oltmanndWe aren't ignoring them [Kansas]. They have I-70, which was just rebuilt from the dirt up, at great cost, despite only being about 40 years old. I'll bet NJ has fewer free interstate miles than Kansas, despite having way more drivers, more cars, and more gallons of gas pumped in the state.
Well yes, Don. But we both know roads transportation and passenger rail transportation are not seen as part of the same thing as they should be. Rather they are seen as different things and spending for them is based on different processes. Very few people are going to have their opinions on Amtrak influenced by the amount of money we spend for highways.
John
John WR I sure we do spend more on Amtrak in New Jersey than in Kansas. The fact that Amtrak owns the tracks in New Jersey means a lot more is spent her. And Amtrak is about to spend big bucks to upgrade the catenary. But I don't know that we can ignore Kansas.
I sure we do spend more on Amtrak in New Jersey than in Kansas. The fact that Amtrak owns the tracks in New Jersey means a lot more is spent her. And Amtrak is about to spend big bucks to upgrade the catenary.
But I don't know that we can ignore Kansas.
We aren't ignoring them. They have I-70, which was just rebuilt from the dirt up, at great cost, despite only being about 40 years old. I'll bet NJ has fewer free interstate miles than Kansas, despite having way more drivers, more cars, and more gallons of gas pumped in the state.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
John WR oltmannd Does NJ get it's "fair share" of highway tax? Does the economic health of the northeast benefit the rest of the country? Relatively speaking, is NJ cross subsidizing the Empire Builder? According to reports in The Star-Ledger for every dollar New Jersey sends to Washington 55¢ is returned. This is a very low rate compared to other states. At the same time New Jersey is one of the nation's wealthier states. What keeps a lot of people in this state which has the highest property taxex in the nation is the fact that they can earn so much here. There is a steady stream, and a large stream, of retirees leaving New Jersey for states where the tax rates are a lot lower.
oltmannd Does NJ get it's "fair share" of highway tax? Does the economic health of the northeast benefit the rest of the country? Relatively speaking, is NJ cross subsidizing the Empire Builder?
Does NJ get it's "fair share" of highway tax?
Does the economic health of the northeast benefit the rest of the country?
Relatively speaking, is NJ cross subsidizing the Empire Builder?
According to reports in The Star-Ledger for every dollar New Jersey sends to Washington 55¢ is returned. This is a very low rate compared to other states. At the same time New Jersey is one of the nation's wealthier states. What keeps a lot of people in this state which has the highest property taxex in the nation is the fact that they can earn so much here. There is a steady stream, and a large stream, of retirees leaving New Jersey for states where the tax rates are a lot lower.
So, not to worry if we spend more on Amtrak in NJ than we do in Kansas, then?
So, who's zoomin' who?
Also interesting is the fact that fares on the Northeast Corridor are higher than other Amtrak fares.
For example, a ticket between New York and Boston on June 5th costs $49 which is the lowest fare on that line. The distance is 225 miles.
A ticket between Chicago and Toledo for the same day costs $39. The distance is 234 miles.
John WR oltmanndThe other half of the dirty secret is that the other "tenants" of the NEC don't come close to paying for their fair share of the NEC. Amtrak is subsidizing the commuter roads. And there are a lot of tenants. Most o the states Amtrak passes through as well as the District of Columbia is a tenant.
oltmanndThe other half of the dirty secret is that the other "tenants" of the NEC don't come close to paying for their fair share of the NEC. Amtrak is subsidizing the commuter roads.
And there are a lot of tenants. Most o the states Amtrak passes through as well as the District of Columbia is a tenant.
MBTA, Connecticut DOT (Shoreline East), MetroNorth (in all it's forms), NJT, MARC, VRE, SEPTA, in particular.
John WR oltmanndI know others claim "not fair" when all the money goes to the NEC. But, it is fair. When the US has another area with 50+M people along a 500 mile corridor, come talk to me! I think you know I'm an almost lifelong resident of the northeast, Don. But I don't see how we can successfully make the argument that fairness demands that the rest of the country shall subsidize the northeast. John
oltmanndI know others claim "not fair" when all the money goes to the NEC. But, it is fair. When the US has another area with 50+M people along a 500 mile corridor, come talk to me!
I think you know I'm an almost lifelong resident of the northeast, Don. But I don't see how we can successfully make the argument that fairness demands that the rest of the country shall subsidize the northeast.
Paul MilenkovicOn the subject of working on the figures and agreeing on a set of numbers, the originating post of this thread on Long Distance Trains was one of our regular participants "reluctantly" quoting a NARP press release (but doing it anyway), a press release subject to a deep "innumeracy" fallacy that I had pointed out, a fallacy that appears to be solidly ignored by many around here.
Paul,
I appreciate the fact that you do not personalize your disagreement with NARP. At the same time I'm the guy who started the first post and who used the term "reluctantly." I now withdraw "reluctantly."
Whether or not we agree with NARP that is the organization which, more than any other, speaks for the public to the Congress about Amtrak related issues. I believe it is helpful to know what NARP says regardless of our personal views.
Paul MilenkovicNARP's claim is that because (of the usual suspects, high gas prices, whatever), train travel, make that long-distance train travel has grown faster than population growth, auto travel has declined in relation to population or whatever measure, ergo, unless the gummint boosts Amtrak funding ASAP, there will be (in NARP's words) a mobility crisis.
Well, eventually there will be a mobility crisis.
But, it won't be one that "Grid and Gateway" solves. More baggage cars and sleepers on the Silver Meteor won't help much either.
It's going to be in the Northeast where things already are pretty sticky and incremental improvements in the NEC and it's spurs have done pretty well. That's the place rail can make a difference and provide good value compared to alternatives.
I know others claim "not fair" when all the money goes to the NEC. But, it is fair. When the US has another area with 50+M people along a 500 mile corridor, come talk to me!
ontheBNSF Long Distance trains loose very little money and the Acela looses the most money. People want LD trains to be cut as to get more money into the Northeast.
That's funny, the Easter Bunny told me the same thing last month!
But, seriously, the LD trains "capital costs" are bound up in their payment to the host RR as an operating cost.
But, the dirty secret is that that "rent" doesn't even come close to the true cost. The frt RRs are subsidizing the LD trains
The other half of the dirty secret is that the other "tenants" of the NEC don't come close to paying for their fair share of the NEC. Amtrak is subsidizing the commuter roads.
I suspect Phillips column, which, not surprisingly has no hard numbers, is a case of stating what he WANTS to believe.
Shoot, I want it to be true, to, like the Easter Bunny, but it just isn't. Sorry.
Paul MilenkovicDon, I think you missed one decimal place in there.
Crap. An order of magnitude off. And I used a calculator!
The Acela does not make money. It hemorrhages money while blame forlosses is shifted.TRAINS MagazineJune 2013by Don Phillips> Seldom in my life have I seen such a mass of misinformation spread> about any one subject as is being spread now about the American> passenger train. The misinformation is spread by confused and> shallow politicians, young reporters who have no idea what they’re> talking about, and by Amtrak officials who have learned they can> count on the first two not to understand their technical jargon.> Before we go an inch farther, let me say something. This column is> intended to hammer home this fact: The Acela does not make money. In> fact, it loses money big time. What’s more, long-distance trains are> losers but not big money losers. If Amtrak calculated long-distance> train financials the same way it counts Acela financials, most> long-distance trains would be profitable.> Now, please read this paragraph again. Let it soak in. When I first> heard Amtrak President Joe Boardman call Acela profitable at a Senate> committee hearing, I had to bite my tongue not to protest openly. In> later testimony and in meetings with reporters, Boardman has added> moderating language, and now several months later, his descriptions> are totally accurate technically. He is also technically accurate> about long-distance train losses. But his descriptions have set up an> apples-and-watermelons comparison, whereby Acela makes money and> long-distance trains lose money.> The problem is that members of Congress and most reporters (and the> general public) have no idea what he has said. I guess it’s not his> fault if those misinformed people don’t know that he is counting a> small number of cost items in Acela “profits” and has thrown every> conceivable cost into long-distance “losses.” No comparison is even> possible on that basis, but those misleading “facts” have become> holy writ. Acela “makes” money and long-distance trains “lose”> enough money to drag down Amtrak’s financial results. Just read any> newspaper story or listen to any TV story about Amtrak and that’s> what you see. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong...
This whole thread is nonsense. Long Distance trains loose very little money and the Acela looses the most money. People want LD trains to be cut as to get more money into the Northeast.
Railroad to Freedom
oltmannd I found this: During fiscal year 2010 long distance trains carried 4.5 million passengers 2.8 billion passenger miles ― 44 percent of total Amtrak passenger miles The total P-M for Amtrak is about 550M per year. Airline P-M are: 60B....for a month. ~720B a year Personal vehicles: 2500B per year. Air travel is about 1/4 of auto travel. ALL of Amtrak is less the 0.1% of air travel. So, Amtrak LD is 0.001% of all travel. That's pretty small.....
I found this: During fiscal year 2010 long distance trains carried 4.5 million passengers 2.8 billion passenger miles ― 44 percent of total Amtrak passenger miles
The total P-M for Amtrak is about 550M per year.
Airline P-M are: 60B....for a month. ~720B a year
Personal vehicles: 2500B per year.
Air travel is about 1/4 of auto travel.
ALL of Amtrak is less the 0.1% of air travel. So, Amtrak LD is 0.001% of all travel.
That's pretty small.....
Don, I think you missed one decimal place in there.
The figures I had seen place the Amtrak passenger miles in the 5 billion per year range, not the 500 million you quote. I have long been quoting the auto-to-air-to-Amtrak passenger miles as 1000 to 100 to 1.
Hence, Amtrak is at 1 percent (one part in one hundred) of airline travel (just about all of which is intercity) and roughly a tenth of 1 percent of all passenger miles (the 2.5 trillion vehicle miles is more passenger miles because often drivers carry passengers; it is hard to get a breakdown of vehicle miles between intercity and local travel; vehicle passenger miles may have been in decline owing to the economy and high gas prices).
So I guess I am a stickler for getting the numbers right, although Don, our disagreement over the decimal place on Amtrak is probably something we can straighten out and agree upon a number.
On the subject of working on the figures and agreeing on a set of numbers, the originating post of this thread on Long Distance Trains was one of our regular participants "reluctantly" quoting a NARP press release (but doing it anyway), a press release subject to a deep "innumeracy" fallacy that I had pointed out, a fallacy that appears to be solidly ignored by many around here.
NARP's claim is that because (of the usual suspects, high gas prices, whatever), train travel, make that long-distance train travel has grown faster than population growth, auto travel has declined in relation to population or whatever measure, ergo, unless the gummint boosts Amtrak funding ASAP, there will be (in NARP's words) a mobility crisis.
What I pointed out is that if people are driving around 10 percent less, dunno, because gas is expensive, people have lost their jobs requiring commutes, or people can't afford driving vacations in today's crummy economy, and if people are using the train 10 percent more, because trains are 1 part in 1000 in relation to driving, the overwhelming majority of people not driving are not using trains as a substitute, won't be using trains as a subsitute, and aren't even thinking about using trains as a substitute.
To make up for a 10 percent loss in auto miles on a one-for-one basis would require a 100 fold increase in Amtrak, and no, the European experience where they have a 50-fold increase in service over Amtrak shows there are no economies of scale.
Are people prepared to budget 100 billion per year on Amtrak? Yes the money would be there if there were "the political will", dunno, to take 100 billion per year out of health care for the poor and aged. The Europeans spend roughly half that amount per year on trains to supply 5 percent of total passenger miles. Are people happy with that level of "bang for the buck"? Are people happy asking Congress, asking their fellow citizens to spend the same amount as the Federal highway budget on trains to carry 5 percent of the passenger miles of the highway network?
But the Amtrak presser that the shortfall in auto travel represents this unmet need for train travel that we are going to meet by giving Mr. Boardman the 2 billion he is asking from Congress, that dog just doesn't know how to compute.
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 WRSo I think we need to show that the miles are identical to support your thesis.
I think you're making the "markets served" argument. That's true. But we still need to move that decimal point two or three places to get into the land of "relevant".
John WREven motor fuel taxes pay only a small part of the cost of building and maintaining roads.
