John WR Sam1If anyone has verifiable numbers regarding TEMPO's activities, I would be keen to see them. I have no numbers, Sam. But it seems unlikely that TEMPO's efforts have done any harm. John
Sam1If anyone has verifiable numbers regarding TEMPO's activities, I would be keen to see them.
I have no numbers, Sam. But it seems unlikely that TEMPO's efforts have done any harm.
John
TEMPO played a role in saving the Texas Eagle and putting it on a daily schedule. It also played a role in bring about the Heartland Flyer. The degree of its influence, however, is impossible to measure.
A major factor in saving the Eagle and getting it upgraded to daily status was Senator Hutchison. Or that is how I remember the press stories. She in turn heard from a lot of politicians in Texas, especially the mayors of the smaller cities served by the Texas Eagle, about the need to save and eventually upgrade the train.
Most of us like to believe that we have had a bigger influence on events (private and collective) than tends to be the case. TEMPO is no different.
Sam1 The dinning car opened for breakfast at 7:35 a.m. The food was OK; the service was awful. Six tables were served by one server. She had an attitude that would have gotten her fired if she had been a customer service representative in our company. Whilst she was serving all the tables, the lead service attendant sat at an open table by the galley and did nothing as far as I could determine. That may have been a factor in our server's attitude. Based on my experience the crews on the Texas Eagle are a mixed bag. Some of them are pleasant and helpful. But some of them have a customer be damned attitude. Amtrak appears to tolerate poor behavior on the part of some of its on-board employees. Why the company puts up with "attitude" employees is a mystery.
The dinning car opened for breakfast at 7:35 a.m. The food was OK; the service was awful. Six tables were served by one server. She had an attitude that would have gotten her fired if she had been a customer service representative in our company. Whilst she was serving all the tables, the lead service attendant sat at an open table by the galley and did nothing as far as I could determine. That may have been a factor in our server's attitude.
Based on my experience the crews on the Texas Eagle are a mixed bag. Some of them are pleasant and helpful. But some of them have a customer be damned attitude. Amtrak appears to tolerate poor behavior on the part of some of its on-board employees. Why the company puts up with "attitude" employees is a mystery.
I think this is why the Amtrak subsidy should be constructed as a Shadow Toll on a per passenger mile metric, roughly the historic Interstate highway cross- subsidy would work with a fixed fee for joint NEC infrastructure.
So if they turn away a reoccurring customer due to poor service that employee might be made to recognize that their salary was on the line. Financial discipline is needed, just not the kind imagined often in Congress.
Are the intrastate needs of Texas (or any other state) still the mission of Amtrak? Starting in 2014(?) aren't the states required to make up all losses on corridor trains? CA, IL, & MI have put in an order for the construction of their own passenger cars. What is stopping TX from buying cars and adding frequency to DFW-SA or SA-HOU?
The short answer is that Texas may contract and pay for whatever transporation services it wants, but that ignores the complexities of the situation. The Sunset Limited and Texas Eagle are left over from what Amtrak inherited in1971. With heavy Congresional oversight, Amtrak tends not to make changes except by Congresional instruction. The annual Congresional appropriation makes up the deficit on these routes.
Texas and Oklahoma jointly sponsor the Heartland Flyer and make up the deficit. The TxDOT Rail Division is presently studying extending the Heartland Flyer to San Antonio and maybe Laredo with the deficit at State expense (not necessarily naming Amtrak as the contractor).
Congress defines Long Distance trains as those with a route over 750 miles and says it will not participate financially in any new route that is shorter, and every year there is argument over adequate funding for the deficit on the rest.
Conventional wisdom is that we need two trains each direction each day around the Texas Triangle, with extensions on to Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angles, Laredo, the Valley, etc. That's at least six trains. Funding requires a game of cat and mouse between Congress and the State.
My own opinion is that the next step is for Texas to formally adopt such a plan, and then to fund the deficits for extending the Heartland Flyer and also making the Sunset Limited daily (before we lose it entirely).
MidlandMike Are the intrastate needs of Texas (or any other state) still the mission of Amtrak? Starting in 2014(?) aren't the states required to make up all losses on corridor trains? CA, IL, & MI have put in an order for the construction of their own passenger cars. What is stopping TX from buying cars and adding frequency to DFW-SA or SA-HOU?
