schlimm Paul Milenkovic: schlimm: But I also think the metric anti-passenger rail proponents use is misleading, namely cents per passenger mile. Some of the operating costs on a route are fairly fixed, And if Amtrak service exhibits such economy-of-scale, we should point to routes (the Hiawatha and the Pacific Surfliner are two corridor routes outside of the NEC), where this effect holds up. The pro-passenger train community should have a flip chart showing that as the ridership and train frequency on the Hiawatha and Surfliner have increased since their inception, which they have, the subsidy rate per passenger mile has declined. Well, Paul, that wass my point, but expressed much better by you with specifics. I only said "misleading" b/c the anti-pass-rail crowd often uses that metric to show how wasteful any future service would be, not mentioning the fixed costs or economies of scale or the examples of the Hiawatha, Surfliner (and possibly Cascades) where the subsidy rate has decreased as service and ridership have expanded.
Paul Milenkovic: schlimm: But I also think the metric anti-passenger rail proponents use is misleading, namely cents per passenger mile. Some of the operating costs on a route are fairly fixed, And if Amtrak service exhibits such economy-of-scale, we should point to routes (the Hiawatha and the Pacific Surfliner are two corridor routes outside of the NEC), where this effect holds up. The pro-passenger train community should have a flip chart showing that as the ridership and train frequency on the Hiawatha and Surfliner have increased since their inception, which they have, the subsidy rate per passenger mile has declined.
schlimm: But I also think the metric anti-passenger rail proponents use is misleading, namely cents per passenger mile. Some of the operating costs on a route are fairly fixed,
But I also think the metric anti-passenger rail proponents use is misleading, namely cents per passenger mile. Some of the operating costs on a route are fairly fixed,
And if Amtrak service exhibits such economy-of-scale, we should point to routes (the Hiawatha and the Pacific Surfliner are two corridor routes outside of the NEC), where this effect holds up.
The pro-passenger train community should have a flip chart showing that as the ridership and train frequency on the Hiawatha and Surfliner have increased since their inception, which they have, the subsidy rate per passenger mile has declined.
Well, Paul, that wass my point, but expressed much better by you with specifics. I only said "misleading" b/c the anti-pass-rail crowd often uses that metric to show how wasteful any future service would be, not mentioning the fixed costs or economies of scale or the examples of the Hiawatha, Surfliner (and possibly Cascades) where the subsidy rate has decreased as service and ridership have expanded.
So then, what are the economies-of-scale demonstrated by Hiawatha, Surfliner, and Cascades?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I've come to think it's futile to argue the costs of rail vs. highway vs. air travel. I don't hear anything about the entry cost of highway travel. Namely ~$10,000 to ~$40,000 for a vehicle. How much is the population (the people who drive) spending each year for new vehicles in North America? $30 billion?
But a car provides "universal" transportation, even though it's usually sitting still most hours of the day... all the while losing its monetary value.
How much did the average user spend each month for Ma Bell and postage stamps 30 years ago? How much is spent per month on electronic communications today? I would argue by the constant barrage of advertising alone, vastly more.
Steve Jobs looked at the music industry, and saw that people needed to go to a store and buy a cd to get the music experience they wanted. And he saw that the experience was constrained. He had an idea, and named it iTunes. Lots of people think his genius is the iPod (think train?). Now, what's the iPad about? Now, what's a railroad ROW about?
Paul: I thought you had that information, based on your post, and based on your past involvement in passenger rail advocacy. Perhaps that was an error to assume that. Don't know and don't especially care to engage in a pointless discussion.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have a question and a point regarding some of the comments made in this thread or subject.
At least one person claims there are numerous studies showing that truckers do not pay their share of the cost of building and maintaining the nation's highways. The American Trucking Association claims otherwise. I would appreciate it if someone could point me to the "studies" showing that trucks don't pay their share of the cost of building and maintaining the highways. I am keen to see not only the results but also the methodology. Moreover, I will only accept studies that have been performed by an independent, objective source. Studies performed by trucking interests or rail interests would tend to be biased.
