John WR Since you ask, Dixie: I do agree with Henry. Railroads are a classic example of a decreasing cost industry. Generally, the more people who ride trains the lower the expenses per rider. But supposing your assumptions are true and we could have Amtrak 4 times as big as it is with 4 times the subsidy. The costs I am concerned about are the costs of our dependency on automobiles. Some of these costs are easily quantifiable. Some--such as air pollution--have broad implications for our future. And there are the costs of the conflicts in the middle east over petroleum products. And these conflicts have costs in people who are disabled by them and people who loose their lives because of them. I would be willing to fund not only Amtrak but other things that could reduce or eliminate our wars.
Since you ask, Dixie:
I do agree with Henry. Railroads are a classic example of a decreasing cost industry. Generally, the more people who ride trains the lower the expenses per rider.
But supposing your assumptions are true and we could have Amtrak 4 times as big as it is with 4 times the subsidy. The costs I am concerned about are the costs of our dependency on automobiles. Some of these costs are easily quantifiable. Some--such as air pollution--have broad implications for our future. And there are the costs of the conflicts in the middle east over petroleum products. And these conflicts have costs in people who are disabled by them and people who loose their lives because of them. I would be willing to fund not only Amtrak but other things that could reduce or eliminate our wars.
The Vision Report proposes spending half a trillion dollars over a 50 year period to increase the passenger miles of Amtrak 10-fold, from .1 percent of total passenger miles to a full 1 percent of passenger miles.
The Vision Report also claims a reduction by 50 percent in the fuel use per passenger mile of trains substituting for cars.
US oil usage is about 20 million barrels per day out of a world consumption of about 85 million barrels per day. About 40 percent of each barrel of oil is turned into gasoline for cars -- I have seen one source claiming as high as 47 percent. There are 42 gallons in a barrel. Hence, 144 billion gallons of gasoline per year, mostly for auto transportation but there is also commercial and ag usage.
Auto (or auto and light truck) passenger miles run about 4 trillion per year. This comes out to about 28 passenger miles per gallon -- the vehicle gas mileage is somewhat lower but the passengers per trip is somewhat bigger than one. Assuming 120,000 BTUs per gallon of gas, this works out to about 4300 BTU/passenger mile. The auto BTU/passenger mile is reported lately at 3800 BTU/passenger mile, light truck around 5300 BTU/passenger miles, this this about works out.
So, spending half a trillion dollars will save one half of one percent of 144 billion gallons of gasoline per year 720 million gallons per year. That seems like a lot of gallons, but that amounts to about 47,000 barrels per day, about 2 tenths of one percent of our annual oil usage.
President Obama announced administrative rules to double auto gas mileage, I believe over a 20 year time horizon. That measure alone would save over 20 percent on oil usage. His political critics claim that such measure would add $3000 to the cost of each automobile. For 14 million automobiles manufactured per year and over 50 years, President Obama's plan would cost consumers 2 trillion dollars.
To save the same amount of fuel through train usage, that would take 100-fold the Vision Plan, costing 50 trillion dollars over that time period. The claims that trains are going to solve the problems of air pollution (new autos are already very tightly emissions regulated whereas plans to do this with locomotives are in progress) or with CO2 emissions (directly relates to fuel use) or with oil imports (relates to the same), such claims need to be evaluated in relation to these numbers.
As to the claim that we will use electric trains, those trains could substitute nuclear or coal power for oil, where coal doesn't need to be imported but it results in CO2 and other emissions. As to claims we will power electric trains with intermittent and variable renewable solar and wind sources, that claim makes better sense of battery-powered or plug-in hybrid powered cars, where the charging of batteries can be adjusted to the availability of wind or sun whereas an electric train needs power on demand to meet its schedule. Also, electric trains will cost more than the largely Diesel trains proposed in the Vision Report.
As to the economies of scale, yes, you can improve the economics of any common carrier mode by filling more seats, something the airlines do quite well in trade for substantial inflexibility in travel times if you want an affordable fare and in trade for very crowded conditions in airports and especially on aircraft. Part of the appeal of the rail mode is travelling in less crowded conditions.
Also with respect to economies of scale, the European countries as a group spend the equivalent of the US Federal highway budget (something many in the advocacy community consider as a benchmark for what passenger rail should receive as its "fair share") in order to serve 5 percent of total passenger miles. Their common carrier share of passenger miles is 20 percent in contrast with 10 percent in the U.S. Most of the 10 percent common carrier share in the U.S. is on airplanes -- the jet is our bus and train. In Europe, the 20 percent common carrier share is about evenly split four ways between trains, buses, airplanes, and yes, boats. River and seaway borne passenger service represents a major share in Europe.
