It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future. Whether Amtrak continues in its present form may be up for debate but train travel plays a vital and increasing role in the transport needs of other countries so the USA should be investing more too.
USA by Rail
With all due respect, have you visited many other countries? The infrastructure, society and cultural norms are very different.
You say that trains play, "A vital and increasing role in the transportation needs of other countries." Which other countries, where? Afghanistan? Ethiopia? Haiti? Not very likely. Europe? entirely different social dynamic, a result of much denser population. Japan? In Japan, an automobile is a luxury/status symbol, and is taxed accordingly.
For that matter, where is your vantage point. The northeast US is densely populated, as are some areas of California. Elsewhere, the US consists of miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
US railroads play a vital and increasing role in moving freight, and will continue to do so. As for investing, the Class 1s don't seem to have any problem getting the money they need for improvements.
OTOH, if you mean government investment in passenger rail, there has been a lot of rhetoric, but at the end of the day the money has not been forthcoming. If passenger rail was potentially a paying proposition, private capital would finance it. Holdeth not thy breath.
Chuck
Trains are the Future It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future.
It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future.
A politician's every thought is about the next election. Therefor, any project under government control attempts to be all things to all people. As such, it is doomed to failure. Efficiency is not consistent with the mission, which is to appeal to voters.
There is a market for trains. That market is medium to high density corridors. There is a limit to how much time most people will spend in transit. Obviously, the faster the transportation system travels, the farther it can take people in that limited time. While there are many of us for whom the journey rather than the destination is a draw, we are a very small segment of the traveling public. Fast, frequent, and on time are the required elements of useful transportation. If an Amtrak route cannot support several trains in each direction per day it is probably doomed. In high density environments like the east and west coasts, it makes sense to connect the several corridors, creating a de facto long distance train, but long distance as it's own goal serves too small a segment of the traveling public. Long distance trains serve one function only. They are designed to bring the trains to as many voters as possible.
I have worked in that environment. I understand that mentality.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Generally speaking all forms of transportation of passengers are subsidized. And both airlines and over the road buses are free to ignore public needs in areas they find unprofitable to serve.
It costs a lot more per passenger mile to maintain an interstate highway in Montana than it costs in New Jersey because Montana is a much more rural state. Shall we abandon interstate highways in rural areas that fail to meet some cost per passenger mile threshold?
The most basic reality of all transportation is that it is part of a national system and to shut one part down will impact all of the other parts. The United States is not Haiti. We need a system that includes passenger railroads just as well as the other parts.
Many people come from rural areas to densely populated urban areas. Densely populated urban areas do ot have space for more highways or airlines but the do have entering railroads. One single railroad track can carry as many people as 6 lanes of highway. We need to maintain that benefit and not just for people who want to travel between New York and Washington (although that group is important) but also for people who want to travel from Minot, North Dakota to Chicago.
Minot to Chicago is over 18 hours via Amtrak. It is under 4 hours including the layover in Minneapolis on Delta Connections. Even if you add 2 hours for the security foolishness it is a third the time that Amtrak takes. While Amtrak can compete with the 16 hours that an automobile takes, it would be pretty tough to compete with air. Minneapolis to Chicago probably makes sense.
There is a reason that small privately owned aircraft are so popular in Alaska. It is too rural to support either mass transit or even an extensive road system. Mass transit requires a certain density of population to justify the cost. I am not one of those who thinks Amtrak needs to break even or make a profit. I am, however, a believer that it should be built only where there is an actual need. If a small community exists along a route that is justified by it's end points then that community benefits by the unique ability of rail to make numerous stops along the way. An airline cannot do that. Has anyone ever researched how many people actually want to travel from Minot, ND to Chicago?
I am not actually advocating the cancellation of any existing L.D. trains. What I am advocating is that Amtrak use their extremely limited resources to grow in the higher density markets and expand only as the need develops. The well developed NE corridor, justifies intersecting corridors across central NY, southern PA, even spokes around the Boston area. I agree whole heartedly with the recent expansion into the Norfolk area. However, shouldn't those connectors that are totally within a state be the responsibility of that state?
