That trucks, buses and automobiles have ever fully paid user fees equivelant to use is arguable at least, true at best. Same for airlines...if they had to pay for product that included R&D rather than receiving it free from military R&D, if they paid full user fee costs for airports, etc. Plus in both cases the governments advance the money for the rights of way, terminals, and traffic control. But we're not willing to do that for rail, passenger or freight, high speed or regular service. Passenger cost per mile of course would go down when milage usage went up. Figures are correct, Sam, but the system and process by which those figures are reached are tilted in favor of the airlines, trucks, and buses.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 You're right Sam, passenger rail is obviously not a profitable business...neither is air or highway travel. Any business that needs to employ lots of people to deal with lots and lots and lots of people is not a money maker...Greyhound and the airlines all are very marginal money makers. But the only reason airlines and bus companies have been able to exist as well as they have is because of huge government subsidies and government ownership, maintenance, and operation of the rights of ways and other anciliary services. Passenger rail doesn't make money because there has not been comperable government infusion of money. So, since the government is so much in debt, since passeger rail is not worth putting money into, and in order to settle government debts, lets stop government operation of air traffic control, municipal and other governement ownership of airports, get a royalty from the airplane manufacturers for all planes sold to private enterprise which uses technology and hardware developed for military aircraft. On the ground, all highways should be sold off to private companies, perhaps the trucking companies or the bus companies to build, maintain, and police; municipal governments might find buyers/operators for city streets and rural roads, too. That way the cost of all transportation will be bornt by the users who receive the income from their use. And the government(s) would be rid of the costs and the debts.
You're right Sam, passenger rail is obviously not a profitable business...neither is air or highway travel. Any business that needs to employ lots of people to deal with lots and lots and lots of people is not a money maker...Greyhound and the airlines all are very marginal money makers. But the only reason airlines and bus companies have been able to exist as well as they have is because of huge government subsidies and government ownership, maintenance, and operation of the rights of ways and other anciliary services. Passenger rail doesn't make money because there has not been comperable government infusion of money.
So, since the government is so much in debt, since passeger rail is not worth putting money into, and in order to settle government debts, lets stop government operation of air traffic control, municipal and other governement ownership of airports, get a royalty from the airplane manufacturers for all planes sold to private enterprise which uses technology and hardware developed for military aircraft. On the ground, all highways should be sold off to private companies, perhaps the trucking companies or the bus companies to build, maintain, and police; municipal governments might find buyers/operators for city streets and rural roads, too. That way the cost of all transportation will be bornt by the users who receive the income from their use. And the government(s) would be rid of the costs and the debts.
In FY09 Amtrak received an average federal subsidy of 19.17 cents per passenger mile. The commercial airlines received an average federal subsidy of .77 cents per passenger mile, whilst motorists, including commercial bus operators, received an average federal subsidy of .24 cents per passenger mile. These figures are before accounting for ARRA funds. Amtrak has received the greatest amount of per mile ARRA funds. These numbers can be found in the annual reports of Amtrak, FAA, DOT, and Homeland Security.
I made a typo in this post. The average federal subsidy for Amtrak should read 19.17 cents per passenger mile. This is the operating subsidy. If one included the capital payments, the amount would have been 29.88 cents per passenger mile, but this overstates the current subsidy. Sorry about that.
Seldom mentioned in these forums is the fact that America’s railroads received significant subsidies from a variety of governments to jump start their construction. The most prominent example is the first transcontinental railroad (CP and UP), which could not have been built at the time without large government subsidies. They got $16,000, $32,000, or $48,000 per mile, plus land grants, for every mile of rail constructed. Out of this process arose one of the country's worst financial scandals (Credit Mobilier). Even the earliest railroads received government subsidies. For example, opening construction of the B&O was funded in part by bonds backed by the City of Baltimore. And the PRR got its start thanks in part to funding backed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
You claim that airports, airlines, highways, etc. have received huge subsidies from the government, without mentioning that most of these so-called subsidies have been paid for through user fees. But you don’t offer any concrete numbers.
Accountants have a key concept called sunk costs. In a nutshell, it means that whatever has happened in the past is irrelevant to framing a current problem and devising an appropriate solution. Moreover, whethere the government has or is unfairly subsidizing other forms of transporation is irrelevant.
