wjstixIt's easy to forget that passenger train service in the US has always been subsidized by the government. In the 19th century, the US and most states offered land-grant incentives to encourage railroads to be built. The railroads rec'd large tracts of land that they could use or sell as they saw fit. Later, the federal government contracted with the railroads to haul the mail. Private passenger service collapsed after the mail contracts were withdrawn in the 1960's, since many passenger trains that were profitable (or at least breaking even) when hauling the mail were unsustainable without the federal money and had to be abandoned. It was at this point that the railroads went to the government asking (begging?) them to take over passenger service. There's a strong connection in American myth to the "rugged individual" and all that, but if you go back into real history, it's surprising how much the government was involved along the way.
It's easy to forget that passenger train service in the US has always been subsidized by the government. In the 19th century, the US and most states offered land-grant incentives to encourage railroads to be built. The railroads rec'd large tracts of land that they could use or sell as they saw fit.
Later, the federal government contracted with the railroads to haul the mail. Private passenger service collapsed after the mail contracts were withdrawn in the 1960's, since many passenger trains that were profitable (or at least breaking even) when hauling the mail were unsustainable without the federal money and had to be abandoned. It was at this point that the railroads went to the government asking (begging?) them to take over passenger service.
There's a strong connection in American myth to the "rugged individual" and all that, but if you go back into real history, it's surprising how much the government was involved along the way.
Passenger service was probably not identified as a particular priority. More important was opening the transportation corridors for freight, agricultural, mineral or whatever, to exploit the resources of the land, and also exercise sovereignty over it. And we must remember that most of that land was close to worthless when granted to the railroad. Its value came as the railroad was built and the land could finally be used profitably.
That piece of now valuable downtown real estate was worth less than the storied piece of swampland in Florida when it took a month by oxcart to reach it. The railroads would usually sell most of their land quite cheaply, since they needed the population to arrive quickly to generate traffic as soon as possible. It was always a tight race to make the railroad profitable before the creditors got too restive.
The rest of the land that the government still owned could also be sold or opened up to homesteading. Finally the territory could be populated, paying taxes and generating revenue for the government, with minimal cash investment required. It's the best deal the government ever made.
In the past the mail generally traveled by the fastest route available, which for many decades was of course the railroads, usually by passenger trains.. Both mail and the railway express business helped cover the cost of operating the trains. The vanishing of the branch line trains crippled the express network which moved to trucks. The mail took to the air, sometimes with the intentional policy of encouraging new air routes by giving them a guaranteed income support. As you say the loss of that income, an inherent subsidy to whatever mode, turned many passenger train operations into a loss whose magnitude could no longer be tolerated. But until Amtrak the private sector was forced to subsidize passenger service themselves, a nearly unique confiscation of private resources.
John
schlimmcommercial passengers = 675 mil., which works out to a subsidy of $21.63 per passenger, of which $14.37 is for ATC. sam1 makes the point that commercial aviation only uses ~30% of the budget, but in fact the facilities would require about the same level of infrastructure costs and operating expenses for just the airlines; private aviation and the military piggyback on.
A point that has not been discussed is that the subsidy per passenger for an IFR private aviation flight is very large. It takes almost the same amount of manpower for a private jet (6 - 8 Passengers) for the FAA to operate on a flight as a commercial jet.(B-737-800 149+ Pass; 747-400 300+ Pass) except somewhat less when the private jet operates from an uncontrolled airfield.. That makes the subsidity for private jet passengers average at least 20 times the subsidy for commercial jets. Lets see -- 21.63 x 20 = $432.60 and 14.37 x 20 = 287.40 for ATC.
To furthur muddy the equation. ---- Low altitude operations (props, landing and takeoffs of jets) take much more intense resources to handle (personel and computers). Last time flying in the NEC corridors (NY-WASH or NY-BOS) 10 - 15 different controllers all which have at least one additional hand off person and sometimes as many as 3 additional. So subsidy for NE flights much more.
Cost Numbers sound much more than AMTRAK???.
As someone has posted transportation is a National resource. Transportation is part of national communications --- post office, canals, pony express, telegraph, telephones, internet, RRs, ships, airplanes, etc. All have a use and if their strengths are not utilized then you have problems. It can be debated that Germany would have lost sooner if not for their complex RR networks.
Now as far as a Hiawatha route being reinstated.
1. MY old bug-a-boo; equipment. At least 4 years away in any substantial amount. Lets see Hiawatha + Pioneer + NOL-Orl + Pennsylvania + corridor service 250 - 300 more cars. Takes time for specs to be written, contracts let, car testing, debugging, and then into service.
2. Filling out current trains to carry everyone who wants to travel. Auto - Train in August 100% on time and 12.1% more passengers than 2008. Star and Meteor up 3.5 and 6% respectively. Sleeper traffic on Florida up on auto train but down on Star because of a missing sleeper many days. It will interesting to see if Cresent pass figures are about the same for Oct this year after instituting the new Lynchburg - WASH - BOS train. If same then Cresent has been capacity constrained. Adding in the new service pass numbers to Cresent figures will give an approximation of what the Cresent could have been carrying from Charlottesville granted business class will push up those figures.