Phoebe Vet Minot to Chicago is over 18 hours via Amtrak. It is under 4 hours including the layover in Minneapolis on Delta Connections. Even if you add 2 hours for the security foolishness it is a third the time that Amtrak takes. While Amtrak can compete with the 16 hours that an automobile takes, it would be pretty tough to compete with air. Minneapolis to Chicago probably makes sense. There is a reason that small privately owned aircraft are so popular in Alaska. It is too rural to support either mass transit or even an extensive road system. Mass transit requires a certain density of population to justify the cost. I am not one of those who thinks Amtrak needs to break even or make a profit. I am, however, a believer that it should be built only where there is an actual need. If a small community exists along a route that is justified by it's end points then that community benefits by the unique ability of rail to make numerous stops along the way. An airline cannot do that. Has anyone ever researched how many people actually want to travel from Minot, ND to Chicago? I am not actually advocating the cancellation of any existing L.D. trains. What I am advocating is that Amtrak use their extremely limited resources to grow in the higher density markets and expand only as the need develops. The well developed NE corridor, justifies intersecting corridors across central NY, southern PA, even spokes around the Boston area. I agree whole heartedly with the recent expansion into the Norfolk area. However, shouldn't those connectors that are totally within a state be the responsibility of that state?
I'm in general agreement with your thinking. It's when the details are looked at that I start to wonder about how the limited resources are allocated. Here's an Amtrak "fact sheet" for the EB in North Dakota.
http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/NORTHDAKOTA10.pdf
In very layman terms, if service were suspended say from New Year's until April 1st between Spokane and the Twin Cities, and the equipment used elsewhere during that time, might the overall financial results become more favorable, and even more favorable than maybe allocating to a segment with large populations, but also where competing travel choices are much more plentiful?
I also wonder in this case where most of the Minot boarders and alighters are actually traveling to and from.
" What I am advocating is that Amtrak use their extremely limited resources to grow in the higher density markets and expand only as the need develops. The well developed NE corridor, justifies intersecting corridors across central NY, southern PA, even spokes around the Boston area."
Actually, much of this is already being done. Starting from the north and moving south:
Recently Amtrak added the Downeaster, a train funded by the State of Main which runs from Portland to North Station, Boston. There are 5 trains each way on weekdays and 4 on week ends. However, there is no direct rail connection to South Station. There might have been but during a recent expressway project (The Big Dig) it was abandoned.
The Lake Shore Limited has an section that runs east west between Boston and Albany and crosses the Springfield, MA line as well as service from New York Penn Station that turns west at Albany and runs to Chicago.
At New Haven there is service on the Springfield line that continues up almost to the Canadian border at St. Albans, VT on the Vermonter. This train is subsidized by Vermont.
The Pennsylvanian. a daily Amtrak train, runs across southern Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.
Keystone service which is subsidized by the state of Pennsylvania runs on the same line with 13 trains each weekday but stops at Harrisburg.
The Capitol Limited cuts across the southwest corner of Pennsylvania and stops at both Connellsberg and Pittsburgh before going on to Chicago.
What Amtrak might do is to re-inaugurate the Phoebe Snow this time to start a New York Penn Station (no need to take a ferry to Hoboken Terminal) and run along New Jersey Transit's Morris and Essex line up to Scranton and then up to Buffalo or to Erie, PA where it could connect with the Lake Shore Limited. New Jersey Transit intends to restore service as far a Scranton within a few years' time.
Trains are the Future It's always dificult to make predictions - especially about the future. Whether Amtrak continues in its present form may be up for debate but train travel plays a vital and increasing role in the transport needs of other countries so the USA should be investing more too.
"The success of the Vision for Space Exploration requires motivations that go beyond the tired rationales of the past. (credit: Lockheed Martin)"
That second quote was from a Web site reflecting on the 1969 Moon Landing and ruminating on the "where do we go from here." I draw criticism for comparing Amtrak to NASA and train advocacy people are quick to point out that NASA gets about 10 times as much money whereas Amtrak is "underfunded" and all of that. But I still maintain there are strong parallels.
