To say that an Amtrak ticket is more expensive than an airplane ticket or vice versa is not a fair comparison if ony because a lot of fares are market demand based. I can get a $600 round trip ticket from my local airport in Bingahmton, to New York if I were to go up there right now and plunk my money down and go. If I plan on going 25 days or 58 days from now, I can get it for more than half that. Bus, as low as $10! usually, though, about $100. Amtrak tickets on some routes can be purchased right now for, say, $30 a week or more in advance but can be double that if you walk up to the window at train time. Marketing and fares for all modes of transportation make comparisons difficult and not even at worst, confusing at best.
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.
As far as it goes, I was reading in 1971 (at university) as well. Whoever suggested Menk's notion was in the press in 1971 is engaging in a retrospective cognitive fallacy. However, just because things turned out differently than the insiders' intentions does not disprove the thesis. The funding for ATK was supposed to have been the fees the RR's paid to exit the passenger business along with the original appropriation. Watergate, the Nixon resignation and a total change in the Congressional tone wiped out whatever plan there had been.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm dakota fred: Why do you believe you have more knowledge of the situation in 1970-71 than Menk would have had? As to the members of Congress, the true purpose of Amtrak would not need to have been revealed to them, and in fact, couldn't have been for the reasons you give. Do you actually believe Congress has never been deceived? I imagine our political scientist could give several examples of that!!
dakota fred: Why do you believe you have more knowledge of the situation in 1970-71 than Menk would have had? As to the members of Congress, the true purpose of Amtrak would not need to have been revealed to them, and in fact, couldn't have been for the reasons you give. Do you actually believe Congress has never been deceived? I imagine our political scientist could give several examples of that!!
Never claimed to have more knowledge, beyond the advantage of having been alive and reading a newspaper in 1971, which allows me to give the lie, for instance, to claims made on the forum months ago that "the press and everybody" was told back then that Amtrak would be defunded after five years.
The point, as I tried to make earlier, is that it doesn't matter what Menk thinks he understood. The only thing that matters is what Congress actually did, which contained no "sunset" arrangement for Amtrak. The only way for Amtrak to go away was for future Congresses to discontinue funding, which hasn't happened after 40 years.
Not a very effective "conspiracy." Menk didn't get his money's worth.
Lehigh Valley 2089 After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding. So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
After looking at what Amtrak has gone through with the national government, would it really be a good idea to privitize the passenger railroad? It worked with Conrail, so why not Amtrak? It would take a lot off of the goverments shoulders, and allow Amtrak to not worry about funding.
So, what do you think about this possibility? Do you think that it could really help the system, or just send it into turmoil?
That trip is just about impossible due to the skeletal route structure that poor financing causes. There is no direct Amtrak service between Denver and Dallas, about the only way to do it on an all rail route without some sort of long connecting bus trip would be to take the CZ to Chicago and then the Texas Eagle to Dallas, about 1k miles out of the way I would guess. Amtrak's bare bones route structure eliminates the sort of economy of scale possible due to connecting trains. But in fact when I in the past and my family now travel between Denver and the central Illinois area, 1k miles, it is the only economical way to do it, $75 one way coach, no airport parking, no one has to drive 130 miles to Chicago to pick us up at O'Hare. It is actually cheaper than gas and you don't have to risk falling asleep at the wheel or paying 75 extra for a motel.
The one thing about Amtrak that doesn't make any sense to me is that it is more expensive than a airplane ticket and slower than a grey hound bus. It not a good option money wise and it's very slow unless you are traveling in the upper Eastern coast.
I wanted to take Amtrak from Denver to Dallas and it was going to cost over $600.00 round trip. To make things worse it has to take me all the way to Chicago and then back down to Dallas wasting lots of time.
I love riding on trains and have taken a Amtrak train from San diego to Richmond, Virginia before. But Amtrak is extremely unreliable at best. I have never been to my destination on time and once I arrived a full 26 hours late. When I was traveling by train in Canada they told me "we don't sell train tickets, we sell land cruises". That is how I view Amtrak. If you want to go on a land cruise with time to burn try Amtrak.
