for a state subsidy.  Second that because of this train seats have opened up on the Crescent which has gone to the Crescent's bottom line making it's economics more favorable.  I think it underscores the fact that if you think of running passenger trains as a service rather than merely running trains, it will work.  The train makes one round trip a day but it is in addition to other trains on the route.  Maine's Downeaster service and California's San Diego service, among others, have proven this point in the past,  It is just not a point that gets through the crania of politicos!

 

That is certainly good news.  Yet sam1 states last night that the Surfer needs a subsidy of ~10 cents per passenger mile. Some discrepancy there, because I also thought I had read in the past that the Surfer was at least breaking even.  I would like to see a citation for those numbers.

[schlimm]

Paul Milenkovic

Why can't train revenue cover operating costs?  The fares aren't substantially different (with sleeping cars more expensive) than competing modes, which suggests that trains are expensive.  Forget about how you pay for the train costs.  Why are train costs as high as they are?

 

Good question.  What are the actual operating expenses for a train?  Labor, fuel or electricity for sure, maintenance, but also signaling charges from the home rail line and the reservation system.  What else?  Does Amtrak or do the states pay rent to the host railroad?  It still seems to me that more passengers and greater equipment utilization through much higher speeds would lower the per passenger mile costs a great deal.  Perhaps a better analogy would be if an airline only used a plane for 1-2 round trips on a short (under 500 mile) flight per day.

Along those lines, how is an Acela crew paid?  Do the steam age labor rules about a short distance (150 miles?) = an 8 hour day still apply? And if so, why?

[henry6]

This is a note I put on another adjacent thread but has pertinence to this conversation...

TRAINS' Newswire 2/16 story on Lynchburg train making a profit is quite intrestng on several notes. First that it is making a profit in its second month negating the need for a state subsidy.  Second that because of this train seats have opened up on the Crescent which has gone to the Crescent's bottom line making it's economics more favorable.  I think it underscores the fact that if you think of running passenger trains as a service rather than merely running trains, it will work.  The train makes one round trip a day but it is in addition to other trains on the route.  Maine's Downeaster service and California's San Diego service, among others, have proven this point in the past,  It is just not a point that gets through the crania of politicos!

[oltmannd]

blue streak 1

All these items and many more will have the effect to increase or decrease crew duty time and fuel/electric consumption, maintenance, turn times, which are certainly a measure of operating costs. I feel that many stations have one or more of the above noted deficiencys. Certainly many route tracks do. 

Sure. There is a trade-off between capital cost and operating cost. IIf there was a situation where the capital costs, operating costs and monetized value of all the benefits wound up in the same pocket, it would simple to find the optimum point. It's the third part that's tricky. Suppose you place a value on "carbon reduction" and decide to pay the operator some money for each passenger mile operated. Sounds simple but what if the mere presence of the service induced the trip? There is no "carbon reduction" in fact, but a "carbon expenditure".

I think the best time to make these judgments is during planning. Pick the projects and plans that provides the most benefits for the buck that have a shot at turning an operating "profit". It's easy to understand and most politically palatable, I think.

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

For one thing, I am looking for some manner of social contract, some "engineering system boundary around the subsidized portion of the system", so people would just plain give up on the complaint, "why are people complaining about Amtrak subsidy and don't-get-me-started-about-the-airlines!"  Put the modes on a level playing field and call it a day.  But once you do that, don't come back complaining about how the low level of support for Amtrak is "unfair" and how rail is "underfunded."

I think that is a very astute way of thinking. It's all about "the rules of the game". There are never really any truly "fair" rules or "wholly level playing field". I think the suggestion that construction can be subsidized and operations should cover costs is about as good a set of new rules as we can expect. Of couse, it still isn't perfect. There very well may be cases where their are more total monetized benefits to running subsidized service than an unsubsidized one, but if you make the rules too difficult to understand and apply, the game becomes too hard to play and everyone loses.

[oltmannd]

schlimm

I don't think most folks expect train revenues to cover the operating costs, because there are other benefits.  Ditto with transit systems

I think you are dead wrong. Most folks who ride my commuter bus are shocked to find out that their $4 fare doesn't even come close to covering the operating costs. They know their tax dollars went to buy the buses, but they think the fares cover the operating costs, and then some. Even when they do the mental math, they only take into account driver's wages and fuel....

[oltmannd]

Paul Milenkovic

every once in a while you need to sit next to a fat dude.

That made my day! (Don't stop writing!)

[blue streak 1]

Do not want to get into the operating subsidity debate but:

Below rail and above rail costs are not entirely separated.

1. Who owns the station?

2. Does AMTRAK have to pay any operating costs of the station? If so is the station energy efficient?

3. Is station layout such that quick loading and unloading possible? Many larger stations are not!

4. reference to #3 is station well lit and laid out for quick passenger ingress and egress?

5. Are intermediate service stations (water, catering, fueling,maintenance, etc) laid out so as to be able to service quickly? Almost forgot termination stations.

6. Are the approach tracks to the station difficult with long restricted speed approaches, puzzle switches, curves, etc; or are the statoin tracks laid out for quick deceleration and acceleration?