3. Going through low population density areas does not seem productive taking in account the upgrades to stations, signals, sidings, and training operations personel. Using the EB personsnel with longer trains seems more productive although the problem of dual station stops causing delays will be a problem. Certainly handicapped persons could be concentrated on part of a train for access.
4. The Pioneer route seems to have much more potential from SLC - Seattle and requires much less track work than the Hiawatha.
5. On routes with demand instituting another train 12 Hrs behind may increease total traffic by more than double.
ex.
a. Palmetto already does this with the Meteor. Could be reextended to MIA when enough sleepers available.
b. Cresent: WASH - New Orleans Future Mid-day Piedmont may fill the bill if extended both ways however the present Cresent route better for now
c. Capitol limited: Questionable unless second Pennsylvanian implemented for connections at PITT
d. Lake Shore? Yes
e. Overnight CHI - STL - KCY.
f. Eagle - Midnight departures both ends
g. Coast starlight : perfect timing.
The main advantage of this is no additional station work. would need track capacity work at many locations. No station work. At amnned stations some would need more agents depending on timing and wheteher agents now split shifts.
d.
c.
Paul MilenkovicAs to diverting highway traffic, Metra perhaps substitutes for dozens of highway lanes. Amtrak NEC substitutes for at least one highway lane in each direction, although the commuter segments of the NEC substitute for more. Outside of the NEC, I cannot see Amtrak replacing even a full highway lane in each direction,
Paul: Given your fellow-Chicagoan background, I cannot understand why you can't see more and more transit services as necessary, as well as corridors for Amtrak (or more enlightened operators) in California, CHI to MIL (or even MSP), CHI to STL and perhaps Texas and FLA. Given the problems in Michigan, an HSR route to Detroit seems pointless. Maybe CLE to COL to CIN?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul Milenkovic: 2) Even if transportation is properly a government function, transportation is still not removed from market forces and the need to get value for the money spent. That Amtrak requires multiples of the subsidy rate for other modes is a subject the advocacy community tries very hard to drop rather than address head on. Agreed. I am advocating rail transport that is rational, not a return to pre-1960. If there were competitive, fast, frequent relatively short routes, the increase the traffic would reduce the per passenger and per passenger mile rates to a much lower level. Paul Milenkovic: Somehow we have managed to muddle through without much in the way of trains relative to what was envisioned 40 years ago. That is the problem. It isn't going away. Every other country has or is rapidly building HSR. Are they ALL out of step with us? Have you been to China lately and noticed HSR all over the place? Are they building for fun or sentiment?
Paul Milenkovic: 2) Even if transportation is properly a government function, transportation is still not removed from market forces and the need to get value for the money spent. That Amtrak requires multiples of the subsidy rate for other modes is a subject the advocacy community tries very hard to drop rather than address head on.
Agreed. I am advocating rail transport that is rational, not a return to pre-1960. If there were competitive, fast, frequent relatively short routes, the increase the traffic would reduce the per passenger and per passenger mile rates to a much lower level.
Paul Milenkovic: Somehow we have managed to muddle through without much in the way of trains relative to what was envisioned 40 years ago.
That is the problem. It isn't going away. Every other country has or is rapidly building HSR. Are they ALL out of step with us? Have you been to China lately and noticed HSR all over the place? Are they building for fun or sentiment?
passengerfan Paul mentioned the San Diegans or now better known as the Surfliners and there ridership. What he did not take into consideration is Metrolink and the San Diego commuter agency whos name escapes me for the minute. Both of these take huge amounts of traffic off of I-5 in fact they almost overlap each other if I am not mistaken. There are more trains offering more seats between Los Angeles and San Diego than ever before I would say that certainly counts for relieving some of the congestion on I-5. One of the fastest growing routes in the US is the Sacramento Capitol corridor trains. They have taken more and more traffic off of the I-80 saving the California taxpayers billions which is the what it would cost to try and add lanes to I-80. Land is not cheap anywhere along the I-5 corridor between LA and SD. The same is true for land along I-80 between Sacramento and Oakland. One estimate published by Caltrans put the price tag for adding one lane in each direction between SD and LA on I-5 at 24 Billion. Being an already overburdened California taxpayer I would rather see HSR or additional Surfliners in service before paying for extra lanes which would already be obsolete by the time they were completed anyway. Land is not cheap anywhere along that corridor, and besides if the State would try to acquire the land by imminent domain it would be tied up in the courts for years and Caltrans is well aware of it that is why the estimate is 24 Billion. Every overpass would have to be rebuilt at an outrageous cost alone. Thank you leave my California trains alone unless you live here. They are doing a pretty good job of moving Californians around the state. Al - in - Stockton
Paul mentioned the San Diegans or now better known as the Surfliners and there ridership. What he did not take into consideration is Metrolink and the San Diego commuter agency whos name escapes me for the minute. Both of these take huge amounts of traffic off of I-5 in fact they almost overlap each other if I am not mistaken. There are more trains offering more seats between Los Angeles and San Diego than ever before I would say that certainly counts for relieving some of the congestion on I-5.