I don't support private ownership because it wouldn't last 6 months before it was totally bankrupt. Amtrak can't even make a profit with a extra billion a year from Congress. A private company would have to double current prices just to break even.
Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch: The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable. If the claim is one of "trains reduce pollution", or "trains will reduce traffic congestion", or "trains will mitigate CO2 contributing to Climate Change" or "trains will reduce the need to import foreign oil", these are all quantifiable propositions. If one makes a sweeping claim such as "trains use 1/5th the energy of cars" as the head of WisPIRG did in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel letter-to-the-editor, that too is a quantifiable proposition. And if one asserts that the low rolling resistance of the steel wheel-steel rail contact means that passenger trains use very much less energy than other modes, one is very much entering the realm of a physics and engineering discussion, where one can entertain the engineering trades between lower rolling resistance and greater weight, braking and acceleration from stops, aerodynamic resistance, fuel requirements of head-end (also called "hotel") power for heating and AC, and so on. If all of this is "not about quantifiable measures but about quality-of-life", then stop making unrealistic claims about the quantifiable measures and say what this is about is that some of us simply find trains more pleasant than driving or flying. And there is denigration intended upon invoking the saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Are you calling out anyone who doesn't share your level of enthusiasm for trains as a liar? I believe we could advance the cause of trains better if we stopped calling Amtrak critics liars, took seriously what they had to say, and better understood the nature of their objections.
DwightBranch: The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable.
The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable.
If the claim is one of "trains reduce pollution", or "trains will reduce traffic congestion", or "trains will mitigate CO2 contributing to Climate Change" or "trains will reduce the need to import foreign oil", these are all quantifiable propositions. If one makes a sweeping claim such as "trains use 1/5th the energy of cars" as the head of WisPIRG did in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel letter-to-the-editor, that too is a quantifiable proposition.
And if one asserts that the low rolling resistance of the steel wheel-steel rail contact means that passenger trains use very much less energy than other modes, one is very much entering the realm of a physics and engineering discussion, where one can entertain the engineering trades between lower rolling resistance and greater weight, braking and acceleration from stops, aerodynamic resistance, fuel requirements of head-end (also called "hotel") power for heating and AC, and so on.
If all of this is "not about quantifiable measures but about quality-of-life", then stop making unrealistic claims about the quantifiable measures and say what this is about is that some of us simply find trains more pleasant than driving or flying.
And there is denigration intended upon invoking the saying that figures don't lie, but liars can figure. Are you calling out anyone who doesn't share your level of enthusiasm for trains as a liar? I believe we could advance the cause of trains better if we stopped calling Amtrak critics liars, took seriously what they had to say, and better understood the nature of their objections.
I actually meant it in regard to you in this discussion, meaning I am not calling you out, that this is a discussion about ways of explaining social outcomes, not a personal affront. I don't disagree with the examples you cite, about thermal efficiency etc.. in comparison, there I think mathematics is completely relevant. What I do disagree with is numbers regarding financials, the cost of building high speed rail versus just adding another lane to an interstate etc, there I think number are often misleading and out of context.
DwightBranch The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
No one has commented, added, or defined anything so far. So let me propose a definition of NEWAM: to design, own and operate a rail passenger service in the United States.
Sam1: One things is crystal clear. Keep doing things the way they have always been done; don't try anything different; and in time an entity will wind up in the dust bin.
One things is crystal clear. Keep doing things the way they have always been done; don't try anything different; and in time an entity will wind up in the dust bin.
You are right, Sam 1. So Iet's do something before that happens so that we are prepared. I say scrap Amtrak. Right now. Dead in its tracks. But lets have a replacement ready to roll.