I am told we have "gone around the loop track enough times" (actually, a loop track in British English means what we 'Merkins call a "siding") that we can stipulate that there is better train service in many of our trading-partner nations, that all modes of transportation require some manner of government involvement as does the space program (although there are private passenger train projects and private space projects in "the works"), that we have a transportation problem in terms of highway and airway congestion, that trains (potentially, not that well realized with Amtrak) offer reduced oil usage and pollution, and so on. Also, many people like the tradeoff between faster-than-driving (although not in all cases on current Amtrak) but slower but perhaps more comfortable than flying offered by trains.
All of that is good to say, but we in the advocacy community have been saying these things for over 40 years now from the inception of Amtrak, and some of the ways we have been saying these things perhaps offers a "tired rationale." These aren't the 1960's when space exploration was ushering in a New Age of Tang sugared drink, Velcro, and beating the Russians. These aren't the 1960's either when the Northeast Corridor Demonstration Project (Metroliner and TurboTrain) or some manner of High-Speed Rail were going to solve the Transportation Crisis of clogged highways and airways.
Some the things we in the advocacy community have been claiming about fuel savings, environmental benefits, and congestion relief could merit some reexamination, especially the tradeoff in subsidy cost to realize the benefits we are claiming, and no, this isn't "bean counting" and "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing."
The other thing is that over the 40 years we have had Amtrak, an (small) anti-advocacy community has emerged, questioning some of our assumptions about the goodness and yes, cost effectiveness of trains, just as people question, "Why do we even have a space program when there are needs on Earth ranging from poverty and hunger, to yes, trains?" I don't think there were much in the way of "policy wonks" who questioned the need for trains 40 years ago -- most of the anti-train wonkishness came from the railroads themselves, who regarded passenger trains as sinking their entire operations. But today, people who are not train enthusiasts have looked at Amtrak and found aspects of it wanting.
I am saying that critics and critiques of Amtrak need to be taken seriously and not just brushed off as part of the great Highway and Oil Conspiracy.
The where-do-we-go-from-here, in my opinion is two-fold. One, I think we should advocate for spending what little subsidy money comes the way of trains, as inadequate and underfunded and all that it is, to advocate that such money be spent to get the most "bang for the buck." If trains are not in the free-market private-enterprise arena to get their funding, they are then in the political arena, and passenger trains have to make the most splash as they can, with for example, the 8 billion in the Stimulus money from 2008. Trains need to do this to widen the base of political support. And we won't widen the base of political support by scolding people that they don't-know-what-is-good-for-them in not supporting trains with the enthusiasm many of us have.
The second half of my opinion is my take on trends, discussion, and directions in the passenger train advocacy community. Amtrak is said to have little leeway, what it does is micromanaged "by Congress." And where does Congress get direction, especially on the focused issues regarding trains? From the advocacy community, meaning little old us right here on this Forum and places like it.
I see expressions of narrow interest such as "facilitated by the large amount of subsidy money that is coming from other taxpayers, I take the Denver Zephyr once each year from my small town in Illinois to Denver and pay a $75 dollar fare, I would be greatly inconvenienced if I had to 'get a ride' to O'Hare and pay hundreds more in airfare, and this talk of emphasizing 'corridors' is unfair." No, no one said those exact words, but you get the idea.
I, for one, am not totally convinced that long-distance trains are the enemy either as URPA (United Rail Passenger Alliance) claims that just as in the days of the "train off petitions", the costs of those trainsare overstated, but then URPA is not completely transparent on their data and their may be some creative accounting backing up their claims.
What I am in favor of is an open mind towards Amtrak routes, services, and operations, receptive to ideas of changes that, yes, could save money, instead of a reflexive "that is how passenger operations were always carried out and anyone who says differently is a minion of the Concrete Lobby."
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
John WR Generally speaking all forms of transportation of passengers are subsidized. And both airlines and over the road buses are free to ignore public needs in areas they find unprofitable to serve. It costs a lot more per passenger mile to maintain an interstate highway in Montana than it costs in New Jersey because Montana is a much more rural state. Shall we abandon interstate highways in rural areas that fail to meet some cost per passenger mile threshold? The most basic reality of all transportation is that it is part of a national system and to shut one part down will impact all of the other parts. The United States is not Haiti. We need a system that includes passenger railroads just as well as the other parts. Many people come from rural areas to densely populated urban areas. Densely populated urban areas do ot have space for more highways or airlines but the do have entering railroads. One single railroad track can carry as many people as 6 lanes of highway. We need to maintain that benefit and not just for people who want to travel between New York and Washington (although that group is important) but also for people who want to travel from Minot, North Dakota to Chicago.
