US DOT shuts dow 26 bus companys and subsiditaries. Many rules violations.
http://fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2012/I-95-Bus-Release.aspx
Wonder how this will affect amtrak ridership?
These are by and large bus companies who have numerous citations and with drivers with numerous citations and comes in the wake of the many disasterous accidents over the past couple of years. Many of those named were well aware the sickle was enroute.
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.
blue streak 1 US DOT shuts dow 26 bus companys and subsiditaries. Many rules violations. http://fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2012/I-95-Bus-Release.aspx Wonder how this will affect amtrak ridership?
The bus companies that are the subject of the DOT action violated basic safety rules and need to be taken off the road. I doubt that it will have a significant impact on Amtrak's ridership. However, an event is unfolding in Texas that could have a significant impact on Amtrak's ridership here.
Megabus is introducing express bus service in Texas beginning June 19th. It will offer non-stop service from Dallas to Austin, Houston, Little Rock, Memphis, Norman (OK), and San Antonio. Megabus will use 81 passenger double decker buses with wifi and reserved seating. Introductory fares will be as low as $1. Regular fare are likely to be in the $12 to $25 range. They are substantially below Amtrak's fares. Greyhound is offering similar upgraded service between Dallas and Houston as well as Dallas and San Antonio and Austin and Houston. This does not augur well for expanded passenger rail service in Texas.
Sam1 blue streak 1: US DOT shuts dow 26 bus companys and subsiditaries. Many rules violations. http://fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2012/I-95-Bus-Release.aspx Wonder how this will affect amtrak ridership? The bus companies that are the subject of the DOT action violated basic safety rules and need to be taken off the road. I doubt that it will have a significant impact on Amtrak's ridership. However, an event is unfolding in Texas that could have a significant impact on Amtrak's ridership here. Megabus is introducing express bus service in Texas beginning June 19th. It will offer non-stop service from Dallas to Austin, Houston, Little Rock, Memphis, Norman (OK), and San Antonio. Megabus will use 81 passenger double decker buses with wifi and reserved seating. Introductory fares will be as low as $1. Regular fare are likely to be in the $12 to $25 range. They are substantially below Amtrak's fares. Greyhound is offering similar upgraded service between Dallas and Houston as well as Dallas and San Antonio and Austin and Houston. This does not augur well for expanded passenger rail service in Texas.
blue streak 1: US DOT shuts dow 26 bus companys and subsiditaries. Many rules violations. http://fmcsa.dot.gov/about/news/news-releases/2012/I-95-Bus-Release.aspx Wonder how this will affect amtrak ridership?
Megabus started a hub in Atlanta about 6 months ago. Although the seats are reserved, they aren't assigned. It's "cattle drive" style loading. Still, the 20-somethings love it. Hasn't effected Amtrak, because Amtrak really isn't competition on any of the routes out of Atlanta except Charlotte and New Orleans.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Shortline/Coach USA introduced Megabus to Upstate NY a year or so ago with fares as low as a buck, too. Of course it is selecte bus schedules like pre dawn departures, not busy times, ticket purchase well in advance of date of travel, etc. It does not seem to have much of an impact as both it and Greyhound seem to be running without touting the Megabus fares. I doubt it will interefere with Amtrak even in Texas if for the only reasons that people must plan well ahead of time and those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford full fare jump on for a buck before others have a chance.
henry6 Shortline/Coach USA introduced Megabus to Upstate NY a year or so ago with fares as low as a buck, too. Of course it is selecte bus schedules like pre dawn departures, not busy times, ticket purchase well in advance of date of travel, etc. It does not seem to have much of an impact as both it and Greyhound seem to be running without touting the Megabus fares. I doubt it will interefere with Amtrak even in Texas if for the only reasons that people must plan well ahead of time and those who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford full fare jump on for a buck before others have a chance.
It could have a major impact on the Eagle and Heartland Flyer. These are once a day trains that are not a serious travel option for most people. Megabus, on the other hand, coupled with Greyhound's improved express schedules, will offer numerous departures throughout the day. Moreover, the bus (Megabus and Greyhound) runs from Dallas to San Antonio in approximately 4 hours and 50 minutes. The Eagle takes 10 hours and five minutes and costs nearly double the proposed fares on Megabus.