First, lets define and redsign the passenger train and the track system it operates on. Yes, keep the track the present Amtrak owns as part of the new Amtrak...lets call it NEWAM. And before we do anything lets define it as a company to own and operate passenger trains other than commuter trains. We do this as opposed to the present pre Amtrak definition of a company to relieve private railroads of the responsiblities of operating passenger trains. Next, lets identify and define the term service in relation to what is expected of a passenger train in any given situation. This as opposed to endearing our trans and services to politics and politician and to the whims of private freight railroads. At this point, lets assume there are no services, no trains, nothing in existance that is part of NEWAM.
Think about it and I'll meet you in a few panels. Or later.
This whole conspiracy theory ignores the point that had the government done nothing the carriers would have pulled the off trains over the next 3-5 years. The 1950's era equipment was wearing out and there was no money to replace it. The operating losses were incontrovertable and the ICC could not force the carriers to run the trains while incurring demonstrable losses.
Why would the govt go through a charade to get to the same point that the carriers would get to without it? More plainly put, whose votes were Nixon or Congress buying with taxpayer money and why would those votes stay with the buyers if ATK went away? The only clear beneficiaries of the scheme were the operating unions.
Mac
We've heard this conspiracy theory of Amtrak before -- without, as Mac says, any convincing evidence. The Nixon administration may or may not have thought it had programmed Amtrak to sell-destruct; Lou Menk and some others in the industry may even have thought they had an "understanding" with a few Nixon insiders. I doubt it, but even if it were true, so what?
Amtrak was created by an act of Congress passed by a majority of the 535 members, most of whom -- I would guess 100 percent, myself, but say 99.8 percent -- had no knowledge of any such conspiracy. If they had, the numerous friends of labor, among others, in Congress, would have screamed bloody murder. There goes BaltACD's "intent."
The plain legislative intent was to continue a form of rail passenger by government means. And, contrary to claims on another thread months ago, there was absolutely no expressed intention to do away with Amtrak after a set number of years. In fact, one of the arguments against creation of Amtrak at the time was that it would be a millstone around the neck of taxpayers into perpetuity. Which, Amtrak detractors would say, has turned out to be the case.
PNWRMNM BaltACD, I have heard this "ATK was designed to fail" story several times from the wide eyed ATK advocates. None of them has ever come up with any credible evidence. What is your basis for this tale? Mac McCulloch
BaltACD,
I have heard this "ATK was designed to fail" story several times from the wide eyed ATK advocates. None of them has ever come up with any credible evidence.
What is your basis for this tale?
Mac McCulloch
As Dwight Branch mentioned, the original article was in Fortune. It is in the archive, but is accessible only to current subscribers. The article was also cited in a Trains article 1-2 years ago. That's two reputable magazines that have seen fit to print this. Of course, it is possible that the original article was a hoax or that Menk was joking, but I believe the burden of proof rests with those who would claim the notion was untrue.
Several folks keep citing the $ .20 per mile figure as the operating loss figure to use when discussing passenger rail in the US. That figure is an aggregate number, which includes ATK LD services. Since many folks, such as sam1, clearly recognize the need to build passenger rail as short corridors with rapid, frequent service, the figure to use would be the Acela service or perhaps some of the other short corridors. That way, one has a realistic picture of the sort of operating subsidies, if any, that would be needed.
Real world experiencing the politics of the day and the politicians that concocted the plan. The politicians hope was the service would be so bad that the public would totally forget about rail pasenger transportation and take exclusively to the Interstates.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
"Amtrak's origins are traceable to the sustained decline of private passenger rail services in the United States from about 1920 to 1970. In 1971, in response to the decline, Congress and President Richard Nixon created Amtrak.»http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/30.shtml The Nixon administration secretly agreed with some railroads that Amtrak would be shut down after two years. After Fortune magazine exposed the manufactured mismanagement in 1974, Louis W. Menk, chairman of the Burlington Northern Railroad remarked that the story was undermining the scheme to dismantle Amtrak. Though for its entire existence the company has been subjected to political cross-winds and insufficient capital resources, including owned railway, Amtrak's ridership has maintained consistent growth"
I have been unable to link to the Fortune article, but it is there.
