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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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, whether it has 2 trains serving 100 people/day or 10 trains serving 1000+ people. Therefore, a true service (as opposed to running a train) will show a reduction in the cents per passenger mile figure, yielding a truer picture of the subsidy.
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, whether it has 2 trains serving 100 people/day or 10 trains serving 1000+ people. Therefore, a true service (as opposed to running a train) will show a reduction in the cents per passenger mile figure, yielding a truer picture of the subsidy.
So what is misleading, as in dishonest or perhaps even fraudulent, of using cents per passenger mile as a metric? If you are indeed getting economy-of-scale of increased service over a route with fixed sunk cost, you should see the cents per passenger mile go down, no? 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. That would be such a powerful argument in defense of new train projects (from small acorns mighty oaks grow). I haven't seen such a chart. Most of what we do in the advocacy community is argue that this chart must exist somewhere, and anyone who doesn't believe in that chart is misinformed, ignorant, has their facts wrong, and so on.
again, privatization of the national highway system would make frieght railroads more competitive, present a truer picture of driving costs, and possibly even allow long distance trains to cover more than out of pocket costs --to the point where at least some freight railroads might find them worhtwhile public relations and advertizing windows for the public.
You are absolutely right. I should have also said that automobiles are, in fact, subsidizing truck transport. This makes it more difficult for non-subsidized freight railroads to compete. I would think
the true free market folks would be opposed to this.
There you go, Falcon48 -- a basic fact we should never forget. On most highways, it's trucks in combination with Ma Nature that imposes most of the repair/replacement costs. A highway engineer once said famously, of a stretch of highway in the Southwest (where frost heave was not an issue) that, if it were not for trucks, the pavement there wouldn't need to be touched for 50 years.
Once again, I've had trouble on this new fangled webpage copying the post to which I'm responding. But I have one other observation on the argument that "highway users" aren't covering the full cost of highways and are being subsidized.
"Highway users" include both passenger vehicles (primarily automobiles) and heavy trucks. It is well established by any number of studies that user fees paid by heavy trucks do not come close to tcovering the costs they impose on the highway system. To the extent that the "shortfall" between highwayuser fees and highway costs includes the costs imposed by heavy trucks, that has nothing to do with the relative subsidy of people traveling by highways vs people traveling by train. I recall seeing some analyses showing that passenger vehicle user fees fully cover the highway costs imposed by these vehicles and some portion of the truck costs as well, but I can't immediately put my finger on them.
Paul Milenkovic By your numbers, the subsidy for auto travel works out to about 2 cents/automobile mile whereas the Amtrak subsidy is about 10 times as much, in excess of 20 cents/passenger mile. I really believe we need to retire the argument that since highways receive subsidy, trains should too. I think Don Oltmann's suggestion is a valid one, that we should look for places where a train is more cost effective than perhaps and expensive highway-construction alternative.
By your numbers, the subsidy for auto travel works out to about 2 cents/automobile mile whereas the Amtrak subsidy is about 10 times as much, in excess of 20 cents/passenger mile.
I really believe we need to retire the argument that since highways receive subsidy, trains should too. I think Don Oltmann's suggestion is a valid one, that we should look for places where a train is more cost effective than perhaps and expensive highway-construction alternative.
I agree with Phoebe, Don, yourself and even sam1 that we need to look for short routes with fast (sustained speed) and frequent service of large population markets, which would eliminate proposals such as the 3C's in Ohio (at 40 mph) or the Madison - MILW route (one endpoint is too small).
nyc#25 Highway user chargers and gas taxes only pay for 51% of highway costs. The general fund has been raided three times in recent times to make up the balance. So that users pay for the entire costs of highways is a MYTH. I also don't like the fact that the highway-only folks could care less for those that can't drive, don't want to drive and for that matter may not be able to fly for medical reasons. About half of what has been invested in Amtrak was for capital. Capital costs for highways not made up by taxes is a SUBSIDY as well.
Highway user chargers and gas taxes only pay for 51% of highway costs. The
general fund has been raided three times in recent times to make up the
balance. So that users pay for the entire costs of highways is a MYTH.
I also don't like the fact that the highway-only folks could care less for those that
can't drive, don't want to drive and for that matter may not be able to fly for
medical reasons. About half of what has been invested in Amtrak was for
capital. Capital costs for highways not made up by taxes is a SUBSIDY as well.
Is the glass on tenth full or is it nine tenths empty? Your assertion that "users pay for the entire costs of highways is a MYTH" pretty much makes the anti-train case. By your numbers, the subsidy for auto travel works out to about 2 cents/automobile mile whereas the Amtrak subsidy is about 10 times as much, in excess of 20 cents/passenger mile.