One of the fastest growing routes in the US is the Sacramento Capitol corridor trains. They have taken more and more traffic off of the I-80 saving the California taxpayers billions which is the what it would cost to try and add lanes to I-80. Land is not cheap anywhere along the I-5 corridor between LA and SD. The same is true for land along I-80 between Sacramento and Oakland. One estimate published by Caltrans put the price tag for adding one lane in each direction between SD and LA on I-5 at 24 Billion.
Being an already overburdened California taxpayer I would rather see HSR or additional Surfliners in service before paying for extra lanes which would already be obsolete by the time they were completed anyway. Land is not cheap anywhere along that corridor, and besides if the State would try to acquire the land by imminent domain it would be tied up in the courts for years and Caltrans is well aware of it that is why the estimate is 24 Billion. Every overpass would have to be rebuilt at an outrageous cost alone.
Thank you leave my California trains alone unless you live here. They are doing a pretty good job of moving Californians around the state.
Al - in - Stockton
I remember a family gathering where my sister-in-law was telling about showing up for her court date to dispute a speeding ticket. "Your Honor, I was just following all of those other people going the same speed, but I was the only one 'pulled over' and given a ticket." So the judge says, "So if all of those other people would turn off the road on to a bridge that was closed and drove off the bridge and crashed, you would follow them and do the same too?"
Just because China or Taiwan or Argentina or Spain or Kazakstan is building an HSR is not a cogent argument for building HSR in the US. Again, what I am trying to tell you is that the average non-advocacy-group-member non-railfan voter in the US does not find that argument particularly persuasive. If they did, Congress would be scrambling with a crash program to "keep up" because that is the American Way of Politics and how Congress works. These other countries provide interesting case studies of the kinds of benefits to be had from HSR in the US, but they are not by their existence a persuasive case for HSR.
Yet again, what I am trying to say is that it is not like half the voting population is "for trains" and the other half the population is "against trains, for Global Warming, damaging the environment, and destroying the legacy of our grandchildren." It is more like we have a small "for trains" faction over here and in bricks-and-morter advocacy group, and equally small "against trains" faction of the Concrete Lobby, the Trucking Alliance, and the Heritage Foundation, and a vast middle who likes their cars, has concerns about gas prices and traffic jams, probably tried Amtrak once and at best had an indifferent experience, does not much care one way or the other about trains, and really does not have a fine, flying care about what China is doing about much of anything. If one is to make any serious progress in advocacy, one has to address the sentiments of that vast middle of people "on the fence."
As to the reasoning that there are economies of scale, that improvements in both speed and frequency would attract ridership and also spread fixed costs over a larger base, that would be very interesting were it true. It would be extremely persuasive regarding the benefits of Amtrak expansion if it could be demonstrated or documented or even persuasively projected to be true. On the other hand, the Vision Report "envisioned" spending 500 billion in today's dollars over 40 years, essentially boosting the Amtrak budget 10-fold on a yearly basis, and what they projected to show for it was a simple linear 10-fold increase in train patronage, from .1 percent of total passenger miles to 1 percent. The Vision Report, however, got its cost figures, based on the Appendices to the Report, on the general European experience, in aggregate, which again, is a much larger scale train network than Amtrak.
As to my original remarks on congestion relief, it is demonstrated that commuter trains replace multiple highway lanes, that the NEC replaces about one highway lane in each direction apart from the commuter segments that replace more, and that the Surfliner is perhaps at the threshold of replacing a highway lane. And for that I am scolded "leave my California trains alone unless you live here"? What am going to do, move back to California where I once lived, voted, and drove a car, and start one of those ballot Proposition petitions to get the Surfliner closed down? Is the political support for this some kind of thing in California right now that a Web exchange regarding what the Surfliner does or does not do is threatening to the political order.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovicust because China or Taiwan or Argentina or Spain or Kazakstan is building an HSR is not a cogent argument for building HSR in the US. Again, what I am trying to tell you is that the average non-advocacy-group-member non-railfan voter in the US does not find that argument particularly persuasive.