Had Amtrak focused on developing corridor service between Dallas and Houston and San Antonio, where passenger rail makes sense, instead of wasting billions of dollars on long distance trains, we might have had a competitive passenger rail system in Texas. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a government agency that responds to political pressures more-so than market forces. Megabus and Greyhound are market competitors that respond to markets. Time will tell, of couse, but they are likely to take away most of the DFW to San Antonio Eagle passengers.
Detroit-Chicago has had a Megabus route for the last 6 years, but Amtrak had a record year last year in Michigan. Also, not all Megabus launches have been successful, as their LA hub was shut down.
Megabus may be serving a new demographic. A study has shown there has been a decades long decline in young adults getting drivers licenses. Those 20 somethings who like the free wifi might not have a car these days. The study was cited in another thread:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/205000.aspx
Sam1 . Had Amtrak focused on developing corridor service between Dallas and Houston and San Antonio, where passenger rail makes sense, instead of wasting billions of dollars on long distance trains, we might have had a competitive passenger rail system in Texas. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a government agency that responds to political pressures more-so than market forces. Megabus and Greyhound are market competitors that respond to markets. Time will tell, of couse, but they are likely to take away most of the DFW to San Antonio Eagle passengers.
. Had Amtrak focused on developing corridor service between Dallas and Houston and San Antonio, where passenger rail makes sense, instead of wasting billions of dollars on long distance trains, we might have had a competitive passenger rail system in Texas. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a government agency that responds to political pressures more-so than market forces. Megabus and Greyhound are market competitors that respond to markets. Time will tell, of couse, but they are likely to take away most of the DFW to San Antonio Eagle passengers.
Your answer, Sam, begs the question of if Amtrak were a private corporation or if a private railroad itself really wanted to move passengers, could the free enterprise system, entrapeneurship, be enough motivation to properly market and operate a passenger train service. Unfortunately the answers are rife with political overtones and impractical romantic pangs of days gone by.
henry6 Sam1: . Had Amtrak focused on developing corridor service between Dallas and Houston and San Antonio, where passenger rail makes sense, instead of wasting billions of dollars on long distance trains, we might have had a competitive passenger rail system in Texas. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a government agency that responds to political pressures more-so than market forces. Megabus and Greyhound are market competitors that respond to markets. Time will tell, of couse, but they are likely to take away most of the DFW to San Antonio Eagle passengers. Your answer, Sam, begs the question of if Amtrak were a private corporation or if a private railroad itself really wanted to move passengers, could the free enterprise system, entrapeneurship, be enough motivation to properly market and operate a passenger train service. Unfortunately the answers are rife with political overtones and impractical romantic pangs of days gone by.
Sam1: . Had Amtrak focused on developing corridor service between Dallas and Houston and San Antonio, where passenger rail makes sense, instead of wasting billions of dollars on long distance trains, we might have had a competitive passenger rail system in Texas. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a government agency that responds to political pressures more-so than market forces. Megabus and Greyhound are market competitors that respond to markets. Time will tell, of couse, but they are likely to take away most of the DFW to San Antonio Eagle passengers.
Had the government not stepped in to preserve a skeleton intercity passenger rail service, most of it would have gone away in 1971 or certainly by 1975. Possible exceptions might have been New York to Philadelphia and Washington as well as LA to San Diego. No one knows! What we do know, however, is that Amtrak has cost the taxpayers more than $28 billion dollars in accumulated losses since its start-up in 1971. And this does not take into consideration the additional forgone revenues because Amtrak pays no taxes, i.e. property, inventory, sales, or fuel.
My fondness for passenger trains is offset by my fondness for not wasting the taxpayer's money on commercial projects that cannot stand on their own in the market place, especially given the fact that the federal, state, and local government debt in this country is more than $18 trillion or approximately 116 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Henry,
You know that no private entity forced to absorb the capital costs required to provide credible passenger service would be crazy enough to try it. It is too **** expensive.