So, were Amtrak to ever play an important role in abating pollution or reducing dependence on oil, it is not that we have to do away with government subsidy, but the subsidy money would need to be used more effectively by multiples of what is taking place now. That there is economy of scale is not a foregone conclusion based on the money required to support the much large scale of passenger trains in Europe.
I agree whole heartedly that oil usage poses problems, not only to the environment, not only to the economy, but also to the need to fight foreign expeditionary wars. It is because of such concerns that I have become skeptical about passenger trains as an obvious solution. A person has to ask, is the goal to reduce oil usage for all of the mentioned reasons, and passenger trains could help, or is the objective to have passenger trains because as enthusiast we like them, and they are our passion and object of our enthusiasm an effective solution?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet Comparing the percentage of seat miles sold is not a fair measure of rail vs air. Most air travel is from point a to point b. That makes it much easier to size the aircraft and thus the number of seats to the route. A train travels a long route with intermediate stops all along the way. The train must have enough seats for the highest volume portion of the route. They cannot then shed seats for the remainder of the trip. They must therefore bear the burden of unneeded seats for part of the trip.
Comparing the percentage of seat miles sold is not a fair measure of rail vs air. Most air travel is from point a to point b. That makes it much easier to size the aircraft and thus the number of seats to the route. A train travels a long route with intermediate stops all along the way. The train must have enough seats for the highest volume portion of the route. They cannot then shed seats for the remainder of the trip. They must therefore bear the burden of unneeded seats for part of the trip.
The measure is about asset turnover, which is a measure of productivity. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
The Pennsylvanian, as an example, on its run from Pittsburgh to New York, makes 16 stops including the end points. A typical Southwest Airlines bird may go from Dallas to Houston, Harlingen, back to Dallas, Lubbock, Albuquerque, Denver, San Jose, LA, and Phoenix, where it ties up for the night. And it does it all in one day. Same concept as the train, except the airplane is more efficient than the train.
Using sophisticated mathematical models, Southwest deploys enough seats for its high volume periods. No one, as far as I know, takes out seats if the airplane or the train or the bus does not sell out. It is all about anticipated load factors, which are predicated on seat mile yield, which in turn determine the type of airplane to be deployed as well as the frequency of the flights.
The problem for a railway train is unit productivity. It simply cannot match the productivity of an airplane except over relatively short distances with high volumes.
PNWRMNM Henry, You have no more evidence to support your supposition than the original poster has for his. No need to be so cranky. Mac
Henry,
You have no more evidence to support your supposition than the original poster has for his. No need to be so cranky.
Mac
WELL EXCUSSSSSSE MMEEEE! I was not being cranky until you brought it up...go....to.....
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The number of passengers is not the optimum way to look at the issue. A better way is to look at the passenger miles sold vs the available seat miles.
In FY11 Amtrak had 12,530,314,000 seat miles for sale, of which it sold 6,532,250,000 passenger miles for an average load factor of 52.1 per cent. If it had sold 65 per cent of its average capacity, it would have 8,165,312,000 passenger miles. If it had sold 80 per cent of its capacity, which would rival the average load factor for the nation's airlines, it would have had 10,024,251,000 passenger miles.
The average trip in FY11 was 216.4 miles. If the same ratios held up for the aforementioned expanded capacities, it could carry 37.7 million riders at an average load factor of 65 per cent capacity and 46.3 million riders at an average load factor of 80 per cent of capacity.
On average Amtrak has the scalability to increase its load factors without have to make a significant increase in its capacity. It probably could do so with a relatively low marginal increase in costs. Beyond 80 per cent of existing capacity would require a heavy investment in incremental capacity, which would not be a good idea until Amtrak could demonstrate higher utilization of its existing capacity.
Is there a market (aggregate demand) for an expanded intercity passenger rail market? I doubt it, at least for now, although there could be in the future as congestion, pollution, convenience, improved transit, etc. make passenger rail a more desirable choice. Even the highly praised Acela trains had an average load factor of just a bit over 62 per cent during FY11.
In addition to a lack of demand to fill its trains, Amtrak would have a major challenge on its hands if it tried to expand its operations over its partner railroads. Witness the failed attempt to get the UP to hoist the Texas Eagle on a daily basis between San Antonio and Los Angeles.
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.
The Vision Report proposes a plan where carrying 10 times the current passenger-mile volume will require 10 times the current level of government funding.
That figure is correlated with the level of expenditure in Europe in relation to their rail passenger usage.
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. There would be no tri-weekly trains, most routes would have two or more trains each way, corridors would have 6-9 trains each way and there would be more corridors, most of the pre 1979 routes would be back plus a few more giving us a system similar to the ilnterstate highway system.
What are your thoughts?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.