All forms of transportation are subsidized - why pick on Amtrak? Highways and airports don't pay their own way either (Can you imagine what we are paying just for the thousands of nonproductive TSA personnel?) .
There is a new reality creeping up on us and its called Peak Oil. As this really kicks in over the next 5 years its going to change how we live. I would suggest that as the most energy efficient form of travel and the one most suitable to being powered by renewable energy sources, rail is well worth holding on to.
America is huge and diverse - there is room for high speed corridors and LD trains. There are a few areas suitable for true high speed with separate ROW, but far more territory where existing service can be incrementally improved. This is happening now on the PNW routes from Eugene to Portland and Seattle, ridership and frequency are both up.
I like the idea of adding a luxury land cruise class to the LD trains, that could help subsidize the coach class which does have an important role in all the smaller towns en route. We could also innovate to make train travel more convenient. For example: Travel originating in Spokane must deal with 1-2AM departures in both directions and the Westbound Builder is often late, having originated in Chicago. If a sleeper was made available for boarding at say 10PM for Seattle and/or Portland passengers it would be far more user and family friendly.
The Superliner cars are great designs, having superior views, on board showers,etc. - we just need more of them. And we need increased investment in doubletracking and signaling so that freight and passenger trains can coexist more easily. As air travel becomes more of an expensive ordeal every day and as gas prices inevitably rise to the $5 mark we will be glad to have a real alternative.
Last point: Amtrak and maintainence of way jobs are real and can't be outsourced the way, for example, aircraft service work or car manufacturing is now.
Points well taken and clearly stated. I could not agree more and I'm a VERY conservative right winger! There are some roles for government. Passenger rail is one!
Since part of my arguement is on fuel efficiency I did some more reading of the previous posts addressing this. There appears to be some difficulty in coming up with real world numbers due to the importance of capacity factors, deadheading, etc. Nevertheless rail will generally be the best due to the physics of steel wheels and low air resistance per passenger.
I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again.
Excellent points. Now just get the rest of America to see it that way and you've got my vote for president!
RDC Railfan All forms of transportation are subsidized - why pick on Amtrak? Highways and airports don't pay their own way either (Can you imagine what we are paying just for the thousands of nonproductive TSA personnel?) . There is a new reality creeping up on us and its called Peak Oil. As this really kicks in over the next 5 years its going to change how we live. I would suggest that as the most energy efficient form of travel and the one most suitable to being powered by renewable energy sources, rail is well worth holding on to. America is huge and diverse - there is room for high speed corridors and LD trains. There are a few areas suitable for true high speed with separate ROW, but far more territory where existing service can be incrementally improved. This is happening now on the PNW routes from Eugene to Portland and Seattle, ridership and frequency are both up. I like the idea of adding a luxury land cruise class to the LD trains, that could help subsidize the coach class which does have an important role in all the smaller towns en route. We could also innovate to make train travel more convenient. For example: Travel originating in Spokane must deal with 1-2AM departures in both directions and the Westbound Builder is often late, having originated in Chicago. If a sleeper was made available for boarding at say 10PM for Seattle and/or Portland passengers it would be far more user and family friendly. The Superliner cars are great designs, having superior views, on board showers,etc. - we just need more of them. And we need increased investment in doubletracking and signaling so that freight and passenger trains can coexist more easily. As air travel becomes more of an expensive ordeal every day and as gas prices inevitably rise to the $5 mark we will be glad to have a real alternative. Last point: Amtrak and maintainence of way jobs are real and can't be outsourced the way, for example, aircraft service work or car manufacturing is now.
Why pick on Amtrak? Because the Amtrak rate of subsidy (per passenger mile) is multiples of the subsidy going to highways/airports however you slice or spin the numbers -- gas tax a general revenue tax vs a user fee, direct subsidy vs hidden or indirect subsidy. We have been saying "Amtrak is subsidized, oh yeah, what about everyone else" for years and years without confronting the reality of the rate of subsidy question.