Money and political will!
As noted in another posting to this thread, Texas and Oklahoma fund the Heartland Flyer deficit. The average annual amount kicked in by Texas from 2007 to 2011 was $1,754,200. Oklahoma ponied up a like amount. The amount in 2012 was approximately $1.8 million per state.
The Texas Legislature just went through a bruising fight to find enough money to keep up the state's roadways. I doubt that it has an appetite for more money for passenger rail. It is not a hot button in the Lone Star state.
DART and the "T" fund the Trinity Railway Express. It runs between Dallas and Fort Worth. It is a commuter railroad, but it has the properties of an intercity service. I don't believe the state has any financial stake in the TRE. The per passenger subsidies are more than the price of a ticket. Ditto for the Capital Metro commuter rail line from Leander to Austin.
The Lone Star Rail District (ASA) is studying the feasibility of passenger rail service between Austin and San Antonio. It has been studying it for more than a decade. It has gotten some money from TXDOT for its studies. However, the project has not gone beyond the study stage due to an absence of funding. Last week I talked with one of the District representatives. She told me that the original data is so out-of-date that the ASA is having to rework all of it. It is a consultant's dream.
Amtrak attempted to kill the Sunset Limited. It proposed to extend the Texas Eagle from San Antonio to LAX as a daily train, with a connecting train from New Orleans to San Antonio. The Union Pacific Railroad killed the idea. It wanted a large amount of money to expand its facilities to hoist a daily Texas Eagle.
The UP is also a major stumbling block for the ASA. To make it possible the UP has said that it will need state (federal) money to upgrade its route east of Austin, since its line through Austin to San Antonio could not support the current freight traffic and commuter or intercity rail. The cost to upgrade the route around Austin would be in the neighborhood of $2 billion. The state is not likely to put up the money.
Until there is a major shift in the composition of the Texas Legislature, the probability of more money for passenger rail in Texas is slim and none. And Slim just left town.
"Conventional wisdom is that we need two trains each direction each day around the Texas Triangle, with extensions on to Chicago, New Orleans, Los Angles, Laredo, the Valley, etc. That's at least six trains. Funding requires a game of cat and mouse between Congress and the State."
Whose conventional wisdom?
I knew the UP had a problem with adding passenger trains west of El Paso, but I didn't realize they were also constrained east of there. CA & IL may be lucky to have their routes on lightly used UP lines, and MI was able to buy most of the lightly used CHI-DET line from NS.
MidlandMike I knew the UP had a problem with adding passenger trains west of El Paso, but I didn't realize they were also constrained east of there. CA & IL may be lucky to have their routes on lightly used UP lines, and MI was able to buy most of the lightly used CHI-DET line from NS.
The Sunset route is mostly a single track railroad from El Paso to San Antonio and Houston. I am not sure about the Houston to New Orleans leg. The same is true for the route of the Texas Eagle on the BNSF and UP in Texas. And the former T&P line from Fort Worth to Sierra Blanca also is mostly a single track railroad.
Most of the double tracking of the Sunset line is taking place west of El Paso. I presume this is due to the heavier concentration of traffic from Sierra Blanca to El Paso and the LA basin. At Sierra Blanca the Sunset route and the T&P route merge. A considerable amount of traffic flows off the T&P line, thus adding to the congestion west of there. I don't know whether the UP plans to double track the line from El Paso to Sierra Blanca.
The UP line from Taylor to San Antonio, which is used by the Texas Eagle, is a single track railroad. The UP has told the Lone Star Rail authority no commuter trains unless it comes up with the money to upgrade the alternative route around Austin. As mentioned the price tag is in the neighborhood of $2 billion. And that would be before any monies could be laid out to upgrade the current route, including stations, between Georgetown and San Antonio. Although the name of the project is ASA, i.e. Austin to San Antonio, the game plan is to run trains from Georgetown to San Antonio.
V.PayneI think this is why the Amtrak subsidy should be constructed as a Shadow Toll on a per passenger mile metric, roughly the historic Interstate highway cross- subsidy would work with a fixed fee for joint NEC infrastructure.
