Paul MilenkovicIf we had a market system where all of the costs are borne by users of each mode, people would vote with their dollars on whether the preferred mode is to stay in their car or to park the car, take the train, and then make some arrangement for transportation at the far end. But we don't have such a market system
I completely agree, Paul. And the reason is that our Federal Government built a national highway system in the 1930's and an interstate and defense highway system in the 1950's and 60's where actual use of the highways was free and at the same time regulated railroad passenger service out of existence and failed to give us the public transit we needed.
In the 1930's FDR did try to sell his programs to the electorate. He also started the Works Projects Administration and other programs as well as giving states money for road building. Jobs for unemployed people were a powerful persuader. And Dwight Eisenhower saw the Autobahn and liked what he say. As President, he said the magic word, "defense," and Congress gave him the legislation. And again, there was a lot of money passed out and a lot of jobs. That is the way our political system built all the highways.
But there are problems when the only transportation is private vehicles. What I say and all that I say is that we need a more balanced system and a system where all users including people who use automobiles pay their fair share.
A major factor in examining whether or not there is a role for passenger rail service in the US is potential demand. Opponents say there is not b/c under the current Amtrak system the market share is so small. This overlooks a major point. The current system outside the NEC (and possibly in one or two other incipient corridors) does not offer real service, but merely 3-7 trains per week, often on legacy long distance routes, perpetuated to curry votes from senators in low population states. Even on shorter routes, offering only a few trains per day does not provide sufficient convenience to cause a decent percentage of drivers to try the train rather than use an auto. In the locations where fast, frequent and convenient services are offered (the NEC) the market share for rail is much higher and reduces the necessity to expand the number of new lanes to be added to the Interstate system at a very high cost, as V. Payne has pointed out.
As Sir Madog pointed out, German Rail carries nearly 2 billion passengers in a country barely more than 1/4 our population. I would hesitate to imagine the gridlock on the roads and Autobahns if they had to pick up even 1/2 that load.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Dixie Flyer I I started this thread with 4 times the passengers and 4 times the coat as a starting point for discussion. Costs per passenger should improve because of better equipment utilizaiton and the reduction of fixed costs or something is very, very wrong.
I I started this thread with 4 times the passengers and 4 times the coat as a starting point for discussion. Costs per passenger should improve because of better equipment utilizaiton and the reduction of fixed costs or something is very, very wrong.
Maybe at low levels of service (once per day or tri-weekly long-distance trains), you are getting the use of the tracks for low payments? Perhaps as frequencies increase, you start interfering with the freight traffic to the extent that your freight railroad partner will demand chipping in for major capital improvements? Such as the Union Pacific demanding a billion dollars for double tracking or more sidings to support a daily Sunset Limited?
We tend to believe NARP's thing about a rail line supporting the traffic of 20 lanes of traffic. That may be true for a highly signaled and structured rapid transit lines, but there may not be anything near that level of capacity on heavily used freight lines. It may be way off for a single-track line with sidings with a mix of freight and passenger and a mix of train speeds. So if you go from a daily train where you are threading the passenger train through the other traffic to a serious level of service, there has to be a serious addition of tracks or sidings with accompanying capital expenditure.
There may be some S-curve economics that at very low levels of passenger traffic, the use of the tracks is a byproduct of freight operations, as you increase service the capital costs start to bite, and that at very high levels of service on a dedicated passenger line (think Shinkansen) is only when you start to see cost economies?
I think that Don Oltmann linked some while ago to someone's transportation "big picture" report, and the remark was made that railroads work effectively as "batch mode operations." Maybe in passenger ops, the batches have to be on the traffic level of the New York City subway or the New Tokaido Line that you start seeing economies of scale, the leveling off of the S-curve. Outside of the Northeast Corridor, maybe increasing passenger service is just moving on to the steep part of the S-curve?
That is why Don Oltmann's suggestion of Amtrak having a "railroad liaison officer" is such a good one, of finding out what is possible and not possible on the railroad network is such a good one.
I see that as an advocacy community that we are stuck in a late 60's NARP model of the freight railroads being evil corporations who want to thwart passenger trains. Just as there are laws of thermodynamics and materials and mechanics that determine the cost tradeoffs between steam engines and Diesel locomotives, there are probably laws of traffic constraints and maintenance costs for certain class of track and maintenance requirements to operate passenger trains at anything greater than yard limit speeds that bound the costs of passenger operations. As passenger train advocates, we need to learn about such fundamental limits.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
II Trains do have some flexibility in that railroads have added and subtracted diners, sleepers and coaches long before Amtrak. A utilization rate of 52% is unacceptable.
III If a goal of a 5 cents per mile subsidy is acceptable lets reward Amtrak management for improved performance. I would give a50% bonus on each years improvement over the prior.
Iv I would have congress appropriate 500 million a year for new engines and passenger cars as long as the five year cost per passenger mile continues to decline or we reach our goal of 5 cents per passenger mile.