Is Peak Oil your reason front and center for supporting trains? The available data suggests that the energy saving of trains is more modest that what people automatically assume -- see the site http://www.lafn.org/~dave/ for more details regarding what is going on. At the speeds you would want to operate trains to be competitive, aero drag dominates over rolling resistance, whether on tires or steel wheels, and yes trains can have an advantage owing to the effect of the leading train car or locomotive shielding following cars. But not much effort has gone into making current Amtrak trains particularly streamlined, and this may be true for the current specs Amtrak is putting out for replacing the fleet of locomotives and coaches.
Additionally, there is a tradeoff between fuel efficiency and amenities. If your idea is 100 seats of a railroad car (the Japanese Bullet Train has that airline-level seating density), trains can be highly fuel efficient. If your idea is sleeping cars or leg-rest Superliner seats at long seat pitch, all of that leg room and "room to get up and walk around" room, diner, lounge car, baggage car, and crew-dorm "non-revenue" cars in the consist, maybe not so much. There is this idea that you get the high fuel efficiency and all of the perks we associate with long-distance trains at the same time, but it isn't the case.
Finally, the Vision Report uses numbers of where a reasonable seating-density and load factor intercity train (again, not the amenities of the long-distance service) can save half the energy of driving. If you are worried about Peak Oil, the electified routes save all of the oil use of driving. OK, it takes 1.5 billion/year in subsidy to replace one tenth of one percent of total passenger miles in the U.S. with Amtrak. Replacing 1 percent is claimed by the Vision Report to cost about 10-15 billion per year based on the subsidy levels for the higher level of train service in Europe.
Replacing 10 percent of passenger miles -- essentially putting the airlines out of business, would cost 100-150 billion/year in subsidy. Auto gas accounts for 40 percent of oil usage, so by spending 100 billion/year, you will save 4 percent of our oil consumption. Yes, 4 percent. That is if the trains are electric.
So what you are saying is correct in that trains offer the potential for saving energy and yes, other modes besides trains are subsidized. But if Peak Oil is front and center of why you want trains (there are other reasons to have trains and that they save some energy, maybe not solving peak oil, is a bonus), something needs to change to make trains a cost-effective way of contributing to the reduction in oil usage.
You may say, there is economy of scale, when Amtrak gets to transporting 10 percent of total US passenger miles, the subsidy will be much less than 100-150 billion/year. Fine, lay out your Amtrak reform proposal of how Amtrak will operate more efficiently -- that has been a tough nut to crack these past 40 years.
I agree with the basic premises that Amtrak receives subsidy along with everyone else, that trains at least offer the potential for fuel and oil saving over cars and planes, and we need to protect Amtrak -- if we lose it as currently proposed in Congress, it is hard to get it back. But for Amtrak to make a meaningful contribution to addressing Peak Oil, it is going to have to get more fuel efficient trains, those trains may not have all of the comfort advantages you have in mind when you think trains, and it is going to have to use its subsidy dollar perhaps a factor 10 more efficiently.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul:
To address only a portion of the OP's argument; when peak oil or imported oil arguments are made here I believe that the argument is that with electrification, trains can be powered by fuels other than oil.
Wind, hydro, etc are one source, but other means of electric generation don't require imported oil. Coal is dirty and not great for the environment, but at least we have a lot of it. Nuclear will be a reasonable source if they manage to deal with the waste issue. None of that is available for aircraft. Cars are making a sincere effort to use electricity for short trips, which is the largest portion of automobile use.
We need to get over the either / or mentality that is so common in humans and consider integrated systems for our infrastructure, including transportation. One train can serve 10 communities on it's trip. Such service would require multiple aircraft. Aircraft are best used for long trips between medium to large cities. Automobiles are best for short trips or travel to places where very few people need to go. The passenger train fits in between. Local mass transit should also be part of the equation. Go to the local airport. Look at the bizarre amount of parking that is required. Lots so big that bus service is required to get people and their luggage to and from their cars. Cars are left in paid lots for a week or more. Wouldn't it be better if they could take local transit from their home to the airport, or commuter trains to the airport from small surrounding communities?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Electrification is a huge expense. If the Vision Report plan is not cost effective spending X dollars to save Y oil, it is not clear that spending some multiple K times X dollars to save only 2 times Y oil is more cost effective.