What is the current transport problem for which passenger rail (high speed, moderate, etc.) is the optimum solution? This is the key question. Samuelson's argument, irrespective of whether one agrees with him is simple. High speed rail is not a good outcome.
It does not matter whether the government has unfairly subsidized air travel, rail travel, water travel, cruise ships, Amtrak, skate boards, etc. or whether it is unfairly subsidizing them. The key question is how much money should be invested in passenger rail? And where does it make sense to make the investments? What problem will passenger rail solve and what is the best solution?
Obviously, since it is not a viable commercial enterprise, the only realistic source of funding for passenger rail is the taxpayer. And therein lies a major problem. The federal government is deep in debt. It is now more than 93 per cent of GDP. Moreover, many states, including California, are also deep in debt. And for many of them it is likely to get worse because of their unfunded public pensions. Recent reports show that the unfunded pension obligations for the states is north of $1 trillion. So where does the money come from?
Government debt is not a political issue. How to deal with it will be a political issue, undoubtedly, but the red ink does not look like a donkey or elephant. It is a legitimate issue when discussing the viability of high speed rail, commuter rail, Amtrak, etc. To think otherwise is to ignore a compelling constraint.
Whether major metro airports were originally Army Air Corps fields from WWI or WWII or not, is irrelevant. 1. Those fields, like Orchard - O'Hare in Chicago, that once were AAC fields had huge subsequent and repeated local and state and federal expenditures to make them the commercial aviation hubs they are. 2. In all cases, the funds to build/expand/maintain/upgrade them were from the government(s).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
And if you take any state you can easily find at least one airport per county that has offered commercial flights of one calabre or another since the 40s'...airports built or expanded at public expense to lure service..
Comparing Amtrak to PRR on the corridor should produce intresting restults depending on what year you choose. Airline "shuttle" service from LaGuardia, JFK or Newark to DC was a considerable competitor when implimented. Thus the Metroliner and Metroliner Services and now, better yet, ACELA Express...took passenger out of the air with downtown to downtown timings better than air. I would guess that Amtrak corridor services are in better shape than the PRR had, definitely better than PC.
blue streak 1 Well lets see -- Orlando was McCoy air force base until 1965 then became joint use, airforce moved out late 1980s. -- JFK was Benning field then Idelwild then JFK, Orchard field became Ohare when Chicago out grew Midway, --- Albuquerque still a very secret airforce base on SE corner. Atlanta really doesn't count as WW1 field became a car race track for several years then Atlanta airport. There are others.
Well lets see -- Orlando was McCoy air force base until 1965 then became joint use, airforce moved out late 1980s. -- JFK was Benning field then Idelwild then JFK, Orchard field became Ohare when Chicago out grew Midway, --- Albuquerque still a very secret airforce base on SE corner.
Atlanta really doesn't count as WW1 field became a car race track for several years then Atlanta airport.
There are others.
I could be wrong, but you might be referring to Floyd Bennett Field, which is across the bay from JFK, and is still there, though abandoned.
Now add Stewart Airport in Newburgh, NY, an NYC reliever airport, which used to be Stewart Field (AFB).
Then there are mixed use airports that are both civilian and military. Way to many of those to mention.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
SRen Samuelson has always bashed passenger rail clinging to the fact that only a small percentage of Americans travel by train. He conveniently ignores the fact that what few passenger trains this nation does have are well patronized and demand for more service is high. Samuelson doesn't get the concept that providing more rail service would result in higher ridership percentages and lower operating costs.
Samuelson has always bashed passenger rail clinging to the fact that only a small percentage of Americans travel by train. He conveniently ignores the fact that what few passenger trains this nation does have are well patronized and demand for more service is high. Samuelson doesn't get the concept that providing more rail service would result in higher ridership percentages and lower operating costs.
Your point is well taken. I would like to see comparative figures for the NEC vs PRR. By taking in the commuter trains certain routes are heavier than even WW2. I specifically mention the PHL - WASH segments.
oltmannd . Nonsense. Airlines bread and butter isn't Podunk City. Never was. It's the 100+ large metro areas. You really can't think of any airports that were converted Army Air Corp bases?
.
Nonsense. Airlines bread and butter isn't Podunk City. Never was. It's the 100+ large metro areas. You really can't think of any airports that were converted Army Air Corp bases?