I hear what you are saying, but I am not buying... The Amtrak LD routes are not designed to serve rural America. They are merely a remnant of the streamliner routes of the 1950s. Nearly every one existed in the 1950s and ran on nearly the same schedule with the same stops. Check it out!
Since then, we have invested a whole lot of gasoline tax in building out a national network of highways. Have we adjusted to rail routes to serve those "underserved" by the highway network? No. Have we adjusted any Amtrak LD service at all in the past 20 years? No.
Why not? Amtrak is not motivated from within to change anything. It would be a risk and they would get no reward. Nobody at Amtrak gets a bonus for better service, cost savings, lower subsidy or anything.
Amtrak is largely broken.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes. And this already low percentage will get worse as increased fuel efficiency standards and high gas prices cause drivers to use fewer gallons, and as the increased weight limits for semis that trucking companies are pushing for causes roads to deteriorate faster than they already are.
But Amtrak supporters need not fret, despite the solemn "Amtrak is broken" statements made by those with hidden agendas (the same sort of thing those who want to raid Social Security and Medicare say about those programs), as I said many times, Amtrak long distance is here to stay so long as the US Constitution is the law of the land and each state gets two US Senators.
DwightBranch Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes.
Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes.
You are not paying attention. Per passenger mile subsidy, if you please! YOU HAVE TO NORMALIZE THE STATISTIC OR IT IS MEANINGLESS! (does shouting help?)
I do this sort of thing for a living....shouting, that is.
oltmannd DwightBranch Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes. You are not paying attention. Per passenger mile subsidy, if you please! YOU HAVE TO NORMALIZE THE STATISTIC OR IT IS MEANINGLESS! (does shouting help?) I do this sort of thing for a living....shouting, that is.
Not if the question is the cost of operating in different states, and the question of whether trains (and cars) operating in each part of the US must pay for themselves, which was John's point. Just as operating the Empire Builder through a large, underpopulated state costs more per person than a train between St. Louis and Chicago, so too is the cost of maintaining interstate highways across that state. The other stats were addressing a different question, is highway funding completely paid for by gas taxes (i.e. user fees paid for ONLY by those who use the highways, not general revenues placed on everyone).
I am a professor of political economy, do not try to BS me with statistics.
I am a SUPPORTER of Amtrak. I have been a supervisor in a large state organization and have seen the political "reach the most voters" mentality. first hand When you have limited resources and you spread them too thin it is only a matter of time before people stop taking you seriously.
One train a day, or even worse, three trains a week is not useful transportation. If congress authorized Amtrak the money to buy 30 new trains, they would add 10 new routes to new cities, one a day. If you expect people to travel by train, the train must be going when and where they need to go. Most travelers will spend three or four hours on a train. What that translates to in miles depends on how fast the train goes and how many stops it makes. If people have to change trains then the trains must run on time and layovers cannot be six hours.
It is more important to do each route right than it is to do as many routes as possible.
Phoebe Vet I am a SUPPORTER of Amtrak. I have been a supervisor in a large state organization and have seen the political "reach the most voters" mentality. first hand When you have limited resources and you spread them too thin it is only a matter of time before people stop taking you seriously. One train a day, or even worse, three trains a week is not useful transportation. If congress authorized Amtrak the money to buy 30 new trains, they would add 10 new routes to new cities, one a day. If you expect people to travel by train, the train must be going when and where they need to go. Most travelers will spend three or four hours on a train. What that translates to in miles depends on how fast the train goes and how many stops it makes. If people have to change trains then the trains must run on time and layovers cannot be six hours. It is more important to do each route right than it is to do as many routes as possible.
As you outline it, there are three options for long distance: 1) do it right, multiple train pairs on each route; 2) do it poorly, the one train pair per day system we have now; 3) no trains at all. And you are arguing that it needs to be either options 1 or 3. But most states (and the residents of those states) see option 3 as unacceptable. And option 1 has not been funded. So option 2 it is and will be until option 1 is funded; option 3 is out of the question.