That strikes me as a particularly irrational, facetious and jingoistic argument. First of all, why do you think so many countries think HSR or semi-HSR makes sense? Is it possible the US just might learn something from other countries?Your implication is they are all in pursuit of a silly idea, lemming-like. Taking the metaphor further, perhaps we are being the proverbial ostriches. Second, what evidence do you have that the large majority of voters do "not find the argument particularly persuasive?" There has been little political leadership on this in a positive direction, at least until recently.
schlimmPaul Milenkovicust because China or Taiwan or Argentina or Spain or Kazakstan is building an HSR is not a cogent argument for building HSR in the US. Again, what I am trying to tell you is that the average non-advocacy-group-member non-railfan voter in the US does not find that argument particularly persuasive. That strikes me as a particularly irrational, facetious and jingoistic argument. First of all, why do you think so many countries think HSR or semi-HSR makes sense? Is it possible the US just might learn something from other countries?Your implication is they are all in pursuit of a silly idea, lemming-like. Taking the metaphor further, perhaps we are being the proverbial ostriches. Second, what evidence do you have that the large majority of voters do "not find the argument particularly persuasive?" There has been little political leadership on this in a positive direction, at least until recently.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndit's the other way around. It's not that there's nothing to learn from other countries, it's just that each situation is unique and has it's own set of circumstances. That New Zealand does not have coast to coast double stack trains doesn't mean they are unwilling to learn from the US, it means that the benefit of such service in New Zealand does meet the cost for providing it. That Europe's heavy haul rail freight network is not what the US has does not mean they are stubborn, irrational or stupid, either. Are the key drivers that led the decision for HSR in other countries present in the US? Some, in spots, but mostly no, I think. At least not now.
Agreed, there are unique circumstances, but surely the US is not totally unlike so many other countries all over the world that see a valuable role for passenger rail, HSR and transit. Like us, they also have strong air and highway networks, but they see a role for passenger rail in the total system. We have systematically shortchanged the passenger rail component for the past 50+ years. In any case, are you saying you (and Paul, sam1 and others) see little value at present in developing/expanding US passenger rail services?
As a matter of fact, I believe I have "standing" to comment on what people outside the train advocacy community think, pro and con, about trains.
I have had this deal going where for one weekend on the coldest day in February in the Upper Midwest, I have 200 square feet of prime exhibition space that I don't have to pay for as a result of the generosity and committment to public service of the South Central Wisconsin Divison of the Midwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association, and organization that is not a passenger-train advocacy group in any shape or form. I have an ElectroTren HO Talgo model, modified for "U.S. standards" with an HO Athearn Amtrak F-59 going around a loop on a foamboard layout, and I spend two days standing in front of it entertaining children. My esteemed colleagues decorate this display with banners with advocacy slogans and posters and Amtrak and advocacy literature, and stand around answering questions that people have about trains, Amtrak, technology, expansion of train service, and so on.
People come up to me, often expressing their views about Amtrak and on public subsidies and passenger trains in general. Much of it is positive, but often there are people who will "give me a piece of their mind" about why "Amtrak is a waste of money." This is not rare, and this is at a model train show, where just about everyone there has some kind of interest in trains, but not everyone there is a passenger-train advocate.
I am not sure how my colleagues respond to this -- I don't listen in or join in on their private dialogs with people visiting the exhibit. They sometimes tell me about "setting a person straight." Me, I encourage my colleagues on the exhibit to "peddle the soft sell", I do the "personal therapist/bartender/understanding spouse/guy running for Congress" non-confrontational "listening" routine. "Why do you feel that way about trains? Yes, in a democracy, we will only get public support for trains if there is broad-based public agreement to support trains, and your expression of your concerns is an important part of the process."
I don't think I would be doing this if I didn't think there was some role for trains. But we are at kind of a unique juncture in this advocacy business. A lot of the membership has drifted off because we have been hammering away at this Midwest Regional Rail Initiative thing for 20 years and nothing has happened and many have drifted away, and the people who remain often express feelings of intense frustration. And in a way we are kind of like the Environmental Movement, where there is a committed "inner cadre" with strong feelings about certain issues, but it seems that a lot of people listen to what people in the Environmental Movement have to say, even, when, say, the Movement is in opposition to whatever government is in Washington, but unlike the Environmental Movement, there are not that many people who care one way or another regarding what we are about, and interestingly enough, it does not seem that many people in the Environmental Movement are that excited about trains either, and that too is a source of frustration.
We are at this juncture because it seems that finally, after years and years, there is some sympathy in Washington to what we are about and some money coming our way. Now there is some money coming our way, and it is only a tiny fraction of the money required to build a national HSR network, and we are standing in line behind the Hybrid Car people, the Wind Generation people, the Solar Panel people, the Biofuels people and a whole range of other places government money could be spent to tip things in a direction of a Greener future.
I also think that the money coming our way could be the catalyst for much bigger things if it is spent wisely, but it could be the start of more-of-same, that is continued public indifference to trains, if it is not. I believe the advocacy community could play a key role in getting this to work by advocating for the right things, but I also believe that we could "get it wrong" by simply doing more of what we have been doing the last 40 years, that is, scolding people. No HSR, look at Europe, look at China, people who are skeptical of trains are jingoistic xenophobes, save the Sunset Limited, and so on.
Paul MilenkovicI also think that the money coming our way could be the catalyst for much bigger things if it is spent wisely, but it could be the start of more-of-same, that is continued public indifference to trains, if it is not. I believe the advocacy community could play a key role in getting this to work by advocating for the right things, but I also believe that we could "get it wrong" by simply doing more of what we have been doing the last 40 years, that is, scolding people. No HSR, look at Europe, look at China, people who are skeptical of trains are jingoistic xenophobes, save the Sunset Limited, and so on.