So yes, a Diesel train in corridor service may save half the oil of driving and an electric train may save all of the oil of driving, but in either case, Amtrak needs to make much more effective use of its subsidy.
More effective use of the subsidy goes under the rubrik of Amtrak Reform. Amtrak Reform is poison to many in the advocacy community, viewing it as a conspiracy to either do away with Amtrak or do away with things we like -- diner, lounge, and sleeping cars in consists.
If you want to save energy and/or reduce oil consumption, the point of attack is NOT intercity passenger travel.
It is intercity freight and suburban commuting. This is where investment will provide the biggest yields. Get commuters out of their cars. Get truck traffic on the rails.
I would really, really like it if it were true that increasing intercity passenger rail as we know it, would be the best thing to invest in, but it just ain't.
P.S. I'm all for a more efficient Amtrak. Maybe we can hang on to the trains we like. But, they most often don't seem to be able to get out in front of any issue...or out of their own way.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmannd If you want to save energy and/or reduce oil consumption, the point of attack is NOT intercity passenger travel. It is intercity freight and suburban commuting. This is where investment will provide the biggest yields. Get commuters out of their cars. Get truck traffic on the rails. I would really, really like it if it were true that increasing intercity passenger rail as we know it, would be the best thing to invest in, but it just ain't. P.S. I'm all for a more efficient Amtrak. Maybe we can hang on to the trains we like. But, they most often don't seem to be able to get out in front of any issue...or out of their own way.
True, there is more immediate fuel savings in putting more freight on rails but by improving the rail infrastructure we can benefit passenger as well. Electrification, although capital intensive, has many advantages and will have more in the future. Transportation should not be a hostage of foreign oil. For trips of up to 300 - 400 miles the total energy savings, including transfers to and from the airport, will greatly favor high speed rail. Add in cramped seats, security hassles and CO2 emissions from air travel and rail really shines.
RDC Railfan I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again.
Excellent point. Why must we only be dedicated to providing the infrastructure (airports and highways) to the most uncomfortable ways to travel? The only reason that buses can be more fuel efficient than passenger trains and that some airplanes can approach the fuel efficency of passenger trains is that people are jammed into a very small area. And it will only get worse. In Europe, low-cost air carrier Ryan Air is toying witn the possibility of flying people on shorter trips in a semi-standing position to save space. In Japan, airlines are advising passengers to use the restrooms before they board to avoid having to carry the extra "weight" on the plane. And even using the restroom has been suggested as something that might warrant an extra charge.
Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal, and there is real value in a passenger train's ability to serve small and medium-sized cities that air carriers and bus lines often ignore. I guess it all depends on what kind of public transportation the public wants.
Mark Meyer
VerMontanan RDC Railfan: I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again. Excellent point. Why must we only be dedicated to providing the infrastructure (airports and highways) to the most uncomfortable ways to travel? The only reason that buses can be more fuel efficient than passenger trains and that some airplanes can approach the fuel efficency of passenger trains is that people are jammed into a very small area. And it will only get worse. In Europe, low-cost air carrier Ryan Air is toying witn the possibility of flying people on shorter trips in a semi-standing position to save space. In Japan, airlines are advising passengers to use the restrooms before they board to avoid having to carry the extra "weight" on the plane. And even using the restroom has been suggested as something that might warrant an extra charge. Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal, and there is real value in a passenger train's ability to serve small and medium-sized cities that air carriers and bus lines often ignore. I guess it all depends on what kind of public transportation the public wants.
RDC Railfan: I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again.
Airplanes are not popular because they are uncomfortable, they are uncomfortable because they are popular. The decision behind President Carter's and his advisor Alfred Kahn's (supported by Ted Kennedy!) deregulation initiative was to allow more people to travel at lower cost. Airplanes didn't start out that crowded, but they have become that way, both in terms of short legroom and packed flights, because the public wants low fares rather than travelling in style. The Jet Set has become Karl Marx's Lumpen (rag) Proletariat, and airport departure lounges have the social ambiance of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Bus Terminal.