In Texas the highways are damaged or worn by a multiplicity of variables. For example, in North Texas, where the soil is subject to significant expansion and contraction due to changing weather conditions, it would be difficult to determine how much of the damage done to the highways was caused by trucks and how much was caused by the underlying soil conditions. It is so bad, for example, that concrete contractors in the Dallas area will not guarantee their work.
The point refers to cost accounting. In the long run all costs are variable. In the short run, however, accountants accept the notion of variable costs and fixed costs. It is true that the fixed costs per unit of activity (passengers, seats, train miles, etc.) will go down as the number of units increase. However, the true variable costs will tend to go up. In a sense the point is irrelevant. A business has to recover all of its costs over time, plus it has to earn a return for the shareholders. The government must do likewise, although it has an inexhaustible kit of tools (monetary and fiscal) to shift the costs from the users to non-users.
The cost per passenger mile is the only methodology for comparing the cost of one passenger transport activity (airplane passenger miles) against another activity (passenger rail miles). Total dollar comparisons are meaningless. Costs, however, are not the only comparative variable. Most people don't just consider the cost. Functionality, convenience and comfort are also important to most people.
People around the world, if they can afford to do so, have chosen the car for commuting, family vacations, and travel between relatively close cities. They can depart on their schedule. They can stop for coffee when they want to do so. They have a vehicle when they get to their destination. They can set the temperature in the vehicle to suit their needs. They can listen to music of their choice. They don't have to sit next to someone who has not had a bath in a week or who insists on shouting into a cell phone. It is hard to put a price tag on these variables. But millions of people apparently consider them to be important, and they are willing to pay for them.
schlimm Paul: I thought you had that information, based on your post, and based on your past involvement in passenger rail advocacy. Perhaps that was an error to assume that. Don't know and don't especially care to engage in a pointless discussion.
I don't ask rhetorical questions -- when I put a question mark at the end of a sentence, I am asking a question.
The claim was made that cents-per-mile was a meaningless argument against trains as it ignored economy-of-scale as ridership increased. I asked if there was available evidence of such economy-of-scale on non-NEC routes that have seen substantial boosts in service frequency and ridership over the years. It is not a pointless discussion or a pointless question to pose in a forum where many people have technical or perhaps inside knowledge about trains. We castigate the anti-train people for being "fact free" -- OK, our side needs to come with facts.
My more narrow interest is in the fuel consumption of trains and the degree to which trains represent energy savings. I posed my question on this forum whether there was some way of getting route-specific fuel consumption numbers on Amtrak trains. In response to my question, someone suggested standing on the platform and reading the digital fuel gauge on the locomotive.
I haven't gotten independent confirmation about those digital-readout fuel gauges on Amtrak locomotives, and whether a train rider disembarking from a train or a railfan can walk over to the locomotive and write down the reading from platform level depends on the station and the level of security concerns of someone walking over to look at the locomotive. I posed this question on this forum on whether anyone riding the Hiawatha or Surfliner could report on some before-and-after fuel readouts along with the trip, date, consist, and embarkation and disembarkation train stations; I also posed this question of my bricks-and-morter advocacy colleagues. I don't have any responses yet.
Doesn't anyone in the advocacy community even know any Amtrak conductors who could write such numbers down and let us know? We are advocating for trains, fuel consumption is front-and-center in our talking points (See what MWHSRA has on their Web site in response to the endangerment of the Madison train), and we don't have the first clue about fuel consumption or the real balance sheet on the Hiawatha, except for broad aggregates allocated to individual routes by Amtrak's accounting system.
Is the argument that, no, the Madison train will not really represent any savings in fuel over driving, at least initially, because the initial ridership will be rather low, but we are talking about getting the train line in now, where the fuel consumption will improve over the 20-50 year time horizon owing to improvements in the trains and long-term growth in ridership? Then be forthright and say just that.
There is the old lawyer-saying that when the facts of the case are on your side, pound on the facts; when the technicality of the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither are on your side, pound on the table. When people in the advocacy community are walking away from discussions on whether trains are supported on the merits, we in the advocacy community are currently pounding on the table.