John WRAnd local and country roads which are essential to connecting interstate highways with actual points of delivers are built with property taxes, taxes which are levied on railroad tracks.
Those same local roads are your access to Amtrak at least at one end of the trip.
V.Payne Why didn't you tally comparable travel, that is trips over 200 miles in Long Distance land for served OD pairs? Even back in 1929, the first year I am aware of for records, lots of auto trips at 5-20 miles skewed the results. The short answer might be that the data is hard to find and you would have to set up your own experiments to get it in many cases. The FHWA recorded Rural interstate auto mileage has never recovered above the peak before fuel got expensive.
Why didn't you tally comparable travel, that is trips over 200 miles in Long Distance land for served OD pairs? Even back in 1929, the first year I am aware of for records, lots of auto trips at 5-20 miles skewed the results.
The short answer might be that the data is hard to find and you would have to set up your own experiments to get it in many cases. The FHWA recorded Rural interstate auto mileage has never recovered above the peak before fuel got expensive.
The short answer is correct. Ain't no data out there....Even the stuff I used was a bit "gray". But, it's pretty good for order of magnitude answers.
The other fault with what I did was not to consider markets. Amtrak, unlike the air and highway, really doesn't have a national market reach. Going from Denver to Boise? Nashville to Miami? Amtrak's not in the mix....
But, even if you assume 10:1 suburban/urban to intercity and another 10:1 for market reach, you still have a pretty tiny Amtrak LD network.
The real problem I have with the "overseas tourists as justification for Amtrak LD train" proposition is that it's a "tail wagging the dog" proposition. It starts with "having the trains" and then hunts for a justification.
If the goal is to encourage and enable foreign tourists, then let's start there and find the best ways to reach that goal. Trains may be part of the solution, but I don't see where the Silver Meteor adds much to the tourist experience over and above flying from the NE to Orlando (to see the Mouse, of course, and maybe Shamu).
I like the LD trains as much as the next guy. They are the remnant of "the best of the best" of passenger service at it's peak. But, I think it's intellectually dishonest to start with "I like them. We should keep them" and then hunt down the justifications and problems they partially solve.
If the goal is rural to urban transportation or links between corridors, then let's start there. If that's the market, then where are the people and where and when do they want to travel. If it's tourists, then, beyond "where and when" is "what about the train route itself?"
This "remnant of the best of the best" are still running on their big city to big city businessman's schedules from 60 years ago. Every blessed last one of them without a wink or a nod to the changing demographics on their routes.
Why is this?
V.PayneEven back in 1929, the first year I am aware of for records, lots of auto trips at 5-20 miles skewed the results.
You are correct in pointing out short local auto trips are different than much longer rail trips. There is also automobile commuting miles which may exceed 20 miles but is also different than Amtrak intercity miles. Although Amtrak commuter miles many need to be unraveled from it.
Another problematic area is can think of is the long history of government treatment of rail miles and road miles. Although Amtrak pays no property tax private freight railroads do and it is a significant amount. One result is that many miles of railroad track have been torn up. Property taxes have considerable weight in that decision. With fewer miles of railroad track available Amtrak has fewer routes and, on existing routes, may have to travel more miles than it would had some of the torn up track been available.
Roads, on the other hand, not only pay no property tax; they are build at government expense. Even motor fuel taxes pay only a small part of the cost of building and maintaining roads. And local and country roads which are essential to connecting interstate highways with actual points of delivers are built with property taxes, taxes which are levied on railroad tracks. Freight railroads are required to subsidize the road system which their competitors use. This too limits the tracks available to Amtrak.
oltmannd The total P-M for Amtrak is about 550M per year. Airline P-M are: 60B....for a month. ~720B a year Personal vehicles: 2500B per year. Air travel is about 1/4 of auto travel. ALL of Amtrak is less the 0.1% of air travel. So, Amtrak LD is 0.001% of all travel. That's pretty small.....
I find it interesting you would draw your conclusions from the data you present, Don. In your analysis there is an inherent belief that each and every rail mile, road mile and air mile are identical. As I recall in some of your previous posts you have disputed such a belief. If you now believe it that is all well and good but I think the issue needs to be addressed before arriving at your conclusion.
One example of the difference is the Morris Canal in northern New Jersey which existed from about the 1830's up to 1924. During the revolution New Jersey developed an iron industry using iron ore mined in the western part of the state. After the revolution trading with Britain resumed. New Jersey iron manufacturers who were about 30 miles from New York City could not compete with British iron manufacturers. The reason was that it was more expensive to ship iron goods 30 miles using draft animals than it was to ship the same goods across the Atlantic Ocean by ship. The answer was the Morris Canal. It made New Jersey iron wares profitable until cheaper sources of iron ore were found further inland. And up to the 1860's it was also a very cheap way to haul coal from the anthracite area. Clearly, a canal mile could not be compared with an over the road mile using draft animals.
So I think we need to show that the miles are identical to support your thesis.
oltmannd I found this: During fiscal year 2010 long distance trains carried 4.5 million passengers 2.8 billion passenger miles ― 44 percent of total Amtrak passenger miles
I had no idea that it was that high. That does explain why Amfleet -2s have twice the milleage of -1s. Also the few trains that are really LD ( ex: Carolinian ) could skew the number further ?
oltmanndEven if you filled the trains with foreign tourists, the LD trains are just a tiny fraction of the markets they serve. They are irrelevant (and expensive) any way you slice them.
I forget the exact number but long distance trains account for a lot of passenger miles.
John WR oltmannd daveklepperFor ...a very tiny number of.... daveklepperforeign tourists, Amtrak can be a good American face to the world. Making travel uncivilized certainllly does not prsent a good face. One of many reasons to keep dining cars and sleepers, I wonder just how tiny this tiny number is. And there may well also be American tourists who want to see our country in comfort and, perhaps, with a little luxury. Success may lie in doing a lot of little things right.
oltmannd daveklepperFor ...a very tiny number of.... daveklepperforeign tourists, Amtrak can be a good American face to the world. Making travel uncivilized certainllly does not prsent a good face. One of many reasons to keep dining cars and sleepers,
daveklepperFor
...a very tiny number of....
daveklepperforeign tourists, Amtrak can be a good American face to the world. Making travel uncivilized certainllly does not prsent a good face. One of many reasons to keep dining cars and sleepers,
I wonder just how tiny this tiny number is. And there may well also be American tourists who want to see our country in comfort and, perhaps, with a little luxury. Success may lie in doing a lot of little things right.
Even if you filled the trains with foreign tourists, the LD trains are just a tiny fraction of the markets they serve. They are irrelevant (and expensive) any way you slice them.
I do like having them around, though. I would like to see them perform better.
John WR oltmanndDid you notice that the airlines did not offer to make up the lost $$ from sequestration in order to get the traffic controllers back to work? I did notice that, Don. But I would cut the airlines a little slack here. After all, airlines to pay a whole group of fees and taxes to use the airports. Traditionally the Federal Government has always provided air traffic control and even now no one suggests that is not a government responsibility. I the airlines pay it themselves they could find they are setting a precedent which would come back to haunt them. John
oltmanndDid you notice that the airlines did not offer to make up the lost $$ from sequestration in order to get the traffic controllers back to work?
I did notice that, Don. But I would cut the airlines a little slack here.
After all, airlines to pay a whole group of fees and taxes to use the airports. Traditionally the Federal Government has always provided air traffic control and even now no one suggests that is not a government responsibility. I the airlines pay it themselves they could find they are setting a precedent which would come back to haunt them.
It may bite them anyway. The money to put the controllers back on came from diverting money from the capital improvement fund. So, is there now net $$ flowing from the airline tax/fees to the treasury? Or, is there just less net flowing the other way?
I suggest that where the commercial airlines fly, it is not the government's responsiblity to provide air traffic control without being compensated for the control.
Were the airline traffic not be there, traffic controllers would not be an expense....to US (Paul Harrrvee just rotated in his coffin) and consider if air traffic controllers were taking care of military and civilian flights (no doubt corporate jets would buy in when they flew.) only, relegating every other flight to mandatory visual flight rules.....crop dusters, medivac copters, fire fighting flights....that's what they do, anyway they can. Recreational flights, Air Shows, business owners, let them buy in for specific flights, like home to work and back-----each flight.
What precedent verifies and justifies government subsidizing air traffic, road traffic, canal lock and river, harbour and port, when it doesn't provide for railroad (commercial) traffic control.....then mandates the industry pay for PTC?
"pay it themselves....precedent.....could come back to haunt them," Verdad!, Vrai, You Betcha.
That commercial airlines are doing now is what was suggested that AMTK implement is now extant in airline's version of "steerage,"
Intended was the content of the previuos 'graph.
efftenxrfeDid'ya notice that the airlines immediately jumped to offer to support their Signal Department/ Dispachers (traffic controllers) when their income shrivelled last week?
Did you notice that the airlines did not offer to make up the lost $$ from sequestration in order to get the traffic controllers back to work?
efftenxrfe Irresponsible, disrespectful commentater that I am, I gotta' say something about Oltmanned's Apr 5 "business plan" to reduce the AMTK subsidy. 'Cause I did not read the rest of the thread toward today, I hope for tolerance if I suggest that, except for Business Class or First Class acommodations, airlines, those that survive after falling into the whirlpools of bankruptcy or merger-ism, have already done what Oltmannd suggested. 1 No Legroom. 2 ibid 3 ibid 4 Hub-and-Spoke Next 'graph: does he/she want to fund inter-state service, or have AMTK not pass thru Pensacola, I know it's not in the timetable, or Jacksonville? Airline food service in coach---12 peanuts in a plastic envelope...is that what we're talking about? Did'ya notice that the airlines immediately jumped to offer to support their Signal Department/ Dispachers (traffic controllers) when their income shrivelled last week?
Irresponsible, disrespectful commentater that I am, I gotta' say something about Oltmanned's Apr 5 "business plan" to reduce the AMTK subsidy.
'Cause I did not read the rest of the thread toward today, I hope for tolerance if I suggest that, except for Business Class or First Class acommodations, airlines, those that survive after falling into the whirlpools of bankruptcy or merger-ism, have already done what Oltmannd suggested.
1 No Legroom.
2 ibid
3 ibid
4 Hub-and-Spoke
Next 'graph: does he/she want to fund inter-state service, or have AMTK not pass thru Pensacola, I know it's not in the timetable, or Jacksonville?
Airline food service in coach---12 peanuts in a plastic envelope...is that what we're talking about?
Did'ya notice that the airlines immediately jumped to offer to support their Signal Department/ Dispachers (traffic controllers) when their income shrivelled last week?
Here's the original post:
The way to reduce the operating subsidy is this:
1. Minimize non-revenue space
2. Maximize seats per train
3. Maximize seats per on-board employee
4. Maximize stops at the greatest travel markets on the route at times people are awake.
This means you chop and flip the Eastern LD train into day trains and drop thier diners and sleepers. Serve the intra-FL market with intra-FL trains. Fix the food service - contract it out or re-engineer the whole thing.
Start with a clean sheet of paper, not the 1950 Official Guide.
So, let's take'm one at a time!
1.Minimize non-revenue space: Does NOT mean less leg room. How about this: No rooms for car attendants. No seats for trainmen. No baggage cars (put it under the coach. Bi-level coaches (ala NE commuter roads). No dining car kitchens. Higher density sleeping car accommodations. I'm sure there are many, many more .....
2. Maximize seats per train: ibid!
3. Maximize seats per on-board employee: Day trains don't need cooks, car attendants, dining car staff.
4. Maximize stops at the greatest travel markets on the route at times people are awake: The rail network is a poor fit for hub and spoke. There are a few natural hubs like Chicago, otherwise it's more of a grid. The country that Amtrak started serving in 1971 ain't the one that's there now yet they haven't moved one iota to try to connect where people live NOW to where they want to go NOW vs. 1971. Exhibits A, B, C and D are Florida, South Carolina, Georgia and North Carolina. Just looks at some census data... It's free and easy to find on line.
Florida is the 4th largerst state in the nation now. It was way down the list in 1971. It is also a naturla for corridor service. Intra-Florida service would connect the largest population centers in the state. Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Jax. It's been totally and completely ignored by Amtrak over the years. Pensacola is tiny by comparison isn't worth the effort to connect to anywhere else with rail service. Rail is "batch mode" transportation by it's nature, not boutique service.