On the NEC, where ATK has total control, there are billions in defered maintenance and delayed capital improvements. Where ATK operates on freight carriers it pays no where near the cost that it imposes. ATK is a continuing burden and imposition on the freight carriers.
Mac
MidlandMike Detroit-Chicago has had a Megabus route for the last 6 years, but Amtrak had a record year last year in Michigan. Also, not all Megabus launches have been successful, as their LA hub was shut down. Megabus may be serving a new demographic. A study has shown there has been a decades long decline in young adults getting drivers licenses. Those 20 somethings who like the free wifi might not have a car these days. The study was cited in another thread: http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/205000.aspx
You may have a point. Megabus stated that it expects 40 per cent of its ridership in the Texas Triangle, as well as to Norman, OK, which is the home of the University of Oklahoma, to be college students. In fact, its Austin stop is on the University of Texas campus.
According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock.
PNWRMNM Henry, You know that no private entity forced to absorb the capital costs required to provide credible passenger service would be crazy enough to try it. It is too **** expensive.
Mac, in the back of my mind has always been the feeling that getting out of the passenger business, especially here in the U.S., was the easy way out, too easy. Entrapeneurship said that more money could be made moving freight, so the hell with people. Thus all energy of manufacture and marketing went toward moving inanimate things in railcars instead of people. And it was an easy decision because the highway lobby was working against them anyway, so the government, or rather the politicians in government, went the popular way and supported the highways and automobiles. This, of course, made it much less expensive not to take the train but rather the family car. As for airline competition, the railroads gave a little try but once they saw the major change there, coupled with the profits to be made in moving freight, they no longer had to try to market a passenger train.
But I am also one to say this is where we are today, we arent' back then, so our answers and solutions have to be based on today's conditions, not 1955's or whatever. That is why I often say, though, that our transportation system and policies have to be reviewed and revised from outside the box, almost like starting from the beginning with credence to the value of each form of moving people and freight being considered and then "build" a new system.
Sam1 According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock.
The concept that Megabus will do the long haul nonstop while Amtrak fills in with service at intermediate points offends my sense of a properly ordered transportation system. Oh, well, nobody said the "system" has to be entirely rational!
Dakguy201 Sam1: According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock. The concept that Megabus will do the long haul nonstop while Amtrak fills in with service at intermediate points offends my sense of a properly ordered transportation system. Oh, well, nobody said the "system" has to be entirely rational!
Sam1: According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock.
Still, Dak, when one thinks about it ...
The bus has (usually) the faster right of way, and is not burdened with the "all things to all people" mandate of most Amtrak routes with their single pair of trains a day.
The surprise to me is that it took the bus companies so long to figure out and exploit their advantage. Looks like they're doing the same thing in Iowa, smothering the nascent Rock Island revival in its little cradle.
The biggest threat to Amtrak yet?
I don't know how they are doing with the Megabus concept anyplace. However, it is an attempt to fill empty seats and especially so on the pre dawn and reverse moves which would otherwise be deadhead runs if only in part. Like the early supermarket concept of being open all night: as long as there was a stock crew and the lights were on, might as well leave the doors unlocked. I am not sure this buck ticket isn't a test of the demand marketing airlines and Amtrak do: price actually goes up the closer to departure time; if they aren't doing it now, they soon will be.
dakotafred Dakguy201: Sam1: According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock The concept that Megabus will do the long haul nonstop while Amtrak fills in with service at intermediate points offends my sense of a properly ordered transportation system. Oh, well, nobody said the "system" has to be entirely rational! Still, Dak, when one thinks about it ... The bus has (usually) the faster right of way, and is not burdened with the "all things to all people" mandate of most Amtrak routes with their single pair of trains a day. The surprise to me is that it took the bus companies so long to figure out and exploit their advantage. Looks like they're doing the same thing in Iowa, smothering the nascent Rock Island revival in its little cradle. The biggest threat to Amtrak yet?
Dakguy201: Sam1: According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock The concept that Megabus will do the long haul nonstop while Amtrak fills in with service at intermediate points offends my sense of a properly ordered transportation system. Oh, well, nobody said the "system" has to be entirely rational!