Sam1:
While I do not have detailed study details to support them, I do have some observations on your comments.
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we have some freeways on which trucks are not allowed; others where they are only allowed in the right 2 lanes of the 4 or 5 lanes of traffic. My consistent observation, over years of driving, is that the freeways/lanes that allow trucks are significantly more damaged and worn than the auto-only lanes, where weather and soil conditions are not a variable. Whether truckers' increased taxes cover their share, I cannot say. But they do cause more damage/wear.
As an erstwhile CPA, I think I do know a bit about accounting, and I would suggest that trying to do any reasonable cost accounting on a forum like this, is probably futile -- there are too many variables, decision-points (when do variable costs become fixed, or have to be re-adjusted, what are the allocated "overhead" costs, etc.).
But I certainly must agree with you that "costs ... are not the only comparative variable. ... Functionality, convenience and comfort are also important to most people."
But I must disagree with your final comment, that "people around the world ... have chosen the car ..." It has been my observation that in many, many parts of the world, where I have spent a fair amount of time, both here and abroad, that people have chosen public transit for both local/commute and medium-distance travel, where it is available, frequent, efficient, clean & comfortable, and at a reasonable cost. They can depart on their schedule, because schediules are frequent and reliable. They don't have to stop for coffee (or a meal), because they can get one on-board, as well as at origin and destination stations. Everyone listens to music of their choice (it's called an iPod!). Maybe they have a car, for occasional use on weekends or vacations. And, as often as not, they don't own a car, and just use a cab or rent a car when transit doesn't work for them.
And these observations are not amongst people who can't afford any better, in "third-world" villages. These are middle-class people in cities such as London, Paris, Rome, Frankfurt -- and San Francisco and New York.
Where trains are available, and are frequent, efficient, clean & comfortable, and at a reasonable cost, people do chose them. Not neccesarily to the total exclusion of the car, but certainly as a viable option for many trips. The problem, it seems to me, is that in this country we are generally not given the choice.
People around the world have chosen the car. Not all people. The very intellgient Swiss have chosen public transportaton, and so have a good many Germans. Many own cars but still use public transportation for commuting and rail for intercity trips. This is very true even in HQ cities of Vokswagen and Merecedes. Sttutgart has a car-free pedestrian downtown, with underground tram-subway whose trains run mostly in reserved areas on highways and streets outside the downtown area. These people have shown that a very high living standard is NOT dependent on a car-based economy.
Shutting down Amtrak and starting from scratch makes zero sense since it involves throwing away a large investment. And if areas are deprived of good Amtrak service, then the argument must be made for improving Amtrak in both coverage and qaulity. And I still mentioned the reasons I believe a long distance network remains important as previously posted.
Having lived in Australia and Canada for years, as well as having traveled in numerous countries in Europe and Asia (more so Asia), I agree that many countries have better public transport than most areas in the United States. Moreover, whereas public transport in the U.S. tends to be used by low income people, commuters, and older people who cannot drive, in Australia and Canada one sees more middle class people using it for a variety of purposes, i.e. going to the city centre for a show or concert, to eat out, etc.
Prior to moving to Australia, I thought that the U.S. was the car capital of the world. But after living in Australia and Canada, I have changed my mind. Folks in many other countries are as enthusiastic about cars as we are, which led to my conclusion that given a choice, people will, if they can, go in a private vehicle as opposed to public transport. What makes them choose public transport more frequently in many European countries, as well as to a certain extent in Australia, is the cost of petrol. It is also a major factor in why in Australia, at least, one sees very few big SUVs and pick-up trucks. Most people cannot afford to run them because of the hefty fuel taxes imposed on petrol by the government.
Interestingly, the U.S. is not at the top of the ladder when it comes to car ownership per 1,000 population. According to data published by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Belgium (474), France (496), Germany (565), Italy (595), Sweden (462), Switzerland (520), and Canada (561), amongst others, have higher rates of car ownership per 1,000 than America (461). And according to the news coming out of China, the population there is keen to become auto owners. Some analysts believe that they will eventually pass the U.S. in car ownership and use.