Who said anything about "AIRLINE FOOD"? Not me! I want GOOD FOOD, like I got at Longhorn last night, or Bonefish a month ago. Why not just load preplated meal on the train like the dinner trains do? These restaurant chains are everywhere Amtrak trains go in the east. You can't go 30 miles without going past one. Contract the business to them - lock, stock and barrel. Heck, even Chilli's or Applebee's would do.
V.Payne I recently transferred between Greyhound and Megabus in Memphis. I choose the carriers to gain access on one end and really just to try the other service while making a one way trip under 400 miles to catch back up with family. There are so few options on the routes that used to have mainline runs up until the late 60's unless you want to spend a few hundred dollars and several connections flying. Since their terminals are 10ish miles apart and the local bus link was nowhere to be found, though scheduled, it cost me an extra $25 I wasn't planning on spending for a taxi.
I recently transferred between Greyhound and Megabus in Memphis. I choose the carriers to gain access on one end and really just to try the other service while making a one way trip under 400 miles to catch back up with family. There are so few options on the routes that used to have mainline runs up until the late 60's unless you want to spend a few hundred dollars and several connections flying.
Since their terminals are 10ish miles apart and the local bus link was nowhere to be found, though scheduled, it cost me an extra $25 I wasn't planning on spending for a taxi.
This is interesting, for a number of reasons.
Megabus in Memphis departs from the south end of the main MATA (city bus) "North End" terminal, about 50 feet from the trolley line.
The Greyhound terminal used to be in downtown Memphis, which was only a few blocks from the North End terminal. They moved it (in late 2011) to be out by the airport... actually in the Airways MATA bus plex. Almost all the buses from Airways go to North End, and special care is made in MATA's route and headway scheduling to meet incoming Greyhound buses (perhaps on the not-too-silly assumption that people traveling by bus don't want to spend their pocket change on taxis).
Evidently there is a profound breakdown both in the information/signage provided at the Greyhound terminal for people to reach Megabus, and in the arrangements made to direct travelers on one bus line to reach the other. I would suspect THAT is a principal issue that should be taken up ... perhaps in the context of the recent discussions on the Forum of the 19th-Century railroad practice of intentionally impeding connections to 'competing' roads.
There is a certain amount of wisdom to stopping in the towns between the large metro areas in terms of reducing access costs to users.
But there is also a fairly profound cost in inconvenience to the great majority of travelers on the bus who are not going to one of those towns.
I well remember riding the dog between Erie, PA and Cleveland. Bus was already a number of hours late when I got aboard. I lost track of all the miserable stops we made ... Ashtabula was notable because it reminded me of a different kind of horror.
I remember staying in San Diego a bit too late without knowing about bustitution, and having to ride the bus back to LA ... making all those stops. My knees have never been quite the same since.
I can even remember riding one of the old American Airlines 'mail runs' hopscotching across from Shreveport to somewhere -- Atlanta or Charlotte -- making a bunch of stops enroute. In those days it was something of an adventure to be landing *just* as thunderstorms moved off the field, and to be on the airplane for hours and hours. Not sure I'd like it if I were a business traveler wanting to get somewhere.
I can easily understand why a carrier predicated on the old People Express model of transporting people quickly and cheaply only between a select set of destination pairs would be attractive to a bus operator. I can equally understand how profits would be chewed up by having to drive off the Interstates and into various town centers where there may or may not be a few stragglers on and off. And is there really that much benefit in main line buses serving all those town centers, when they're almost certainly miles from where the majority of passengers ultimately intend to go?
As with the mail -- some carriers get stuck with having to provide the public service or access, while others get to skim the cream. In the days of regulation, some of those things were cared for. Nowadays it would make somewhat better sense to keep local carrier routes, to serve all the little town destinations, and run the intercity buses with minimal interruption. But there is little profit in local service... especially when distances are relatively long and subsidies from cities or regions sparse for such service.
For foreign tourists, Amtrak can be a good American face to the world. Making travel uncivilized certainllly does not prsent a good face. One of many reasons to keep dining cars and sleepers,
Just a quick glance at the Megabus web page reveals services to communities with these universities: UI Champaign, UW Madison, UM Ann Arbor, UI Iowa City, Ohio State, U Louisville, U Cincinnati, U Tenn Knoxville U Memphis, Vanderbilt (Nashville), UGA Athens, Georgia Tech and State in Atlanta, UT Austin, Penn State, etc. Many of these are NOT served by Amtrak
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm not sure Amtrak actually has any advantage for the students and it costs more.
not sure Amtrak actually has any advantage for the students and it costs more.
Except that the concept of Bolt and Megabus is to only serve large metro areas and then run non-stop. They seem to be trying to be ground based Regional jet airlines. It seems like most of the college population is not in the large metro areas served, so you have to add the cost of getting to the terminal, which either means driving and parking, sharing a ride with coordinating schedules, or a transfer between carriers. All but somebody happening to go where you need them to go, for both the arrival and departure dates, puts the cost to the user above that of using a long distnace train and getting a short intracity ride or taxi to the station.
I recently transfered between Greyhound and Megabus in Memphis. I choose the carriers to gain access on one end and really just to try the other service while making a one way trip under 400 miles to catch back up with family. There are so few options on the routes that used to have mainline runs up until the late 60's unless you want to spend a few hundred dollars and several connections flying.
The mindset of college students going to New Orleans is not likely to include diligence about "getting homework done." Even if that were a factor, the Megabus has electric plugs and free Wifi. I'm not sure Amtrak actually has any advantage for the students and it costs more.
perhaps the website and posters don't describe the advantages well enought, the ability to get homework done.
daveklepperposters in stations and info on the Amtrak website do not get the message to students
I can't agree with you, Dave. Today I think all of us, when we are looking to buy something, surf the net early on. Both Megabus and Bolt bus depend on their websites to get their point across. So why should it be different for Amtrak?
Students are people on a budget. I suspect many of them shop by price and Amtrak is not a discount carrier. However, I occasionally travel between New York and Providence and even between Newark and Washington and I often see students on Amtrak.
V.PayneProbably the Crescent route needs a two tier coach pricing and service offering. One a bit better than motorcoach seat spacing the other 2-1.
Amtrak could offer a second class coach at a reduced price. But Amtrak has been around long enough so I have to believe that has been considered and rejected. I don't know what Amtrak management's thinking is on the issue. However, I do not expect there will be a change in the foreseeable future.
As far as I know there is no public outcry or strong opinion among a majority (or even a significant minority) in the Congress for second class coaches.
posters in stations and info on the Amtrak website do not get the message to students
rather than modifying some coaches for deluxe 2 & 1 seating, simply sell moderate price upgrades to privacy in single and double room sleeping cars space as daytime occupancy, since the sleeping cars are heavily booked north of Atlanta
Also, in reference to travel from the college towns, many are not served by Megabus so you first have to get to their terminal, which may erase any savings.
Probably the Crescent route needs a two tier coach pricing and service offering. One a bit better than motorcoach seat spacing the other 2-1.
PS. Greyhound does serve many but not all of the cities Amtrak serves. There is no Greyhound service to Laurel and Picayune. In Meridian Greyhound stops at the Amtrak station.
V.Payne believe Megabus is running "investment mileage" aka running a loss to enter the markets from their annual reports.
That is a fascinating observation about Megabus. Joe Boardman points out that on the whole about 11 per cent of our cities have lost long distance buses and the number of airports is also declining.
With regard to the Atlanta -- New Orleans service, Megabus serves Atlanta, Birmingham and New Orleans. Amtrak serves those cities as well as Anniston, Tuscaloosa, Meridian, Laurel, Hattiesburg, Picayune and Slidell.
I do not criticize Megabus for ignoring those cities. And I have not checked other companies. Greyhound often serves places the discount carriers do not.
I believe Megabus is running "investment mileage" aka running a loss to enter the markets from their annual reports. They just like Greyhound with Bolt, use their existing business base to provide a below margin product to enter or keep market share. I don't know how long it can go on.
The seat is also quite small.
Checked the Megabus site. ATL to NO, 8-9 hours, $3.00-45.00, equipped with free Wi-Fi. Amtrak: 11 hours, $61.20 with student discount. Doesn't look like much of a market now. Megabus is now serving 25 million passengers in North America (primarily eastern US and ON and Quebec).. At the rate of growth they currently have, it will pass Amtrak.
daveklepper but how do the students know about these programs?
but how do the students know about these programs?
The info is on the Amtrak web site. Occasionally, it'll show up on Amtrak's home page. I've also seen posters in stations from time to time.
It's also an option when you select "passenger type" when booking on the website.
Amtrak has a student advantage program. It costs $20 a year and requires buying a ticket at least 3 days in advance. If provides a 15 per cent discount off regular fares.
Amtrak also recognizes an international student id card. This is a specific organization. Membership costs $25. Whether it is one time or each year is unclear. It also requires a ticket be purchased at least 3 days in advance and Amtrak gives a 15 per cent discount.
Students and all people under age 15 travel for half fare.
Someone should pass these suggestions on to Amtrak. Possibly they can have a student working on a commission basis on each of the large campuses!
daveklepperNew Orleans is or shoujld be a popular desination for college students, and their are plenty along the Atlanta-New-Orleans route. Cannot easily use a laptop and get homework done on a bus. Worth the extra fare if marketed properly.
Perhaps one obvious approach: make subsidy arrangements with colleges to provide reduced fare for students with valid ID. Follow-on from there might provide advance warning of peak 'academic travel' and allow for special incentives (or tie-ins, or special for-profit amenities just for those times). Should not be difficult to set this up, or get some state-level funding for this specific purpose. Good PR for Amtrak concerning this underrepresented travel group, too.
May I add that recent traffic on this thread is a demonstration of the very best kind of thinking and general discourse that I hoped I would find on this board...
oltmannd You don't have those long 5+ minute station stops ... Schedule would be something like 6:30 AM departure from Atlanta, 11:00 PM arrival in NYP.
You don't have those long 5+ minute station stops
...
Schedule would be something like 6:30 AM departure from Atlanta, 11:00 PM arrival in NYP.
Station stop times would seem to be independent of the service provided. This is just the way they like to do it now. If they got a cross-subsidy equivalent per mile then they have the financial incentive to reduce the dwell as it just cost them wages otherwise.
Yikes, 6:30 AM from Atlanta. Again, I am not saying that a day trip on the corridor is not warranted if you could have more than one train, some type of pair would make the most sense.
How about instead the 1971 schedule come back into play. Or better yet, a 6:00 PM departure out of Atlanta, and then a 11:00 PM arrival into Charlotte. If you could just get the day portion of the trip from New Orleans up to 53 mph average with some station stop discipline, then you are at a 7:30 AM departure from NOL. Could play schedule builder all day...
But that would give you the option of a same day equipment turn in NYC, no way! If the operator had the discipline of being paid by the passenger mile equivalent cross-subsidy, then an incentive exists. Freeing up an entire set of equipment just might be the incentive to make such a short turn work. Have a plan in place to short turn at WAS, PHL, BHM, and Meridian depending of the degree of the delay, with connections provided beyond by train in the NEC and tour bus to the south.
The later rush hour departure would allow long-distance commuters, those that make say two to three trips to the head office a week, to use the service out of Atlanta and points between to Charlotte. Then you fill up the same cars in Charlotte with riders for the NEC, ala Megabus. FIt some refurbished amcoaches out in a full car 2-1 configuration, seating around 60, at a reduced seat spacing, just as a test of the market.
We went through this before. New Orleans is or shoujld be a popular desination for college students, and their are plenty along the Atlanta-New-Orleans route. Cannot easily use a laptop and get homework done on a bus. Worth the extra fare if marketed properly.
oltmannd] Now, if you could do a couple/three trains a day and you had a stop in Duluth/Buford..... you might have something. You could even live with somewhat slower trip times.