Yes, the railroads spent millions...but the federal government spent billions on air and rail. Airlines in the 40's and 50's were little prop planes and every community in the country was building an airport to attract service. As the 50's moved into the 60s and the 60's to the 70's, etc., there were mergers and acquistions and the small towns were dropped from big airiline timetables as bigger planes and bigger companies emerged. Thus the "cigars" came along and these littler feeder lines under contract or the umbrella of the big airlines came about. No different than broadcasting companies, banks, insurance companies, and, yes, railfoad companies.
My point is that if the different governments didn't build airports and highways to the extent they did, passenger rail might be more inexpensive and more important today than it is. But since the billions and billions were spent for air and highway and only private money with minimal governement attention was given to rail, especially passenger rail, we cannot draw too many conclusions. And I haven't even touched on environmental issues of land use and air pollution.
I think it's ironic that in his first paragraph Samuelson accuses HSR as being pork but then goes on to claim defense spending is much more worthy. Mr. Samuelson, if you want to complain about pork, maybe you should check out the HUGE amounts of wasteful spending that goes on in the Pentagon!
Here is my opinion, tax payer money spent on unneeded weapons programs, excess aircraft carriers, and unneeded military bases is money wasted. The Military of the United States is far larger than any other single nation in the world by far! I think its time to divert money from military spending to projects that will at least have a positive impact on our society.
To put it bluntly, Samuelson is just another opinionated right wing hack who spouts boiler plate conservative talking points, there is nothing respectable about him. The only reason why Newsweek and the Washington Post publish his tripe is so they can dodge any "left wing media" bias accusations from the right.
henry6 . And I can't believe the hyposthisis that if we put money into railpassenger service instead of highways or airlines that the cost of rail would be more expensive than what is claimed in these postings.
And I can't believe the hyposthisis that if we put money into railpassenger service instead of highways or airlines that the cost of rail would be more expensive than what is claimed in these postings.
There's only one thing wrong with the hypothesis. It wasn't from lack of spending that intercity rail passenger traffic died. The RR's spent millions and millions on streamliners and faster service after WWII and lost the game to US highways and prop planes. People voted with their dollars and tax money. There wasn't any clamor for spending tax money on intercity railroad service in 1950.
There is NOW because of the huge growth in travel and population over the past 50 years. People probably care less about the manner of propulsion of the box their riding in than the hassle and time of getting there. There is no inherent "goodness" of trains in most people's minds - only "here" and "there" and "how much" and "how long" and "how hard" is it to get between them.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6 WWII did not build the airline industry, Every community who built an airport in hopes that some airline will find their landing strip built the airline industry.
WWII did not build the airline industry, Every community who built an airport in hopes that some airline will find their landing strip built the airline industry.
henry6 Back up on NJTPk is because the depression hit and the Lackawanna never got around to building the tunnel prsident Truesdale envisioned and that today's governor Christie refuses to allow ARC to be built to allow more passenger rail capacity. WWII did not build the airline industry, Every community who built an airport in hopes that some airline will find their landing strip built the airline industry. And I can't believe the hyposthisis that if we put money into railpassenger service instead of highways or airlines that the cost of rail would be more expensive than what is claimed in these postings.
Back up on NJTPk is because the depression hit and the Lackawanna never got around to building the tunnel prsident Truesdale envisioned and that today's governor Christie refuses to allow ARC to be built to allow more passenger rail capacity.
henry6 . But with Thanksgiving already sold out on Amtrak, with all the new start rails successes from Downeast to Northwest, And if that is so, then we have been wrong and its about time we start considering rail for all the value we can get out of it.
. But with Thanksgiving already sold out on Amtrak, with all the new start rails successes from Downeast to Northwest, And if that is so, then we have been wrong and its about time we start considering rail for all the value we can get out of it.
As I have noted in the Passenger thread as of Sun 7th; actually none of the short distance routes of AMTRAK are sold out yet.
For Sunday only -----------
1. No Downeasters sold out (maybe because exra cars are being added or see below?).
2. NEC regionals have about 1/2 of trains sold out with 2 additional conventional equipment RTs added since Nov 1 from BOS - WASH. 4 additional commuter coach trains RT NYP - WASH also added since Nov 1st. ACELA trains as a rule have no sell outs with exception of a few first class trains. Wedensday may be tight because commuter equipment probably not available except maybe some ACES cars?