Trains are a choice in many other countries because of the very high tax rates imposed in those countries. For better or worse, we opted for cars and airplanes and relatively low taxes, although it is difficult to convince many people that we have one of the lowest tax burdens of any OECD country.
Sam1 --
Obviously reasonable people (I assume we are both reasonble people) can have different perceptions of the same facts.
I have friends in Paris, who own cars (contributing to France's quoted high-ownership rate), but rarely use them -- not just because of fuel proces, but also parking, traffic congestion, etc.
And, I know people here in the US -- young and not-so-young professionals in San Francisco and New York and Boston and Seattle -- who do not own cars, in spite of our relatively cheap fuel prices and vehicle taxes, because the availability of transit is overall cheaper and more convenient than car ownership. And, they can rent one when they need it. And I know people in other cities, where transit is not available ... I don't think I have to mention what happens there.
All I am saying is, that to realistically assess what choice people are making, you have to actually give them a choice. In most places and circumstances in the US, there is only one choice, which is to say that there is no choice at all. In the places where there is actually a choice, the results are not always Auto 1, Everything else 0.
Your statement about higher car ownership in Germany and Switzerland proves your basic thesis wrong. These people choose public transportation because they prefer public transportation, not because of problems with driving a car. In the midwest, I commuted by car because I had to, there was no other practical choice. In the New York area I could read a newspaper, get work done on a laptop computer, or even doze if I was sure someone would wake me before White Plains North Station (I was a reverse commuter and the evening return would be no problem at GCT). All vastly preferable to spending time doing nothing but driving. Wealthy people hire chauffers. I prefered to let Conrail and then Metro North do the hiring for me. America is a bit drunk on car culture. It simply does not make sense to waste time doing nothing but being a sole occupant of an expensive piece of metal with the work of driving when one can indulge in a variety of productive and interesting matters. The fact is that in most areas that modern light rail or modern commuter trains have been introduced, they have more than surpassed their ridership predictions, and drawn many people from the their automobiles.
The Boston Green Bush Old Colony resurrection is an exception. First, the communities were already well served by commuter boats. Second, the Old Colony lines serve only one downtown station, South Station, which is not as well situated for offices and transit connections as either North Station or Back Bay. No extensions to the Boston commuter system should really be considered until the overdue NSta-SSta link is built with a center city underground through station in the heart of the Boston's financial area.
IN the declining years of railroad operated passenger service, my firm would often send me out to some midwest job with a round-trip airline ticket. Usually first class, because of the better luggage limitations and my need to take test equipment with me . The return ticket was usually open return, since it was difficult to predict how long the on-site work would take. Often I would simply return by train, using my personal rail travel card, and submit the cost on my expence account, along with the return air ticket for refund. Never had a complaint. I used the time on the train productively, writing up or dictating the entire draft report of the work I had done on-site. This was efficient use of time, because I could concentrate on the matter at hand without phone calls or requests for help by other consultants interfering. Typically, I would ride coach from Cincinnati or St. Louis or INdianpolis or Dayton or Columbus to Cleveland, then roomette or sumbercoach to Boston. One of my close friends and sometime client lived in Cleveland, and rather than a good meal in a good NYC dining car, we had dinner together in the Oak Room at Cleveland Terminal for the time between trains for me, a stopover that developed into a regular ritual.
I always enjoyed driving a car on a country road for pleasure. I even entered autocrosses. That is not the same as driving to and from work in suburban or city traffic.
The statistics re: car ownership were simply to set the record straight: American's are not the only people in the world who are fond of cars as is frequently implied. In other words, America is no more car centric than the countries that I cited.
In Australia, where I lived for more than five years, a higher percentage of people commuting into the center of Melbourne traveled by transit than is the case in the U.S. But most of the middle class and upper class people with whom I worked drove. I rode transit every day whilst I lived in Australia. I was the only senior level manager who did so. In fact, I did not own a car, although I had a pretty flash motorcycle.
I certainly agree that people should have a choice. I also think that they should pay for it. And this is the major stumbling block for passenger rail and commuter rail. The users may love the trains, but they are not willing to pay for them with their ticket revenues. They want the taxpayers to under write their use of passenger rail.