What i believe is needed is a cost to operate a passenger train 1 mile. Now that cost is going to be variable as the incremental costs to add additional cars needs to be calculated. So we need a table of the costs for operating a train with 1 car 1 mile to a figure of 24 cars one mile. That would include dinners, baggage lounge etc.
Then figure the ~~ 20 cents per mile that passengers are paying Amtrak. Take those revenue passengers and see how many are needed to meet the crossover costs of ?? so many train cars. That will give you the average number of passengers needed for for the train to break even. Route costs will vary some what. Then if you can guarantee that average passenger miles then you can privitize that route.
I would suspect this is what FEC is doing ??
Sam1 One things is crystal clear. Keep doing things the way they have always been done; don't try anything different; and in time an entity will wind up in the dust bin.
When Congress formed Amtak, it's intent was that it would cease to exist when it's 1st legislation renewal authorization came up for vote. Amtrak was conceived by Congress to fail, and every renewal of the Amtrak authorization legislation has attempted to put it's body in a coffin. The fact that Amtrak has seen it's 40th Anniversary is a testimony to it's management and employees in outworking and outsmarting Congress.
Given the political environment in the United States, privatization of Amtrak, i.e. incorporate it as a stock company or break it into several stock companies, is probably not politically doable. Too many people have a vested interest in the system as it is, i.e. Amtrak management, employees, political supporters,etc. Once the government takes over a commercial activity; Amtrak is a commercial activity, privatizing it is very difficult.
As I noted in a prior post, an Italian investor owned stock company is planning to launch privatized passenger rail service to connect Rome with three other Italian cities. My information came from an article in Trains, which did not include any significant details regarding financing. However, the project proponents claim that they will cover their costs out of the fare box.
The Australians privatized a significant portion of their intercity train network, as well as the intrastate trains in Victoria. And they privatized the trams, commuter trains, and buses in Melbourne, which is the second largest city in Australia. However, they need and get substantial subsidies from the federal government in Canberra and the state government in Melbourne. One of the outcomes was an investment in new equipment by the corporate operators, paid for in part by improved employee productivity.
I was involved in the privatization of the electric utility business in Australia. It had been owned by the state of Victoria since the 1920s. It was known as the State Electric Commission of Victoria (SECV). As a result of privatization, the number of employees required to manage and operate the electricity grid in Victoria dropped from more than 27,000 to approximately 7,700. And the lights did not flicker once.
In Victoria the contracts to operate the public transport services were bid. The companies that won them, which initially were for five years, had to agree to some reasonably robust performance standards, with the understanding that if they failed to perform satisfactorily, they would lose the contract as well as the performance incentives that were built into them. The last time that I checked one of them had lost its contract. Most of my friends in Melbourne believe that the transport services have been much better following privatization or perhaps partial privatization would be a better term.
Government entities have little incentive to do things better, faster, cheaper, unless they are in competition with alternative service providers, i.e. USPS competes with FedEx and UPS for package delivery business. Stock companies are accountable to their shareholders as well as their customers, employees, etc. They have to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better all the way around, or they go out of business, or in the case of single or sole source contracting, lose the contract. For this reason, I believe that privatizing an Amtrak test market, e.g. NEC, with the appropriate subsidies, would be a worthwhile exercise. It could provide some significant benefits.