Paul: I'm truly sorry if you found my comment to be a scolding. I just don't understand what you want. Your contribution in building public support is laudable. Your technical knowledge base is a valuable resource. However, I'm not sure a crowd of model railroaders in Wisconsin would necessarily be supporters. Their exposure to Amtrak has probably been limited and largely negative.
BTW, although I too can look back fondly on the "good old days" in regard to trains (and am a modeler myself of the 50's/60's IC and CNW) , I, for one at least, feel LD trains, sleeper cars, dining cars make little economic sense. We should d/c the Sunset, CZ, etc. as soon as possible. If there is a public demand, let cruise operators provide them. I don't understand your opposition to looking at what other governments have done re: passenger rail services. What's the harm?
California voters turned out last November and passed the California HSR bond to the tune of 9.6 Billion showing there support for trains in the Golden State. Don't forget that California is one of the few states that has put money where there mouth is the Surfliner, San Joaquin and Capital Corridor equipment was paid for with state money. I have not seen other states spending there own money on trains other than commuter trains except for Washington and Oregon. Does the west coast always have to lead the nation.That is why I believe the largest amount of the Stimulus money earmarked for HSR should go to California, they have the only shovel ready proposal on the table. All the other states are proposing faster trains where California is ready to build a 250 mph system where other states talk about 90-110 mph systems. A 250 mph system will surely make California a leader in HSR service equalling anything else in the world.
Wisconsin is talking about Talgo why don't they look at other systems available in the world. Washington and Oregon have had Talgos for years already.
passengerfanI have not seen other states spending there own money on trains other than commuter trains except for Washington and Oregon.
I agree that voter sentiment in California suggests there is support (with $) for passenger rail out there. However, Illinois has had several state-supported (though not purchasing equipment) routes for years and is bringing back another. The same is true of several other Midwestern states, I believe.
schlimmLike us, they also have strong air and highway networks, but they see a role for passenger rail in the total system. We have systematically shortchanged the passenger rail component for the past 50+ years. In any case, are you saying you (and Paul, sam1 and others) see little value at present in developing/expanding US passenger rail services?
The primary problem with Amtrak is that it is spread too thin.
I would love to see true high speed rail in the corridors where it is appropriate, but if I had to choose between 1 250 MPH train a day and 4 110 MPH trains a day on a given route I would vote for more trains over faster trains.
Fast, frequent, and on time is the key to transportation success.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
schlimm oltmanndit's the other way around. It's not that there's nothing to learn from other countries, it's just that each situation is unique and has it's own set of circumstances. That New Zealand does not have coast to coast double stack trains doesn't mean they are unwilling to learn from the US, it means that the benefit of such service in New Zealand does meet the cost for providing it. That Europe's heavy haul rail freight network is not what the US has does not mean they are stubborn, irrational or stupid, either. Are the key drivers that led the decision for HSR in other countries present in the US? Some, in spots, but mostly no, I think. At least not now. Agreed, there are unique circumstances, but surely the US is not totally unlike so many other countries all over the world that see a valuable role for passenger rail, HSR and transit. Like us, they also have strong air and highway networks, but they see a role for passenger rail in the total system. We have systematically shortchanged the passenger rail component for the past 50+ years. In any case, are you saying you (and Paul, sam1 and others) see little value at present in developing/expanding US passenger rail services?
I have said consistently that I favor the enhancement or development of passenger rail in high density corridors where expanding highways or airways is cost prohibitive or does not make any sense. I have reservations about HSR, because of the cost/benfit ratio, but I support rapid rail in the corridors.
Phoebe Vet The primary problem with Amtrak is that it is spread too thin. I agree. It will continue to be too thin because X and y and Z congressmen will want service in their districts. Note the Hiawatha, Pioneer. Sunset, and other studys. The only way to end run these mandates is to purchase a very large amount of rolling stock. l I would love to see true high speed rail in the corridors where it is appropriate, but if I had to choose between 1 250 MPH train a day and 4 110 MPH trains a day on a given route I would vote for more trains over faster train You are correct that 4 trains over a route is better. That allows passengers to be more flexible when they travel and return. That 110 MPH threashold gives the ability for much existing ROW to be used but with specific ROW purchases to straighten the inside of curves and ease grades. This will benefit both freight and passenger trains. Further when you measure the number of passenger minutes saved just getting the average speed up will attract more passengers and more freight traffic (especially Intermodal) when its transit time is reduced. The AMTRAK study to reduce times has many items needed including Constant Tension CAT (20 Min), upgraded electrical distribution, better signaling, third and fourth tracks, ROW improvements, etc. The NEC seems to have gotten close to diverting all the airline and bus traffic it can. Now where is the time tipping point to attract the automobile traffic? There is a disjointed connection pattern in New York to the various commuter agencys and as those connections are improved then more passengers. The connections at New Haven, newark and BOS are better and PHL/ WASH the best. frequent, and on time is the key to transportation success. On time brings (means don't have overly optomistic schedules) back previous riders and frequent brings them in for the first time.