At the end of the day it does not matter what people in Australia or France do. The question is what is the best solution for America. And it includes determining what the majority of Americans want. What a novel idea? Asking people in a democracy what they want. The implied question was asked after WWII. And many Americans - especially those who could afford it - bought a car and took off for the suburbs. As a result, today approximately 88 per cent of Americans, according to DOT, use their car to commute to work, drive to the shopping center, and go to grannies for the holidays. And it is going to stay that way in most areas.
Passenger rail, including commuter rail, makes sense in a few corridors in the U.S. where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. According to an article in today's U.S.A. Today, even DOT is apparently coming to that conclusion. Otherwise, trains are a luxury that the U.S., with its $13+ trillion debt, cannot afford. And if the national debt does not get your attention, take a look at the fiscal problems in many of the states, where they are collectively on the hook for more than $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities.
Ahh the whine du jour: "If I don't use it, tax money shouldn't pay for it". "Think of the deficit."
It is an absurd red herring. I don't fly, I don't have any children in school, I don't have a boat, and I don't hunt. So why is tax money used to support all those activities? Could it be because we live in a community, we are not all living independently?
It is not a matter of cost, it is a matter of priorities. We, as a society, have elected to spend monstrous amounts of money projecting military power all over the world. We bribe corporations and sports millionaires to locate where some politician wants them to. We give economic incentives to companies to engage in the business the are already in. It is crippling our economy and making it difficult to maintain our infrastructure. We need to start spending our tax money on things that benefit Americans, not things that benefit corporations, foreign governments, and political ambitions.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
A lot of statements made posing as explanations.
1. To give a more complete explanation about Germans. Yes, many love and appreciate autos, particularly well-engineered ones. Most Germans will not buy cheaper, basic transportation cars, just as they rejected Walmart when it attempted to gain a foothold there. But most Germans depend on mass transit and intercity trains for everyday purposes, using their autos on weekends for fun.
2. The suburban boom after WW II was driven by many factors: tax-subsidized mortgages (ordinary mortgage deductions and VA), lower property taxes, availability of commuter rail to get to the central city, government incentives to relocate factories and businesses to the suburbs, cheap gasoline, cheaper houses and on and on. Not so simple as just saying "what American want." There were many government incentives involved.
3. As Phoebe Vet said, let's not get carried away with the "if you use it, pay for it" notion. If that really played out, there are many younger generations of Americans who might suddenly wonder why they are paying out of pocket a whole lot more for schools, fire departments, roads, water, police, etc. We live in a community, a commonwealth.
In the EU, 80 percent of passenger miles are by auto. In the U.S., the figure is 90 percent. That "most Germans depend on mass transit and intercity trains for everyday purposes, using their autos on weekends for fun" does not square with this.
To get societies where trains and transit are front and center and autos are subsidiary, you have to consider Japan and Taiwan.
Paul Milenkovic In the EU, 80 percent of passenger miles are by auto. In the U.S., the figure is 90 percent. That "most Germans depend on mass transit and intercity trains for everyday purposes, using their autos on weekends for fun" does not square with this. To get societies where trains and transit are front and center and autos are subsidiary, you have to consider Japan and Taiwan.
I was thinking of urban areas where the number of commuters by S Bahn, U Bahn, trams, (buses) and regional trains is high, as opposed to rural areas. Try spending some time in the areas around Hamburg, Frankfurt, Munich or Berlin and you would see what I mean.
I don't quite know where those percentages come from, though I have seen them elsewhere. I do know that in Germany, there were over 46 billion passeger train miles in 2006. For someone who was once a passenger rail advocate, you sure are whistling a different tune these days.
46 billion railroad passenger miles puts them at 10 times Amtrak. I only remember the rough breakdown for EU rather than Germany in particular, but their auto passenger miles in proportion to EU would work out to about 20 times more or about 1 trillion passenger miles. The U.S. total is around 4 trillion auto passenger miles, so all of those number sound about right in proportion.