Now, if you could do a couple/three trains a day and you had a stop in Duluth/Buford..... you might have something. You could even live with somewhat slower trip times.
schlimm You could get a one way ticket on the Crescent tonight to Charlotte(what could become a good short corridor) for $56.00. Tomorrow night $70.00. Problem isn't so much length of journey - 5:17 - but the time you arrive in Charlotte: 1:21 am. On the other hand, the air connections are not so good. Non-stop is 1:10, but the fare is $464.00 and many flights are one stop and five hours. So if Amtrak could think beyond what it inherited 35 years ago, it could tap and get a good market share for that segment of 250 miles, especially if the time could be reduced to 3.5 hours.
You could get a one way ticket on the Crescent tonight to Charlotte(what could become a good short corridor) for $56.00. Tomorrow night $70.00. Problem isn't so much length of journey - 5:17 - but the time you arrive in Charlotte: 1:21 am. On the other hand, the air connections are not so good. Non-stop is 1:10, but the fare is $464.00 and many flights are one stop and five hours. So if Amtrak could think beyond what it inherited 35 years ago, it could tap and get a good market share for that segment of 250 miles, especially if the time could be reduced to 3.5 hours.
I can drive to Charlotte in 3-1/2 hours. It's not a bad drive except on Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons in the summer - lake traffic....
Most Atlantans live on the north side and the airport is on the south side. I don't know anyone who would consider flying to Charlotte.
Now, if you merely flip the schedule and dovetail it into the mid-day Piedmont slot (NC can do cross platform to Raleigh at Greensboro)
You drop the cost of the sleeper and coach attendants.
You drop the dining car cost.
You drop the second locomotive.
You don't need all that extra dwell at Charlotte and Lynchburg.
You gain riders at Clemson University, Spartansburg, Greensburg and suburban Charlotte (make a Kannapolis stop)
You a useful "second" train to/from Lynchburg/Charlottesville and the northeast.
You'd have something that would beat the performance of the Palmetto and Carolinian.
I can walk up to the Peachtree St station right now and get a ticket for tomorrow night's Crescent to NYP for $138 (tonight's fare is $217). A flight on Thursday AM is $189. How exactly will lower fares attract more riders? Could there really be potential passengers out there whose go/don't go price point is say $100 vs $138?
Only a decade ago, the Crescent had a fifth coach. That has disappeared. Pricing has always been below airfare. There's just not much demand, I think
Roughly speaking for a two engine consist, operated in the current manner, inclusive of Equipment and Terminal Capital, Overhauls and Maintenance, and Labor I get these costs:
$24/trainmile in fixed cost for track access, stations, and operating crew, irregardless
$2.68/carmile for coaches and $2.86/carmile for sleepers, multiply by 125% (5/4) if you assume a food service car for 4 revenue cars
$3.50 per trainmile for the dining car labor
For the way the Crescent is operated today, I still get around $50/trainmile in direct long term costs, which fits with the PRIIA route improvement reports for direct cost with equipment capital added in. Recently the Crescent, even for its puny capacity, has been pulling in revenue of $31/trainmile or so.
The existing $19/trainmile difference even though it represents some inefficient operating practices, when divided by the equivalent number of passenger automobiles worth of people on the train, is close to the interstate highway subsidy.
If you do the modifications that the PRIIA reports suggested you get historical Federal interstate highway subsidy (state cost are mostly a wash but I am going back and looking at them). Add even more revenue cars and you get half the interstate highway subsidy(Non-linear), eventually getting to a much lower subsidy, a level roughly equal to the government borne automobile accident costs as the Variable portion of the subsidy.
schlimm CNL as Don said, is a nice adjunct service. One correction in V. Payne's comment ["a string of closely spaced pickup and dropoff points in the metro areas on either side of an overnight through run. This is how the CityNightLine operations are structured"] It's a good idea, but a glance at the linked CNL brochure (in English) shows that is not the case with the exception of Berlin and Hamburg on some routes.
CNL as Don said, is a nice adjunct service. One correction in V. Payne's comment ["a string of closely spaced pickup and dropoff points in the metro areas on either side of an overnight through run. This is how the CityNightLine operations are structured"] It's a good idea, but a glance at the linked CNL brochure (in English) shows that is not the case with the exception of Berlin and Hamburg on some routes.
Correct, it is meant to be paired with ICE on one leg out/back.I believe the schedule has changed over the years, you are correct as well. On one timetable I seem to remember a few years ago, one of the major German Metro areas being served twice, like 7:30 am and then 8:30 am, with a few other stops in the nearby towns in a loop to bring you back. Last time I was aboard was 2005.
But look at the frequency of stops in the late evening PM early AM of the trips, some are 20 to 30 minutes apart, but in the overnight hours they are 2-3 hours apart, and only at the main stations.
If this were a rational situation, there would be huge immediate investment in short distance trains which might serve communities within a 250 radius, more frequent availability (like several FULL trains per day), and for long distance travel, equipment suitable for the task including sleeping accomodations. If we were talking trucking commodities, there would be no delay in investment. But since we are talking people and severe competition against airlines and inefficient, slow and expensive automobiles, the congress people can't seem to get their heads around the concept. GW Bush of course, tried mightily to kill Amtrak entirely and starved the system so it will take years to recover.
http://www.bahn.de/citynightline/view/mdb/citynightline/cnl/media/mdb_103216_brosch_1213_en_final_neu.pdf
V.Paynewww.mit.edu/~uic/TRB-handouts.ring.8.1.pdf
Interesting. Lots of food for thought. Going to take some time to digest fully.
What I REALLY like about it is the notion of figuring out where and how trains fit best instead of:
"isn't it obvious that ALL trains are inherently good"
and
"1001 reasons Amtrak status-quo is justified".
Which is where we usually wind up....
V.Payne There was pre-interstate suburbs and post-interstate suburbs. The later are quite costly financially and were based on capacity that has now dried up with no reasonable way to expand in many cases. To the degree they set the marketplace expectation that is now changing it is interesting to look at them... Back to Long Distance operations, which I admit I got away from... Transmark Analysis, from “A Reexamanination of the Amtrak Route Structure”, USDOT 1978 Using the first year-round column, the carmile maintenance and operation costs would be $2.31/car-mile for (21 revenue berth) sleeping cars and $2.08/car-mile for (52 revenue seat) coach cars of that era converted to ($2012). These values are within a few cents of the range determined by a spreadsheet model I keep once capital purchase costs are taken out as was assumed by the Transmark study. I believe Transmark was a British Rail consulting subsidiary. Now this was probably for steam heated equipment, most assuredly “heritage” cars in some state of rehabilitation. Now, everybody says that the sleeping cars are more expensive as they demand more interior/systems maintenance. Perhaps that is true, but I would suggest that it just isn’t that much of a per carmile basis. Say Bob and Norm spend 4 hours on a single car doing other maintenance and cleaning solely required of a sleeper at each terminal. Say that costs $340 in labor and $40 for parts, as there are at least two sleepers on most consists, and they split the shift, half for each car. But over the 1377 miles of the Crescent that works out to $380/1377 miles = $0.276 per carmile, or $0.023 per average room mile occupancy. ($0.23 vs $0.28/carmile), pretty close to the 1978 differential right, always nice when you get back to where you started by a different method. Certainly the revenue from a sleeper more than clears this maintenance cost and the cost of the capital for the car while also making a contribution to the train amenities, though not fully paying for them. The difference isn’t in the operation of the car itself but in the assignment of cost of other train amenities to the sleeper or higher revenue passengers and the marketplace expectation of price. For the ATL to NYC run, the cost reduction solution to simply run a “day” train, aka cut the dining car, means that there would be no substantial food option for the 18 hour schedule, (3) meal periods when the train is most full. IF you want to do this, keeping the overnight schedule makes more sense as you could have dinner in ATL on Peachtree St. before boarding 8 PM, or at WAS, and people don’t eat much overnight. A continental breakfast would work. That being said, it would also make sense to have a Lynchburg-Newark-Lynchburg and a Gainsville-mainline trade off around Tuscaloosa-Gainsville food service crew and not have employees riding through the night doing nothing. South of there the café might work for the smaller crowd or you could add a New Orleans based crew on a short turn to Tuscaloosa and back same day. You would still be stuck with trying to figure out a suitable schedule for a daytime trip, say somehow you get the time down to 16.5 hours, 6:00 AM ATL to 10:30 PM NYC? I hope everybody can conceptually see how that is much worse than the current schedule as the hotel in NYC or ATL is worth more than the ticket and you have no daytime left to spend at your destination on either end. You could shorten the trip to say Charlotte, but there already is a day train running on part of that trip, and you lose the connection to Atlanta, so what is the point? What is also forgotten is the research in Europe by Troche and in the US by Martland and Lu has shown a strong market for late PM departures and early AM arrivals with a string of closely spaced pickup and dropoff points in the metro areas on either side of an overnight through run. This is how the CityNightLine operations are structured. With that being said Metro Atlanta needs at least two more stations on the ring roads to reduce urban access time and cost which Martland and Lu spends a lot of time fleshing out ( I highly recommend reading this paper). www.mit.edu/~uic/TRB-handouts.ring.8.1.pdf But you will NEVER see/notice/defend these incremental route improvements if you bake in $20+ million in system Fixed cost into the Crescent route and then divide by passenger miles…
There was pre-interstate suburbs and post-interstate suburbs. The later are quite costly financially and were based on capacity that has now dried up with no reasonable way to expand in many cases. To the degree they set the marketplace expectation that is now changing it is interesting to look at them...
Back to Long Distance operations, which I admit I got away from...
Transmark Analysis, from “A Reexamanination of the Amtrak Route Structure”, USDOT 1978
Using the first year-round column, the carmile maintenance and operation costs would be $2.31/car-mile for (21 revenue berth) sleeping cars and $2.08/car-mile for (52 revenue seat) coach cars of that era converted to ($2012). These values are within a few cents of the range determined by a spreadsheet model I keep once capital purchase costs are taken out as was assumed by the Transmark study. I believe Transmark was a British Rail consulting subsidiary. Now this was probably for steam heated equipment, most assuredly “heritage” cars in some state of rehabilitation.
Now, everybody says that the sleeping cars are more expensive as they demand more interior/systems maintenance. Perhaps that is true, but I would suggest that it just isn’t that much of a per carmile basis. Say Bob and Norm spend 4 hours on a single car doing other maintenance and cleaning solely required of a sleeper at each terminal. Say that costs $340 in labor and $40 for parts, as there are at least two sleepers on most consists, and they split the shift, half for each car. But over the 1377 miles of the Crescent that works out to $380/1377 miles = $0.276 per carmile, or $0.023 per average room mile occupancy. ($0.23 vs $0.28/carmile), pretty close to the 1978 differential right, always nice when you get back to where you started by a different method.
Certainly the revenue from a sleeper more than clears this maintenance cost and the cost of the capital for the car while also making a contribution to the train amenities, though not fully paying for them. The difference isn’t in the operation of the car itself but in the assignment of cost of other train amenities to the sleeper or higher revenue passengers and the marketplace expectation of price.
For the ATL to NYC run, the cost reduction solution to simply run a “day” train, aka cut the dining car, means that there would be no substantial food option for the 18 hour schedule, (3) meal periods when the train is most full. IF you want to do this, keeping the overnight schedule makes more sense as you could have dinner in ATL on Peachtree St. before boarding 8 PM, or at WAS, and people don’t eat much overnight. A continental breakfast would work.
That being said, it would also make sense to have a Lynchburg-Newark-Lynchburg and a Gainsville-mainline trade off around Tuscaloosa-Gainsville food service crew and not have employees riding through the night doing nothing. South of there the café might work for the smaller crowd or you could add a New Orleans based crew on a short turn to Tuscaloosa and back same day.
You would still be stuck with trying to figure out a suitable schedule for a daytime trip, say somehow you get the time down to 16.5 hours, 6:00 AM ATL to 10:30 PM NYC? I hope everybody can conceptually see how that is much worse than the current schedule as the hotel in NYC or ATL is worth more than the ticket and you have no daytime left to spend at your destination on either end. You could shorten the trip to say Charlotte, but there already is a day train running on part of that trip, and you lose the connection to Atlanta, so what is the point?