Finally, there would be the issue of setting the toll. In the beginning there would be strong pressures to set the shadow toll at a point which would be similar to current funding levels. At first glance the amount per passenger mile would appear small. However, in the Federal Government small items have a way of growing. I'm sure you have heard about the military's $600 toilet seats. And of course Amtrak would have a strong incentive to provide special low cost deals for people who would otherwise not ride trains.
I doubt Congress would consider a shadow toll.
John WR With it the US has the highest medical costs in the world. For example, on a per person basis Canada has 20 per cent of our medical costs.
US does have the highest healthcare costs per capita. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD:
#1 US = $8,680
#7 Canada = $4,445 So while our costs are high, and by most measures the overall quality is mediocre, our costs are not 5X those of Canada.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I have to stand corrected on the per centage, Schlimm. However, I think it is not quite so simple. Consider this article: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf
On the bottom of page 10 it says that 40 per cent of American adults get no health care at all. So if that figure applies across the board then the cost of health care per Americans who get health care is (100 / 60) x $8680 or $14,446 per American who gets any health care. That is considerably more. However, I don't know the number of children who get no health care so I cannot say exactly where the numbers fall.
Point well made, though per capita is the standard measure. The 40% sounds high, but it is a disgrace that so many are not covered, which contributes to our mediocre measures of health.
John WR This is similar to what we do for Medicare where it is called fee for service. Finally, there would be the issue of setting the toll. In the beginning there would be strong pressures to set the shadow toll at a point which would be similar to current funding levels. I doubt Congress would consider a shadow toll.
This is similar to what we do for Medicare where it is called fee for service.
Finally, there would be the issue of setting the toll. In the beginning there would be strong pressures to set the shadow toll at a point which would be similar to current funding levels.
There are no real economies of scale in health care after you reach the large office/hospital level as far as I am aware, but there is a significant economy of scale in longer trains on existings routes. Roughly of the $40-50 a trainmile that is reported as the Direct Cost, about half of that is non-variable just to operate a train irrespective of the number of cars.
The point is if you have a variable measure per mile you get incentives to operate more efficiently through increased volume while also enforcing customer service discipline. Think about the drop of the Gulf Coast service while the subsidy stayed the same, if the subsidy droped off by a pro-rated amount, there would be an incentive to continue the service or loose the money.
The exising operations are roughly at the Interstate cross-subsidy level once you strip out the NEC shared infrastrucuture used by the commuter carriers, so just call it a Shadow Toll, and call it a day with a multi-year reauthorization at that level.
BTW, This funding mechanism already exists in law in Texas and is being adopted in various forms in other states, though sometimes as a fixed sum yearly availability payment instead of something variable with mileage.
V.Payne John WR This is similar to what we do for Medicare where it is called fee for service. Finally, there would be the issue of setting the toll. In the beginning there would be strong pressures to set the shadow toll at a point which would be similar to current funding levels. I doubt Congress would consider a shadow toll. There are no real economies of scale in health care after you reach the large office/hospital level as far as I am aware, but there is a significant economy of scale in longer trains on existings routes. Roughly of the $40-50 a trainmile that is reported as the Direct Cost, about half of that is non-variable just to operate a train irrespective of the number of cars. The point is if you have a variable measure per mile you get incentives to operate more efficiently through increased volume while also enforcing customer service discipline. Think about the drop of the Gulf Coast service while the subsidy stayed the same, if the subsidy droped off by a pro-rated amount, there would be an incentive to continue the service or loose the money. The exising operations are roughly at the Interstate cross-subsidy level once you strip out the NEC shared infrastrucuture used by the commuter carriers, so just call it a Shadow Toll, and call it a day with a multi-year reauthorization at that level. BTW, This funding mechanism already exists in law in Texas and is being adopted in various forms in other states, though sometimes as a fixed sum yearly availability payment instead of something variable with mileage.
All costs are variable in the long run.
Without access to Amtrak's books, one does not know the variable and fixed costs associated with its operations. Nor would one know the avoidable costs associated with the discontinuance of any Amtrak train(s).
Given the difficulties Amtrak has had in implementing its SAP management information system (accounting, finance, inventory, etc.), which is not new technology, one should be skeptical of its numbers, except to the extent that they are audited by the company's independent auditors. Since 2010 its has been trying to determine the capital costs for its trains. It is not there! Unbelievable!