V I would change the following laws:
a) sleeping cars would not be required on entire routes
b) Sleeping car service would be contracted out to the private sector. Amtrak would just haul cars.
c) Food service would be required on trips over 4 hours but otherwise totally up to management as far a implementation.
d) Clarify that Amtrak can work with any private venture wanting to attach cars to Amtrak trains. Amtrak would simply be a freight forwarder. I know the amtrak express expansion turned into a mess but the concept is fundemental to improving performance.
V
John WR Sam1My main point is to eliminate all subsidies or reduce them to the lowest amount possible. The users (highway, airway, waterway, railway) should pay the cost of what they use through the pricing mechanism I completely agree with you, Sam. But when it comes to roads that is not remotely what we do. What individuals pay for roads has no relationship to the benefits of roads to individuals. All vehicle owners pay Federal motor fuel tax that goes toward our Interstate highways but some use the interstates a lot and others use them hardly at all. The same is true for state highways; all must pay the motor fuel state tax without regard to actual use of the highways. And property taxes, which fund local and country roads, have no relationship what so ever to actual road usage. Also, as you point out, when excise taxes are not enough government dips into whatever tax is easiest. If, as you suggest, "the pricing mechanism" were used to fund roads we would put tolls on all roads. We could do this with current intelligence technology. But we all know that isn't about to happen. We are just not going to charge road users based on their actual use of the roads. Some of us will pay extra and others of us will get an extra benefit. The vast majority of our roads are for rubber tired vehicles but some of our roads are for flanged steel wheeled vehicles. But doesn't it make sense to treat all roads the same? After all we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund tarred roads. So why make a special exception for steel rail roads?
Sam1My main point is to eliminate all subsidies or reduce them to the lowest amount possible. The users (highway, airway, waterway, railway) should pay the cost of what they use through the pricing mechanism
I completely agree with you, Sam. But when it comes to roads that is not remotely what we do. What individuals pay for roads has no relationship to the benefits of roads to individuals.
All vehicle owners pay Federal motor fuel tax that goes toward our Interstate highways but some use the interstates a lot and others use them hardly at all. The same is true for state highways; all must pay the motor fuel state tax without regard to actual use of the highways. And property taxes, which fund local and country roads, have no relationship what so ever to actual road usage. Also, as you point out, when excise taxes are not enough government dips into whatever tax is easiest.
If, as you suggest, "the pricing mechanism" were used to fund roads we would put tolls on all roads. We could do this with current intelligence technology. But we all know that isn't about to happen. We are just not going to charge road users based on their actual use of the roads. Some of us will pay extra and others of us will get an extra benefit.
The vast majority of our roads are for rubber tired vehicles but some of our roads are for flanged steel wheeled vehicles. But doesn't it make sense to treat all roads the same? After all we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund tarred roads. So why make a special exception for steel rail roads?
Owing to all of the legacy, history, and water-under-the-bridge, the predominant mode of intercity transportation is the private automobile. This is even true in Europe, where considerable effort has been made to maintain and even improve a passenger train network. This is even true in Japan, where trains play an even bigger role, but there is if not a majority then a plurality market share for cars. People like cars when societies become wealthy enough to afford them, despite the best efforts to offer common carrier alternatives.
The argument V Payne is making and now John WR is supporting is that a car trip requires multiple stages, starting in your driveway, driving down the block, connecting to the city and county roads, merging on to the Interstate, and reversing the process to get to your final destination. What is so special about the Interstate/freeway/superhighway portion of the journey when a steel highway could provide the middle portion of the trip? Especially since the Amtrak subsidy (per passenger mile) is now established to be only twice as much as the subsidy to rural Interstate highways instead of the factor of 10-20 claimed by others.
If we had a market system where all of the costs are borne by users of each mode, people would vote with their dollars on whether the preferred mode is to stay in their car or to park the car, take the train, and then make some arrangement for transportation at the far end. But we don't have such a market system, and even if we did, the temptations are great to mess with it. I mean people pay top dollar for tickets to football games and you would think that people wealthy enough to afford not only football tickets but luxury boxes and the like should pay coin, but there are all manners of city and county taxes to pay for the latest deluxe football stadium that is supposed to bring all manners of intangible economic benefit.
So if we don't have a market system, we have a political system where people vote, and the people we vote into office are particularly sensitive to what the people want because most office holders like keeping their jobs. And the outcome of the political system is that by and large, people prefer to stay in their cars rather than switch to trains for the intercity leg of the trip, so that is what we pretty much have, only we set some money aside to have a minimal national train service in the form of Amtrak.
Also, the remark "we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund (asphalt) roads" is, what is the correct 10-dollar word, disingenuous? A flanged-steeled-wheel road is different in kind from a concrete or asphalt road. For starters, the steel-wheel road requires a modal change for the central part of the trip whereas the other two kinds of roads do not. For some of us, that modal change is the best part of the trip because we get to ride a train and trains are kewl. For many of us, that modal change is a serious inconvenience that costs more than out-of-pocket car costs, even with high gas prices, and how do we get around at the far end of our trip?