Sam1: According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock
According to the initial schedule, Megabus will offer eight trips a day each way between Austin and Dallas and 14 trips each way per day between Austin and Houston. The trips will be nonstop. Accordingly, the service will not impact the number of passengers using the Eagle from the stops between the major cities that it serves, i.e. San Marcos, Temple, Longview, etc., but it is likely to draw passengers away from the train in San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, and Little Rock
Frequent, fast, convenient, comfortable, and dependable bus and discount airline services are a threat to the once a day long distance trains, especially for coach passengers. BTW, coach passengers make up more than approximately 95 per cent of Amtrak's riders.
Interestingly, Megabus has teamed up with the Kerrville Bus Company to expand service beyond the major cities in Texas. It offers connecting service out of San Antonio to Del Rio and San Angelo as examples.
Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. Megabus and others will have trouble competing in these corridors because of traffic congestion and volume constraints. This is my I have argued consistently that Amtrak should drop the long distance trains and concentrate on the corridors.
If Amtrak or a similar operator could improve its productivity, i.e. a dynamic business leader as opposed to a seemingly timid government bureaucrat, fewer managers, and better union labor work rules, it could cover the full cost of the short corridor trains. It could also cover the operating costs of the NEC, as well as make a significant contribution to the capital costs. There are other structural changes that would need to happen, but it could be done.
Alas, given the politics of transportation in the United States, it is unlikely to happen.
Sam1 Frequent, fast, convenient, comfortable, and dependable bus and discount airline services are a threat to the once a day long distance trains, especially for coach passengers. BTW, coach passengers make up more than approximately 95 per cent of Amtrak's riders. Interestingly, Megabus has teamed up with the Kerrville Bus Company to expand service beyond the major cities in Texas. It offers connecting service out of San Antonio to Del Rio and San Angelo as examples. Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highways and airways is prohibitive. Megabus and others will have trouble competing in these corridors because of traffic congestion and volume constraints. This is my I have argued consistently that Amtrak should drop the long distance trains and concentrate on the corridors. If Amtrak or a similar operator could improve its productivity, i.e. a dynamic business leader as opposed to a seemingly timid government bureaucrat, fewer managers, and better union labor work rules, it could cover the full cost of the short corridor trains. It could also cover the operating costs of the NEC, as well as make a significant contribution to the capital costs. There are other structural changes that would need to happen, but it could be done. Alas, given the politics of transportation in the United States, it is unlikely to happen.
Surprisingly, Sam1, you and I concur and agree on more than I thought! And your final sentence about politics of transportation is the main problem we face. It is why I keep pounding away on the concept of starting from scratch, plan as if there is not system or systems in place; confiscate the highways and their users, the airports and airlanes and their users, the waterways and their users, and the railroads and their users. Then start planning the best use for each in order to attain a useful, effecient, and economical transportation system for this country. And so what if it is different in the east than in the west than in the midwest or south? I frequently ride commuter trains throughout the New York Metropolitan area plus spend up to three hours driving to and from the area. To be on a train passing traffic, be the traffic stopped and jammed up or free and racing behind the train or the train lugging along at highway speed or less, shows that there is need and opportunity for all forms of transportation but that it all needs to be applied intelligently.
The Federal cross subsidy for the entire interstate highway system for intercity travel is at least $0.08 per automobile vehicle mile at aaa corporate bond rates, not WACC, just bond rates from construction to today. The government borne accident costs are at least $0.02 per vehicle mile. The Class 8 truck subsidy is around $0.30 at aaa corporate interest rates, $0.60 at WACC, as the railroads pay.
Between these two you have the answer to passenger operations and infrastructure expansion in the rest of the country outside the nec. Send me an email and I will send over the working paper that shows so from the FHWA's numbers.
The losses and expenses that Sam1 mentions seem huge. But if passenger rail had died the "natural death" that Sam1 thought appropriate, the losses and expenses to the USA in general would have been astonomically higher, with far great hightway and airport expenses and land requirements that would have just scratched the surface in some areas in resolving the additonal congestion and delays that this "natural death" would have caused.
