I can't accept your assessment, BNSF, because there are so many people using rail services today. In rural and other sparsely populated areas, not, probably not. But get to heavily populated urban areas or along corridors of dense population or connecting major population centers and you'll increasing use of rail passenger services by force of need. Even from Manhatten almost 100 miles to Greenport or over 100 miles to Montauk on Long Island, the LIRR services often are faster than driving even if there are no traffic jams. Likewise going east and north out of GCT to Connecticut and NYS points is often better than the drive. Even NJT from the Hudson north, west, and south is better than driving at certain times of the day. Down in Philly, SEPTA offers the same. Plus, in all cases, newer equipment and technology, along with the dismissing of old railroad routes to accommodate today's interchange or through line connections have thrown out the choo choo train in favor of today's needs. Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are among the "old" reconstituted systems, a totally reincarnated and rebuilt system in LA, and all kinds of new systems in many cities and metropolitan areas refute your contention.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
What absolute nonsense! Particularly the lane of highway. The most used highway lane in the country is the inbound Lincoln Tunnel bus-only lane in the morning rush hour, which sees one bus every 45 seconds, and is estimated to have 4500 passengers per hour, some standing. With private automobiles, the headway could be reduced to 20 seconds because of faster stopping capability, and with 2 people per car, which is a higher than statistical average, we come up with 360 people per hour. I am assuming, of course, a reasonable speed, 45 miles per hour. If you want to crawl along bumper to bumper, your can get a headway of a car every 10 seconds, but you'll be traveling at 20mph. Even then, only 1200 people per hour.
The PRR tubes under the Hudson River handle a train every two mintues with an average occupancy of 1000 people per train, for 30,000 passengers. Admittadly these are commuter trains with standees, mostly. If they were all long-distance trains, the passenger count would drop to 10,000,, still a lot more than any highway lane.
You ought to compare yourself with a truck driver who says trucks should replace railroad freight because trucks are more efficient and can go anywhere and don't require loading on flatcars or transfering frieght from a truck to a train and back to a truck. His coment would be as stupid as yours but no stupider.
Sure comparing the most efficient auto with the average of Amtrak makes the auto come out ahead. But comparing the average auto with Amtrak's average shows Amtrak ahead, and comparing the most efficient Amtrak operation with the most efficient auto also shows Amtrak ahead.
There is no advantage to passenger rail it is outdated technology. People were happy to give it up and people will be happy to give it up in other countries when the opportunity comes. People only use it when there is no alternative or when the alternatives are made intentionally bad. Passenger rail costs more and any energy savings are moot. It was shown by the bart project that energy saved was off set by the energy required to build it and current Amtrak trains actually use more energy than a very efficient car. Improvements in aeroplane technology will close the energy efficiency gap between it and HSR. You can carry more people with a lane of highway than with rail and airports take up less infrastructure.
./trolling
Railroad to Freedom
ontheBNSFThe NEC Amtrak project is a perfect example. 170 Billion dollars for a small section of the country for what is standard high speed rail. The NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. How does anyone pull of these numbers. It is looting pure and simple. Pretty much passenger rail projects always end up costing too much, going over budget, and under performing.
I think you are speaking of alternative D which is to build a whole new passenger line. That is high speed rail; it is not Amtrak. As far as I know Amtrak is not building any new stations on its northeast corridor line.
oltmannd ontheBNSFThe NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. Uh, "just a station?" That's pretty funny! But seriously, what's the alternative?
ontheBNSFThe NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on.
Uh, "just a station?" That's pretty funny! But seriously, what's the alternative?
The alternative is a less fancy station which just adds extra capacity.
ontheBNSFPretty much passenger rail projects always end up costing too much, going over budget, and under performing.
The NEC and it's extensions serve a pretty sizable portion of the population of the country - at least 1/4 of it. It's also the one place reasonably priced alternatives to add capacity don't exist. With a few exceptions, the rest of the country can pretty much add a lane or a runway where needed.
Always? The Lynchburg train? The Norfolk train? Under budget, completed early, greatly exceeding projections. Of course, these are NEC extensions.
oltmannd John WR oltmanndActually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year. Well, yes he does, Don. But I think we both know that although speeds on the NEC can be improved it will never truly be high speed rail. John The first pass at the $170B was pretty much all new 220 mph stuff. Even the FRA plan's last stage is a "new spine". That's going to be a hard thing to do.... Glad they are working toward an incremental plan.