What is also forgotten is the research in Europe by Troche and in the US by Martland and Lu has shown a strong market for late PM departures and early AM arrivals with a string of closely spaced pickup and dropoff points in the metro areas on either side of an overnight through run. This is how the CityNightLine operations are structured. With that being said Metro Atlanta needs at least two more stations on the ring roads to reduce urban access time and cost which Martland and Lu spends a lot of time fleshing out ( I highly recommend reading this paper).
www.mit.edu/~uic/TRB-handouts.ring.8.1.pdf
But you will NEVER see/notice/defend these incremental route improvements if you bake in $20+ million in system Fixed cost into the Crescent route and then divide by passenger miles…
Just a couple of comments.
City Nightline trains are a nice adjunct to the network of day trains. They are not the backbone of the network. A network of overnight LD trains in the eastern US should function the same way.
The major problem with the Crescent's schedule is that it completely ignores the population growth in the Piedmont, particularly in SC that's occurred in the past 40 years.
You are dead-on about the need for suburban stops in metro areas such as Atlanta. You only have to look at the census data to see it. I took a quick look at the 2010 census data in my blog of May 9, 2012. Amtrak needs to be pro-active about these things. They could probably get decent local funding to get the stops build out.
There are many, many ways to restructure and improve the economic performance of the overnight LD trains. Amtrak does not appear to interested in any of them and/or does not even consider that they may exist.
The land does not flood. In the case of the Port Jervis line there is already a rail line to Manhattan. But the market does not exist for homes on that land right now.
I don't know the specifics of the land you are talking about, it might be on flood lands, or you might be able to develop the immediate area but have no way to effectively tie it to major employment centers as that capacity is used up and the market won't currently bear the user revenue to finance a link due to our sense of the marketplace.
The answer goes beyond the topic of this post....
Start here: http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
V.PayneThere was pre-interstate suburbs and post-interstate suburbs. The later are quite costly financially and were based on capacity that has now dried up with no reasonable way to expand in many cases.
I agree that our newer suburbs, especially the ones with 1 to 5 acre lots, are costly. However, it does seem to me that we do have place to expand them. For example, consider Metro North's Port Jervis Line. There is a lot of vacant land along that line that would be subdivided and it could include new stations with generous parking. Or the West Trenton line that New Jersey no longer operates but does carry freight. There is a lot of undeveloped land there and NJT could reinstate it commuter service.
And these are in the New York area which is, on the whole, very congested.
Just curious what would be the point of having Amtrak if you were to eliminate Long distance routes. IF it is just corridors why no local operators? What is the advantage of a unified system with only corridors.
oltmannd John WR oltmanndThere are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them. Don, Good highways came in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt started building them to counter the depression. They weren't really all about transportation; they were all about giving jobs to some of the legions of unemployed men. So did people stop riding long distance trains in the 1920's? John The "Good Roads" movement actually started in the bicycle era. Many roads were built in the prior to FDR. And, yes, people did stop riding LD trains in the 1920s as soon as decent roads gave them a place drive. A good example? When the Delaware River Bridge, US 30 and NJ 47 were completed, the ridership on the ACRR and WJ&S took a big hit. This was when cars were crude, slow, noisy and had no heaters or radios. It was a major reason in the creation of the PRSL less than 10 years later. The last year US RRs netted a profit on passenger traffic was 1929. But, the biggest hit of all was the suburban migration after WWII. "See the USA in your Chevrolet" beat Streamliners. Nobody was complaining - except the railroads - and that was about being forced to run unprofitable passenger trains. They dropped a bundle on those Streamliners only to see ridership dry up in less than a decade. There wasn't anybody saying: "Interstate highways? What a lousy idea!" We weren't "robbed". We got what we wanted!
John WR oltmanndThere are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them. Don, Good highways came in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt started building them to counter the depression. They weren't really all about transportation; they were all about giving jobs to some of the legions of unemployed men. So did people stop riding long distance trains in the 1920's? John
oltmanndThere are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them.
Don,
Good highways came in the 1930's when Franklin Roosevelt started building them to counter the depression. They weren't really all about transportation; they were all about giving jobs to some of the legions of unemployed men. So did people stop riding long distance trains in the 1920's?
The "Good Roads" movement actually started in the bicycle era. Many roads were built in the prior to FDR. And, yes, people did stop riding LD trains in the 1920s as soon as decent roads gave them a place drive. A good example? When the Delaware River Bridge, US 30 and NJ 47 were completed, the ridership on the ACRR and WJ&S took a big hit. This was when cars were crude, slow, noisy and had no heaters or radios. It was a major reason in the creation of the PRSL less than 10 years later.
The last year US RRs netted a profit on passenger traffic was 1929.
But, the biggest hit of all was the suburban migration after WWII. "See the USA in your Chevrolet" beat Streamliners. Nobody was complaining - except the railroads - and that was about being forced to run unprofitable passenger trains. They dropped a bundle on those Streamliners only to see ridership dry up in less than a decade.
There wasn't anybody saying: "Interstate highways? What a lousy idea!" We weren't "robbed". We got what we wanted!
What suburban migration there were already streetcar suburbs. I also don't get how suburbanization would effect intercity passenger train. I have never understood people's obsession with automobile but that is just me. So passenger rail was only profitable until 1929? Then why have it for so long after that. As for getting what they wanted nobody has a right to free stuff.
What I do know is that at present there is no public outcry against the Crescent in particular or long distance trains in general. And while in the Congress there is opposition to Amtrak that opposition has not focused on the Crescent. However, when people start fiddling with things that are long established even if they do propose better ways the change in itself can and often does cause backlash.
Do you remember Medicare Part C?
John WR oltmanndongressmen from GA objecting? That's funny.... I'm talking about Congress in general, not the Georgia delegation or any other specific state.
oltmanndongressmen from GA objecting? That's funny....
I'm talking about Congress in general, not the Georgia delegation or any other specific state.
Congress from which state might object to Amtrak changing the Crescent's schedule?
V.Payne http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/bragdon.cfm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/dde1959.cfm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/bragdon.cfm
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/dde1959.cfm
Really interesting stuff! Look's like Ike's highways got hijacked by the cities looking for that 90% money to flow. Too, bad.
Ike's guys did tend to support "ring roads" as part of the network. I wonder if that would have spurred the same sprawl and inner city decay we got with the through roads included in the network.
John WRIf the Crescent were to be re structured as two daily trains and that were to lead to lower losses it is not at all clear that Congress would approve of their decision.
Congressmen from GA objecting? That's funny....
I can't tell you why Amtrak keeps the Crescent as an overnight train rather than 2 daily trains. I have no information about their though process or why they make the decisions they make.
All I can to is to surmise they see themselves as preserving these long distance routes as they existed with private railroads and that they are not inclined to re visit the decision.
If the Crescent were to be re structured as two daily trains and that were to lead to lower losses it is not at all clear that Congress would approve of their decision. Just the change could generate a backlash. By sticking to traditional long distance trains they have in fact preserved their subsidies up to now. By making a change that they could then be called on to justify they might be putting what they have gained at risk. But that is just my speculation.
John WRAmtrak is playing a different game. Amtrak is balancing transportation goals with political goals.
I wouldn't argue. But, can you explain how this applies to whether the Crescent is overnight vs day train from ATL to NYP? Who in Congress even knows when it runs? Wouldn't it help Amtrak to have a better balance sheet when they go begging for money?
We're not talking about taking a train off, just improving an existing route.
General Bragdon was the name of the individual.
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/26/how-the-interstate-highway-was-born-fortune-1958-archive/
Then there was Burton's 1944 report to congress, which based highway cost allocation on the ton-mile basis. Probably should have listened to him, but instead went with incremental method since the ATA liked it in the 1961 HCA report, dooming the railroads, and doing a lot of damage to the economy.
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001108622
Most of what we did/are doing with urban/suburban transportation is desperately trying to spread everybody out until the money and space runs out then suddenly what has been built suits nobody and everybody is stuck in a trap.
We will probably come out of it in the next two decades, but to a large degree we are just getting back to where we were. Double track mainlines down to single, then finally re-double tracked. Cities left for dead then re-invigorated after people tire of driving in all their free time.
This engineer's blog deals with the question of the financial sustainability of what we are doing in urban situations. It is worth a read if you are curious.
www.strongtowns.org
Historically, there wasn't agreement on what to do.
The better way would have been to charge road users the full cost for their use, as many of the above historical figures suggested, instead of trying to leverage off the existing urban roads and then wondering why the money is being sucked out of the city.
In 1940, the City Council of Chicago approved the west route of the Superhighway System of Chicago, based on Daniel Burnham's idea of 1909, which opened for operation in 1955. This highway system, formerly named Congress Expressway, was the first in the United States to incorporate a rapid transit line and an expressway within the same corridor. The the Kennedy opened in 1960 and the Dan Ryan opened in 1962. All three had the effect of dividing/destroying urban neighborhoods (and the CA&E in the case of the Eisenhower/Congress) well before the urban riots of the mid-60's.
CSSHEGEWISCHIt was late in the process but Robert Moses did want to build a freeway directly into midtown or lower Manhattan and the public revolted.
It was Moses vs. Moses fighting under the pseudonym of Jane Jacobs.
V.PayneEisenhower even had a general working with a large staff on alternatives to running the interstates through the cities, but he got beat down in the administration. Then the urban highway revolts of the late 1960's and 1970's followed, and engineers such as myself lost a lot of credibility.
What a fascinating insight. Of course engineers didn't decided to rip the guts out of our cities. This was a time when many cities were ungovernable and we were having riots. Some say it was a second Civil War. It was the political leaders who decided to destroy the cities in order to save them. They told the engineers what to do and the engineers simply worked at their assigned tasks. And, as you point out, were blamed for the results. But the engineers could have and ultimately did re route many interstates to go around our cities.
oltmanndPlaying a different game?
Amtrak is playing a different game. Amtrak is balancing transportation goals with political goals. The law says Amtrak "shall not be an establishment of government" but Amtrak believes the reality it different. To exist it has to serve as much of the country as it possibly can even though that is not the way to maximize the transportation it provides. And it must balance covering a wide area with providing trains people ride.
If Amtrak focuses too narrowly on providing transportation on the most potentially profitable routes its support in the Congress will erode. If Amtrak goes everywhere it will wind up running a lot of empty trains. So it must adopt a middle path as its best available strategy and that is what it does.
It was late in the process but Robert Moses did want to build a freeway directly into midtown or lower Manhattan and the public revolted. Consequently, that route never got built. Closer to home, the so-called Crosstown Expressway proposed for Chicago was never built. It would have roughly paralleled the BRC and one proposal would have put it on stilts over the BRC. Eventually, the federal funds earmarked for its construction were released for transit development in the Chicago area.
V.PayneEisenhower even had a general working with a large staff on alternatives to running the interstates through the cities, but he got beat down in the administration.
V.PayneThen the urban highway revolts of the late 1960's and 1970's followed, and engineers such as myself lost a lot of credibility.
Interesting! Can you elaborate? It's those urban interstates that have gotten us in the most hot water - air quality, sprawl, unfriendly transit environment...
schlimm oltmannd John WRBut the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way. Because.... they are stupid? Stubborn? Playing a different game? Stuck in a time warp?
oltmannd John WRBut the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way. Because.... they are stupid? Stubborn? Playing a different game?
John WRBut the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way.
Because.... they are stupid? Stubborn? Playing a different game?
Not paying attention....
daveklepper and as I pointed out before, properly marketed, day NO-Atlanta could have seats filled
and as I pointed out before, properly marketed, day NO-Atlanta could have seats filled
Amtrak trains into Atlanta could be a nice feeder for Megabus's Atlanta hub. Amtrak would just have to get Megabus to make a curbside pickup by the station before heading out of town.
V.PayneI still say if you work a nighttime schedule is good for a lot of people, daytime can work as well. It really shouldn't be either-or but both,
But, given that all there is is one train with no possibility of a second one any time soon, and all other things being equal, a day train is cheaper to run than one with sleepers, et. al. So.....
Overnight trains have their place. In the east, we should have them in the same ratio for daylight to overnight trains as they do in Germany.
Don, I did the inflation adjustment, $6.50ish in 1968 to $44 in 2013. I hope you give me more credit than that... There was actually a bit of dissension so to speak beginning in 1958, just most of the history is written by the winners, BPR, now FHWA. Eisenhower even had a general working with a large staff on alternatives to running the interstates through the cities, but he got beat down in the administration. Then the urban highway revolts of the late 1960's and 1970's followed, and engineers such as myself lost a lot of credibility.