I mean we are all passenger train enthusiasts around here, but what are we going to do to get more trains, which means persuading people who are not enthusiasts to part with more tax dollars to pay for trains?
Whatever approach we take, it is going to take a new approach with new thinking instead of the NARP party-line same-old same-old, that has allowed us to hang on to long-distance trains by the skin of our teeth, build a semi-decent Northeast Corridor, functional if not up to world standards, a few corridors with multi-train-per-day service, and some languishing corridors with indifferent time keeping and patronage.
Are we going to "sell" trains to the electorate by saying, "You know, your car is polluting the environment and the highway it is using is wrecking the land, we are going to tax gas to double the price like the do in Europe, and we are going to use the money to pay for a train, just like they do in Europe, for which you can also pay a fare that is higher than your out-of-pocket gas cost, especially if you drive a small car? You also think you like the privacy of your car better, but if you ride a train you will meet interesting strangers and have engaging conversations with them to while away the journey time?"
Or do we say, "I know you like your car and everything. But there are a lot of elderly, disabled, youth, and others who rely on others for rides who would really like a train, and we would like you to pay for this in the interest of social justice"?
So maybe I have it all wrong with a bottom-line subsidy per passenger mile and efficiency of train subsidy of saving the environment compared to subsidizing electric cars. Maybe trains could meet an unmet transportation need for which people will gladly pay the costs, through a mix of fares and subsidy. Kind of like the rah-rah behind why perfectly good football stadiums are abandoned and expensive new ones get built. But what we are doing since 1971 is not working.
blue streak 1 John WR The vast majority of our roads are for rubber tired vehicles but some of our roads are for flanged steel wheeled vehicles. But doesn't it make sense to treat all roads the same? After all we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund tarred roads. So why make a special exception for steel rail roads? Great way to condense many arguments into a single paragraph
John WR The vast majority of our roads are for rubber tired vehicles but some of our roads are for flanged steel wheeled vehicles. But doesn't it make sense to treat all roads the same? After all we would never fund concrete roads differently than we would fund tarred roads. So why make a special exception for steel rail roads?
Great way to condense many arguments into a single paragraph
Okay, then if we go with V. Payne's analysis, Amtrak should get about 5 cents per passenger mile - about $500M per year.
It would be a good goal to get their subsidy rate down to that level. Then we could argue for Amtrak based on value rather than all the tired, old, erroneous Red Herrings.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sir Madog Just to compare, Deutsche Bahn in Germany carried 1.981 billion passengers in 2011, according to their official 2011 report.
Just to compare, Deutsche Bahn in Germany carried 1.981 billion passengers in 2011, according to their official 2011 report.
I suspect this includes Regio and S-bahn riders...
I would also argue that DB's mission isn't "run yesterday's trains again today and beg for subsidy". This may not be what Amtrak says their mission is, but it is derivable from watching what they do.
30 million passengers are certainly not enough to sustain even a modest operation in a country of the size of the US.
Funding should be a function of market demand. One size fits all is not a good strategy. The problem for passenger rail lies in the fact that there is little demand for it. I wish it were otherwise. It isn't! And it is not likely to be in the near future outside of a few high density corridors.
V.Payne "Increasing the subsidies for passenger rail so that they are on a par with the perceived subsidies for highways, airways, waterways, etc., is not a good financial strategy." I guess you don't realize that we will actually be spending more to shore up the Interstate road network in the future than we have in the past. Just a plane jane mill and overlay is going for $1.2 million a route mile every 8-10 years and we can't get out of it as the base will turn to ravel if you keep letting trucks run over it at the current axle loads, leading to even greater rebuilding costs. However, now a lot of structures out there are also needing to be rebuilt, the base is needing a full reconstruction, the geometry doesn't work for the level of usage, where are those urban soundwalls, etc.
"Increasing the subsidies for passenger rail so that they are on a par with the perceived subsidies for highways, airways, waterways, etc., is not a good financial strategy."
I guess you don't realize that we will actually be spending more to shore up the Interstate road network in the future than we have in the past. Just a plane jane mill and overlay is going for $1.2 million a route mile every 8-10 years and we can't get out of it as the base will turn to ravel if you keep letting trucks run over it at the current axle loads, leading to even greater rebuilding costs. However, now a lot of structures out there are also needing to be rebuilt, the base is needing a full reconstruction, the geometry doesn't work for the level of usage, where are those urban soundwalls, etc.
Subsidies are meant, in part, to correct for various manners of hidden costs. You end up with something like this LEED "Green Building" business, where every manner of feature is incorporated into a residential or commercial building because it is saving the planet, but then you have this beyond complicated system of scoring green-ness in a building to justify uneconomic features, some uneconomic building features being more virtuous than others.