I agree. It will continue to be too thin because X and y and Z congressmen will want service in their districts. Note the Hiawatha, Pioneer. Sunset, and other studys. The only way to end run these mandates is to purchase a very large amount of rolling stock. l
I would love to see true high speed rail in the corridors where it is appropriate, but if I had to choose between 1 250 MPH train a day and 4 110 MPH trains a day on a given route I would vote for more trains over faster train
You are correct that 4 trains over a route is better. That allows passengers to be more flexible when they travel and return. That 110 MPH threashold gives the ability for much existing ROW to be used but with specific ROW purchases to straighten the inside of curves and ease grades. This will benefit both freight and passenger trains.
Further when you measure the number of passenger minutes saved just getting the average speed up will attract more passengers and more freight traffic (especially Intermodal) when its transit time is reduced. The AMTRAK study to reduce times has many items needed including Constant Tension CAT (20 Min), upgraded electrical distribution, better signaling, third and fourth tracks, ROW improvements, etc.
The NEC seems to have gotten close to diverting all the airline and bus traffic it can. Now where is the time tipping point to attract the automobile traffic? There is a disjointed connection pattern in New York to the various commuter agencys and as those connections are improved then more passengers. The connections at New Haven, newark and BOS are better and PHL/ WASH the best.
frequent, and on time is the key to transportation success.
On time brings (means don't have overly optomistic schedules) back previous riders and frequent brings them in for the first time.
schlimm Sam1n FY08 the average federal subsidy for Amtrak was $48.50 per passenger or 22.61 cents per passenger mile. The average federal subsidy for the nation's commercial airlines was $3.92 per passenger or .45 cents per passenger mile, Fact check: In the 2009 budget, total FAA = $14.6 Bil. ATC = $9.7 Bil; total commercial passengers = 675 mil., which works out to a subsidy of $21.63 per passenger, of which $14.37 is for ATC. sam1 makes the point that commercial aviation only uses ~30% of the budget, but in fact the facilities would require about the same level of infrastructure costs and operating expenses for just the airlines; private aviation and the military piggyback on. Even if one accepts the allocated expense percentage, the subsidy (not including local taxes to build airports) is $6.49, not 3.92.
Sam1n FY08 the average federal subsidy for Amtrak was $48.50 per passenger or 22.61 cents per passenger mile. The average federal subsidy for the nation's commercial airlines was $3.92 per passenger or .45 cents per passenger mile,
Fact check: In the 2009 budget, total FAA = $14.6 Bil. ATC = $9.7 Bil; total commercial passengers = 675 mil., which works out to a subsidy of $21.63 per passenger, of which $14.37 is for ATC. sam1 makes the point that commercial aviation only uses ~30% of the budget, but in fact the facilities would require about the same level of infrastructure costs and operating expenses for just the airlines; private aviation and the military piggyback on. Even if one accepts the allocated expense percentage, the subsidy (not including local taxes to build airports) is $6.49, not 3.92.
The 2009 FAA budget is irrelevant; it is the actual numbers, which for FY09 will not be available on an audited basis until later this month, that are important. The FY08 FAA Citizens Report - FY08 Summary of Performance and Financial Results - contains the latest audited numbers.
You appear to have attributed the total FAA operations budget to the commercial airlines. Anyone with an understanding of cost accounting would know that this is incorrect. Anyone familiar with aviation operations would know that you numbers are incorrect. I hold every FAA license and rating (air and ground) with the exception of rotorcraft. Equally important, accountants know that budgets are forcasts. The bottom line, so to speak, is in the actual numbers at the end of the year or reporting period. In a nutshell, you used the wrong numbers, allocated them improperly, and overlooked the Essential Air Service Program and the TSA Screening Program, amongst others.
In FY08 the nation's airlines carries an estimated 786.3 million passengers, of whom approximately 675 million were domestic flyers, whilst the remainder were international arrivals and departures. I assumed that half the international passengers were in some part of the U.S. controlled airspace at some time during their flight. Accordingly, a reasonable estimate of the federal subsidy is $ $3.35 per passenger and .42 cents per domestic passenger mile as per acceptable cost allocation methods. Information to determine the portion of the international miles controlled by the FAA's operations is not available.
In FY08 the Treasury Department, which funds the FAA, transferred $2,231,396,000 net from the general fund to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) to cover the FAA's activities not supported by revenues. Assuming airline operations constitute 30.6 per cent of FAA operations, which is an average of the estimated commercial flights controlled by a tower and a control center, the subsidy allocable to the airlines was $682,807,176. Most of the general funds transfer went to Operations and Safety, which benefit the commercial carriers proportionally.