7. Is the station track layout such as to allow quick turns, addition, or deletion of some cars?

8. Are the main line tracks smooth, with gentle curves to reduce cant deficiency, etc to the reduce rough track wear on the rolling stock? Would also apply to station tracks.   

9. Is the track speed consistent or are a lot of permanent slow orders in place? 

10. Is track capacity such that there are not slow downs due to conflicting traffic?

11. Is the track a hogback or essentially a gradual grade? 

 All these items and many more will have the effect to increase or decrease crew duty time and fuel/electric consumption, maintenance, turn times, which are certainly a measure of operating costs. I feel that many stations have one or more of the above noted deficiencys. Certainly many route tracks do. 

 

[Paul Milenkovic]

schlimm

I don't think most folks expect train revenues to cover the operating costs,

Why can't train revenue cover operating costs?  The fares aren't substantially different (with sleeping cars more expensive) than competing modes, which suggests that trains are expensive.  Forget about how you pay for the train costs.  Why are train costs as high as they are?

[schlimm]

Sam1

The operating subsidy per passenger mile is a variable of the gross passenger load and would be influenced by market density.  If more passengers can be attracted to the train, the subsidy per passenger mile would go down and, if enough passengers were attracted at a rate high enough to cover the operating costs, the operating subsidy could be eliminated.  Realistically, the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future is low.

 

You mention many statistics and I do not doubt their accuracy but I wonder precisely what is their source?  It isn't cited. 

I don't think most folks expect train revenues to cover the operating costs, because there are other benefits.  Ditto with transit systems.  Another way of putting it is that the full cost to society of many endeavors is not found on a corporate balance sheet.  There are many hidden subsidies.  You disparage other countries' accounting standards, but the example of Arthur Anderson and Enron and others makes that sound like the kettle...

[Paul Milenkovic]

Sam1:

OK, OK, the "usual suspects" are going to "round themselves up" and "refute your arguments."  At times I am numbered among those usual suspects, so I hope you can be patient with what I have to say, even if we have some philosophical disagreements.

I, for one, buy into the reasoning "let's subsidize access to the tracks and the stations, but from the 'railhead up', trains or any other conveyance need to break even."  Maybe if for no other reason than as a thought experiment or as a shibboleth to find out where a persons' thinking goes.

For one thing, I am looking for some manner of social contract, some "engineering system boundary around the subsidized portion of the system", so people would just plain give up on the complaint, "why are people complaining about Amtrak subsidy and don't-get-me-started-about-the-airlines!"  Put the modes on a level playing field and call it a day.  But once you do that, don't come back complaining about how the low level of support for Amtrak is "unfair" and how rail is "underfunded."

For another thing, people outside the narrow rail advocacy community are amenable to this sort of thing.  Someone from among the broader community of political activists approached our train advocacy people and said something along the lines "You could probably get whatever money you want for capital costs provided that you don't need to tap outside sources for the operating cost."  What was interesting was that our advocacy people bristled at this advice, "How dare people say we can't subsidize the operating cost!"

From an engineering perspective, perhaps a little different than an accounting perspective, my question is why isn't a train simply a stainless-steel bus?

What I mean by that is that up by my dad's place, a one-time dairy farmer neighbor has a barn full of late model intercity motorcoach-type buses.  Babler Bus Company.  Gosh knows how you need a mega-farm to earn a dime in dairy these days, and don't know if our neighbor still milks a small herd, but he has this herd of shiny blue and white motorcoaches.  He has a sign out front talking about trips you could take to Chicago or Milwaukee or Green Bay do do stuff -- sort of reverse Door County back to Chicago tourism stuff.

Yeah, the Babler family pays motor fuel tax to pay for the highways, but I don't rightly know if they are paying their fair share for the highway or over or under his fair share.  Let's just say that they are subsidized, just like Amtrak is subsidized.  But something tell me that they are not subsidized for the mortgage payments on those shiny new blue-and-white motor coaches, for drivers wages, insurance, diesel fuel, property tax on the one-time cow barn where the buses park, etc. etc.  On an "above where the rubber meets the road" basis, they have to at least break even or have pulled the wool over the eyes of some bank lender.

I am beginning to strongly suspect that even if you had the level playing field people want, that trains would still require large operating subsidies. 

So what is it about trains that make them much more expensive to operate than a fleet of motorcoach buses?  Maybe it is a labor rules kind of thing.  Sort of like the trolley car with a motorman and a conductor being replaced by a single bus driver.  Maybe the bus driver only commands 40-50 seats, but the bus driver is "everything" -- driver, ticket taker and fare collector, baggage handler, tell the unruly teen to get his sneakers off the seats person, and so on.  Maybe buses are easier to maintain than railroad cars.  Perhaps the steel wheel on steel rail vibration and coupling shock environment is much harsher than the bumps experienced by a bus on rubber tires.