I bet that most people in Minot, SD don't even know that Amtrak serves their town. Like I said; when you spread your assets so thin that the service isn't useful, people stop taking you seriously. That is why so many people think that Amtrak is a waste of tax money.
Here in Charlotte, I can travel along one route easily. There are three round trip trains a day that I can take to the State capital at Raleigh. There are two round trip trains a day that I can take to DC or NYC. But if I want to go in the other direction to Atlanta, there is one train and it comes through Charlotte at 2:30 AM. How many people do you suppose THAT attracts? USAirways has 13 flights a day from Charlotte to Atlanta. Which one would YOU choose? Notice that I didn't even mention speed or cost.
Phoebe Vet I bet that most people in Minot, SD don't even know that Amtrak serves their town. Like I said; when you spread your assets so thin that the service isn't useful, people stop taking you seriously. That is why so many people think that Amtrak is a waste of tax money. Here in Charlotte, I can travel along one route easily. There are three round trip trains a day that I can take to the State capital at Raleigh. There are two round trip trains a day that I can take to DC or NYC. But if I want to go in the other direction to Atlanta, there is one train and it comes through Charlotte at 2:30 AM. How many people do you suppose THAT attracts? USAirways has 13 flights a day from Charlotte to Atlanta. Which one would YOU choose>
Here in Charlotte, I can travel along one route easily. There are three round trip trains a day that I can take to the State capital at Raleigh. There are two round trip trains a day that I can take to DC or NYC. But if I want to go in the other direction to Atlanta, there is one train and it comes through Charlotte at 2:30 AM. How many people do you suppose THAT attracts? USAirways has 13 flights a day from Charlotte to Atlanta. Which one would YOU choose>
Not everyone is in the situation you are, the majority of the US is lower income people who often cannot afford to favor immediate speed over convenience, and for them the cost of taking twice as long to get to one's destination is less than the cost of arranging transportation to an airport 100 miles away. For someone living in say, a smaller city in the western part of the country (Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, Washington), it is often difficult to make it to the airport, especially in the winter. Even in state like Illinois for some people it can take just as much time to drive to the airport as the plane trip takes, and that is assuming that you have a car that can make it that far without breaking down. It is easy to get someone to give you a ride to a station like Princeton IL, but to take you all the way to Chicago O'Hare? Forget it. I think there is a strong current of social class in a lot of the anti-Amtrak posts, upper middle class professionals living in suburban areas, who assume that everyone is in their situation, who then extrapolate from what they want in describing what passenger transportation should do. But the majority of the population is not upper middle class professionals living in suburban areas, and the majority of Amtrak passengers are lower income, that is whom the system serves.
As for the people in Minot not knowing about Amtrak, I doubt it, but if so it is a result of the poor funding and infrequent service rather than a flaw in the mode of transportation itself.
You missed my point. With 13 flights a day there are obviously a lot of people who want to travel between Charlotte and Atlanta but the only train service available departs and arrives at 2:30 AM (both directions).
If you don't offer useful transportation, people think you are just a waste of money. There are many states with no Amtrak service. Do you hear any of them begging for it to be implemented. The simple fact is that Amtrak does not and probably never will have enough money to serve everyone. They need to use their limited resources to provide useful transportation in the markets where it will be most effective. If people see it as a valuable service, expansion will naturally follow.
Oltmannd,
Let me try to address a some of your concerns.
The Federal HIghway Act of 1956 provided the plans for the Dwight David Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. No doubt the act has been amended over the years but it is clearly a design out of the 1950's. There are a lot more interstate highways than there are Amtrak routes but I-94 parallels the Empire Builder, I-80 parallels the Lake Shore Limited and the California Zephyr, I-40, 44 and 44 parallel the Southwest Chief and I-10 parallels the Sunset Limited. It is true that Amtrak has not moved any tracks closer to any interstate highways but it is also true that in the west the places interstate highways connect were built where they are because of the railroads.
I cannot speak of the whole country because I'm not familiar with it. However, in my state, New Jersey, Amtrak has added a stop at Newark Airport which is served by I-95 and I-78 and has added another stop at Metropark which is a group of parking garages just off I-95.
As far as serving rural areas Amtrak stops at Staples, MN, population 2891 and Wolfpoint, MT population 2621.