Sam1 can possibly be quick to respond, "Yes but those are the corridor operations where I agree rail passenger makes sense. But not the long distance trains."
Absolutely true. But very very unfair. For the USA economy to function properly, the big city commuter and the corridor business and vacation traveler must be subsidized. But I claim that subidizing the weekday commute of the businessman/businesswoman, or his/her weekly corridor trip, and not being willing to subisidize the once-in-the-lifetime trip of the highschool or college graduate to see the USA coast-to-coast and the yeary trip of a handicapped wounded servieman to see his family is grossly unfair. And why should an Illinois farmer subsidze a Peoria - Chicago corridor service mainly for busineesmen if he cannot travel comfortably by train to his extended family on the West Coast.
Take away the national network and the corridor costs subsidy costs will climb.
Dave, you bring up an interesting phenomona in American business overall, not just rail passenger service. It used to be that a company had a product which did not earn them money directly to the bottom line but kept the whole operation alive somehow; maybe it kept the company name in front of the public, maybe it kep a factory or an assembly line alive and ready for the profitiable stuff, maybe if fed a by product to the main product or took a by product and sent it out to the public. In railroading, I likened branch lines to tributaries of a river...the more tributaries, the bigger the river got; but take away the tributaries and soon the river dried up. Just like railroads eliminating branch lines, mainlines got less traffic and less traffic often meant less profit overall. Similarly passenger trains from A-Z lose when the feeder lines and intermediate stops are eliminated or the connections at either end are gone. Bottom line CPA's and investor bankers don't line to see an operation not put checks in thier pockets even if it is what helps keep the whole operation afloat at the cost of a fraction of a penny.
daveklepper Take away the national network and the corridor costs subsidy costs will climb.
That runs counter to what the guys who wrote and pushed the Amtrak legislation through have said. Their vision for Amtrak was that the post 5/1/71 network of LD trains would get pared back even further and investment would get steered to corridor services. The corridor services were expected to generate some net profit (exclusive of the investment cost) and be able to keep a very small number of "national network" trains afloat.
What happened was exactly opposite. The number of lines on the map grew. Corridor investment stalled and the rest is history.
http://congressionalresearch.com/RL31473/document.php?study=Amtrak+Profitability+An+Analysis+of+Congressional+Expectations+at+Amtraks+Creation
This is simply not true. The long distance network is skelatal, the minimum that can be called a national network, We have lost Salt Lake - LA, Salt Lake - Portland, New Orleans - Jacksonville, Buffalo - Detroit, Chicago - Florida. In any case, I would not wish to second-guess Boardman on which LD lines to keep, add, or drop. Therre are enough Congressmen and Senators second guessing him. And more investment has gone into corredors because Amtrak and the States of NY, Conn, and MA together own the NEC and have invested in it. The electrification to Boston is only one of many corredor investments, not only the NEC, but elsewhere as well. The only real investment Amtrak has made for long distance is equipment, locomotives, coaches, diner-lounges, and sleepers.
It simply is true: Volpe was the guy who "fathered" Amtrak.
" John Volpe, then Secretary of Transportation, asserted during Amtrak’s creation that it could
eventually be profitable; on some occasions, he said it could achieve profitability
after three years. However, in these statements he attached two conditions to that
prediction: that the Federal government provide significant capital funding to
produce high-speed trains in short-haul corridors where profitability was possible, as
well as providing other improvements in service; and that the size of the passenger
network would be cut back to the point that the profits from the successful corridors
would be sufficient to subsidize the remaining routes."
Oltmannd, what you've got to remember is that Volpe was Nixon's appointment and therefore had to state the party line. Amtrak, in effect, was not created to save the passenger train but to save big business railroads from having to endure the cost of operating them. It was actually hoped that by creating Amtrak, passenger trains would totally disappear, that passenger cars and jet airplanes where what the public would embrace 100%.
henry6 Oltmannd, what you've got to remember is that Volpe was Nixon's appointment and therefore had to state the party line. Amtrak, in effect, was not created to save the passenger train but to save big business railroads from having to endure the cost of operating them. It was actually hoped that by creating Amtrak, passenger trains would totally disappear, that passenger cars and jet airplanes where what the public would embrace 100%.