The driver for FAA operations is number of aircraft controlled. It is not the number of passengers carried in each aircraft. However, the number of passengers is a key factor in determining passenger seat miles, which is the only meaningful way to compare per unit cost between modes of transport. Using aircraft, trains, vehicles, boats, etc. as a unit of comparative measure would be meaningless.
Interestingly, in 2008 the FAA changed its air carrier safety measure from Commercial Air Carrier Fatal Accident Rate to Commercial Air Carrier Fatalities per 100 Million Persons. It is a more meaningful statistic.
All other FAA costs [Grants-in-Aid for Airports (AIP), Facilities and Equipment (F&E), and Research, Engineering, and Development (R,E&D)] were covered by AATF funds, which come from ticket taxes, fees, etc.
The Essential Air Services Program received $141,258,000. The regional airlines that provide services under the program were the major beneficiary of the program.
The Transportation Screening Program, which is managed by Homeland Security, was allocated $5,300,000,000 for FY08. Approximately 70 per cent of the cost of the program is paid for through ticket taxes and other fees. Thus, I assumed that the difference, $1,590,000,000, which was funded from the general fund, was a subsidy to be worn wholly by the airlines.
The total federal subsidy allocated to the airlines is $2,414,065,176, divided by the number of passengers produces a subsidy of $3.35 per passenger.
Some passenger rail advocates point to a variety of difficult to determine subsidies supposedly received by the airlines whilst overlooking similar subsidies (past and present) that have accrued to passenger rail operations. One of their favorites is the tax free funding that was used, at least in part, to build most of the nation's commercial airports. The value of this subsidy, which is no different in kind, than the tax free funding many of the facilities used by Amtrak or its predecessor passenger rail operations have received, is not nearly as great as many people assume. It is the difference between fully taxable funding and tax free funding for that portion of the facilities used by commercial air. Over the years, depending on when the airport was constructed, the spreads have been relatively small. They would not add a significant amount to the figures shown above.
Activity based cost accounting attempts to tie a cost or revenue to an activity. As is the case in all accounting, some judgment is required in making the allocations. I used aircraft operations to allocate the FAA operational subsidy to the commercial airlines because it appears to be the most relevant activity. There are other cost drivers that could be used, but I believe this is the best indicator of the commercial airline demand on FAA operations. In any case, one could double or triple the federal subsidy to the commercial airlines, as well as the nation's highway users, and not come close to the per passenger or passenger per mile subsidy required by passenger rail.
Of course the air transportation system should get subsidized. Not in dispute. But you do tend to minimize how large that is. What's wrong with looking at a projected budget? If anything, budgets are usually exceeded, at least government ones. You cite an allocation percentage for the airlines of 30%. What is the basis of that number?
The much-needed expansion of O'Hare will cost at least $20 Bil. Multiply that by the other outmoded airports that require expansion and one sees the price we need to pay. My point is that ALL modes need help to have a viable system where each modality should provide the services it can do best. Clearly LD trains are not what rail should be involved with.
schlimmThe much-needed expansion of O'Hare will cost at least $20 Bil. Multiply that by the other outmoded airports that require expansion and one sees the price we need to pay.
Of course. However, one, I am not entirely certain bond issues for airports are totally covered by fees and two, the real issue is how the government spends money for transportation, not focusing on the revenue stream. It is the rationing of resources that should concern us all.
schlimm Of course. However, one, I am not entirely certain bond issues for airports are totally covered by fees and two, the real issue is how the government spends money for transportation, not focusing on the revenue stream. It is the rationing of resources that should concern us all.
Most airport construction and improvements bonds are issued as revenue bonds. They are serviced from revenues generated by the facility users. In the case of the airports, the revenues come from landing fees, hangar fees, vendors fees, etc. If these fees are insufficient to service the bonds, the difference has to be made up by the guantor of the bonds, which in most cases is a local government or agency of a local government. Sometimes help is available from the federal government through the airport improvement program.
I looked at the financial statements for several of the large airports in Texas. They cover their debt obligations with the revenues mentioned above. In fact, several of them generate sufficient revenues from their activities to cover all of their costs and transfer a surplus to the sponsoring local government. Some smaller airports do not generate sufficient revenues to service their debt and depend on transfers from the local government to make up the difference.
As I have said before, how much the government spends on other modes of transport is irrelevant to how much it should spend on passenger rail. Where is rail the best solution to a transport problem is the key question.
Sam1As I have said before, how much the government spends on other modes of transport is irrelevant to how much it should spend on passenger rail. Where is rail the best solution to a transport problem is the key question.
Right on!
Simple! More money!!! Back to the "Hiawatha Study". I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder". Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line. Not viable, methinks. When the "Empire Builder" was cut to four-day-a-week service, a few years ago, business fell off about 80%. Duh! The 'southern tier' has, by far, the largest population base, in this state, but it doesn't have Glacier National Park. You really can't count of college students using the line four times a year! That said, they, down there, have to commit $$$ to upgrade the line and provide decent passenger station facilities. I don't see much support forthcoming from North Dakota, on line improvements. Uff da! No, they don't need "Taj Mahals", like Albany, NY. "Amshacks" would work, as starters. The big problem is equipment. Restore the 'wrecks' at Beech Grove and order new stuff! A second trans-Montana route could be viable, as an adjunct/addition, not a replacement, for the "Empire Builder".