Here in the northeast Amtrak was motivated from within to start Acela service which is both popular and profitable. Amtrak cannot run more trains until another tunnel between New York and New Jersey is built but Amtrak will build that tunnel and Joe Boardman has ordered 40 new cars for the Acelas that now run.
The problems with long distance trains are because of freight railroads which withhold cooperation. Frankly, I which Amtrak were more aggressive about taking them on.
Amtrak does many things very well however there are things that could be done better. But if you have been riding trains since the 1950's as I have when you look back you see great improvements.
DwightBranch . It is easy to get someone to give you a ride to a station like Princeton IL, but to take you all the way to Chicago O'Hare? Forget it.
. It is easy to get someone to give you a ride to a station like Princeton IL, but to take you all the way to Chicago O'Hare? Forget it.
If you are coming from the Princeton Il area, why would you drive to O'Hare? Both Peoria and Moline, which are much closer to Princeton, and have multiple flights a day to major airline hubs. I guess when you have an agenda.....
An "expensive model collector"
Phoebe Vet You missed my point. With 13 flights a day there are obviously a lot of people who want to travel between Charlotte and Atlanta but the only train service available departs and arrives at 2:30 AM (both directions). If you don't offer useful transportation, people think you are just a waste of money. There are many states with no Amtrak service. Do you hear any of them begging for it to be implemented. The simple fact is that Amtrak does not and probably never will have enough money to serve everyone. They need to use their limited resources to provide useful transportation in the markets where it will be most effective. If people see it as a valuable service, expansion will naturally follow.
US transportation policy, in particular, the varying amounts spent on different modes, has never been consumer driven. If Dwight Eisenhower had not been so enamored with how easily his tanks and troops could move down the German autobahn we wouldn't have the interstates here (and, in fact, the autobahn was built for reasons other than transportation in the first place). Transportation is more on the order of "if you build it they will come." And, to this point, we haven't built long distance passenger trains sufficiently. From the 1950s onward in the US we have focused on highways, and the reason people in the US travel by car more than anywhere else is... because we built highways! I recall in Denver when they first experimented with light rail (the line from I-25 and Broadway downtown, about 10 miles) the local libertarian, Jon Caldera, was all over the airwaves trying to claim that very few people would ride it, that Americans won't ride public transportation because they are "individualists," etc. The light rail exceeded initial ridership projections exponentially, and that has been the experience everywhere it has been built. I know that (individualism) isn't the claim you are making, but in my opinion it has its source in the same error: that if people want public transportation rather than to drive their cars on roads that there will be some market mechanism to make that happen in the absence of government building that transportation infrastructure in the first place. And I don't see how that is possible, things aren't the way they are here (underspending on passenger trains) because Americans decided it should be that way, it is a result of US government infrastructure policy dating from the end of WWII.
DwightBranch oltmannd DwightBranch Absolutely on the mark, and despite the rhetorical slight of hand used by anti-Amtrak types here that we have invested "gas tax revenues" in road building (implying that highways are paid for only by their users) currently only around 50% of highway spending is provided by fuel taxes. You are not paying attention. Per passenger mile subsidy, if you please! YOU HAVE TO NORMALIZE THE STATISTIC OR IT IS MEANINGLESS! (does shouting help?) I do this sort of thing for a living....shouting, that is. Not if the question is the cost of operating in different states, and the question of whether trains (and cars) operating in each part of the US must pay for themselves, which was John's point. Just as operating the Empire Builder through a large, underpopulated state costs more per person than a train between St. Louis and Chicago, so too is the cost of maintaining interstate highways across that state. The other stats were addressing a different question, is highway funding completely paid for by gas taxes (i.e. user fees paid for ONLY by those who use the highways, not general revenues placed on everyone). I am a professor of political economy, do not try to BS me with statistics.
Then don't quote stats that aren't normalized!