Use wood, yes, because wood is a renewable resource, but tropical wood, gosh no, it leads to chopping down the rainforest, but wait, using tropical wood "sustainably" is a good thing because people will want to protect the rainforest so they can harvest wood, rather than burning it down to plant ground crops?
I am open to the idea that maybe the costs and government direct and indirect subsidies to highway transportation are understated. But I am highly skeptical of LEED and people doing all manner of uneconomical solar panels and what not to get bragging rights to being greener-than-though. Like people in Florida putting up highly government-subsidized solar panels without first doing measures such as ridge-roof vents and better sealing and insulating their A/C duct runs through their attics. The Florida Solar Energy Research Center has data the these low-tech measures are much more cost effective than solar panels, but I guess they are not kewl like solar panels, and your neighbors can't see what you are doing so they can envy you.
If your goal as an individual is indeed to do the Burkean "small thing" to save the planet, what better guide than costs and prices and markets to make decisions. Let's see, the solar panel system costs $40,000, but I can get someone to put in ridge vents and fix the leaky ductwork in my attic for $10,000 and achieve the same net reduction in "my carbon footprint." Money is money, and money spent on the solar panel is not money available for the low-tech low-cost solution. Besides, money is so much better a way of "scoring" a green project. If it is my sovereign desire as a citizen and a consumer "to be green", I pick the solution that gives the same result but for the least money? What a concept! Much better than LEED certification. But government subsidy to solar panels distorts such decisions.
OK, back to the topic at hand, which is disrespecting the highway system and automobile transport. If it is the trucks that are tearing up the Interstates, shouldn't more of the cost of their upkeep that we are not keeping-up-with be imputed if not in fact charged to truckers? And if truck transport is pounding our roads to gravel, would it not be more cost effective to reduce Amtrak trains and routes, so freight can be carried on the railroads more efficiently and hence divert more Interstate traffic to the rails?
As the rail lines are a limited resource, maybe it would be more cost-wise and environmentally beneficial to do whatever we can to strengthen the position of the rail lines to be the freight carriers of choice instead of throwing passenger trains into their mix of operations?
With respect to 8 billion in General Revenue bailing out the HTF (Highway Trust Fund), keep in mind that Federal Interstates (rural and urban) account for 25 percent of highway passenger miles or about 1 trillion passenger miles. 1.4 billion in Amtrak General Revenue money accounts of 6 billion passenger miles. That 8 billion sounds like a huge number, but you are talking about a 30 times bigger (per passenger mile) subsidy going to Amtrak. There is a lot of ground that the HTF can cover in "falling behind revenue projections" before it gets anywhere near Amtrak.
With respect to the elasticity of automobile use with price (mainly of gasoline), sure, people have cut back a great deal in automobile gasoline use. Hypothetically speaking, suppose we cut back from 4.4 trillion auto passenger miles down to an even 4 trillion passenger mile per year. Are you suggesting that there is a market for the 400 billion passenger miles not taken (over 60 Amtraks), and that there is public support to spend 100 billion per year (some multiple of the Federal highway budget) supporting that. I don't think so. I really don't think that every trip cut out for high gas price represents public demand for a train. I have seen our state rail advocacy group breathlessly report the decline in highway usage with high gas prices as an argument to get trains, now! It just doesn't work that way.
V.Payne "Increasing the subsidies for passenger rail so that they are on a par with the perceived subsidies for highways, airways, waterways, etc., is not a good financial strategy." I guess you don't realize that we will actually be spending more to shore up the Interstate road network in the future than we have in the past. Just a plane jane mill and overlay is going for $1.2 million a route mile every 8-10 years and we can't get out of it as the base will turn to ravel if you keep letting trucks run over it at the current axle loads, leading to even greater rebuilding costs. However, now a lot of structures out there are also needing to be rebuilt, the base is needing a full reconstruction, the geometry doesn't work for the level of usage, where are those urban soundwalls, etc. Further, most of funding for new construction is being borrowed, on the Federal level I listened just three weeks ago when one of the FHWA financial people said that the $8 Billion a year General Fund bailout of the HTF will continue indefinitely as far as she can see. In my area the counties are now bonding projects for thirty years to build new capacity against the state's future federal funds. In other words, the future financial situation is going to be even worse for the HTF. "Highway-user charges—including motor-fuel taxes, motor—vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls-were the source of 56.3 percent of the $166.0 billion of total revenues for highways and bridges in 2006. The remaining 43.7 percent of revenues came from a number of sources, including local property taxes and assessments, other dedicated taxes, general funds, bond issues, investment income, and other miscellaneous sources" Note, this leaves out private costs, such as when a developer installs a neighborhod road, and then the federal tax is applied to it though there was no federal role in developing it. It also leaves out government accident costs, early Social Security payments, Medicare, and the whole host of other programs that take care of you when you are really injured in an automobile accident. The most my auto insurance will write my medical limit to be is $100k. Because they are depending on your medical insurance to take over for that $1/2 million hospital bill, but that isn't paid by the vehicle mile is it? There is a definte elasticity of automobile use with respect to price as the recent trends have shown. Now for the coming reconstruction of the interstates some are suggesting to expand the capacity even more, 6 lanes in rural areas instead of 4. Why, if it wasn't even remotely paid for by the users to begin with why should more capacity be added? Further it will just cost even more to overaly that pavement. So you have to set a financial limit! or you will over spend if you have the "big jar of money" mentality. Once you do, why shouldn't the safest, most fuel efficient mode, that has the potential to atract and serve the travel needs for trips between 200-900 miles be funded at the same level? Yes, the actual usage might only be 6-8% of all intercity trips, and maybe 20% in the target distance range, but that is a lot more than currently offered service. Will Amtrak be the provider, maybe not, but if you have a metric then you are set up for competition, not for the lowest overall cost, but the lowest cost per unit of output.