Amtrak was created to save the intercity passenger train. The railroads, which are in business to earn a profit, were shedding their money bleeding passenger trains as fast as the regulators would allow them to do so. Had Amtrak not been created, the railroads eventually would have been successful in getting out of the passenger train business. They would have had to go through the courts, and it would have cost their shareholders millions in legal and consulting fees; witness American Airlines current struggles, but I have no doubt that they would have been successful.
Heaps of businesses run loss leaders as long as they can make up the losses with profitable product lines. In the case of the investor owned railroads, however, they had their backs to the wall for a variety of regulatory, technical, and competitive reasons. They simply could no longer afford the loss leader.
In retrospect, given the political pressure to maintain a skeleton inter city passenger rail system in the United States, the government probably would have been better off paying subsidies to the investor owned railroads to continue operating those trains that had some economic and social use. This is what they do in Australia for the major national trains, i.e. the Indian Pacific, The Ghan, etc.
daveklepper The losses and expenses that Sam1 mentions seem huge. But if passenger rail had died the "natural death" that Sam1 thought appropriate, the losses and expenses to the USA in general would have been astonomically higher, with far great hightway and airport expenses and land requirements that would have just scratched the surface in some areas in resolving the additonal congestion and delays that this "natural death" would have caused.
The losses experienced by Amtrak over time are indeed miniscule compared to many things the Federal Government spends money on. But the contribution of Amtrak is also miniscule. One out of every thousand auto passenger miles, or one out of every hundred airline passenger miles. But for the mathematically inclined, there is the question as to what zero divided by zero is equal to? It could be a very large number (high government subsidy per passenger mile) or a very small number (low subsidy -- various historical reasons, argued from within the advocacy community no less, to believe this is not possible).
The roots of Amtrak were in the Senator Claiborne Pell Plan for the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project, known to most of us as the Metroliner and TurboTrain service. The idea behind a Demonstration Project is to, well, demonstrate, that is, show to people what is possible.
Amtrak remains to this day largely a Demonstration Project. The idea that Amtrak is anywhere near the scale to make any difference in the congestion of highways or airways does not reflect reality on the ground, except, maybe, on the Northeast Corridor where Amtrak accounts for a substantial fraction of a highway lane in each direction and the commuter services that Amtrak hosts by operating the NEC represent multiple traffic lines at the critical peak times.
A leader in our local advocacy group was pushing this business of the long-distance trains and the "National network" in the context of advocating for the Madison, WI train, coming up with "The train is not about going to Milwaukee but about the 1000 destinations" or some such thing as the reason for the Madison train. If the Madison train was about the 1000 destinations you could get to nationally if you had time on your hands and not about boosting commerce between the Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago downtowns, well, there is the Lamar/Van Galder bus that provides direct service to Chicago Union Station.
Amtrak remains and is a Demonstration Project. It doesn't satisfy any transportation need on a meaningful, national scale, unless you think the long-distance trains are a form of national heritage/historical preservation, in which case I argue they should get steam locomotives, the noverlty of which might dramatically boost the ridership. What Amtrak does is demonstrate, that is, point to what is possible (and perhaps we have been at it long enough to conclude what is a failure) with regard to passenger rail making some meaningful contribution in an uncertain future.
I reason we need to take this demonstration function in mind in what kind of trains we advocate, rather than "just allocate the money and give us the trains."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
henry6 Oltmannd, what you've got to remember is that Volpe was Nixon's appointment and therefore had to state the party line.
Oltmannd, what you've got to remember is that Volpe was Nixon's appointment and therefore had to state the party line.
Was that the same Nixon who "went to China", created OSHA and the EPA, proposed a "Family Assistance Plan" of a bottom-line income for the poor that would allow men to stay with their families, took the U.S. (and the rest of the world) off the antiquated "Gold Standard", and provided emergency military aid to save a small country that Harry Truman was first to recognize?