Paul Milenkovic 3) the suggestion that the advocacy community present concrete numbers rather than make broad and sweeping claims in promoting trains
3) the suggestion that the advocacy community present concrete numbers rather than make broad and sweeping claims in promoting trains
The argument that you are making, that only quantitative analysis (in your case, prices of discrete moves on alternative modes are transport) is valid in determining social outcomes, is derisively referred to as "physics envy" within the social sciences (where I earned my PhD). It almost wrecked political science and made it a laughingstock when it was attempted in the 80s. I won't spend much time on this other than to point out that, for example, the concept "quality of life" is not quantifiable. When San Fransico decided to tear out the Embarcadero Freeway because it harmed quality of life it was not based on competing analysis of the number of passengers that can be transported on various modes divided by the overall cost of that mode. Other cities are making the same determination, New York City for example with the West Side highway. And this is simply a fact about forms of explanation (my specialization), I am not even questioning the numbers themselves. No denigration intended, but the old saying figures don't lie, but liars can figure, is very true, and confining one's argument to only those facts that are quantifiable only gives one part of the picture. .
schlimm As they say, "D***ed by faint praise."
As they say, "D***ed by faint praise."
If you consider suggesting 1) consideration of higher-density seating to meet ridership demands on short routes, 2) the need to consider trains as part of a change in living patterns rather than a direct substitution for auto passenger miles, 3) the suggestion that the advocacy community present concrete numbers rather than make broad and sweeping claims in promoting trains, 4) the suggestion that instead of fighting the NIMBYs that HSR be located in the anticipated growth areas in real estate development, 5) that Amtrak look into the question of unsprung mass on locomotives as part of the evolution into 110 MPH operation, 6) praise for the California Car as a comfortable conveyance that maximizes the ability serve more riders, and 7) the suggestion that the advocacy community take concerns about costs seriously, if you consider all that to be "faint praise" or "weak tea" or "off the reservation", I suppose you are entitled to your opinions.
As I said before, it is kind of like the difference between sports fans and sports superfans. I consider myself to be as much a fan of the Green Bay Packers as anyone else in the state, but some of us are able to have realistic discussions regarding the prospects for a team with a rich history but in one of the smaller markets in the NFL in comparison to "Oh yeah, da Pack is gonna win da Super Bowl dis year and anyone who sez different is a bum!"
I'll give you an example of advocacy "fans" and "superfans." Our local advocacy group brought in some loud-mouthed advocate from Illinois to tell us "how it is done." In response to the complaint of overflow weekend ridership on trains serving University of Illinois, I suggested the use of Metra bilevels for peak loads, which was greeted with the snark, "Yeah, how about having the passengers ride in gondala cars!" Some while later, our same group was meeting with the Wisconsin DOT point person on passenger rail, where we were pressing him about a goal of getting a second daily train over the Milwaukee-St Paul segment of the Empire Builder. His reply was, "There are just not enough (passenger railroad) cars. You guys are going to get creative -- maybe work something out to put Metra bilevels into this service."
I'll give you another example. Our local advocacy group effectively blew the opportunity to get the 810 million dollars of appropriated Federal ARRA money for rail in Wisconsin. Yeah, yeah, it was a far-right Governor who returned the money. But we had an over 6-month window where this thing was still in play, and we wasted time hassling Wisconsin DOT and everyone else that the Madison, WI train station was going into the Downtown, which we didn't want because our long-distance train riders in the group wanted a convenient park-n-ride out by Dane County Regional Airport.
schlimm But what constructive statements have you made of late in the vein of improving passenger rail? I may have missed that, but I sure don't recall one post from you along those lines.
But what constructive statements have you made of late in the vein of improving passenger rail? I may have missed that, but I sure don't recall one post from you along those lines.
Some regard my remarks as criticism of passenger trains and of the passenger train advocacy community. But the implication that I have made no constructive suggestions over the past two years doesn't stand up to the record. What follows is a selective list of representative comments from the previous month alone. To argue that nothing constructive was offered is to view passenger trains and passenger train advocacy through a lens that admits no view of what could be done differently.
.