Further, most of funding for new construction is being borrowed, on the Federal level I listened just three weeks ago when one of the FHWA financial people said that the $8 Billion a year General Fund bailout of the HTF will continue indefinitely as far as she can see. In my area the counties are now bonding projects for thirty years to build new capacity against the state's future federal funds. In other words, the future financial situation is going to be even worse for the HTF.
"Highway-user charges—including motor-fuel taxes, motor—vehicle taxes and fees, and tolls-were the source of 56.3 percent of the $166.0 billion of total revenues for highways and bridges in 2006. The remaining 43.7 percent of revenues came from a number of sources, including local property taxes and assessments, other dedicated taxes, general funds, bond issues, investment income, and other miscellaneous sources"
Note, this leaves out private costs, such as when a developer installs a neighborhod road, and then the federal tax is applied to it though there was no federal role in developing it. It also leaves out government accident costs, early Social Security payments, Medicare, and the whole host of other programs that take care of you when you are really injured in an automobile accident. The most my auto insurance will write my medical limit to be is $100k. Because they are depending on your medical insurance to take over for that $1/2 million hospital bill, but that isn't paid by the vehicle mile is it?
There is a definte elasticity of automobile use with respect to price as the recent trends have shown.
Now for the coming reconstruction of the interstates some are suggesting to expand the capacity even more, 6 lanes in rural areas instead of 4. Why, if it wasn't even remotely paid for by the users to begin with why should more capacity be added? Further it will just cost even more to overaly that pavement.
So you have to set a financial limit! or you will over spend if you have the "big jar of money" mentality. Once you do, why shouldn't the safest, most fuel efficient mode, that has the potential to atract and serve the travel needs for trips between 200-900 miles be funded at the same level?
Yes, the actual usage might only be 6-8% of all intercity trips, and maybe 20% in the target distance range, but that is a lot more than currently offered service. Will Amtrak be the provider, maybe not, but if you have a metric then you are set up for competition, not for the lowest overall cost, but the lowest cost per unit of output.
My main point is to eliminate all subsidies or reduce them to the lowest amount possible. The users (highway, airway, waterway, railway) should pay the cost of what they use through the pricing mechanism was my other key point. If they did passenger rail might be self sustaining in relatively short, high density corridors.
In FY11 the transfer from the U.S. General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was $14.7 billion. It was partially offset by the transfer of highway funds from HTF to the Mass Transit Administration and the use of HTF funds for other activities, i.e. Rails to Trails, Administration, etc., leaving the net transfer to HTF of $11.3 billion.
The President's Commission on the Deficit (Simpson/Bowles) recommended raising the federal fuel taxes to eliminate the need for the transfer. Hopefully, after the election, sanity will set in, and the next administration will move forward on Simpson/Bowles.
The local streets in my community were paid for by the developer and baked into the cost of the houses. No state or federal funds were involved. The maintenance of the streets is covered by property taxes. This process, by the way, is the one followed by utilities in Texas. The cost of underground utilities, which are a common feature in new housing developments in Texas, are baked into the cost of the house as the difference between the cost of standard overhead service and the cost of the underground service.
As noted fuel taxes, fees, excise taxes, etc. pay for approximately 55 to 60 per cent of the cost of roadways in the United States. The gap is closed with property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, transfers from general funds, etc. We the people pay the taxes that go to the general funds and from which the transfers are made to the various highway funds.
Many of the costs that you associate with motoring are soft and difficult to support. But the losses associated with Amtrak, especially the long distance trains, are crystal clear. Amtrak has had more than 40 years to get it right. It has failed miserably.
Numbers crunchers frequently miss an important point regarding human behavior. In many instances people are willing to pay for a more expensive option, i.e. cars and roads vs. trains and public transit, because of the intrinsic value baked into them. As long as they know what they are paying for, that is a good outcome.
Why should we not fund intercity passenger rail on a par with highways, airways, etc. I can think of two reasons. First, we are broke. Second, it is not what the people, at least in my neck of the woods, want. At least not now! They want I-35 to be expanded, which is what is happening. Whether they would change their minds if the true cost of driving is passed through to them as the pump is unknown, but I don't look for Texans to give up their cars in the near future.