John WR Oltmannd, Let me try to address a some of your concerns. The Federal HIghway Act of 1956 provided the plans for the Dwight David Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. No doubt the act has been amended over the years but it is clearly a design out of the 1950's. There are a lot more interstate highways than there are Amtrak routes but I-94 parallels the Empire Builder, I-80 parallels the Lake Shore Limited and the California Zephyr, I-40, 44 and 44 parallel the Southwest Chief and I-10 parallels the Sunset Limited. It is true that Amtrak has not moved any tracks closer to any interstate highways but it is also true that in the west the places interstate highways connect were built where they are because of the railroads. I cannot speak of the whole country because I'm not familiar with it. However, in my state, New Jersey, Amtrak has added a stop at Newark Airport which is served by I-95 and I-78 and has added another stop at Metropark which is a group of parking garages just off I-95. As far as serving rural areas Amtrak stops at Staples, MN, population 2891 and Wolfpoint, MT population 2621. Here in the northeast Amtrak was motivated from within to start Acela service which is both popular and profitable. Amtrak cannot run more trains until another tunnel between New York and New Jersey is built but Amtrak will build that tunnel and Joe Boardman has ordered 40 new cars for the Acelas that now run. The problems with long distance trains are because of freight railroads which withhold cooperation. Frankly, I which Amtrak were more aggressive about taking them on. Amtrak does many things very well however there are things that could be done better. But if you have been riding trains since the 1950's as I have when you look back you see great improvements.
I have lived in NY, NJ, Ohio, PA, and GA. I've traveled in 49 states over the past 40 years. I have worked 34 years for a couple of railroads. I am a big fan of passenger railroading. I think we could use more passenger trains in this country - in the right spots. Those spots would be corridors. Could LD trains be part of the network? I hope so, but things will have to change.
Metropark was an addition made under Penn Central as part of the original NEC high speed program. Newark/Liberty is a NY/NJ Port Authority, NJT project - not Amtrak's idea. Amtrak is not very good at innovation. They have generally be a "follower".
That said, Amtrak seems to have a handle on the NEC. Could they do better? Sure. But, that's not where the problem lies. It's those pesky long distance trains. They don't produce seat miles very efficiently and Amtrak hasn't done a thing about it nor seems to care a whit about it. They are basically 1950s streamliners. Same staffing, same food service, same stops, same schedules.
The problem isn't the freight railroads' lack of cooperation that causes these trains to bleed red ink. They are generally cooperative these days. There are capacity issues on the freight network that didn't exist 20 years ago that cause problems, but timekeeping doesn't cause the trains to bleed red ink either. It's the business model.
The world moved since 1955 and the LD train service hasn't. Why do LD trains still exist?
Rural access to transport? A little bit, but, as you noted, most routes are paralleled by interstates and there are more cars than drivers in the US these days. Those cars? Their gas mileage is nearly double that of those from the 60s and 70s. Even at $4/gal, it is still cheaper and easier to drive now then it was then. So, we don't get much "rural access" for our LD train subsidy. We'd do better subsidizing rural bus service to those places that are truly underserved by the highway network. We could reach more people for the same bucks.
What about people who don't like to fly? We don't subsidize scheduled trans Atlantic liner service for those who might like to visit Europe but are afraid to fly, so why do we do it for LD trains?
Tourism? Leave that to private enterprise. Whistler in BC and the Denali service in Alaska are good examples. And, how comfortable are you with really high subsidies per person for tourism?
The problem is the budget deficit and looming retirement of baby boomers. As much as it pains them, Congress is going to have to pinch pennies pretty hard to even begin to get a handle on things. Any thing that smells like a rat is going to be hunted down. Amtrak, in general, smells like a rat. It's their per passenger mile subsidy. It's largely driven by the LD trains. They ARE rats! If they can't be improved, they are toast. And, they might bring all of Amtrak down with them.
Maintaining the status quo is extremely unlikely. If the advocacy community doesn't push for change, who will and what will it look like? You want Wendell Cox calling the shots?
In medicine it is called triage. When you do not have enough resources to go around you assign priorities.
Amtrak does not now, nor will it ever, have enough money to serve every community in the USA. They can serve many people with a useless system that doesn't fit anyone's needs, or they can serve some people with an effective transportation system. Logic dictates that the latter be implemented in high density population centers so that it will serve the largest number of people.
Amtrak loses 22 cents per passenger mile on the LD trains - not including capital allocation (e.g. cost to rebuild equipment periodically, improvements to stations, etc.)
The Fed highway budget is $70B for 3 trillion vehicle miles travelled. Assuming one passenger per vehicle, that's 2.3 cents per passenger mile.