Partial List of Suggestions on Passenger Rail and Passenger Advocacy From the Month of March, 2012: Amtrak: Privitize it? Posted 3-22-2012 The one and only time I was ever on HSR was in Japan in the late 1980's, and I rode in one direction in the unreserved coach, which was 5-across seating, not as crammed in as a regional jet, but comparable in elbow room and seat pitch to the last time I rode a DC-9 jet, which was a year ago. Maybe all of that "walking around room" and train cars devoted to dining and other amenities is a requirement of non-HSR trains given the culture of what is expected of train travel in the U.S., and maybe if we had HSR with airline trip times, we would go to 5-across seats as they do in Japan? Would 5-across seats in a 1 Hr 35 Min Hiawatha train trip from Chicago to Milwaukee be a reasonable way to accomodate the burgeoning ridership, or would the advocacy community raise strenuous objections? If we had HSR, would the advocacy community object to going to much higher seating density as they do in Japan in trade for the much shorter trip times? Amtrak: Privitize it? Posted 3-21-2012 The problem is not that automobiles are so energy inefficient, the problem is that we use them too much because they are so much more convenient than other choices. Ultimately, a program to provide trains to replace automobiles has to be coupled with a plan to curtail automobile usage, through gasoline taxes, zoning restrictions, and so on. Amtrak: Privitize it? Posted 3-21-2012 But maybe, just maybe, passenger train advocacy could compete more effectively in the political sphere if trains were not regarded as an end in themselves, if more realistic claims could be brought to the table, and if criticism of the cost-effectiveness of trains were taken more seriously. CA HSR looking at more route adjustments. Posted 3-27-2012 Maybe the problem is trying to build the HSR where the people are, what with the "green" Bay Area people saying "you are bringing HSR past my community over my dead body" and what not. Why not build the thing where the people ain't. That is, you build where there is open space and let people move next to the HSR train stations with new development rather than push this thing into city cores where people don't want it? CA HSR looking at more route adjustments. Posted 3-27-2012 Where weight is a concern in HSR is longevity and maintenance of the track. Weight, and especially axle weight of "nose suspended" traction motors is a concern, even for 110 MPH operation. The British are said to have studied this and concluded that the common type of traction motor setup in just about every Diesel locomotive in the U.S. pounds the ballast and subgrade to dust. For HSR, you want some kind of shaft drive as in the PCC streetcar (and the Shinkansen, essentially a big, fat PCC car) or "quill drive" (gear drive to a hollow "quill" shaft around the axle, that floats around the axle and supplies torque through cups and springs on the old GG-1, through a flexible linkage on modern European locomotive). Is this even on the Amtrak radar screen for their next Diesel order if they want the fleet to be 125 MPH capable, or is long-term damage to the track "in someone else's budget"? Wisconsin passenger saga part? Posted 3-11 2012 Amtrak has the right idea in going with the bi-level California Car design for next-gen corridor service everywhere the clearances allow it. You have 50% more seating space per platform length along with the low step-up for boarding, and yes, these cars will be 110 MPH capable. 30 year old TGVs getting remodelled Posted 3-8-2012 This statement about every passenger rail service in the world requiring subsidy is standard advocacy boilerplate, but it doesn't answer the question regarding subsidy rate. I never, ever, ever said that Amtrak should be profitable. Did you ever see me demand this, here or anywhere? I am just asking that the advocacy community be open to ideas where maybe Amtrak could give more return on the subsidy dollar. Have I ever reasoned or argued otherwise?
Partial List of Suggestions on Passenger Rail and Passenger Advocacy From the Month of March, 2012:
Amtrak: Privitize it? Posted 3-22-2012
The one and only time I was ever on HSR was in Japan in the late 1980's, and I rode in one direction in the unreserved coach, which was 5-across seating, not as crammed in as a regional jet, but comparable in elbow room and seat pitch to the last time I rode a DC-9 jet, which was a year ago.
Maybe all of that "walking around room" and train cars devoted to dining and other amenities is a requirement of non-HSR trains given the culture of what is expected of train travel in the U.S., and maybe if we had HSR with airline trip times, we would go to 5-across seats as they do in Japan? Would 5-across seats in a 1 Hr 35 Min Hiawatha train trip from Chicago to Milwaukee be a reasonable way to accomodate the burgeoning ridership, or would the advocacy community raise strenuous objections? If we had HSR, would the advocacy community object to going to much higher seating density as they do in Japan in trade for the much shorter trip times?