3. CHI - STL heavy with only extra coach cars on Eagle for that segment sold out.
4. Cascades Talgos (fixed capacity only) except first trip of day sold out but 2 additional trains added since Nov 1 which are not sold out (equipment unknown but services listed indicate maybe Superliners? or Sounder?). There are also a bunch of bus runs set up to cover overflows Eugene - PDX - SEA. This will give much ammo to Washington DOT for more trains as a regular schedule for which money has already been allocated to upgrade the Vancouver - SEA line.
5. Surfliners have only a couple trains sold out.
6. The long distance trains have what appears only a normal amount of sold outs as of Sunday for the wh ole holiday time. The Eagle is an exception as it is almost completely sold out for the period especially for those days to LAX.
This ridership of routes gives this poster the impression that those routes that are most known to the public are attracting the most overflows. The NEC regionals selling out indicates passengers may be watching their pennys? That fact may indicate there is a pent up demand for rail service but not necessarily HSR?
Downeasters may have a run on reservations as soon as those people have an idea that weather will not ruin their plans. Another unknown is that only the frequent traveler on AMTRAK knows that it can sell out at Thanksgiving and there may be a run on reservations by a week before?. Another factor is the very high prices of airline tickets during this period. Cannot believe some of the prices quoted.
dakotafred henry6: But my point is is that we really don't know. I think...I think, not fact, just as WAG as anything...that if we had put the money in rail passenger instead of air and highway, the figures for rail passenger would be different today. It could be such that rail would be the bulk carrier rather than air for longer trips for instance. The same for highway. We really don't know. But with Thanksgiving already sold out on Amtrak, with all the new start rails successes from Downeast to Northwest, it does seem that the population does have a bent for rail over air and in some cases over driving. And if that is so, then we have been wrong and its about time we start considering rail for all the value we can get out of it. I get wistful from time to time as henry6 does over the might-have-beens. Born in 1941, I am old enough to have enjoyed dozens of great train rides, on trains to which the best Amtrak can afford to run don't hold a candle. I know those trains aren't coming back, even if every HSR initiative now on the drawing board should be realized. Passenger rail probably didn't get a fair shake, beginning with the predatory tax policies of the states as well as federal policy favoring air and highways. Rail labor didn't help with its clinging to antiquated work rules. But, you know what, when you're hot you're hot, and there was a time when the rails -- through land grants by the feds and numerous subscriptions by local governments -- got a big leg up over the competition of the day. The operators of riverboats and stage lines in the mid-19th century would have had a real complaint coming. The point is, except in very selected corridors, bringing passenger rail back to even a ghost of what it was 50 years ago would come at a price that nobody, not even the Obamacrats, is prepared to pay. The proof is that the whole HSR scheme depends on extorting capacity from the freight railroads. For one reason or another, the passenger train -- for almost all places -- has simply left the station. Incidently, I am not impressed that Amtrak is sold out for Thanksgiving. With its limited capacity, it had better be sold out. In the old days, the railroads sold out their regular equipment and hundreds of mothballed cars too.
henry6: But my point is is that we really don't know. I think...I think, not fact, just as WAG as anything...that if we had put the money in rail passenger instead of air and highway, the figures for rail passenger would be different today. It could be such that rail would be the bulk carrier rather than air for longer trips for instance. The same for highway. We really don't know. But with Thanksgiving already sold out on Amtrak, with all the new start rails successes from Downeast to Northwest, it does seem that the population does have a bent for rail over air and in some cases over driving. And if that is so, then we have been wrong and its about time we start considering rail for all the value we can get out of it.
But my point is is that we really don't know. I think...I think, not fact, just as WAG as anything...that if we had put the money in rail passenger instead of air and highway, the figures for rail passenger would be different today. It could be such that rail would be the bulk carrier rather than air for longer trips for instance. The same for highway. We really don't know. But with Thanksgiving already sold out on Amtrak, with all the new start rails successes from Downeast to Northwest, it does seem that the population does have a bent for rail over air and in some cases over driving. And if that is so, then we have been wrong and its about time we start considering rail for all the value we can get out of it.
I get wistful from time to time as henry6 does over the might-have-beens. Born in 1941, I am old enough to have enjoyed dozens of great train rides, on trains to which the best Amtrak can afford to run don't hold a candle. I know those trains aren't coming back, even if every HSR initiative now on the drawing board should be realized.