Subsidies are good for tax accountants, tax lawyers, politicians, etc. Unfortunately, they tend to distort pricing points and cause users to make sub-optimum decisions. Whether they serve the public interest in the long run is debatable.
In an ideal world we would eliminate all transport subsidies and require each mode to stand on its own merits. Had we taken this approach we probably would have had a better balanced transport system. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal, rational world. We live in one highly charged with emotion. Accordingly, subsidies probably will not go away, but we should strive to reduce them to as small an amount as possible.
Increasing the subsidies for passenger rail so that they are on a par with the perceived subsidies for highways, airways, waterways, etc., is not a good financial strategy. This is especially true for a country that is staring more than $19.7 trillion of government debt in the face, which is relevant since the subsidies usually come from the taxpayers. It is akin to saying that we need to run up the debt for our household because the neighbors are going broke, and we need to go with them.
Government investment is desirable for start-up projects where there is a reasonable probability that the users will eventually pay for it. This was the rationale for the citizens of Baltimore to buy the city's bonds to help build the B&O railroad. The investors believed that it would be a going concern, and they would get their money back with interest. The same idea underlies most infrastructure investment, i.e. road users will pay for them, air users will pay for the airports, etc. For the most part they do, although sometimes indirectly. But not in all cases thanks largely to politics, which at the end of the day is emotionalism run rampant.
The key questions is where do passenger trains make sense, what should they look like, and how will we pay for them. For me it is in relatively high density, relatively short corridors. Claiming that we will get the money from the Department of Defense or other dark holes to pay for trains is not a working plan.
John WR Certainly there is no one solution to our energy issues and there is no single problem, not even the problem of our middle east wars. But we do have two new promising technologies: Wind turbines and solar generation. Neither is a constant source of power. However, at least in the east, wind turbines tend to produce more power in the winter and solar generation tends to produce more power in the summer. Nuclear generation has been around for a while now. I've read many sources that say nuclear generation has to be part of the solution. Finally, there are the old standbys, fossil fuels. I am not an expert here but it does seem to me that we really need to look for new ways to produce energy. And, if as a culture, we could also learn new ways of living that use less energy that could help a lot too.
Certainly there is no one solution to our energy issues and there is no single problem, not even the problem of our middle east wars.
But we do have two new promising technologies: Wind turbines and solar generation. Neither is a constant source of power. However, at least in the east, wind turbines tend to produce more power in the winter and solar generation tends to produce more power in the summer.
Nuclear generation has been around for a while now. I've read many sources that say nuclear generation has to be part of the solution.
Finally, there are the old standbys, fossil fuels.
I am not an expert here but it does seem to me that we really need to look for new ways to produce energy. And, if as a culture, we could also learn new ways of living that use less energy that could help a lot too.
I really try to refrain from direct personal criticism of other posts, but the above has the lowest information content of recent remarks I have seen. Gee, in "the future" we will get our power from a mix of the newer renewable sources such as wind and solar yet continue to rely on nuclear and fossil fuel sources. Please tell me about something I don't already know.
One of my earlier points was all things being equal, a mix of public (through subsidy) and private (through personal choice) expenditure on storage battery systems for electric or "plug-in" gas-electric hybrid automobiles can make much better use of the intermittent and variable "alternative", "renewable" or "green" energy sources such as wind and solar than can expenditure on passenger railway electrification or passenger rail in general.
The complementary nature of the seasonal or even daily variation in those sources (windy at night, sun during the day) almost has nothing to do with what I am talking about. It clouds over, the wind dies down, and a train needs to pull out of a station and accelerate to meet its schedule. That power needs to come from a fossil backup whereas a signal can go out to electric cars hooked up to battery chargers to stop charging their batteries for the time being. A plug-in hybrid gas-electric car has a built-in backup source of the gasoline engine if the wind stops for a long time, allowing the owner to operate the car where the charging done on an electric "tariff" where they don't get a battery charge when the wind stops.
But all things are not equal. I had presented evidence that under "business as usual" with respect to the subsidy rate of Amtrak, that more fuel-efficient cars after the fuel economy standards set by President Obama's EPA, which even the harshest critics claim will add $3000 dollars to the price of each car, are multiples more cost effective in saving oil consumption than plans to save fuel through the Amtrak subsidy.
As to your friend Edmund Burke's views on patronizing Amtrak to help the environment, wasn't Mr. Burke one of those "neo-conservatives" who wanted to wage a foreign, expeditionary war to turn back extremists engaged in terror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France? I say this, not in snarky sarcasm or forced irony, but in all seriousness and earnestness. People are all too glib to point at the big, fat Defense budget, claim that it is all or in large measure "waste" or that the cost of Defense should be charged against users of oil, and that should peace break out through more sensible foreign policy, that an enormous peace dividend could be used to fund trains?