Does the highway subsidy mean that train travel is entitled to whatever subsidy it takes, or are you suggesting that highways and trains should get equal shares, which would mean a 10-fold reduction in Amtrak funding? Should highways and Amtrak get equal dollar amounts of support, regardless of whether Amtrak carries many fewer passengers (see the Vision Report)?
Here's a point of reference concerning Amtrak vs automobile. I travel southern and central Illinois somewhat frequently. Both the old 2 lane highway and the interstate, parallel the old IC main much of the way. On the old 2 lane, 50 years ago, IC passenger trains would regularly blow by the cars on the road. Now present day, on the interstate, I blow by Amtrak.
Carbondale to Chicago, I can better Amtrak by 30 minutes, and for less money. Until that changes, passenger trains are a poor option.
If you are planning one train a week you might as well save your money. It will be very lightly used.
To be useful transportation, it must be reasonably fast, frequent, and on time.
79 mph every 2 or 4 hours will be more popular than 300 mph once a day. Once a week would be a total waste of money and manpower. If the proposed corridor cannot support the frequency, then build it somewhere else.
As the one who started this thread, I must say that we've covered the gamut in these discussions. I think "Sam1" said it very well in the post above. I have a suggestion, pull up Google Maps and you'll likely see a map of the United States, not sure what you see in the UK or elsewhere. But starting with that map visually draw triangles between the largest cities on the map within in each region of the country. These are the cities that could be linked together by superior rail service. Let's say we link Chicago, Cleveland and Cincinnati. Every morning a train leaves each city bound for one of the others, ditto at lunch, and in the evening.
Let's suppose Chicago, Minneapolis, and Des Moines were connected. If you wanted to travel from Cincinnati to Des Moines, you do so by changing trains in Chicago. I think this logic would work most of the places east of Rockies. Perhaps there is one train a week that leaves Houston (or San Antonio), Kansas City, Omaha, and Minneapolis and goes west. If you want to go from Cincinnati to Denver, you may change trains twice and only be able to make the trip on Thursdays. But you could get there by train if you wanted to.
The key to a system like this working is to pick the right set of triangles and be sure to connect the apexes to right other triangles. You could end up with far better service where most of the potential riders live and do it with shorter, faster trains that would likely keep closer to their schedules since the longest transit between end points is 4 to 5 hours. Remember the competition is the interstate highway and the :90 flight that takes 4 hours due to security, parking, etc..
Amtrak is a political creation that has drained the national treasury of more than $26 billion since its inception. Amtrak's long distance passenger trains are politics piled on top of politics. They require the highest level of per passenger and per mile subsidy of any form of commercial transport.
The number of people who ride The Texas Eagle between southwestern Arkansas and northeast Texas to Dallas or Fort Worth is very small. I lived in Dallas for more than 33 years. I traveled to east Texas on numerous occasions on business. I have taken the Eagle from Dallas to Longview and been the only passenger in the coach.
Most people drive DFW. Moreover, those desiring to travel to other areas of the country can use the good regional air service out of Longview or take a bus. The Texas Eagle is a political animal promoted by Senator Hutchinson, who by the way, to the best of my knowledge, has never ridden it other than as a stunt.
The future of the passenger train in North America lies in those relatively few short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highway and airway systems is prohibitive. At a minimum, they should be required to cover their operating costs. Ideally, they should be required to cover the capital costs.
Contrary to the views expressed by many people contributing to these forums, users of the highways and airways pay for them, although not always directly through ticket taxes or fuel taxes and motor fees. They pay for them because of the large number of users who also pay federal, state, and local taxes, some of which flow back to the highways and airways. Only passenger rail, especially the long distance trains, requires an major infusion of taxpayer money from non-users.
The problem I've always had with Amtrak, is that for being government run, it's very undemocratic (in the democracy sense, not political party sense). It's logical in dense population areas like the NEC, to have superior service. The unequal access to service comes into play in small towns of equal population and economic significance (or insignificance). An individual living in rural central Wisconsin, along an Amtrak route, may take the train regularly to the major regional cities of Chicago, Milwaukee, or Minneapolis. This person doesn't like to, or perhaps can't drive. To them, Amtrak is the greatest government program since Social Security . Collectively, passengers such as this will exert pressure on their congressmen to retain this service if it is threatened. I recall such a situation some years back, when The Texas Eagle was targeted by congress. Voters from southwest Arkansas and northeast Texas testified before a congressional hearing, as to how vital the train was for access to Dallas. Last I checked, The Texas Eagle is still running.
The opposite side of the coin, is an individual living in western Kentucky.. They live in a small town not unlike the one in Wisconsin. The only Amtrak train stops 50 miles away, and comes through at 3 in the morning. It runs from Chicago to New Orleans, with Memphis being the only significant destination along the way. The nearest cities to the Kentucky passenger, are St. Louis, Nashville, and Louisville. Having a few hours trip to these cities by train would be as significant to the Kentucky passenger, as access to major regional cities is to the Wisconsin passenger.