Maybe it is amenities.  A bus crams 50 people into, well, a bus.  A proper train has "get up and walk around" space.  Judging by some book by some dude who rode all the Amtrak trains and got that Kunstler fellow to write a forward scolding us about Peak Oil, that Amtrak replaces a lounge-diner duo with a single lounge-dinette combo car is some kind of crime against humanity.  Our rail-riding hero is all for train travel until he had to sit next to a fat person in an Amfleet coach on the Lakeshore Limited.  And that somehow was the fault of the underfunded-ness of Amtrak rather than an intrinsic property of common carrier transportation, that every once in a while you need to sit next to a fat dude.

 

[Anonymous]

schlimm

Sam1

The passenger per mile subsidy for rail is many times greater than the corresponding subsidies for airline passenger miles and motor vehicle miles traveled.

 

One of the problems with the sort of statistics you present is that the presumption is that the number of passengers per mile is a relatively fixed value.  If that were true, then rail travel would make little sense..... The analogy would be if Atlanta Hartsfield had only two RT flights a day. 

The operating subsidy per passenger mile is a variable of the gross passenger load and would be influenced by market density.  If more passengers can be attracted to the train, the subsidy per passenger mile would go down and, if enough passengers were attracted at a rate high enough to cover the operating costs, the operating subsidy could be eliminated.  Realistically, the probability of this happening in the foreseeable future is low.

In the only corridor where Amtrak has had a bit of consistent operating success, financially speaking, the Acela service had an operating profit of 11.8 cents per passenger mile in FY09.  The regional trains, which carried 70 per cent of the NEC passengers, lost 6.3 cents per passenger mile, thereby wiping out the Acela operating profit.  These figures are before interest and depreciation.

After factoring in interest and depreciation, the NEC lost a significant amount of money.   Unfortunately, Amtrak does not disclose the exact amount for the NEC, nor does it provide the required information to calculate the per passenger mile cost of the interest and depreciation.  Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the Acela broke even after interest and depreciation.  I doubt it.  Most of the interest and depreciation attributable to the NEC should be charged to the Acela services because the bulk of it was incurred for the improvements to the NEC that were made to hoist the Acela.  The Acela may have come close to breaking even; the regional trains in Amtrak's most densely populated corridor could not cover their operating costs let along the interest and depreciation. 

The cost per passenger mile or vehicle mile is the metric used by most transport economists and accountants for comparison purposes.  It is the only one that makes sense.  The operating costs are made up of the firm's variable costs, e.g. labor, fuel, heat, light, etc.  The fixed costs are not mixed with the operating costs.  They consist of equipment leases, depreciation, right-of-way amortization, etc.   

According to a March 2009 issued by the Government Accountability Office, which is respected highly for its objectivity, none of the high speed rail projects that it examined in other countries (Francs, Germany, and Japan) covers its costs.  All of them require a substantial government subsidy, although it takes a variety of forms and is not always transparent.  Some of them cover their operating costs, although the accounting follows different standards than the standards in the U.S.  The accounting for the French system, as I pointed out in a previous post, is a bit dodgy. 

The Sunset example was intended to show that there is scant justification for subsidizing any form of transport.  Assuming that you pay federal income taxes, your taxes paid for 2/3rds of my trip, which included a $27.39 subsidy to ride from LAX to San Diego.  The Pacific Surfliner corridor is a much denser corridor than the North Carolina - Virginia corridors, but it still requires an operating subsidy of 10.7 cents per passenger mile.  If Amtrak cannot cover its operating costs between LAX and San Diego, what makes you think that it can cover its costs in North Carolina?  Or Illinois for that matter?

If Atlanta's Hartsfield had only two flights a day, it would be in deep financial trouble.  It doesn't!  The analogy does not make any sense.     

[schlimm]

HarveyK400

Expressways around Atlanta are mind-boggling; and the Chicago area has twice the population and fewer route miles!  Amazing how a small role for transit translates into huge road volumes. 

 

That's an interesting example: 9.6 mil. metro Chicago vs. 5.3 mil. metro Atlanta.  The traffic was bad enough in the 80's in Atlanta; when I was there three years ago, it was awful.   MARTA is pretty limited compared to mass transit in Chicago (CTA, Metra and PACE).

[HarveyK400]

Maybe start another thread on Atlanta?  I've driven through to Florida on 75; but stopped once to ride MARTA out to the north end and down to Hartsfield, walked through the airport and took the tram before 9-11. 

I'd say commuter rail has a chance if capacity improvements can be funded.  The rail lines aren't the most direct route in some cases; and would be evaluated against the HOV lane buses.  I have no idea how that's working, or if a train would do better in attracting riders.

Expressways around Atlanta are mind-boggling; and the Chicago area has twice the population and fewer route miles!  Amazing how a small role for transit translates into huge road volumes. 

schlimm

oltmannd

The only thing wrong with Doraville as a stop is the nothern part of I-285 and the junction of I-285 and I-85 are some of the most congested areas in Atlanta. If you are coming from Gwinnett or north Fulton and you get that far, it's not a big deal to go all the way to mid-town where the existing station is.

 

I assume Cobb County continues to not participate in MARTA?  Are they thinking of heavy rail commuter service?  And what about service from Atlanta north to Chattanooga and/or beyond?