The Vision Report proposes spending 10 billion/year to get to about 46 billion railroad passenger miles for the entire U.S., for a similar rail expenditure of Germany, putting us at parity with Germany on rail passenger miles, but spread across the U.S.
When I was a charter member of NARP at age 11, I saw the battle between cars and trains in Manichean terms, i.e., epic struggle between good and evil. My namesake was said to have written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13) "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
I am of the opinion that to get public support for more trains service, one has to understand the limitations of trains as well as the advantages of trains. remember reading a few chapters over from what I have quoted above a parable about a general, facing an adversary with 50,000 soldiers while commanding only 20,000 soldiers, reflects on the situation and decides to send emissaries to discuss truce terms rather than sending his men in to face likely defeat.
This thread is about the "Future of Passenger Trains in North America." I think those trains have the best future if the resources are concentrated in markets where there is the greatest public support for trains and the greatest potential for ridership, and this may mean conceding defeat on the Madison train. It is not productive to call opponents of passenger trains "ignorant" or "misinformed" (the local advocacy group) or "stupid" (Isthmus Newspaper's cover page editorial). I don't think it is productive to represent trains as requiring one fifth as much energy as cars (MWHSRA Web site) when the trains under consideration may at best cut the energy use in half. I don't think it is helpful to point to EU or Germany as places where trains are a dominant form of transportation when cars are dominant as they are here.
So what should people do that don't want to drive or can't for medical reasons or can't even
fly for various reasons? Maybe once all passenger trains are eliminated auto drivers will
be required to drive us anywhere we want or maybe we should just stay at home and rot!
I think it's important to keep in mind the inherent differences in structure that transportation modes present. Autos/roads make possible a random route structure with much flexibility. Trains/rails invoke an inflexible, fixed route structure. The underlying transportation structures impact location economics greatly which in turn impacts the mode of transportation that's preferred.
A couple weeks ago, we drove I-55 from Bloomington, IL to I-270 (northeast St. Louis) on our way to our destination in west suburban St. Louis. UP's Alton (Amtrak) line parallels the interstate most of the way. On the way back, we saw an Amtrak push-pull with five coaches north of Lincoln. No freight trains at all either way.. (Also saw that UP was installing welded rail and concrete ties north of Springfield). The Amtrak schedules show the final 27 miles into the St. Louis Station takes roughly 50-55 minutes. I wonder how St. Louis-Chicago passenger train economics would change if push-pull trains ran from a park 'n ride stop where the ROW intersects I-270 (in the Mitchell area) and maybe a park 'n ride Willow Springs stop at I-294 and I-55 in Chicagoland (250 mile trip). Kind of like a coach/auto train with no autos. No big city station cost allocations allowed. (Not talking about train servicing costs that should be included). For the traveler, using Amtrak's current schedule, train trip time would be cut roughly 80 minutes (25%). Access to trains for suburban metropolitan travelers greatly improved.
ps. People we know in the Netherlands love their cars and dis the trains. They hate the high decibel levels of the HSR trains that "scream along their concrete canyons".
[quote user="Paul Milenkovic"]
I am of the opinion that to get public support for more trains service, one has to understand the limitations of trains as well as the advantages of trains.
This thread is about the "Future of Passenger Trains in North America." I think those trains have the best future if the resources are concentrated in markets where there is the greatest public support for trains and the greatest potential for ridership, and this may mean conceding defeat on the Madison train.
[/quote
I feel the same way, Paul.
I think Wisconsin would be better off if the funds could be used toward bringing Hiawatha service to its potential. I think that would raise eyebrows.]
Passenger Travel Mix in 2004 EU-25 (%) United States (%)Air 8.0 10.9Auto 76.0 85.3Intercity rail 5.8 0.1Urban rail 1.2 0.5
Bus 8.3 3.2
Source: National Transportation Statistics (Washington: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2008), Table 1-37;Panorama of Transport (Brussels: European Commission, 2007), p. 102.Note: Auto includes motorcycles; bus includes both intercity and urban buses.
As you may see, passenger rail use is much higher (13X) in Europe (and even higher in Germany and France) than here. Auto use is lower.