There is nothing intrinsic to train travel to provide the dining cars or sleepers that are so valued by the advocacy community. Train service increased the level of amenities in the post WW-II era to stave off the flight (excuse the pun) to cars and airplanes. I mean take the Budd Vista Dome car, uniquely a product of the late Streamliner era. The idea was that you would have your assigned seat at track level, a deep recline seat comparable to the type of Business Class seat on trans-Pacific jumbo jets these days, or you would have a sleeping car private room, and then you could get up, stretch your legs, and walk upstairs to a Vista Dome, availability of a seat permitting, to get what the railroad execs who thought of this, was a simulation of a cab ride. Well, you already had a seat on the train, why did you need another place to sit down (the Vista Dome -- nowadays the Superliner Lounge -- not quite the same view, but extra seating), oh, and the dining car is yet another place you can sit?
Why do you need all of those extra seats? Why do you need more than one room and one place to sit down at home? A person starts to get antsy stuck in one seat. A train needs those extra seats because it takes so long to get where it is going. Is this mode of service unique to trains? No, Google "Bristol Brabazon" where the British aviation industry made a bet (based on the recommendations of a government panel) to build this super-jumbo slow propeller aircraft to carry 100 passengers in style (with sleeping berths and walking-around room) to India and the other corners of the Empire. The future was people packed into much faster moving jets.
VerMontanan Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal
Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal
Yes there is value in a slower trip on a more comfortable conveyance, and yes, it costs more to operate. Why should the increase in cost be borne by much higher rates of subsidy to Amtrak than the other modes rather than charged as higher fares?
First, I don't think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation. Private enterprise airlines, trucking, and bus companies don't tell all nor do we really know what is considererd in coming up with a subsidy figure for any of these modes. Oh, we have figures, but too often they are just a stand alone figure with no talley of what goes into to the sum.
Second, I don't understand the term intrinsic as applied to dinning and sleeping cars. Once the railroad was a 24 hour, seven day a week operation always moving forward, not stopping its' progress overnight; US mail depended upon it, people rode on it, coast to coast by changing cars at Chicago! So to dismiss out of hand what rail passenger service could be because of amenities I don't is right.
My mantra is we should not consider rail passenger service running a train or trains but providing a service, then provide, market, and maintain the integrety of the service. Integrate that service with a service via air and bus. In otherwords, work to having a safe, efficient, effective, intergrated transportation service that can be used.
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.
If you want to get a good sense of the value of extra space in air travel, look at the portion of the plane that's devoted to business/first class.
American Airlines, a few years back, made a big deal of their having an extra couple inches of leg room. Shortly after, they nearly went broke. I'm not suggesting cause and effect, just that having a more space to stretch out really isn't worth much when you are only in the seat a few hours.
henry6 First, I don't think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation.
First, I don't think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation.
I take it you are OK spending about half a trillion dollars over a 40-50 year horizon increasing the passenger-mile share of Amtrak from .1 percent up to a full 1 percent? That is essentially the Vision Report proposal that is so popular in advocacy circles.
You know, you are right, we don't rightly know how much subsidy, especially indirect subsidy goes to airlines and highways. But one of the tools of scientific and mathematical inference is to make educated guesses and ask if they make sense.
Airline travel is to Amtrak as 100:1. If Amtrak is getting 1.5 billion/year, are you able to tally up 150 billion/year going to airlines? That is a whole lot of money, and I don't see how when you add up all of the indirect subsidy that airlines get that much.
Auto travel is to Amtrak as 1000:1. Is 1.5 trillion in government money somehow supporting highways and the auto industry -- 1.5 trillion/year? That is roughly half the Federal budget, and even when you tally up all of the indirect subsidy, I am skeptical that it amounts to that much. Who knows, maybe half the Federal budget is somehow directly or indirectly contributing to auto travel, but a figure that big does not make any sense.
So yes, I don't "really" know how much subsidy cars and planes get, but I am certain that it is multiples less the subsidy rate that Amtrak gets, because to stipulate otherwise leads to an implausible scenario.
I believe that the high rate of subsidy of Amtrak is what keeps Amtrak stuck on small.