Passenger rail probably didn't get a fair shake, beginning with the predatory tax policies of the states as well as federal policy favoring air and highways. Rail labor didn't help with its clinging to antiquated work rules. But, you know what, when you're hot you're hot, and there was a time when the rails -- through land grants by the feds and numerous subscriptions by local governments -- got a big leg up over the competition of the day.
The operators of riverboats and stage lines in the mid-19th century would have had a real complaint coming.
The point is, except in very selected corridors, bringing passenger rail back to even a ghost of what it was 50 years ago would come at a price that nobody, not even the Obamacrats, is prepared to pay. The proof is that the whole HSR scheme depends on extorting capacity from the freight railroads.
For one reason or another, the passenger train -- for almost all places -- has simply left the station.
Incidently, I am not impressed that Amtrak is sold out for Thanksgiving. With its limited capacity, it had better be sold out. In the old days, the railroads sold out their regular equipment and hundreds of mothballed cars too.
Remember that commercial aviation got it's big leg up from WWII, not from any huge government social engineering project designed to get business travelers off the rails and baseball on the west coast. The war built the aviation industry, planes, fields, traffic control, and trained the pilots. All those people and stuff just went to work commercially after the war - for cheap. It's good not to waste an investment.
The flight from the city to the suburbs made possible by road construction that was interrupted by the depression and war, but caught up in a hurry, particularly as the oil industry found ways to get and refine crude oil ever cheaper. People WANTED to move from the city to the country - and they did - in droves. It was a value calculation for them.
So, what kind of alternative should have occurred? Politicians ran on road building platforms and people voted for them. Lately, some ran on anti HrSR platform planks - and got elected. If either of these are misguided (and they may be) than those who know better were lazy and failed to convince a majority. They failed to convince others of their "rightness". If they think others are too dumb to understand, then we need mirrors.
henry6 But doesn't the fact that Amtrak's Thanksgiving weekend is sold out the first week of Novemeber indicate that people will choose the train instead of air or highway when and where available. And if more trains and more routes and services were available they also would be chosen by the public?
But doesn't the fact that Amtrak's Thanksgiving weekend is sold out the first week of Novemeber indicate that people will choose the train instead of air or highway when and where available. And if more trains and more routes and services were available they also would be chosen by the public?
henry6 But my point is is that we really don't know.
But my point is is that we really don't know.
But we do know. That experiment has been run in Europe, and the Vision Report reflects the results of that experiment.
So Amtrak is already sold out for Thanksgiving. The issue is not that people will not ride trains, the issue is that trains are a high cost way of providing passenger service, or at least in terms of the levels of direct subsidies required.
These same argument were made some 50 years ago, when Trains Magazine (yes, Trains Magazine) claimed that the then-new Boeing 727 jet had the Denver Zephyr beat on direct operating cost. These arguments were made 60 years ago when Robert Young (the financier, not the actor), first at the C&O and later at the New York Central looked to lighweight articulated trains (such as Train-X) as a way of reducing train operating costs, and conducted the studies that were the basis of considering short-distance "corridors", which were the underpinning of the the Pell Plan and the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project that gave us the Northeast Corridor, the one place in the U.S. where trains operate roughly at parity with air transport.
That trains are that expensive didn't make sense to me -- why should some delicate aluminum contraption with exotic turbine engines have an iron (OK, stainless steel) train beat on operating cost? But then on another thread, we calculated Beech Grove, Indiana on the basis of maintenance worker-hour per train-car mile and found it some multiple of airliner maintenance. A certain person mentioned that a certain Southeast freight railroad had a 1000-person maintenance shop compared with Amtrak's 4000-person maintenance shop, and oh the Humanity, that someone would dare, dare make that comparison!
For many applications, passenger trains simply cost too much. There may be some engineering reason why this is so -- it may be the shock, vibration, and wear environment of the steel wheel on steel rail that put trains at a disadvantage compared with rubber tires or wings. It may be social reasons -- people put up with a lot of seats stuffed into an airliner, meagre amenities on an intercity motorcoach bus, because with the plane you are going for speed and getting the experience over with as quickly as possible, with the bus, people are going for cheap, and with the train, if you go Spartan to be on par with the bus in terms of cost structure as with the late 1950's Lightweight Experimental trains, no one will want to ride the train either.