This is the problem!
Since the purpose of any means of passenger transportation is to provide an efficient method that people use to get from one place to another, a useful metric would be the revenue, expenses and net loss or surplus per passenger (not per passenger mile, since the mileage is largely irrelevant in examining the way people are being served) on long distance, the NEC, and other corridor services of Amtrak and compare. One advantage is it examines the issue within Amtrak alone and thus avoids the endless and fruitless arguments about subsidies for road, air and rail. Unfortunately, that is still (over one year and counting!!) not available b/c Amtrak is changing accounting methods. However, someone might have that data from the past.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You assume that the total costs of automobiles and highways are only the costs the Federal Government budgets. But what about other costs? Just a few examples are:
State costs for policing.
Costs of accidents including medical costs for people injured.
Costs of environmental degradation due paving over enormous amounts of land. To what extent are depleted water tables resulting from the paving the cause of the current drought? To what extent does the pollution contribute to global warming?
When interstates run through cities the costs to people who are displaced and whose lives are uprooted.
Also the costs to cities and states when the land taken by the Federal Government is removed from the tax rolls.
I could go on and on. There is a fallacy in seeing the only costs of driving as those costs that one part of government budgets in the short term. The costs of our automobile dependence are far far more than any given Federal Budget would indicate.
John WR You assume that the total costs of automobiles and highways are only the costs the Federal Government budgets. But what about other costs? Just a few examples are: State costs for policing. Costs of accidents including medical costs for people injured. Costs of environmental degradation due paving over enormous amounts of land. To what extent are depleted water tables resulting from the paving the cause of the current drought? To what extent does the pollution contribute to global warming? When interstates run through cities the costs to people who are displaced and whose lives are uprooted. Also the costs to cities and states when the land taken by the Federal Government is removed from the tax rolls. I could go on and on. There is a fallacy in seeing the only costs of driving as those costs that one part of government budgets in the short term. The costs of our automobile dependence are far far more than any given Federal Budget would indicate.
Yup. Those are factors. But you'll never close the gap with them.
We are talking about an order of magnitude difference! And that's even before some say that most of the $70 billion comes from fuel tax from gasoline sold to operate the cars running on those roads. If 90% of the $70B comes from fuel tax, then we are talking about TWO orders of magnitude.
You are nibbling around the edges. The point is even if you grab everything and make the most optimistic assumptions, you still can't close a ten-fold (or 100 fold!) gap!
Amtrak needs to get busy trying to figure out how to get that 22 cent a mile down. Set a goal. Drop it 1cent per mile per year for a decade. You can work the revenue and cost side of the equation. Then, get busy!
It's the only thing that will keep the budget wolves from eating the rat.
schlimm Since the purpose of any means of passenger transportation is to provide an efficient method that people use to get from one place to another, a useful metric would be the revenue, expenses and net loss or surplus per passenger (not per passenger mile, since the mileage is largely irrelevant in examining the way people are being served) on long distance, the NEC, and other corridor services of Amtrak and compare. One advantage is it examines the issue within Amtrak alone and thus avoids the endless and fruitless arguments about subsidies for road, air and rail. Unfortunately, that is still (over one year and counting!!) not available b/c Amtrak is changing accounting methods. However, someone might have that data from the past.
Nope. Per mile. Because not all OD pairs are created equally. The harder it is to get there, the more it costs to do it - and the costs are generally proportional to mileage.
Amtrak is changing their accounting computer system...it is taking them awfully long to get the work done. Not surprised.... Not that they are trying to hide anything. There's just no heat being applied, most likely. It's their corporate culture.
In FY10 the average losses per Amtrak passenger were $48.67 for the NEC, $21.68 for the short corridor trains, and $144.15 for the long distance trains. Amtrak does not publish this figure. To get there I assigned 80 per cent of the depreciation, interest, and management overheads to the NEC, with the remaining 20 per cent accuring equally to the short corridor and long distance trains.
Using revenue, cost, and gains or losses per passenger mile, seat mile, vehicle mile traveled, etc. has been the basis for normalizing cross mode cost comparisons since I minored in transportation economics as an undergraduate student.
No matter how one slices and dices the numbers, Amtrak's long distance trains are the biggest drag on its financial results.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.