In line with that, if one is quoting Edmund Burke about making futile, small gestures in advance of a virtuous cause, a person needs to look at Edmund Burke in his totality of what he was advocating. And for all I know, his quoted remark about doing "small things" had to do with the rest of Parliament not going along with his desire to invade Revolutionary France, and that the small thing was to continue to make speeches against the Revolutionary Committees and the terrible things they were doing. Did Burke say, "I shall not eat French cheese nor drink French wine until the Revolutionary Committees stand down and the Terror ceases?"
Or were the small things "hidden expenditures" in Parliament's budget to fund "Special Forces" such as the fictional Scarlet Pimpernel, who was rescuing the odd nobleman and high-born lady from the Terror?
As "doing if only a small part" by riding Amtrak to save the environment and bring our brave men and women home from overseas, what if that "small part" is not a small part positive towards that goal, but a small part negative, in the wrong direction with respect to that goal. Instead of being a regular Amtrak rider and directing government subsidy towards trains, what if you instead purchased a hybrid car and claimed the government tax credit? What if by riding Amtrak you are redirecting government money that could have gone to hybrid cars, which would have saved more energy and more oil?
Yes, I am aware that money is being spent on Amtrak and money is being spent on the hybrid car tax credit (and yes, a tax credit is an expenditure in the fact that other tax payers may have to pay more to make up the tax credit for someone choosing to purchase a particular kind of car). So John WR occupying a seat on Amtrak is not going to take away a tax credit from John WR buying a Chevy Volt. But the Amtrak subsidy is sufficiently high, and the fuel savings from taking Amtrak sufficiently modest that we are not being true to ourselves saying that subsidizing Amtrak is a good public policy choice.
"VPayne" on another thread comes the closest to making a strong economic and public argument for the Amtrak subsidy, namely the gas tax cross-subsidy to rural highways. Given that there are people who are not enamored with automobiles for whatever reason, given that there are people who would prefer to take Amtrak rather than drive or ride in a car for the between cities portion of their journey, if you sharpen your pencils hard enough, you can make the case that the subsidy required for their rail travel is in very rough round numbers comparable to the cross-subsidy to the rural highways, especially when you draw a broad enough boundary to add accident and police reponse costs. Very rough round numbers, where a factor-of-two higher cost for the train subsidy counts as "roughly the same."
And you can make the case that Amtrak is at least a modest improvement in energy savings, that people choosing the train are not going "backwards" with respect to the goal of saving the planet. That is, you are charging the subsidy to Amtrak towards providing train travel for the admitted minority of people who prefer the train over the car, not as a public policy measure making many usable contribution towards overall national energy policy.
But there are two things that flow from this. One is that it is not a sensible public policy choice to devote large resources, such as an Amtrak subsidy on par with the Federal Highway budget, and to levy larger gasoline taxes to pay for this and to provide strong economic disincentives to auto use as done in Europe. Two, Amtrak can make sense as an accomodation to people who for whatever reason cannot, will not, or prefer not to take a car, but it would be extremely helpful if the subsidy rate of Amtrak were roughly half of what it is right now.
Can Amtrak, would Amtrak achieve "economy of scale", that successive increments in subsidy could carry more passenger miles per dollar? It depends. Are people in the advocacy community willing to embrace a more subsidy-efficient Amtrak as an advocacy goal? Are we in the advocacy community willing to give Amtrak operational flexibility in the way they supply train service? Or are we going to be the first in line e-mailing Congress, "Oh no, please don't let Amtrak discontinue the _____ Limited?"
Perhaps if Amtrak (or whatever entity runs rail passenger service in the US in the future) did some of the things you and dixie flyer suggested on another thread, such as eliminate the anachronistic LD trains and primarily stick to short corridors, the economies of scale would work. For one thing, running trains at higher average speeds allows for greater utilization of equipment.
henry6 Who says carrying four times the current passenger load would amount to four times the loss? That's ridiculous thinking. Carrying more people actually could reduce the losses, maybe even make a profit. This is a very niave assumption of non facts but either of fear or lack of knowledge of how economics, business, and services work to say the least.
Who says carrying four times the current passenger load would amount to four times the loss? That's ridiculous thinking. Carrying more people actually could reduce the losses, maybe even make a profit. This is a very niave assumption of non facts but either of fear or lack of knowledge of how economics, business, and services work to say the least.
Well, there SHOULD be economies of scale...but Amtrak has not shown much of this in their history. Even with record passenger and revenue growth on a fixed network of trains and service, they have had their costs rise at nearly the same rate as revenue.
Based on their history, the fair assumption would be that 4X passengers would = 4X subsidy.