So pretty clearly developing real services (fast, frequent) in the appropriate (relatively short with dense populations) corridors could generate demand and take some pressure off the fixed route highways (they aren't random) and airways.
Madison Milwaukee made no sense to me except as part of a CHI-Minn corridor.
Paul Milenkovic 46 billion railroad passenger miles puts them at 10 times Amtrak. I only remember the rough breakdown for EU rather than Germany in particular, but their auto passenger miles in proportion to EU would work out to about 20 times more or about 1 trillion passenger miles. The U.S. total is around 4 trillion auto passenger miles, so all of those number sound about right in proportion. The Vision Report proposes spending 10 billion/year to get to about 46 billion railroad passenger miles for the entire U.S., for a similar rail expenditure of Germany, putting us at parity with Germany on rail passenger miles, but spread across the U.S. When I was a charter member of NARP at age 11, I saw the battle between cars and trains in Manichean terms, i.e., epic struggle between good and evil. My namesake was said to have written (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13) "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." I am of the opinion that to get public support for more trains service, one has to understand the limitations of trains as well as the advantages of trains. remember reading a few chapters over from what I have quoted above a parable about a general, facing an adversary with 50,000 soldiers while commanding only 20,000 soldiers, reflects on the situation and decides to send emissaries to discuss truce terms rather than sending his men in to face likely defeat. This thread is about the "Future of Passenger Trains in North America." I think those trains have the best future if the resources are concentrated in markets where there is the greatest public support for trains and the greatest potential for ridership, and this may mean conceding defeat on the Madison train. It is not productive to call opponents of passenger trains "ignorant" or "misinformed" (the local advocacy group) or "stupid" (Isthmus Newspaper's cover page editorial). I don't think it is productive to represent trains as requiring one fifth as much energy as cars (MWHSRA Web site) when the trains under consideration may at best cut the energy use in half. I don't think it is helpful to point to EU or Germany as places where trains are a dominant form of transportation when cars are dominant as they are here.
Speaking of the size of one's army, the opposition to the Madison extension boils down to an argument based on relevance irrespective of underlying motives. The opposition to the extension compares the service and ridership of the Hiawatha to travel for all of Wisconsin, or even within those counties. If one looked at Milwaukee and Racine travel to downtown Chicago, I would imagine a healthier proportion of trips would emerge. For example, Metra carries only a small, almost negligible, proportion of all trips in the Region; but over 50% of all travel from the Collar Counties to downtown Chicago uses Metra which is pretty significant if you ask me.
The current Hiawatha's serve stations in Milwaukee and Kenosha County that represents just 21% of the State's population. (I use county populations for an estimate reflecting the reach of Amtrak service coinciding roughly with the area of a county.) I doubt anyone questioned the cost of a highway interchange in Milwaukee with respect to the proportion of drivers who may never use it; but that is what was done.
By comparison, Illinois counties with an Amtrak stop comprise over 75% of the population; so the argument about relevance goes nowhere. With planned extensions to Dubuque (IA) and Moline, the proportion will rise to over 85%; and everyone wants a train regardless of party affiliation.
Now the governor-elect did correctly point out that the Hiawatha's serves mostly inter-state travel between Wisconsin and Illinois. What he ignored was that extending service would open up substantial intra-state travel. The additional county populations served by the extension to Madison would increase by 16%. 37% of the state then would have a viable inter-state travel option in addition to Illinois destinations.
The extension to Madison will cost $810 million; but an additional 3% could be reached for only the cost of a station for Kenosha County. Extending service to the Twin Cities would only serve another 4% between Madison and either La Crosse or Menomonie. Including Green Bay in the plan would add 13% and reach 50% or more of the State's population. Put another way, two corridors to Green Bay and the Twin Cities would offer intra-state travel for 37% and 41% of the population respectively.
Furthermore, Central Wisconsin should not be overlooked either, adding another 5%.
I'm suggesting where Wisconsin advocates can build a bigger army. This battle may have been lost; but a tactical retreat to regroup and attack again may win the war.