Amtrak: Privitize it? Posted 3-21-2012
The problem is not that automobiles are so energy inefficient, the problem is that we use them too much because they are so much more convenient than other choices.
Ultimately, a program to provide trains to replace automobiles has to be coupled with a plan to curtail automobile usage, through gasoline taxes, zoning restrictions, and so on.
But maybe, just maybe, passenger train advocacy could compete more effectively in the political sphere if trains were not regarded as an end in themselves, if more realistic claims could be brought to the table, and if criticism of the cost-effectiveness of trains were taken more seriously.
CA HSR looking at more route adjustments. Posted 3-27-2012
Maybe the problem is trying to build the HSR where the people are, what with the "green" Bay Area people saying "you are bringing HSR past my community over my dead body" and what not. Why not build the thing where the people ain't. That is, you build where there is open space and let people move next to the HSR train stations with new development rather than push this thing into city cores where people don't want it?
Where weight is a concern in HSR is longevity and maintenance of the track. Weight, and especially axle weight of "nose suspended" traction motors is a concern, even for 110 MPH operation. The British are said to have studied this and concluded that the common type of traction motor setup in just about every Diesel locomotive in the U.S. pounds the ballast and subgrade to dust. For HSR, you want some kind of shaft drive as in the PCC streetcar (and the Shinkansen, essentially a big, fat PCC car) or "quill drive" (gear drive to a hollow "quill" shaft around the axle, that floats around the axle and supplies torque through cups and springs on the old GG-1, through a flexible linkage on modern European locomotive). Is this even on the Amtrak radar screen for their next Diesel order if they want the fleet to be 125 MPH capable, or is long-term damage to the track "in someone else's budget"?
Wisconsin passenger saga part? Posted 3-11 2012
Amtrak has the right idea in going with the bi-level California Car design for next-gen corridor service everywhere the clearances allow it. You have 50% more seating space per platform length along with the low step-up for boarding, and yes, these cars will be 110 MPH capable.
30 year old TGVs getting remodelled Posted 3-8-2012
This statement about every passenger rail service in the world requiring subsidy is standard advocacy boilerplate, but it doesn't answer the question regarding subsidy rate. I never, ever, ever said that Amtrak should be profitable. Did you ever see me demand this, here or anywhere? I am just asking that the advocacy community be open to ideas where maybe Amtrak could give more return on the subsidy dollar. Have I ever reasoned or argued otherwise?
henry: Reagan wanted to eliminate the new Dept. of Education. He favored national testing to evaluate schools, much like the ill-fated "No child left behind" policy adopted years later. He favored merit pay for teachers, though didn't get it. To claim he wanted more money for education and teachers just doesn't jive with reality.
Paul Milenkovic The argument that there are public expenditures that "waste a lot of money" and by implication "why can't we waste more money on Amtrak" is one I simply won't abide. And it is for this observation, that even public expenditures are subject to cost-benefit evaluation and need to compete with alternative public expenditures towards the same goal, that I receive criticism that I belittle any and all plans to improve passenger rail.
The argument that there are public expenditures that "waste a lot of money" and by implication "why can't we waste more money on Amtrak" is one I simply won't abide. And it is for this observation, that even public expenditures are subject to cost-benefit evaluation and need to compete with alternative public expenditures towards the same goal, that I receive criticism that I belittle any and all plans to improve passenger rail.
Gee do you think that just maybe folks think you "belittle any and all plans to improve passenger rail" because that's what you've done on this forum for the past two years? I do agree that throwing more money down the long distance component of Amtrak is a total waste of resources. But what constructive statements have you made of late in the vein of improving passenger rail? I may have missed that, but I sure don't recall one post from you along those lines.