I still say if you work a nighttime schedule is good for a lot of people, daytime can work as well. It really shouldn't be either-or but both, and it was till quite late in the game on this route. That is the whole point in figuring out the implicit cross-subsidy of the interstates and letting that be applied to an expanded operation.
oltmanndI've said this before, but I'll say it again. This train is still running on it's 1950s Official Guide schedule. It needs to be a day train north of Atlanta, add to the frequency of the Piedmont corridor in a useful way. Run the ATL to NOL as a day train, too. Provide overnight accommodations with shuttle service in midtown Atlanta. Train operating costs go down. Ridership goes up. Equipment utilization goes up. Cost of a NOL to WAS ticket with overnight accommodations goes down. What's not to like?
You have said it before, Don. When I rode the Crescent a year ago November as we arrived in Atlanta it was half or more empty. Then at Atlanta it filled up. We left Atlanta at 8:04 pm. I'm sure all those new passengers would have preferred an early morning departure arriving at Washington in the evening.
But the problem here is that Amtrak just doesn't see it that way. And Amtrak isn't going to do it that way.
blue streak 1An example would be the Crescent. Before the Lynchburg trip was initiated the Charlottesville - WASH leg would sell out many days preventing any sales say ATL -- WASH. That sold out leg pulled down the average load factor into the 40%s. With Lynchburg started the CVS - WASH leg no loonger sold out and the legs CLT / ATL - WASH became the max load legs. So why would AMTRAK maket a train that is sold out ? The cross marketing of AMTRAKs many routes that have a leg that sells out many tiimes juat does not justify marketing.
True enough, but what of the Crescents LF before and after the Lynchburg train? Did it really move the needle? I can buy a coach seat from ATL to WAS for the next seven days. The train is not sold out on any leg north of ATL.
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. This train is still running on it's 1950s Official Guide schedule. It needs to be a day train north of Atlanta, add to the frequency of the Piedmont corridor in a useful way. Run the ATL to NOL as a day train, too. Provide overnight accommodations with shuttle service in midtown Atlanta. Train operating costs go down. Ridership goes up. Equipment utilization goes up. Cost of a NOL to WAS ticket with overnight accommodations goes down. What's not to like?
The roots begin at least that early. Consider that railroads were the early owners of the various Greyhound bus operations and that motor cars were an early attempt at containing costs on lightly patronized trains.
oltmannd Trolley FarmerPerhaps those who do choose to drive or fly ought to ride a long distance train. They might be surprised to find out that riding the train is, indeed, a pleasurable experience. At least you won't be treated like cattle as a flyer is. or you don't have to put up with traffic in urban areas nor the knucleheads that populate our "wonderful" highways. Sure many flyers want instant gratification just like a typical juvenile. I'm not talking about flying out of needing to be someplace ASAP but for pleasue. Ally I am saying, "Don't knock it until you try it!" So...Amtrak doesn't market their trains? Is that what you are saying?
Trolley FarmerPerhaps those who do choose to drive or fly ought to ride a long distance train. They might be surprised to find out that riding the train is, indeed, a pleasurable experience. At least you won't be treated like cattle as a flyer is. or you don't have to put up with traffic in urban areas nor the knucleheads that populate our "wonderful" highways. Sure many flyers want instant gratification just like a typical juvenile. I'm not talking about flying out of needing to be someplace ASAP but for pleasue. Ally I am saying, "Don't knock it until you try it!"
So...Amtrak doesn't market their trains? Is that what you are saying?
Trolley; Don has a good point. I would like to elaborate on the no marketing inferrence. Any transportation system ( bus, train, plane, etc ) making multiple stops has one leg that is called the max load leg ( or another term ) for each trip. AMTRAK has indicated that many of their trips (especially its one a day trips ) have a max load leg greater than 90%. But that one leg causes the average load factor to decrease for that trip.
An example would be the Crescent. Before the Lynchburg trip was initiated the Charlottesville - WASH leg would sell out many days preventing any sales say ATL -- WASH. That sold out leg pulled down the average load factor into the 40%s. With Lynchburg started the CVS - WASH leg no loonger sold out and the legs CLT / ATL - WASH became the max load legs. So why would AMTRAK maket a train that is sold out ? The cross marketing of AMTRAKs many routes that have a leg that sells out many tiimes juat does not justify marketing.
The PRIIAs of various routes addresses these problems but nothing can be done without more equipment to carry passengers. Also turn backs of equipment are not easy at locations such as ATLANTA until new station facilities are built. I would expect Crescent loads to go above 60% if excess equipment was removed at ATL. To complicate some routes have more than one close to max leg. What are some solutions ? Get congress to stop starving AMTRAK of rolling stock equipment. Add more trips on parts of train routes ( ex add ATL - WASH TRIPS ). Have more turn backs of equipment, Then start real marketing nationally of AMTRAK.
Where multiple trains run a route not all trains need to run the whole route ( such as Southern Ca )
There are a couple of inconvenient facts. People stopped riding LD trains long before there were jets and good highways, and fancy cars with GPS and DVD players in them.
The population has roughly doubled since the start of Amtrak and Amtrak still can't fill the LD trains every day. They can't even get to 60%, on average.
Don't get me wrong. I think LD train are very cool! I like that the Crescent runs through Atlanta everyday. There just isn't any set of rational arguments for it's existence - status quo. I know. I've hunted for them.
V.PayneEven in 1968 the ICC estimated that for carriers like SCL the long run avoidable cost of operating their trains was $44/trainmile, yet Amtrak now reports a Total of $75ish a trainmile. Fuel hasn't gone up that much! Too much fixed cost is getting baked in.
$44 in 1968 would be $293 today (CPI inflation calculator)
Diesel fuel was about 15 cents a gallon (w/o tax) in 1968. It's about $3.50 a gallon now (w/o tax)
Passenger rail might be able to get quite a bit of support for quite a bit of capital spending if they operating subsidy was near zero. None of the "ranters" goes on and on about the cost to electrify the north end of the corridor, or Amtrak's rail program. It's always the operating subsidy.
Alright, which of the LD trrains are wasteful? I f you say the Sunset ltd is "wasteful" you can blame the fact that the Sunset doesn't serve Pheonix. You can blame UP for taking the track out between Roll and downtown Pheonix for that situation. UP doesn't want passenger trains on their railoraod. Yes, you will say, "It's their perogative" Well, guess what! The land was GRANTED to the railroads to SERVE THE PUBLIC. Sure, you will say "That happened a hundred years ago" I don't care if it was a million years ago' the fact s that the land WAS granted and there is that stipulation that I previously mentioned and that is STILL a valid stipulation. In fact the State of Arizona is unfriendly towards passenger rail. When I rode the Sunset the patronage was by all means was substantial if not full. The Texas Eagle was FULL. The Southwest Chief which it's route is threatened has a lot of rider origionating and detraining on that affected trackage. Unfortunately the witch Gov. Susana Martinez can't or most likely refuses to see the need.
Perhaps those who do choose to drive or fly ought to ride a long distance train. They might be surprised to find out that riding the train is, indeed, a pleasurable experience. At least you won't be treated like cattle as a flyer is. or you don't have to put up with traffic in urban areas nor the knucleheads that populate our "wonderful" highways. Sure many flyers want instant gratification just like a typical juvenile. I'm not talking about flying out of needing to be someplace ASAP but for pleasue. Ally I am saying, "Don't knock it until you try it!"
OvermodYou know, if this is so, I have an answer. Provide 'many USA citizens' with an instant setaside for Amtrak once a year. At tax time.
Bob,
I give you high marks for creativity. But allow me to suggest a variation on your theme:
Allow people a choice about how their taxes allocated to transportation will be used. We can choose if the transportation portion of our taxes go to air transportation, highways or to rail passenger transportation. We can even have more than one choice and direct a particular proportion of our transportation related taxes however we choose.
But I will not hold my breath waiting for your proposal or mine to be adopted.
daveklepper I need to remind all of you that many USA citizens want to subsidize Amtrak, and especially long distance trains, like the hospital or the police or the fire department "I don't use it. I prefer to drive or fly." But I want it to be there in case I need it." Unquote.
I need to remind all of you that many USA citizens want to subsidize Amtrak, and especially long distance trains, like the hospital or the police or the fire department "I don't use it. I prefer to drive or fly." But I want it to be there in case I need it." Unquote.
You know, if this is so, I have an answer. Provide 'many USA citizens' with an instant setaside for Amtrak once a year. At tax time.
Put a little checkbox for a default amount, right under that $1 for Presidential elections, and perhaps a space for larger contributions later on the form -- but make it easy to find there. For real fun, since this is allocation of tax revenue, make this an optional deduction 100% applicable to that portion of tax payment not used for strictly national purposes (this used to be about 8-and-a-fraction %, higher now because of homeland security, AP ammo to FEMA, and so forth, but still relatively small).
Amtrak, to the extent its operations are not subsidized directly by state revenues, is a national entity. and so can be given priority over revenue to other types of Government spending... we'll let the politicians argue about whether it benefits some states more than others after adjustments are made for state contributions...
(This completely in parallel with a "Friends of Amtrak" tax-deductible organization, which can be used if additional legal deductions for charitable contribution can be made by a taxpayer. Set that organization up so that some fixed portion of the GROSS revenue, a large portion, goes directly to Amtrak's creditors or operating personnel.)
I suspect we would soon see a similar effect to those 'find a cure' organizations, as related in Proxmire's book...
RME
I wish everybody could just come clean on the amount of fixed costs baked into the Amtrak arrangement. Last time I tried to estimate such off the 2007 FRA rule making for PRIIA I got $1.9 Billion of fixed costs (NEC MOW, shared stations ($150 million alone) and non-operation costs). I will check my notes and make a separate post. Some of this fixed is variable over the longrun. Your not going to cut mainline NEC rails. Why act like you would?
I suppose some of you can remember the "FRA Defined Costs" of just 10 some years ago. Even in 1968 the ICC estimated that for carriers like SCL the long run avoidable cost of operating their trains was $44/trainmile ($2013), yet Amtrak now reports a Total of $75ish a trainmile. Fuel hasn't gone up that much! Too much fixed cost is getting baked in.
Roughly speaking the full subsidy (operations and depreciation) for the existing LD trains is in line with the cross-subsidy baked into the Interstate highway financing arrangement, local road users paying toward Federal taxes, then directed to intercity roads ($0.08 capital and $0.03 accidents) per VM. If the consists were expanded you could drive the intercity train subsidy number far below the highway number.
But you still need to admit that a lot of the costs are not going away one way or the other without some discipline. I for one would like to see an Amtrak budget that has a fixed cost (similar to any other agency like the FAA) and a variable subsidy wrt passenger miles provided. Then you could target both for financial discipline. Maybe the new "performance measures" under MAP-21 could be rigged to do so for the FHWA and NRPC. Fun fact, the FHWA's fixed administration/research cost is a bit more than NRPC's subsidy.
Then any state DOT could take a look at their corridor and decide do we want to take the variable amount and invest it solely in infrastructure, to get HSR. Or do we want to do small upgrades to get a 90 mph mixed passenger/freight line with the remainder to be used for an operating subsidy. Or little if any infrastructure investment and mostly and operating subsidy. It really isn't an either/or question!
Paul M. is quite correct. We need a rail passenger system that can operate modern passenger service used by the public in large numbers. But we need one that operates efficiently. The capital infrastructure required will need to be provided through tax-exempt bond funding. Services such as the NEC and other corridors should be (and there is some evidence they are) models. As they develop, as in the case of the NEC, subsidies can become minimal or even unneeded. To do so, Amtrak will need to prune out the most wasteful LD trains (they can hardly be called services) or else use a combination of cutting sleepers and diners back and/or raising the fares to cover most of the costs. Bluntly, no one can be entitled to a 22 cent per mile subsidy so they can ride the transportation mode they prefer.