According to the most recent U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Statistics, in 2010 Amtrak had 37 million train miles and 295 million vehicle miles traveled. Total train vehicle miles traveled were 513 million. Domestic air carriers racked up 5,976 million vehicle miles traveled, whilst motor vehicles came in with 2,996,494 million vehicle miles traveled. Transit (buses, commuter rail, and light rail) showed 4,400 million vehicle miles traveled. The DOT compared vehicle miles traveled as opposed to passenger miles and seat miles, which show slightly different results.
Rail accounted for .017 per cent of the total vehicle miles traveled, with Amtrak weighing in with .010 per cent. Transit had .146 per cent and domestic air had .199 per cent, leaving 99.6 per cent for highway vehicle miles traveled. These numbers don't quite add up to 100 per cent because of rounding.
Vehicle miles traveled provide some insight into the physical impact of various modes of travel, but they don't say anything about passenger miles and seat miles. Determining passenger miles and seat miles for commercial modes of transport is relatively easy, but these figures are harder to come by for highway vehicles because of various occupancy rates. DOT uses a relatively sophistical sampling methodology to determine occupancy rates for highway vehicles.
In FY10, using DOT numbers, Amtrak had .13 per cent of intercity passenger miles compared to 11.6 per cent for the country's domestic airlines, 1.08 per cent for transit, and 87.18 per cent for highways. These numbers can be refined further, but doing so does not seem productive.
The numbers appear to refute that argument that passenger rail, commuter rail, and transit rail have had a major impact on the nation's transport infrastructure or the per cent of passengers carried by each mode in any transport environment.
I wish that it were not so. But it is. Most people in this country favor cars and airplanes in most locations or getting from one location to another.
V.Payne The Federal cross subsidy for the entire interstate highway system for intercity travel is at least $0.08 per automobile vehicle mile at aaa corporate bond rates, not WACC, just bond rates from construction to today. The government borne accident costs are at least $0.02 per vehicle mile. The Class 8 truck subsidy is around $0.30 at aaa corporate interest rates, $0.60 at WACC, as the railroads pay. Between these two you have the answer to passenger operations and infrastructure expansion in the rest of the country outside the nec. Send me an email and I will send over the working paper that shows so from the FHWA's numbers.
Why would you reference AAA corporate bond rates? Most highways, airports, etc. in the United States is funded with federal and state money. The state money is usually tax free, i.e. it does not attract federal income taxes as well as state income taxes in the purchaser's resident state if that state is the issuer. The former is currently being borrowed by the U.S. Treasury at a Total Marketable Interest Rate of 2.173 per cent as of the end of April 2012. State and municipal rates vary across the board according to the issuing state. In Texas, for example, most state highways are funded by the state DOT, although an increasing number of miles are being funded by private investors. County roads and local streets are fund by the state's cities and counties, with frequent help from the Texas DOT.
Please give me the reference that you are citing. I will look it up.
The companies shutdown were primarily in the category of curbside bus operations. A lot of them were pretty marginal maintenance wise. And from seeing how there operations went they should have been gone.
In the middle of winter I saw one bus driver that did not have any windshield washer fluid for his bus and no money to but some. It was snowing and the roads were slushy at the time. Gave him 2 gal of w/w fluid.
The state of bus companies today is kind of not good. I see Greyhound with lites out. A lot of marginal operators out their. Even some of the larger operations have problems.
Last year their was a fatal crash in the Bronx. When FMCSA(Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration) investigated they found no end of problems. After that and several other fatal accidents they decided to have a closer look. When they started doing field inspections, in addition to the usual stuff(lites, cracked windows, the minor stuff), they found more serious problems. Unlicensed drivers, unsafe equipment(metal on metal brakes, serious air leaks, tyres with large amounts of cord showing). Then when they reviewed inspection forms they found several busses that had been placed out of service that appear to have been moved and then reinspected within a couple of hours with the same violation. Implying that the bus had been put back in service without being repaired. The other major violation found were buses that were operating on a suspended authority.
The violating out of service orders is one of the most serious violations that FMCSA pays attention to. The unlicensed driver violations are equally serious.
The last item that came up with FMCSA was that FMCSA has started matching names and addresses on application for authority. They found that any number of operators had simply gone and tried to get a new authority.
Welcome to "We don't need the government telling us what to do" .
Rgds IGN
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.