John WR oltmanndActually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year. Well, yes he does, Don. But I think we both know that although speeds on the NEC can be improved it will never truly be high speed rail. John
oltmanndActually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year.
Well, yes he does, Don. But I think we both know that although speeds on the NEC can be improved it will never truly be high speed rail.
John
That's going to be a hard thing to do.... Glad they are working toward an incremental plan.
The NEC Amtrak project is a perfect example. 170 Billion dollars for a small section of the country for what is standard high speed rail. The NEC project is more expensive than the Japan Maglev project. 6 Billion for a station just for a station come on. How does anyone pull of these numbers. It is looting pure and simple. Pretty much passenger rail projects always end up costing too much, going over budget, and under performing.
daveklepper Passenger train advocacy is by definition working outside the box. Not allowing "those in charge" to believe that only they control the show. So, if the Feds don't seem interested in solving a specific problem, maybe a State government or several states working together can. Or perhaps an authority of several local counties. And in some cases it is even private initiative. 17 years ago there was no electrification NH-Boston, Harrisburg - Phily times were deplorable, Portland and Burnzwick, ME, had no passenger service, service between Portland, OR and Seattle was skimpy. Sure there have been setbacks, like the deterioration of the old AT&SF route through Alberquerque, but overall there has been progress.
Passenger train advocacy is by definition working outside the box. Not allowing "those in charge" to believe that only they control the show. So, if the Feds don't seem interested in solving a specific problem, maybe a State government or several states working together can. Or perhaps an authority of several local counties. And in some cases it is even private initiative.
17 years ago there was no electrification NH-Boston, Harrisburg - Phily times were deplorable, Portland and Burnzwick, ME, had no passenger service, service between Portland, OR and Seattle was skimpy. Sure there have been setbacks, like the deterioration of the old AT&SF route through Alberquerque, but overall there has been progress.
Sadly, none of the push (outside the NEC spine) came from inside Amtrak. That is a symptom of what's wrong.
Mostly agree. Joe B has done a nice job of starting to turn the conversation without getting all the folk in the hinterlands all riled up. Now, if he were just a better businessman. Maybe one of his newly appointed henchmen can do the job of getting Amtrak running right, internally.
John WRIf President Obama has an agenda for HSR that is all well and good. However, Joe Boardman has been asked to do another job.
Which makes it all the more interesting that Obama never says the word "Amtrak" when talking about HSR.
John WROne thing Boardman does not talk about is high speed rail.
Actually, he does. But, it is HSR for the NEC that he talks about. Amtrak put out that $170B plan last year.
As president of Amtrak, Boardman is required to follow the directives of the PRIIA enacted shortly before he became Pres. He was FRA Administrator and representative to the Amtrak board before that. It is likely he had input into the act..
"The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (H.R. 2095) — provides $13 billion for Amtrak over five years to bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair, encourage the development of new and improved intercity passenger-rail services through a federal grant program, and plan and develop high-speed rail corridors."
Here's Boardman talking about his career and HSR>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L7KTYixOkw
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
daveklepper So, if the Feds don't seem interested in solving a specific problem, maybe a State government or several states working together can.
My impression of Joe Boardman is that he is interested, very interested, in using Amtrak to solve transportation problems. He has been effective in getting states to contribute to their own trains and that has defused some of the knee jerk opposition to Amtrak. In so far as he can he is using Amtrak resources to improve the system. And he has been articulate in confronting anti Amtrak members of Congress with the facts. Finally, this year's request for operating expenses is quite modest. He is using that to ask for a big chunk of money for capital expenses. And he is asking for it over 5 years which means the current Congress can give it to him while only having to pay a small part of it upfront. He certainly understands how government operates and works smoothly and well within that framework.
One thing Boardman does not talk about is high speed rail. Of course, he is the President of Amtrak and charged with the responsibility of running that system. If President Obama has an agenda for HSR that is all well and good. However, Joe Boardman has been asked to do another job.
Speaking for myself HSR has a pie-in-the-sky quality to it. It would be just so expensive and we have so many pressing needs to maintain our current transportation systems that are now unmet. And so far President Obama has done very little to advance the idea. Perhaps the FRA's current effort will bear fruit; we will have to wait and see. But in its history Amtrack has never been more successful than it is now and we have Joe Boardman to thank for that.