Actually, the Five hundred million dollar subsidy was nothing more that a "starvation" subsidy. When GWB couldn't get the zero budget passed he hoped for the starvation budget go underhandedly go through. Fortunately, it was seen for what it really was. Bush was hoping for enough money for an "orderly shut down" Fortunately, it did not go through since Amtrak is a popular program with the exception of a few trolls. As you know Amtrak ridership has grown quite substantially whereas Amtrak has more business than it could handle. Therefore Amtrak needs more capital improvement and that's what Amtrak is asking for. To deny the funding for capital improvements such as new eguipment and facilities for disenfrancise a LOT of riders.
Trolley Farmer However yopu want to break down the subsidies that the air travel industry gets verses how much Amtrak recieves, airline STILL get a lot more in subsidies than Amtrak recieves. Sorry pal, the that explaination does NOT fly(excuase the pun!). Like it or not politics DO figure in who or whatever recieve subsidies. I suppose you will tell when I want to travel, you will tell me to either fly or drive, Right?
However yopu want to break down the subsidies that the air travel industry gets verses how much Amtrak recieves, airline STILL get a lot more in subsidies than Amtrak recieves. Sorry pal, the that explaination does NOT fly(excuase the pun!). Like it or not politics DO figure in who or whatever recieve subsidies. I suppose you will tell when I want to travel, you will tell me to either fly or drive, Right?
Yes, airlines receive a lot more in subsidy in absolute dollar amounts than Amtrak. And yes, you and many other people prefer neither to fly or go by road transport for many long trips. Much of the "airline subsidy" is paid back through the aviation fuel tax and aviation ticket tax and through landing fees at airports, but there may be other indirect subsidies. So indeed yes, the total amount of direct and indirect subsidy may be difficult to "nail down."
A number of 16-20 billion dollars/year was mentioned earlier as direct government support for airline operations in contrast with the much smaller 1.5 billion for Amtrak, or perhaps the 2 billion Amtrak is asking for next year. So again, yes, the amount of money going to support airlines is multiples of the amount going to support Amtrak.
But consider this. The amount of airline passenger miles in relation to Amtrak passenger miles is in the ratio of 100 to 1. The volume of travel, in that measure, is 100 times greater on airlines than on trains. I respect that you absolutely, positively do not want to fly, but on a passenger-mile basis, your choice, or your need, or your requirement not to fly is a minority position, a very slim minority position. Maybe a lot more people would express your preference for trains if there were many more trains to choose from. Also, we are a compassionate and reasonable society, and I am in not any shape or form wanting to take away the few trains we have left that you rely on, although I would ask that you could consider trades that may diminish service in some places to facilitate more service in other places.
Given these data, if the airlines are getting 20 billion dollars, a "fair" subsidy to trains would be 200 million dollars per year. That is essentially what President George W Bush "floated as a trial balloon" that has so many people angry at the former president -- actually, I think he was proposing much more than that, something like 500 million for Amtrak. We talk about "fairness" and that "if don't don't get our government money for trains, let's take away all of the government money to all transportation." But is a "fair" appropriation for trains really what we want?
And if we talk about fairness of government support and if we crunch the numbers, shouldn't we see proposals for drastic reduction in the Amtrak subsidy as something that will happen in the political process? We may disagree with such a cutback, but are we in any way justified in being angry when such a proposal gets made?
So, were Amtrak to receive absolute levels of subsidy comparable to the airlines, would it be reasonable that Amtrak generate a comparable level of passenger miles? Were we to increase Amtrak 10-fold, would it be reasonable to ask for a 100-fold increase in passenger miles? And does anyone have a plan to make such a thing happen?
The only problem with a self-driving car is all the uncontrollable accidents now go to the courtroom. We do live in a society where bump interstate scams are considered a valid means of income by some. How much is that worth a mile?
blue streak 1Trolley how do yoy justify the very high subsidity for ADA compliance per person ??
Streak,
That is an old issue. When the Stamford station was rebuilt a pedestrian walkway was installed above the tracks along with an elevator on either side. The Elevators were expensive and were put in to comply with ADA. Yet relatively few disabled people use the Stamford station. The Wall Street Journal had a fit arguing that it was just too expensive to accommodate people with mobility impairments. None the less the elevators were installed and are working today.
Just how do we decide how much to spend, not just on Amtrak but in general, to provide as close as we can for equal access for people with mobility impairments?
Trolley FarmerThis IS the experience that Train riders WANT. people are riding the train because they are treated BETTER that the airlines do. They don't have to put up with the BS that flyers have to endure.
Well you saw the delightful little Amtrak 'ad' they're putting on the security checkpoint trays, didn't you? There are plenty of other ways to take revenge for that 'You'd be there by now on the AirShuttle' billboard in a benighted spot outside Philadelphia...
The TSA crap was perhaps the greatest gift ever handed to Amtrak. Unsurprisingly, it was a completely unintentional gift. I think that even if some kook person or group decides to start terrorist activity on trains, you wouldn't have anything more intrusive than better platform security/access.
Problem for many of the LD trains is that by definition they're going to involve sleeping cars, and all the added cost associated with them in these post-Pullman-section days. In my opinion at least, there comes a point, probably around 700 miles at most, where passengers have to start thinking about sleep. On the plane you'd be there. In a car you'd find a motel. On the train, especially with many of the 'capacity upgrades' being touted for cost-effective 'improvements', much of the enjoyment might be badly tempered by having to sleep in a seat with inadequate stretch-out room, no particular privacy, etc. etc. etc.
Flyers put up with the BS in order to get where they're going, in relatively minimum time. Where Amtrak shines is in those areas where flying can't deliver compelling time or service advantage over a train. That's in part where so many of these 'emerging corridors' are coming from, and why so much of the traffic involves intermediate points rather than major city destinations.
The long-term thing I'm watching now is the cost-effective self-driving car thing. Four passengers in a 30-mpg-plus car might even consume less fuel per capita than Amtrak uses on one of its trains (with so much infrastructure required for each passenger); the time required would be much the same between direct origins and destinations, and most of the baggage issue is moot.
Where I see the immediate *advantage* of the self-driving car is that it can be programmed (very easily!) to load itself quickly on rail equipment, either circus-style or into multilevel racks, without damage or attendants' predilections. That is going to be a key draw for long-distance services where the amenities of a cruise train are superior to what a self-driving car dependent on 'roadside attractions' or route diversions would access. You might need active suspension on something the size of an AutoMax (with better trucks!) running loaded at Amtrak speeds, but the money would be there.
Now all we need is more of the equivalent of four-quadrant marketing to induce the largest number of potential passengers not to let their cars do all the driving...
o Trolley how do yoy justify the very high subsidity for ADA compliance per person ??
Isn't that what Joe Boardman want? No I don't want LD trrains killed. I regularly travel by train. I won't fly.
daveklepperAmtrak's fare recovery still is way ahead of most commuter lines.
Dave,
From what I read New Jersey Transit makes a profit on its North East Corridor line but all other lines loose money. However, our trains carry money out of New York. Many commuters work in New York and that is where they earn the salaries that enable them to pay the highest property taxes in the country.
Amtrak's fare recovery still is way ahead of most commuter lines.
Trolley FarmerBy dropping diners, lounges, baggage cars, you would effectively kill the LD trains.
Are you sure you are not Joe Boardman writing under a pseudonym?
By dropping diners, lounges, baggage cars, you would effectively kill the LD trains. Hey, these ammenities are what riders want. This IS the experiece that Train riders WANT. people are riding the train because they are treated BETTER that the airlines do. They don't hve to put up with the BS that flyers have to endure. Little wonder that Amtrak is enjoying the 55% increase in ridrship.
Before people start sharpening their knives about my references to the Vision Report, how about people first sharpen their pencils?
The Vision Report estimates that expanding passenger rail capacity requires "50 billion dollars per Amtrak."
The Madison, WI extension of the Hiawatha was nearly a billion dollars to provide what, a doubling of the roughly 500,000 yearly passengers times roughly 100 miles or 50 million passenger miles? This is a billion dollars for 1 percent of an Amtrak or "100 billion dollars per Amtrak."
So before you start telling me that the Vision Report is not credible at 50 billion dollars per Amtrak, we have a real-world data point of 100 billion dollars per Amtrak-worth of passenger rail capacity. So maybe making up the transportation shortfall is a 7 trillion dollar proposition if we do it with passenger rail?
With regard to Amtrak growing at 3 times population growth, so what? That is about on third of an Amtrak. The "need" is for 60-70 Amtraks or 6000-7000 percent growth in passenger rail -- just to cover the decline in growth of autos and airline travel.
But I guess I am beating a dead horse and I am influencing nobody. We start with the proposition "America Needs Trains!" (I had that banner in 2 foot-high letters, with the exclamation point adorning one of my model train layouts at the Madison Model Railroad Show), and we rally whatever reasons we can to support that. Even if the numbers don't hold up.
There are still some people who believe that we can do better in cost effectiveness of providing passenger trains and that we need to better if we are to get Amtrak off dead center. The reasoning, "Well everyone else is getting their cut of subsidy money" just isn't going to do it, even if you have a train-favorable Congress as in 2009.
John WR It is with some hesitancy that I post a link to the report Long Distance Trains: A Foundation for National Mobility. I hesitate because the report is provided by the National Association of Railroad Passengers, an organization which has its critics. Actually, I was led to the report by those very critics. If, I wondered, NARP is so ineffective wouldn't it be reasonable to see for myself why it is ineffective? And so I did a little net surfing around the NARP website. The report here is of interest because its main focus is on long distance trains and long distance trains get the most criticism. There are a few important statistics: Since 2000 our population has grown 11.6 per cent. Road travel has grown a little over half at 6.7 per cent. Air travel has grown at a much slower level, 2.2 per cent. The report argues the reason is because our roads and air routes are "plateaued," so crowded that many people now avoid them. Also, air lines tend to concentrate on our largest cities leaving mid sized cities with few flights and high fares while small places have lost their service entirely. Amtrak President Joe Boardman has pointed out intercity bus service is actualy declining because buses also are backing away from smaller places to serve only large cities which the the only places they can make a profit. So if our roads and airways cannot keep up with our need to travel, what is left? Of course trains are left. Amtrak trains provide our long distance service and much intercity service. (The report does not deal with commuter service between cities). Intercity train ridership has grown 3 times as fast as our population and long distance ridership has grown twice as fast as population. NARP believes that either we increase Amtrak service or we increasingly limit the mobility of Americans. The link: http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/nationalnetwork.pdf The above statistics may be found on page 2 and footnotes 1 and 2.
It is with some hesitancy that I post a link to the report Long Distance Trains: A Foundation for National Mobility. I hesitate because the report is provided by the National Association of Railroad Passengers, an organization which has its critics. Actually, I was led to the report by those very critics. If, I wondered, NARP is so ineffective wouldn't it be reasonable to see for myself why it is ineffective? And so I did a little net surfing around the NARP website. The report here is of interest because its main focus is on long distance trains and long distance trains get the most criticism.
There are a few important statistics: Since 2000 our population has grown 11.6 per cent. Road travel has grown a little over half at 6.7 per cent. Air travel has grown at a much slower level, 2.2 per cent. The report argues the reason is because our roads and air routes are "plateaued," so crowded that many people now avoid them. Also, air lines tend to concentrate on our largest cities leaving mid sized cities with few flights and high fares while small places have lost their service entirely. Amtrak President Joe Boardman has pointed out intercity bus service is actualy declining because buses also are backing away from smaller places to serve only large cities which the the only places they can make a profit. So if our roads and airways cannot keep up with our need to travel, what is left?
Of course trains are left. Amtrak trains provide our long distance service and much intercity service. (The report does not deal with commuter service between cities). Intercity train ridership has grown 3 times as fast as our population and long distance ridership has grown twice as fast as population. NARP believes that either we increase Amtrak service or we increasingly limit the mobility of Americans.
The link: http://www.narprail.org/cms/images/uploads/nationalnetwork.pdf
The above statistics may be found on page 2 and footnotes 1 and 2.
Auto passenger miles to Amtrak passenger miles are in the ratio of roughly 1000:1. Air passenger miles to Amtrak passenger miles are in the ratio of roughly 100:1.
In rough round numbers, you are speaking to a 10-year period over which air travel has had a shortfall of 10 percent in relation to population. 10 percent of airline travel is 10 Amtraks. The Vision Report puts a price tag of 500 billion on that. That is also 50 billion per year over the course of 10 years -- roughly comparable to the Federal highway budget. Some people around here, however, are cool with "fair is fair" and spending equal amounts on highways or trains, but when we didn't have divided government in Washington, the best we could come up with was 8 billion in the one-time Stimulus bill.