Don't put words in my mouth! I did not say I was comfortable with any spending of any kind. What I said is that subsidies are so open to interpretation and accounting "skills" that we don't....and probably can't...determine real and total amounts of monies that could be considered "subsidies". Throw figures around all you want but we can't figure them all out and each will be challenged by so many you won't know which dime is up! Your final statement above, Paul, saying that Amtrak gets a high rate of subsidy cannot be determined to be high when rhetoric gets going about who gets what, how much, where, and when, and by whose interpretation. We've got to stop using these ghostly figures from the past and start the accounting and doleing from scratch.
The only thing I would add to Paul's post is that looking at passenger miles for Amtrak as it is currently configured is a bit misleading for looking at how heavily rail travel would be in the future. Amtrak currently consists of one corridor that approximately covers OE, at least for its Acela service. The new service in Carolina has come close. A couple of other corridors may also come close. Unfortunately those cases (which are good examples of what henry6 likes to call real service) are dragged down by the high cost, low revenue, old-time long distance trains (hardly services) so that in the aggregate, Amtrak doesn't come close to operating without a large subsidy. However, with a sensible route structure in which many less labor-intensive (thus lower variable OE) trains provide a service for many passengers, the fixed overhead costs on any route can be spread out over a much larger base, instead of two trains daily. Of course this would require the will to seek the sort of reform that Paul M, Phoebe Vet, doltmann and others are talking about., which many advocates regard as heresy.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
mogul264One thing most doing cost comparisons do not seem to consider is most rail depots are (or were, at one time!) right downtown of the communities they serve. Getting to the depot from your home is done quickly and easily by cheaper public transportation, in most cases. To get to the airport requires much longer commutes; additional time consumed in traveling there is time lost, with added transport cost. Indeed, sometimes commute time is longer than flight time! Not, you say, if traveling by auto? How about the additional cost of auto purchasing/finance, fuel, other fluids, and labor and parts for mechanical repair/upkeep, as well as tolls, garaging, parking fees, etc, at home and/or at destinations. Parking cost can be considerable downtown in larger cities, as well.
A few points:
The cost of individual automobile ownership is high. But, how much of it is avoidable when intercity rail service is introduced? Some, but some of the biggies - time based depreciation and insurance are unaffected. If you introduce suburban/urban transit, you can start hitting these costs pretty hard. You might not need multiple cars in the household, or one can be a "station car" beater, or the car will last 20 years instead of 7. Your insurance is less because your miles driven to work, which is a big driver of insurance cost, is much lower.
Air vs. Rail and connection to transit. This was very true 20 years ago, but not so much now. Cities with rail transit connection to the airport. NYC, Newark, Phila, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and probably some I missed.... Some are coming - Harrisburg, Atlantic City, Denver. And, some of those that don't have decent public shuttle bus routes - Boston and Denver come to mind.
Air vs. Rail travel. As you point out, if you stay within 500 miles or so, rail has a chance to compete on trip times - and it can be more convenient that flying because a train can make suburban stops (a good example is the Wolverines that start in Pontiac on one side of Detroit and also stop at Dearborn on the other.) But, the cost to develop corridor service seems rather high. $800M for Milwaukee to Madison? $1B+ for Chicago to St. Louis? $2B for Tampa to Orlando? YIkes! If we are going to do this, we have to pick our spots pretty precisely - where the costs of building out alternatives are high and the total net benefits (of all kinds) for rail are high. The LAST thing you want to have happen is to spend a fortune on and produce small results - the "antis" will just go nuts. Wendell Cox would salivate.
Your statments, mogul264, state some of the reasons I say we will never really get a grasp on the cost of any one form or all forms of transportation because everyone puts in or leaves out sometihing either on purpose or inadvertently: there is no forumulas or requisite set. Airline fares are from airport to airport not taking into account cost of getting to and from airports, parking, etc. Downtown railroad stations don't necessarily mean convenience, either; because of population shifts access to downtowns can be just as inconvenient as airports. But how many inlcude gas, insurance, purchase price and sales tax, and maintenence of a car towards any trip either totally by car or in conjunction with train, bus, or airplane? That's one of the reasons I think we should forget the past and start a new system of accounting for transportation costs.