I have just read a short article in the Israeli general road transport magazined. ONly 0.6% of trips of 500 meters or more, roughly 1700 feet, were taken by rail. Private auto accounts for about 45%, walking is next, followed by public bus, then charter or private bus, then bicycle, then motorcycle. Yet Israel is forging ahead with a high-speed Tel-Aviv - Jerusalem link, Jerusalem Light Rail's first line will open in May, and construction started on Tel Aviv light rail. There is a definit push to get people to use more public transportation, and improving rail service is part of the plan. Of course distrances are shorted, and rail does now have a substantial portion of the Tel Aviv - Haifa public transportation market and does compete with the private automobile there. At least one Haifa friend does say he leaves his car at the train parkiing lot and uses the train to and from Tel Aviv.
It's not the proportion of travel by mode with respect to the total; but the travel by mode in a corridor linking two or more areas.
It's also not just running trains; but attracting a sufficient and viable level of ridership to be more effective than the alternatives considering the myriad purposes and needs in making the trips.
I haven't looked for the Wisconsin studies showing proposed schedules and projected ridership. One concern is whether discrete timing is considered in modeling ridership so people can get to destinations when they need to.
Maybe there should be separate Wisconsin and Ohio threads.
Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion: In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?
daveklepper Maybe this is the thread to make the suggestion: In the event of cancillation of a state funded rail projects, why cannot the effected communities that really want and are willing to help pay for the service form a transportation authority, vote to pay the necessary taxes, real-estate/added-value on purchases, parking, and apply for the Federal funds and take over the project?
Good luck with the inevitable court fights with the NIMBYs and the BANANAs. They do a pretty good job of paralyzing local projects as small as cell phone towers and highway exits. Can you imagine how much fun they would be with a rail line? You really need a broader base of supporters to help fight the battle.
Dave,
Some cities already do. For smaller cities, it's usually been created to support local bus service. Chicago has its RTA which includes buses, the EL, and Metra. With federal largesse diminishing, our city and others are trying to create authorities to tax the locals to avoid public transit cuts.
Many places have multi community agencies at the local transit level, where many users live in the suburban communities but work in the central community. It is much harder to do at a travel level. You only need one community along the way to opt out and the project becomes nearly impossible to do.
Phoebe Vet Many places have multi community agencies at the local transit level, where many users live in the suburban communities but work in the central community. It is much harder to do at a travel level. You only need one community along the way to opt out and the project becomes nearly impossible to do.
Atlanta has this problem with MARTA. Why pay into a system when the affluent residents can drive to the neighboring county that has a station and save a few tax dollars? It's a similar problem with Kenosha on the UP North at Kenosha (WI) and at Fox Lake, McHenry, and Harvard (IL) near the border. Parasites.
Midwest hsr has the problem with Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin not providing material support for multi-state corridors. Not that the Hammond-Whiting station was well situated for corridor and long-distance travel from Northwest Indiana; but the number of trains stopping there has dwindled and maybe the station should be closed. With more trains stopping at New Buffalo, Michigan, the stops at Michigan City (IN) could be discontinued. End the free lunch as much as possible; but New York and Washington, DC long-distance trains would be compromised and pose a dilemma by not stopping in Indiana and Ohio (as it is, they stop in the middle of the night).
On a side note, this being Thanksgiving, an earlier post mentioned noise problems with rail in Holland. I learned today that the Thanksgiving Day hymn, sung by many: "We gather to gether to ask the Lord's blessing, was originally composed in Dutch to celebrate a 16th Century Durch military victory.
I first noticed that back is 1974 traveling Europe. The West Coast Main from Euston to Glasgow had been recently upgraded to 100 mph and the trains screamed by like so many ball bearings on a concrete floor. The sound was loud in the coaches too with the with top vents open (Mk I's?). I had gone up on a Sunday and returned overnight. The sleeper upgrade was only 2 pounds.
Similar noise was experienced in France. The RTG's were going as fast as 124 mph; but I didn't get a chance to plan a trip. I stumbled on the RTG's at lower speeds on various lines leading out of Paris. I did ride to Bordeaux at 99 mph on the line where the record was set at 186 mph.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.