Auto travel then has a 6 percent shortfall in relation to population. 6 percent of auto travel is 60 Amtraks -- what would that be, about 3 trillion? Spent over 10 years that would be 300 billion a year? What is that, roughly half the Defense budget. Some people around here would be cool with slashing Defense in half and spending it all on trains, but there are a whole lot of higher priorities on any Defense savings. Like healthcare.
Before someone starts in on me for "beating on the dead horse of the Vision Report" when it came out, everyone I knew advocating for trains was cool with it, I didn't hear one word of criticism "if we are ever to get more train money out of Congress, we have to do better than that." Not . . . one . . . word. Also, who has better numbers on what it costs to develop more train service? Do we hear such a thing out of NARP (no) URPA (maybe)?
So the idea that trains can provide a one-for-one substitution for auto and air travel by Congress coming up with 350 billion dollars per year or 3.5 trillion in a 10-year plan is pure and complete fantasy coming out of NARP.
Why does NARP continue to do this, when they are pitching a slow fat ball over the middle for the train critics to knock out of the park? Dunno, some people are not good with math? The folks at NARP want trains "just because" and they are making up reasons without seeing if the numbers add up?
OvermodAmtrak's assigned subsidies being the only 'subsidy' topic that is relevant in this discussion.
You may believe that but many who post here compare Amtrak with other kinds of transportation.
blue streak 1ow all we need to do is convince Congress ???????
That's right. All we have to do is to convince the Congress to give Amtrak the money. Meanwhile John Boehner won't talk to Barak Obama because although the President has agreed to reduce Social Security Benefits he hasn't agreed to reduce them enough.
oltmannd The way to reduce the operating subsidy is this: 1. Minimize non-revenue space 2. Maximize seats per train 3. Maximize seats per on-board employee 4. Maximize stops at the greatest travel markets on the route at times people are awake. This means you chop and flip the Eastern LD train into day trains and drop thier diners and sleepers. Serve the intra-FL market with intra-FL trains. Fix the food service - contract it out or re-engineer the whole thing. Start with a clean sheet of paper, not the 1950 Official Guide.
I agree with Don's points below but reach a different conclusion. I agree that you need to maximize the capacity to say the 400-500 passenger range. But to do that you need a lot of origin-destination pairs.
One of the main points of the paper linked to at the beginning of the article is that if you chop out the middle of a long distance route, you loose a substantial number of possible OD pairs. They did their analysis from actual passenger data.
If you chop the eastern trains then you end up with severed OD pairs. What if you wanted to travel Birmingham to Greensboro. If they chop was Atlanta, then you will not do the trip, well except by car if you are able. The whole point is to maximize the number of OD pairs possible without a transfer of your seat, though a daylight transfer can work, it just is valued less in a passenger's estimation.
Interestingly, a private operator, in partnership with the national rail provider in Italy, is in fact offering a reduced cost overnight train. It has couchettes and sleepers. The cheapest fare was one way for about $0.065/PSG Mile in a shared couchette, aka Megabus price range, but for a bed. It only has one food service car and the rest of the consist is revenue space. It does have a contracted out food service vendor. If you want a dinning car experience it is expensive but available as an add.
www.seat61.com/thello-train-from-paris-to-italy.htm
"oltmannd wrote the following post at Fri, Apr 5 2013 12:35 PM:
This means you chop and flip the Eastern LD train into day trains and drop thier diners and sleepers. Serve the intra-FL market with intra-FL trains. Fix the food service - contract it out or re-engineer the whole thing. "
Trolley Farmer How could you clain that providing Amtrak riders with free airline tickets would be much cheaper than providing the train itself. Airlines are gladly given fifteen to twnty billion dollars is subsidies. Who pays for air traffic control? ,TSA?, air terminal costs? You seem to parrot the same old tripe that Dubya palmed off when he wanted to zero out funding for Amtrak and you know (I hope you would) the credibility of GWB or the lack thereof.
How could you clain that providing Amtrak riders with free airline tickets would be much cheaper than providing the train itself. Airlines are gladly given fifteen to twnty billion dollars is subsidies. Who pays for air traffic control? ,TSA?, air terminal costs? You seem to parrot the same old tripe that Dubya palmed off when he wanted to zero out funding for Amtrak and you know (I hope you would) the credibility of GWB or the lack thereof.
Well, he could start by noting the amount of the airline subsidies that come out of Amtrak's budget. Amtrak's assigned subsidies being the only 'subsidy' topic that is relevant in this discussion.
It's immaterial from Amtrak's point of view whether airlines are subsidized any amount, and I am not exactly sure why you do not or will not understand that.
If all those costs are subsidized from a different branch of the government, and the result is lower ticket prices, then Amtrak along with anyone else would get the benefit of that lower price.
And this is not a political forum, so leave the 'Dubya' crap at home.
oltmannd Taxicabs Buses with wheelchair elevators Free tickets on scheduled airlines
Taxicabs
Buses with wheelchair elevators
Free tickets on scheduled airlines
********************
I've already said that I think it is unrealistic to see Amtrak trains as part of an entitlement for people with disabilities. Joe Boardman points out that in the last year there has been a 16 per cent increase in identifiable people with disabilities who choose Amtrak. I think, then, they would need to be persuaded to use taxicabs or buses. Free airline tickets are not now available to them.
It appears that a breakdown of the costs of LD travel needs a strong look - see.
Like many other posters I have wondered at the published fgures and have wondered whether some of the costs of short haul is present in reported LD costs. Maybe looking at the avoiadable costs can give us a better idea of what is going on.?? In no particular order these are just some of those costs.
1. Host RR charges. A whole bucket of worms and maybe is subject to confidentiality agreements maybe at least as a total per mile charge for each route.
a. Charges based on max passenger train speeds on each section of track ?.
b. Type of dispatching. CTC,, ABS, dark territory? How much effort to dispatch ex;.. BNSF's speedway vs the no traffic Raton route.?
c. Charges for loaner host locos
d. Host RR crews
e. Detour vs. Freight RR charges
2. Station cost. -- Can vary by at least ownership by local owner with no charges to AMTRAK to charges for every little glitch..
a. Owned and maintained by local government.
b. locally owned but leased by AMTRAK ----- maintenance by ?
c. Leased from host RR
d. AMTRAK owned
e, Un manned
f. AMTRAK agents either part tiime or full time. -- How costed ?
g. utilities
h. costs for each stqtion needs listing.
2. How are trains charged when the LD trains when on AMTRAK'S TRACKAGE IE; NEC
3. How are LD terminal charges allocated at locations such as BOS, NH, NYP, SUNNYSIDE, PHL,WILMINGTON, BAL, WASH, RICHMOND, JAX, MIA, NEW ORLEANS, CHI LAX, EMERYVILLE, and other locations?
4. Added passengers whenever a train fails and passengers have to transfer ?
5. Locomotive charges, electricity charges,motor charges, cleaning & maintenance, etc
6. Mileage charges for rolling stock
7. Dinning car expenses vs revenue as well as lounge cars + cost of pulling cars. A real bucket of worms because to loss of a certain number of passengers with no DC or lounge service.
8. Bsck office allocations.
9. All the other avoidable and non avoidable costs allocation ?
All this can be looked at by taking the avoidable cost from the AMTRAK LD operqting revenues. Would our posters like to know what the operating loss for LD trains would be if these avoidable costs were used to figure the operating avoidable cost loss ??
Not to detract at all from your point: I think there are others:
Improve on-time performance to boost ridership
Consider fuel savings in new (and rebuilt) equipment and locomotive choices. (Looks like that may already be happening with that new EMD design, if the picture is more than hopeful angling... ;-} )
Add amenities (more subsidy cost in the short run) to improve both ridership and returning customers (less subsidy cost, unless additional passengers up to some point require additional subsidy per head rather than having an effective marginal cost of almost zero)
Bring back the package express idea, this time in collaboration with the railroads, FedEx Ground, the USPS, etc. (Might be at least one thing harking back to the '50 OG at that!)
I am not sure about that "maximize seats per train"; it sounds to me like a Menk/Biaggini shortening-the-seat-track-to-fit-more-in-a-car kind of "economy". The only time to 'maximize seats' is on services, like those deserving bilevels in the NEC, where existing equipment is maxed out and people are more concerned with *any* seat than getting a comfortable one.
One of the great advantages I see in train travel is that you aren't limited to a bus-class seat. I can bear miserable footroom on an airplane, or even in a car. NOT on a bus, or anything else that runs relatively slow with lots of other people's stops...
Be interesting to see at what point various kinds of labor-saving device, electronic or 'virtual' aids, and the like will reduce the need for actual crew on these trains. I have a kind of half-dread of a "Julie"-like app that has answers right on my cell phone for things that stewards and conductors now offer... or that lets me pre-order a packaged meal that comes in on a cart or a tray for me to pick up and eat by my lonesome. Nice for some Corridor-type service, perhaps not so nice elsewhere. Is there a perceived 'minimum human service' that fits budget cutting while preserving much of the essence of what has been railroad travel? If so, where would you 'peg' it for various kinds of Amtrak train?
John WR oltmanndIf we need this, then let's do it...efficiently - with better coverage. I'm not sure I'm following you here, Don. NARP has a plan for better passenger rail coverage of the nation but I don't think that is what you mean. Do you have your own map with your own lines on it? John
oltmanndIf we need this, then let's do it...efficiently - with better coverage.
I'm not sure I'm following you here, Don. NARP has a plan for better passenger rail coverage of the nation but I don't think that is what you mean. Do you have your own map with your own lines on it?
...any of these would be a cheaper way of providing mobility to the disabled with better coverage.
John WR Streak, Are you saying Don's mid range plan is too expensive to be realistic? John
Are you saying Don's mid range plan is too expensive to be realistic?
daveklepperLong distance Amtrak trains are essential for cross-continent mobility for the handicapped and elderlly.
If we need this, then let's do it...efficiently - with better coverage. Amtrak's LD trains are a very expensive and inefficient way of accomplishing this.
That is not Amtrak's mandate. It is supposed to provide transportation for the most people, which means providing a fast service many times per day on routes serving many major metro areas. Providing land cruises for niche markets is not.
Long distance Amtrak trains are essential for cross-continent mobility for the handicapped and elderlly. A much repeated statementm and probablly will have to be repeated a thouseand times more.
Off topic but
FederaL support for agriculture varies highly by crop. Probably the worse case support is sugar, but people have their own pet examples such as the ethanol subsidies. Many folks in farm states wish the Feds would simply end their involvement in the industry or restrict it to crop insurance activities.
However, the total subsidies are a relatively small item. Did you know that 75% of the Department of Agriculture's budget is SNAP (formerly called food stamps), and it is expanding rapidly?
petitnjOne can argue facts until blue in the face. Funding of Amtrak is political and will continue as a way of sharing the wealth.
And we often do argue the facts until we are blue in the face. Since Amtrak is the only show in town I hope it continues. Then I read about the guy who wants to wage a "holy jihad" against Amtrak. I just hope I can ride Amtrak without being made to feel my safety is threatened.
Yes, half of farm income is welfare and they have a very good lobbying team. Would like to know how much of that welfare goes back to lobby against shippers who want to make a few bucks.
North Dakota ranked 44th in per capita contribution to the federal government. as of 2007, each resident receiving $4856 more than sent to DC. Compare that to Minnesota #2, which sends $7431 more to DC than it receives, per capita.
One can argue facts until blue in the face. Funding of Amtrak is political and will continue as a way of sharing the wealth. North Dakota senators will not vote for Hurricane Sandy relief unless they get money for Amtrak. (Quite frankly, North Dakota gets farm money by the wheel barrows full and is now overflowing with oil money, so it may not need Amtrak money to balance things out). The newsline article that "long distance trains are at a cross roads" is just the same debate that always rages. Amtrak ridership has increased about 40% since the mid '90's because air fares have gone thru the roof (and will go higher once there is only one domestic airline).
I don't think anything will happen with Amtrak as it is one way the rural population gets some of its cash back from the feds.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.