It is very difficult to compare subsidies: what to count, what to leave out, how to make comparisons in levels of service and point to point totals. Air travel should include airport development, the FAA, subsidies and tax breaks to manufactureres, huge security costs, construction of roads and transit to airports, etc. Arguably it should include the 8 pounds of climate changing CO2 emitted per pound of fuel burnt and the protection cost and risks of importing all that foreign oil.
My original point was that the world is running out of cheap oil and the dependability of supply lines is decreasing. Air travel bloomed in an age of $10 a barrel oil, at $100 a barrel it starts to have real problems and at $150 may be non viable. So arguing over the exact subsidy split may be besides the point - either we have an alternative way to travel at reasonable speed using domestic energy or we don't. Given that there is no time advantage under 500 miles (and a considerable nuisance cost) we would be well advised to invest in our corridor trains and discourage short flights. It should be a national security priority.
The discussion of downtown depots should include the fact that trains can stop at suburban stations on both sides, planes can't. Parking at these locations is far cheaper than downtown or airport. The important thing is to have that integrated transportation system that is sustainable well into the high cost energy future.
RDC Railfan It is very difficult to compare subsidies: what to count, what to leave out, how to make comparisons in levels of service and point to point totals.
It is very difficult to compare subsidies: what to count, what to leave out, how to make comparisons in levels of service and point to point totals.
Exactly! Lets scrap all that has been calculated and said, set up guidlines or whatever, for all costs of all transportation modes, and apply equally.
henry6: I don't understand why you can't see how important it is for Amtrak to scrap long distance rail if it is "worth continuing and improving?" Forget about accounting for true costs, etc. of other modes. LD rail will never come close to covering its OE It will not represent a viable transportation alternative to air even if it were HSR. And to the individual, unless gas prices triple, it will not be cheaper out of pocket.
For its 40th anniversary, Amtrak needs to refocus on the under 500 mile (better under 300 mile) corridors where it is competitive with only a slight top speed and shorter station dwell times. Otherwise, the LD portion will continue to weigh down the corridors that are providing a real transportation service.
I believe in AMtrak, yes. But I believe our entire transportation system and philosophy has to be scrapped and started anew with all costs, benefits, needs, etc. be taken into consideration. Set what we have at a given value of say, zero, and build anew from here. Amtrak needs what? Compare that with what the highway needs and the waterways and the airlines...not on what has been but that all are worth zero at this point. Then take into consideration what it would cost each person to foot the bill. Include that person's car and all his expenses for that car; include the trucker and all his expenses for his truck; included the airplane and all the expenses for that airplane; include the cost of a train and all expenses for that train.. Then add up the cost of a highway and its expenses; then add up he cost of airport and airlanes; then add up the cost of track and operation. Then add up the value expected from each mode at that price and figure out which is best. You get what I mean. Let's stop throwing figures around which are not inclusive of all costs nor reflective of total costs necessarily. Lets zero everything out and start over. IF a long distance train is in balanced of the total number, so be it; if not, apply what is. You're talking about a long distance train, but what is your definition? Where does it serve, who does it served, how does it serve? Are you talking points A to Z only or are you talking instead of point C-W, G to Y, F-M, or vice versa; are talking about moving mass numbers of people or just a handfull here and there enroute; are you talking quick transit or liesurly tourist transit? Would a bus fill the bill better? Or an airplane? Or a boat for that matter? We have to stop the fighting among the various forms and advocates of modes and figure out a way to make all the modes work together in service and cost.
henry6" You are needlessly obfuscating the issue. To see what works and makes sense to invest in, look at distances of a corridor and population centers served. Anything over 300-400 miles (4-5 hours) is too far. What is a long distance train? Not hard, look at monthly Amtrak performance reports and they are listed with lots of figures. You want names of trains to d/c? Cal Zephyr, Capital Limited, Cardinal, Crescent Limited, Sunset limited, Empire Builder, Lake Shore Limited, Southwest Chief, maybe others? The amount of traffic they carry compared to air on those routes is negligible. And their operating expenses are much higher per passenger mile than the corridor routes. The only point for any transportation service is to serve a large number of people. If it doesn't/can't, it ceases to have a good reason to continue to exist. There are limited funds. That is a reality. If Amtrak is to continue, it needs to focus where it currently serves or could serve a useful function. If it continues the status quo as it has for 40 years, we risk losing everything beyond the NEC.