I agree with Don Oltmann that we should focus on train applications where the alternatives happen to cost even more.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
This post is a duplicate owing to slow response over my dialup connection, but I am not allowed to delete -- I have cut out the not-duplicate part by editing.
For the expenditure of our Federal highway budget, air and rail in Europe is about at parity. For a region that has the main in-country city pairs within "corridor" distance, lacking the expanses of "flyover country" connecting New York and LA and the like. For a part of the world that hasn't seen the kind of airline deregulation keeping air fares low, and has seen large subsidies of trains. And, for all of that, air in Europe is at parity with rail and currently gaining market share. But even with all of that, cars remain the dominant mode of passenger transport, in Europe as in the U.S. The only places were that are different in this regard are Japan, with high coastal population density, China, and perhaps Russia, with their emergence from poverty.
henry6 But my point is is that we really don't know. I think...I think, not fact, just as WAG as anything...that if we had put the money in rail passenger instead of air and highway, the figures for rail passenger would be different today. It could be such that rail would be the bulk carrier rather than air for longer trips for instance. The same for highway. We really don't know. But with Thanksgiving already sold out on Amtrak, with all the new start rails successes from Downeast to Northwest, it does seem that the population does have a bent for rail over air and in some cases over driving. And if that is so, then we have been wrong and its about time we start considering rail for all the value we can get out of it.
henry6 Yes, Paul...everything here is a WAG. But what if as much money went into Amtrak/passenger rail as has gone into the highway or air systems since 1950 where would an Amtrak/passenger rail service be in relation to the rest? Rhetorical at least. But is there a real transportation planner/designer/economist who could postulate with real figures and projected scenerios...with or without the same money having been spent on air and highway during the same time period.
Yes, Paul...everything here is a WAG. But what if as much money went into Amtrak/passenger rail as has gone into the highway or air systems since 1950 where would an Amtrak/passenger rail service be in relation to the rest? Rhetorical at least. But is there a real transportation planner/designer/economist who could postulate with real figures and projected scenerios...with or without the same money having been spent on air and highway during the same time period.
Are the state DOT people who got together and wrote the Vision Report "real transportation planners"? Their assumptions are that if we did what you suggest, putting "as much" Federal " money . . . into Amtrak/passenger rail as has gone into the highway or air systems since 1950", we would be as Europe is today, with about equal 5 percent passenger mile figures for air and rail, and highway at 80% instead of at 90% as in the US, with additional 5 percent shares going to buses and ships/boats/ferry.
The European experience is that doing what you suggest would get as a pretty nice rail system compared to what we have right now, but that rail system would serve only one out of every twenty passenger miles.
The Vision planners made the assumption that doing that was not politically feasible in the U.S., so they came up with the idea of about 10 billion/year for rail -- about a 7-10 fold expansion of Amtrak spending as giving a proportionate increase from .1 percent of total passenger miles to 1 percent. The 10 billion/year figure over 50 years was what they thought to be politically possible -- that intercity rail could be increased that amount without drawing too much political opposition -- and the 1 percent of total passenger miles is what that expenditure would buy given the European experience.
henry6 But the question always begged and always unanswered is what if the proper amount of money was poured into Amtrak/passenger rail to make it a viable system was poured into it, what would the results be? Airlines 10 times the money, 100 times the passengers: what if Amtrak/passenger rail got the same amount of money, how many passengers could it serve? More or fewer than airlines? Same equation applied against highways...what would the results be? We don't know because everyone dismisses rail out of hand by comparing it to the status quo of air and highway.
But the question always begged and always unanswered is what if the proper amount of money was poured into Amtrak/passenger rail to make it a viable system was poured into it, what would the results be? Airlines 10 times the money, 100 times the passengers: what if Amtrak/passenger rail got the same amount of money, how many passengers could it serve? More or fewer than airlines? Same equation applied against highways...what would the results be? We don't know because everyone dismisses rail out of hand by comparing it to the status quo of air and highway.
The question does have one answer -- the Vision Report, which advocates spending half a trillion dollars over time to achieve traffic levels that are 10 times Amtrak but 1/10th current airline traffic. Where the Vision Report gets its numbers -- see the Appendices -- is from the European experience, where trains do get much higher levels of funding.