Comments from IL-WI-MN-ND-SD-ID-WA-OR would be interesting. You are involved! Thanks!
BNSFwatcher I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder". Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line. Not viable, methinks. involved! Thanks!
I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder". Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line. Not viable, methinks. involved! Thanks!
Don't sweat it. There WAS a movement in Southern Montana a couple of years ago to do this, but the uproar from those along the Empire Builder route resulted in the North Coast Hiawatha study having the stipulation that such a reinstated train could not have a negative impact on an existing Amtrak service. This was specifically placed in the document by Senator Tester.
It doesn't matter, anyway. The chance of reviving the North Coast Hiawatha is zero. Amtrak has no extra equipment, and there are no stations along the proposed route that are currently capable of being used by a passenger train. Whether you believe the $1 billion price tag of the study or not, it will cost hundreds of millions just for the equipment and stations, and then there's the negotiable part of the study about the track improvements. That's a lot of money, and since the people in Montana think that the service should be federally funded, they will receive a lot of pushback. Even with a price tag of half a billion, think of the other multiple Amtrak services elsewhere in the country that could be reinstated with that money (or as proponents, would say, don't spend the money at all).
The study was a ripoff all the way around. If I remember correctly, its cost was about $1 million, and this money could have been better spent on something like repairing a wrecked car at Beech Grove and returning it to service on an existing train that could use it.
Mark Meyer
Link to position pieces (some may call it propaganda and/or inaccurate) on the Amtrak site:
The much-needed expansion of O'Hare will cost at least $20 Bil. Multiply that by the other outmoded airports that require expansion and one sees the price we need to pay.
It seems that a hot dog costs as much as a plane ticket at O'Hare.
VerMontananBNSFwatcher I heard, yesterday, from an Amtrak engineer, that there was a movement in the southern part (non-served) of Montana to promote the "North Coast Hiawatha" resurrection, at the expense of the "Empire Builder". Their solution would be to take the "Empire Builder" back to a 4-day-a-week schedule and run the other three days on the south line. Not viable, methinks. involved! Thanks! Don't sweat it. There WAS a movement in Southern Montana a couple of years ago to do this, but the uproar from those along the Empire Builder route resulted in the North Coast Hiawatha study having the stipulation that such a reinstated train could not have a negative impact on an existing Amtrak service. This was specifically placed in the document by Senator Tester. It doesn't matter, anyway. The chance of reviving the North Coast Hiawatha is zero. Amtrak has no extra equipment, and there are no stations along the proposed route that are currently capable of being used by a passenger train. Whether you believe the $1 billion price tag of the study or not, it will cost hundreds of millions just for the equipment and stations, and then there's the negotiable part of the study about the track improvements. That's a lot of money, and since the people in Montana think that the service should be federally funded, they will receive a lot of pushback. Even with a price tag of half a billion, think of the other multiple Amtrak services elsewhere in the country that could be reinstated with that money (or as proponents, would say, don't spend the money at all). The study was a ripoff all the way around. If I remember correctly, its cost was about $1 million, and this money could have been better spent on something like repairing a wrecked car at Beech Grove and returning it to service on an existing train that could use it.
I have seen hay-wire train advocates get the darndest things; but could the North Coast Hiawatha come from some Staggers-effect?
I should read the report; but it seems $40 million a year for operations could buy a lot of service elsewhere.
What other long-distance routes are there, such as Chicago-Florida, that might be restored; and what alternative populations might be served that makes the NCH a national priority?
Amtrak got in trouble in the beginning by looking at all the inherited long-distance equipment and setting up a long-distance network regardless of any more rational rail niche regional business. I fear the same is happening again, especially with the Viewliner order. Why not buy more Acelas to re-equip other NEC and Southeast trains out of New York? Chicago-Milwaukee could use more trains than just the two Talgos that were ordered.
HarveyK400Why not buy more Acelas to re-equip other NEC and Southeast trains out of New York? Chicago-Milwaukee could use more trains than just the two Talgos that were ordered.
HarveyK400: Do you know why Talgos were ordered for the flat, straight CHI-MIL service? Was nothing else available?
passengerfanWisconsin is talking about Talgo why don't they look at other systems available in the world. Washington and Oregon have had Talgos for years already.
Maybe because there may be different criteria involved. Your situation is much more amenable to the solution you have while others may have differing things going on. I do not feel there is a one size fits all thing going--and not everyone needs/wants the latest edgiest thing either in HSR
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm HarveyK400: Do you know why Talgos were ordered for the flat, straight CHI-MIL service? Was nothing else available?
My answer to that is that Wisconsin is extremely concious of the potential for creating employment in their state by hosting the Talgo assembly shop for all North American orders.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.