As I recall the discount buses do not serve any towns between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh that Amtrak serves. They do, however, serve Penn. State.
I looked at the Capital Limited and only Greyhound, but 6 of 16 towns were Amtrak only. Four of them were east of Pittsburgh.
The number of communities served by Amtrak but not bus or air was posted somewhere around here a week or two ago....I forget what it was but I was surprised at how many there are.
OvermodJust exactly HOW many places does Amtrak serve that some bus line doesn't? Be specific...
That is kind of daunting. According to Amtrak's National Factsheet Amtrak serves over 500 destinations. You would need to go down the list for each long distance bus company in the country.
Overmod John WRTherefore, when Amtrak serves places with no other transportation that is important. One of you mavens will know this. Just exactly HOW many places does Amtrak serve that some bus line doesn't? Be specific...
John WRTherefore, when Amtrak serves places with no other transportation that is important.
One of you mavens will know this.
Just exactly HOW many places does Amtrak serve that some bus line doesn't? Be specific...
This list might actually be longer than you'd think. There are plenty of boondock Amtrak stations that have a station because of their remoteness than the long distance buses simply bypass and plenty of more urban stations that have an Amtrak station but no long distance bus in that part of town.
For instance, Alexandria VA has a busy Amtrak station but there are no long distance buses. Granted, there are two bus terminals within eight miles but they're in legally separate cities. So the "place [Alexandria] is served by Amtrak but some bus line doesn't" is satisfied.
John WR If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses.
If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses.
Maybe not everyone uses them but they are more popular than Amtrak
We must differentiate price, cost, and value. Everyone one will put things in different terms not understanding what the terms mean nor what the individual seeks.
oltmanndLet's get down to brass tacks. What, exactly, should the US be doing in the passenger rail arena? What'll it cost? Who's going to pay what?
Don,
You certainly ask the right questions. But these questions should be asked of all kinds of transportation, not just passenger rail. And I would suggest another question: With our next million dollars available for transportation how is that best spent to get the greatest benefit for our people?
If everyone looked only at price everyone would ride long distance buses. But everyone doesn't.
It is true that over all speed is important to a great many people and while they grouse and complain about all of the security they will still look at overall time. But not all people do this; there is a small but significant number who do ride trains.
As time goes on and airline competition increases it does drive down the price to tickets on competitive routes. But it also drives airlines away from our smaller airports. Even the number of cities served by buses is declining. Therefore, when Amtrak serves places with no other transportation that is important.
ontheBNSF NittanyLionThe average person doesn't give a crap about the TSA. Two things dictate to them:cost and travel time. In the corridor, Amtrak wins both, ergo ridership is up. Travel time is less impacted by security than the scale and location of airports. Flying outright costs more and has bonus costs, like getting into Manhattan once you're at JFK versus emerging into the heart of midtown. People prefer not take there shoes off and not getting groped. The TSA is pretty important. The TSA also through its inefficiency drives up the amount of time it takes ergo more people taking Amtrak. In corridors their is always buses which go at about the same speed as Amtrak.
NittanyLionThe average person doesn't give a crap about the TSA. Two things dictate to them:cost and travel time. In the corridor, Amtrak wins both, ergo ridership is up. Travel time is less impacted by security than the scale and location of airports. Flying outright costs more and has bonus costs, like getting into Manhattan once you're at JFK versus emerging into the heart of midtown.
People prefer not take there shoes off and not getting groped. The TSA is pretty important. The TSA also through its inefficiency drives up the amount of time it takes ergo more people taking Amtrak. In corridors their is always buses which go at about the same speed as Amtrak.
Prefer yes, but they don't care enough to actually act on this. The few minutes (and yes, its a few minutes. You wait longer at Burger King) isn't enough to cause enough people to choose alternate means of travel. The overwhelming number of people will elect to do whatever is cheapest first and fastest second. Full stop.
oltmannd Let's get down to brass tacks. What, exactly, should the US be doing in the passenger rail arena? What'll it cost? Who's going to pay what?
Let's get down to brass tacks. What, exactly, should the US be doing in the passenger rail arena? What'll it cost? Who's going to pay what?
I am probably asking for too much but we need a quantum leap forward. Such a project would cost anywhere in the ballpark from 700 billion - 1 Trillion dollars. I have offered different ways of funding it.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.