He wanted to put more money into education for teacher pay saying that would be the thing that would make better teachers who would produce better student results. I remember the TV news statement well. Likewise, just throwing money at Amtrak will not cure the problems it faces; it needs a non meddlesome Congress, an adquate and long term budget and not short term until the next budget year budget and keep their hands off the president, and not change board positions so often. Let Amtrak operate more like a business (er, isn't that one of the mantra's of the Republican Party?) rather than a political football that gets changed with every election or get (mis)handled like a ball in a Ruby scrum.
henry6 I did not say put more money in the budget and that would cure the problem. Reagan said to give teachers more money and everything would be ok in education and it didn't work.
I did not say put more money in the budget and that would cure the problem. Reagan said to give teachers more money and everything would be ok in education and it didn't work.
Henry, this is a stretcher if I ever heard one. I'm a close student of the Reagan presidency, and you gotta show me where he ever said teachers -- and education -- need more money than they're already getting.
I did not say put more money in the budget and that would cure the problem. Reagan said to give teachers more money and everything would be ok in education and it didn't work. Budget is important but managing and allowing professional managers to manage, allow for long term planning, do not use band aid politically inspired legislation and allocations, second guessing, etc., i.e. don't play politics but allow it to work or fall on its own. If you are not a teacher or educator, don't throw money at it and automatically expect it will be a better education. If you are not a railroader or part of the transportation field do not throw money at Amtrak one year, take it away the next, change managers the next, etc. and expect it to flourish in anyway. Money is but a budget...what you do with the budgeted money is managing.
henry6 3) Amtrak has not taken advantage of anything simply because it can't.. No matter who runs it, who is CEO, who is in the White House, who is in the Senate or the House, no one gives Amtrak anything but hassels, yellow lights, pats on the back and shivs in the budget. It can't stand up because it is so cramped with politicians and politics.
3) Amtrak has not taken advantage of anything simply because it can't.. No matter who runs it, who is CEO, who is in the White House, who is in the Senate or the House, no one gives Amtrak anything but hassels, yellow lights, pats on the back and shivs in the budget. It can't stand up because it is so cramped with politicians and politics.
What makes you think that if Amtrak's budget were increase 7-10 fold per the recommendation of the Vision Report that Amtrak would be free of political interference along with the litany of problems you describe?
If something is in the private realm, its management can do whatever they want, subject to complying with applicable law and subject to covering their costs and making a small profit. If something is in the public realm, it becomes subject to politics.
You can't have it both ways, saying on one hand that Amtrak deserves public money because of the inherent goodness of trains and then complaining about all of the strings attached to the public money. I have never, ever advocated on this forum for a pure free-enterprise system and that Amtrak should be privatized based on a belief in pure free enterprise, although others have pointed in that direction and maybe I believe that point of view at least deserves a hearing rather than being dismissed out-of-hand.
One of the goals of privatization is to draw some engineering system boundary around something and say, "Municipalities will operate the trains stations, the Federal government will provide the trackage rights payments or provide the track, and everything above the steel wheel on steel rail contact patch has to balance its books, much like all of the other modes of transportation that receive government support." The purpose of such a scheme is to set some ground rules and provide a level playing field and then let the operator of the trains do what they want free from political interference, allowing them to find the best tradeoffs in running their operations. But it seems most in the advocacy community want nothing to do with such an arrangement, believing, perhaps, that unlike other modes, trains will always require high levels of operating subsidy, and that such a privatization plan is a thinly veiled plan to end Amtrak.
There are all manner of worthy and competing uses for public money, and if Amtrak does not compete in the free market, it has to compete in the political sphere, and one way it can compete politically is by delivering value, as measured by political considerations, for the amount of public money it receives. The argument that there are public expenditures that "waste a lot of money" and by implication "why can't we waste more money on Amtrak" is one I simply won't abide. And it is for this observation, that even public expenditures are subject to cost-benefit evaluation and need to compete with alternative public expenditures towards the same goal, that I receive criticism that I belittle any and all plans to improve passenger rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.