Sam1 dakotafred Dixie Flyer If Amtrak carried 4 times the current 30 million peasengers a year and lost 4 times the current losses (say 6-8 billion per year) how would we feel as the American people, as taxpayers etc. I'd say, money well spent, vs. the value we get from most of our $1.5-trillion budget. But, then, my wife and I are just off another superlative Amtrak trip! The United States federal government has not adopted a budget during the current administration. According to the U.S. Financial Statements for FY11, the federal government spent approximately $3.7 trillion on a variety of government activities. The President's 2012 budget proposed spending $3.8 trillion; however, it was not adopted by the Congress.
dakotafred Dixie Flyer If Amtrak carried 4 times the current 30 million peasengers a year and lost 4 times the current losses (say 6-8 billion per year) how would we feel as the American people, as taxpayers etc. I'd say, money well spent, vs. the value we get from most of our $1.5-trillion budget. But, then, my wife and I are just off another superlative Amtrak trip!
Dixie Flyer If Amtrak carried 4 times the current 30 million peasengers a year and lost 4 times the current losses (say 6-8 billion per year) how would we feel as the American people, as taxpayers etc.
If Amtrak carried 4 times the current 30 million peasengers a year and lost 4 times the current losses (say 6-8 billion per year) how would we feel as the American people, as taxpayers etc.
Thank you for the correction. I don't know where my head was at on that one. (Whoops, I guess I do.)
Please disregard.
dakotafred Oil is a necessity, for now and into the foreseeable future ... a fact of life. Howl against it as you will, changes nothing. The obscenity is the extent to which we must fight foreign wars for supply we could produce for ourselves at home, if it weren't for the nut cases, in-office and otherwise.
Oil is a necessity, for now and into the foreseeable future ... a fact of life. Howl against it as you will, changes nothing. The obscenity is the extent to which we must fight foreign wars for supply we could produce for ourselves at home, if it weren't for the nut cases, in-office and otherwise.
US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, thanks to an increase in the use of “unconventional” extraction techniques .
As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Wind power can be a significant part of electric generation in the United States as well as other areas of the world. It is an important component of the generation mix for Texas.
There is, however, one important point to keep in mind. For every megawatt of installed wind generation, one needs a megawatt of fossil, nuclear, or hydro generation for those times when the wind stops blowing. Or people would have to agree to do without power in the case of a wind failure. People might agree to do so in theory, but if they have to turn off the TV and shut down their computers because the power is down, they are not likely to be happy.
The wind can stop blowing. In February 2010 the wind suddenly stopped blowing in west Texas. It happened so fast that it nearly brought the grid down. It was a mad scramble to bring the fossil units on line to make up the deficiency in generation.
I agree, Fred, that our current culture depends on oil and this is despite our wars. But it does not follow that I must live in a way that I must mindlessly contribute to that dependency.
Edmund Burke observed "No man made a bigger mistake than the one who did nothing because he could only do a little. Certainly riding a train rather than a car or a plane by one person is only a little. But I prefer to do that little.
John
V.Payne It is cheaper to just leave the consist alone than change it out to tailer the supply at the point of greatest demand. I really don't know what total occupancy over the route tells you. The percentage of occupancy at the highest demand point tells you if you could expand. I don't know if the vision report was really meant to answer the question of incremental cost. My understanding would be about $0.05/pm for a subisdy, everything included.
It is cheaper to just leave the consist alone than change it out to tailer the supply at the point of greatest demand. I really don't know what total occupancy over the route tells you. The percentage of occupancy at the highest demand point tells you if you could expand.
I don't know if the vision report was really meant to answer the question of incremental cost. My understanding would be about $0.05/pm for a subisdy, everything included.
The average load factor gives one an idea of how well the assets are being utilized. Clearly, there could be points along the route or times during the year when the capacity is maxed out. But an average load factor of 52.1 per cent suggests that there are route segments or times of the year when there are opportunities to increase the load without increasing capacity.
Amtrak is offering significantly discounted fares from Sacramento to Bakersfield. It is probably doing so because the average load factor on the San Joaquin's was only 40.8 per cent in FY11. Since the fare applies from end point to end point, it tells me that the train's capacity is being under utilized all along the route.
Paul,
Certainly the rest of the world uses a lot of petroleum products. However, I think we fight wars because of our own dependency on petroleum. No American soldier was killed or injured by an IED to help China industrialize; many were injured because the US wants that oil.
I found two "Vision Reports" on Amtrak's website. Both have to do with Northeast Corridor Service which uses electric trains mostly.
Certainly electric cars also promise to reduce our dependency on petroleum products. I think we both agree that in years to come they will be increasingly successful. I have lived on the East Coast most of my life and I have seen several reports that say we could generate about once quarter of the electricity we need with wind turbines off our coast.
No doubt automobile technology will continue to improve and rail technology will continue to improve. As far as planes go, it takes far, far more energy to lift human bodies hundreds or thousands of feet above the earth and move them than it does to move them along the earth's surface. Train travel also offers hope of reducing plane travel and dependency on oil.
Our recent wars have been in a part of the world we for many years have exploited for oil. If there is any true meaning to sunk costs those words refer to the costs of war both in dollars and in men and women left with serious injuries and in lives lost. I just don't see increasing numbers of automobiles as a solution to this problem.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.