If you, as a passenger-train advocate, believe that there is an economy of scale to be had, that if Amtrak could serve 100 times the passengers with 10 times the current money, then you have to look at things like the Vision Report, which is pretty much business-as-usual with some HSR thrown in, you need to look at such things more critically rather than unquestioning, "Yay, it is about time we spent more money on trains!"
If there are to be economies of scale, making trains more competitive with other modes, it is not just a question of funding, it is a question of what to do with the money. Maybe Governor-Elect Walker chasing the trains out of Wisconsin and putting them in Virginia will be an outcome that will help the cause of trains, not just in Virginia but everywhere, that is if Virginia can make more cost effective use of them.
The problem is, nearly all of Amtrak's costs are proportional to ridership. What specific types of gov't spending on Amtrak could change this by an order of magnitude? I can't think of any.
By increasing speed and frequency on corridors, you might get some additional equipment and crew productivity, but that's nibbling at the edges. I think if you were very lucky, a 10 fold increase in spending might get you a 20 fold increase in ridership - that's my WAG, anyway...
The equipment is too expensive, the ROW improvements are too expensive, the lead times from planning to implementation are too long, etc. If there is a cheaper way, we need to find it! (maybe we should import equipment from China, for example - it's less than half what we're paying...nearly $2M for a passenger car is outrageous!)
There, no doubt, are places where investing in intercity rail is a good idea, but those are going to be niches where the alternatives for adding capacity are less attractive.
schlimm Well Paul, the purpose of my post was much like yours: to question the accuracy of the numbers being thrown around, since some appeared contradictory and /or derived incorrectly. I share your desire to see some hard numbers that are truly comparable.
Well Paul, the purpose of my post was much like yours: to question the accuracy of the numbers being thrown around, since some appeared contradictory and /or derived incorrectly. I share your desire to see some hard numbers that are truly comparable.
There are some hard numbers to be had. The Federal expenditure on the FAA is 10-fold the Federal expenditure on Amtrak. The airline transportation system carries 100 times the passenger miles as the Amtrak network. The disparity is such that much of the FAA budget can be recovered by the taxes on aviation fuel and the tax on airline tickets, but the Federal contribution to Amtrak cannot be recovered in this manner, that is, unless the tax on Amtrak tickets would amount to between 100 to 200 percent of the current fare.
One point made by the outgoing president of our local advocacy group was something to the effect that the air transportation system was saturated -- that at least the short-distance portion of our common-carrier transportation system needs to be shifted to regional networks of high-speed rail corridors. If this is true, a build-out of such regional networks, including everything from the Madison-Milwaukee train that the Governor Elect is trying to cancel to the CHSR becomes an absolute necessity. They are necessary, even if they don't pay over a 20-30 year horizon because they are going to be essential as rain in the 50-year horizon, and you need to build these things now before the land corridors become tied up.
But is the air transportation system at the saturation point? No, I don't mean the belly-ache criticism of airline security, because if regional HSR ever reaches airline levels of traffic, you are going to see the same kind of security concerns there too. What I am asking, is air transport at the point that it cannot accomodate growth? Next Gen says no. There is a technological solution to continued growth in domestic air travel.
Next Gen has a 22 billion price tag plus finance charges, CHSR has, what, a 20-40 billion price tag plus finance charges. In other words, in what I call rough round numbers, CHSR and Next Gen cost about the same amount. And no, we don't need to quibble about the authenticity of numbers, because the exact number in comparing these two projects is within what we engineers call "an order of magnitude." Amtrak and the national air traffic control system, however, differ by a full order of magnitude in the work product in relation to the money spent.
Two project costing roughly the same amoun, Next Gen will "solve" the capacity problem nationwide; CHSR will solve the capacity problem along one intercity corridor.
The problem isn't numbers. The problem is that the pro-HSR faction does not want to deal in numbers but wants to pay for the project in the coin of the inherent social goodness of trains.
The question is how many miles of line get built for the $78 Bil.? It is more than just the 378 miles. According to Samuelson, it is 800 miles. So at that rate, the fully-funded cost per mile is less than half of your figure. BTW, the figures generally cited for adding one lane to any highway do not include financing. FHWA’s Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) inputs costs that depend upon highway functional class and terrain type. So for one lane each direction, a rural Interstate would cost about $6.1 mil. per mile.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.