If you don't live where Amtrak's darts land on the map, Amtrak is insignificant. Out of reach, and out of mind.
Long distance trains in the US are irrelevant to the majority of the population, and a waste of money. They are a throwback to the old Greyhound Scenicruiser and the oceanliner. For passengers with plenty of time, who just like looking at snow capped mountains or the desert cactus. Also in the manifest are a few masochistic railfans, who would live on The Empire Builder if given a chance.
I followed railroading intensely as a young boy. I remember the vast network of passenger trains, operated by the various railroads back then. You could get from one place to another by rail. Just like making connections on the urban rail systems today, only on a much larger geographical scale. The creation of Amtrak and my high school graduation coincided. I never had much interest in Amtrak, and have not followed the 40 year evolution of their route system. Looking at their map today, it is somewhat puzzling, how they chose the "token" routes of the long distance trains of yesteryear. So many routes were abandoned. There's entire states with no service at all. Many medium sized cities are also ignored. It just seems if you're going to have a national, government run rail system, it should be more inclusive. If not, then save the taxpayer's money, and don't have one at all.
We have a transportation system which was defined in the 1950's, and will be difficult to reverse. We chose the interstate highway system and the airlines as the intercity modes of transportation for the future. The railroads at the time, were given no incentives to develop new technology in the passenger service arena. Passenger trains were viewed as obsolete, and the name trains of the day, with some exceptions, were allowed to slowly decline into decrepit condition. If my history is correct, the Japanese were developing their Bullet trains in this same time period.
With the sad state of airline service today, unless you live in a major hub, a trip of 500 miles or less consumes about the same amount of time as travel by automobile. It would be nice to have a mode of transportation to bridge the gap. True high-speed rail would be a possible answer. But to do it right would require scrapping Amtrak, and starting from scratch. I don't see the will to do that. It's too political and nobody in the private sector seems to think it's worth the massive investment.
Airlines, high-speed rail, and buses, need to be integrated into a seamless air/ground transportation system. FedEx and UPS already do this with packages. Instead of airlines merging with airlines, and railroads merging with railroads, we should have airlines merging with railroads. Until then, market forces forbid an entity such as the airlines, from ever allowing any advances in passenger rail technology that would threaten their business.
Possibly on this thread I need to restate why I think some subsidization of long distance passenger trains is necessary and also what incremental changes I think may make them more relevant to today's North American economy and transportation needs.
1. Long distance trains permit access to the entire (or almost entire) NA Continent for certain elderly and disabled people, including veterans, who cannot fly or spend lots of time in an airplane, auto, or bus.
2. Needed for foreign tourism
3. A backup when air transportation is down and for emergencies like Katrina.
4. An historical asset, much as the National Parks, memorials, preserved military items, etc.
5. Linking together the transportation and congestion relieving needed high-speed corridor routes to make a national transportaton network.
Having defined the needs, here is the way I would conceive the system: A top quality first-class product in every way, designed specifically around tourism and enjoyment of the trip, with fairs appropriate for reasonably affluent middle-class Amiercans and foreigners to enjoy the sights and people of the North American continent. Possibly the Candian's first class service sets the standard. Meals included. Possibly drinks up to a point and extras as well.
A comfortable but reasonably spartin coach service on the same trains to provide basic transportation for the towns on the way that might otherwise lack decent public tranportation connectivity to the rest of the country. Box lunches, sandwiches, etc. Those who can afford it can move to the first class diner but would be expected to cover the incremental costs of their meals.
I submit that if the Interstate Highway system were privatized there would not be a need for a subsidy and all transportation costs would rise to represent their true worth. Air Lines would also be earning a fair return again.
I don't think governemnt should be mandating anything. Let's look at a recent article; Amtrak is buying 70 new electrics because the HHP8's are junk. How much did we as taxpayers pay for those? I'll never get to ride behind one and enjoy my money. Even with all the governemnt safety regulations and building requirements, those engines were late getting into service and based on what I've read, have never performed up to requirements.
Private enterprise built that that sysytem. A private company designed what it needed to effectively perform a task and make a profit. Government intervention caused that sytem to crumble. The governemnt took over and hasn't been able to run it as well or improve upon it in almost 40 years!
All government mandates do is add to the cost and delay production.
The last two posts have been on target. Passenger rail's biggest problem is lack of the profit motive in running the trains. Added to all that is that money is allocated to "...building a depot" rather than moving people from where they are to where they need to be. Or, to running 120 MPH trains that don't markedly improve the schedule because of the stops. Finally, in my opinion, government should mandate the desired result, allocate money to the appropriate agencies and stay out the decision on what the best way to achieve is. For example, spend $X billions to reduce air pollution and let the experts decide how to spend the money AND hold the experts accountable for success.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.