My issue is this: we in America are fighiting over modes of transportation and monies to be allotted to help each, whether or not and how much subsidy each receives, he actual costs of providing and using each, etc. Therefore we spend much time analyzing , talking about, quantifying, qualifying, denying, and otherwise argueing over which is best, which gets the most, which gets the least, which should get more, which should get less. We argue big business and private enterprise against government bonds, construction, loans, grants, earmarks, and whatever else. We are at apoint where we must stop this rhetoric and get to work. Set the value of each system at zero or a million dollars, doesn't matter as long as all are considered equal as we begin anew. Yes, Amtrak is good and maybe long distant trains are good for some reason. But the issue isn't the value of Amtrak or its long distance or even corrridor trains, but the economic and environmental needs and benefits of each mode of transportation working as a network rather than desparate and sacred institutions.
Way too complicated. It is not necessary to look at everything nor is it possible to "set the value of each system at zero or a million dollars, doesn't matter as long as all are considered equal as we begin anew" The issue is passenger rail and Amtrak. Start there and determine what is worthwhile and improve that portion. Discontinue the rest.
henry6 Yes, Amtrak is good and maybe long distant trains are good for some reason. But the issue isn't the value of Amtrak or its long distance or even corrridor trains, but the economic and environmental needs and benefits of each mode of transportation...
Yes, Amtrak is good and maybe long distant trains are good for some reason. But the issue isn't the value of Amtrak or its long distance or even corrridor trains, but the economic and environmental needs and benefits of each mode of transportation...
I do not see how you can say we should not be considering the value of Amtrak, but rather, only consider the value of the need for Amtrak. They are the same thing.
I think the Logic Limited departed some time ago.
Gentlemen:
What does AMTRAK have for long distance trains? -=- 5 western long distance trains and 7 eastern long distance trains and the auto train.
IMHO it appears that the trains that provide the necessary seats come closer to meeting no subsidity goals.
Many have noted that Auto Train's 20 passenger car trains come close to meeting operating costs. My question is can these 12 LD trains come close to meeting operating costs if they were given the necessary available seats?
1. Take Sleepers first. Sleeper service seems to sell out no matter how many berths are provided for each train (including Auto Train). The extra berths provided at Thanksgiving and Christmas came from placing almost all cars on the road and out of maintenance. I would like someone here take both single level and bi level cars and compare revenue of sleepers and coaches. I have a feeling the numbers will be close?
2. Dinning cars next. When the abortative use of "lite" diners was tried everyone here noted the great decrease in passenger satisfaction and riership.
3. Lounge cars next. Same as #2.
4. Although I agree with you posters saying we need to have more service over the routes the addition f another train on any route has many cost disadvantages. listed are some of the disadantages.
A. One operating crew vs 2 operating crews. May need an assistant conductor for the longer trains.
B. Track time. -- The costs to operate an additional train on host RRs is very high. Train length does not seem to add to host RR costs.
C. additional locos needed on long trains would be an additional cost but the failure of one unit would not delay a train as much.
D. The problem of east coast trains into NYP's 14 car limit needs to be addressed.
E. Empty demand to on some legs needs addressing by maybe adding/removing cars. ex: ATL - New Orleans; Orlando - Miami; NYP - WASH; Memphis - New Orleans? Adding cars that are planned CHI - DEN & Reno - Emeryville; SAS/Tucson - LAX; etc.
F. Intermediate stations would not need additional agents or open station times.
G. If an when a route can justify another train by filling up one of these long trains every day then the costs that go along with the increase of service can be addressed.
Do I like these solutions? Not in any way. But this provides keeping the trains along these routes and eliminates some subsidities.
These solutions are not the same that are required for short distance trains. Routes than can be expanded by Federal, state & local mony can operate with less cost. The prime example is NC DOT service CLT - Raleigh since NC owns the RR tracks and are adding CTC and double track at their cost. Only dispatch costs may add to costs. Raleigh - Petersburg will have benefits to both the MSR between those citys and the Carolinian & Silver Star by reducing travel time maybe 2 hours?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.