Amtrak has claimed that it would save only $300 million per year if it discontinued the long distance trains. It does not tell the public how it derived this number. There does not appear to be any independent verification of it.
Invested in U.S. Treasury long bonds, over 30 years, at the current rate, $300 million per year becomes $15.2 billion. That would be more than enough to fund high speed rail in Texas and leave money for other passenger rail projects, i.e. new equipment for the NEC.
Amtrak's bureaucrats have a vested interest in maintaining as large an organization as possible. As is the case with most executives and senior managers, they see a correlation between the size of their organization and their careers prospects. They are not unique. Accordingly, they are likely to put the worst case scenario on the discontinuance of the long distance trains.
Customer service discipline is enforced through appropriate management tools. As long as there is no effective competition for a service provider, management tends to be lax when it comes to enforcing employee discipline.
Increasing volume does not necessarily produce better results. For example, between FY09 and FY12 the number of passengers on the Texas Eagle increased 29.8 per cent, and the average load factor increased from 60 per cent to 71.1 per cent. Revenues increased 33.2 per cent. Unfortunately, the operating losses increased by 35.2 per cent. The Eagle lost $9 million per year more in FY12 than it did in FY09. From FY09 through FY12 the Texas Eagle lost $118.9 million before depreciation and miscellaneous charges.
TXDOT funds half of the loss incurred by the Heartland Flyer.The other half is funded by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. The Texas share will be approximately $1.8 million this year. As per state law, TXDOT also diverts 25 per cent of the fuel taxes collected in Texas to education.
I am at a loss to understand how third party payment systems for healthcare relate to passenger trains.
John WR V.PayneI think this is why the Amtrak subsidy should be constructed as a Shadow Toll on a per passenger mile metric, roughly the historic Interstate highway cross- subsidy would work with a fixed fee for joint NEC infrastructure.This is similar to what we do for Medicare where it is called fee for service. With it the US has the highest medical costs in the world. For example, on a per person basis Canada has 20 per cent of our medical costs. Cuba spends very little but yet we have a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba.
If we are now discussing the cost/quality tradeoff by comparing U.S. medical care with that in Cuba, a much smaller country with a very different economic system and political culture, I think we have "run off the rails" in terms of coming up with a rationale for public support for a passenger rail transportation choice.
We need to be more like Cuba to have proper passenger trains?
Even growing up wih relatives behind the Iron Curtain ("from Talin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic" intoned Sir Winston Churchill at Fulton, Missouri), I am willing to let bygones be bygones. I am not going to hold it against L.D. Porta that he was going to construct a steam switch engine for Cuba nor not ride the TALGO on account to Oriel's (the letter O in Talgo) connection to Franco.
In advocating for trains, or I guess not-advocating-for-trains as I got a scolding for referring to someone as a passenger train advocate, I understand the frustration -- trains have such goodness, why can't people see that and come up with enough funding?
I can see moving beyond finding fault with the way our country "does passenger trains" to finding fault with the way our country does many other things, but the health care system in Cuba? Do we get people to vote in the Communist Party or effect an armed revolution? Do we get to have all doctors be in th employ of the State, and do we get to reimburse them at the same rates as the Cuban government? And if we did all that, would this be effective in health care outcomes, or is Cuba a special case because they had a tradition an educated population and highly trained doctors before the Revolution and their doctors continue to work hard out of a sense of calling, or maybe doctors get non-cash compensation from the State that does not appear in medical cost comparisons?
A faculty member here at the U engages in scholarship-related travel to Cuba and is "on top" of many of the aspects of that country. Yes, that professor had confirmed the good health care in Cuba but had remarked that Cubans are slender because their diet is "a little calorie deficient."
Some folks who are not much for train may snarl that Cuba is "liberty deficient", but maybe a better exercise of governmental authority could get us more trains? "A little calorie deficient", however, is professor-speak for not getting enough to eat. In a tropical country where banana plants grow out of sidewalk cracks, how do they pull that off? Part of that may be the U.S. Embargo, but it seems every other country in the world trades with and travels to Cuba, including Canada. Do you think it might have something to do with that half-century old personality cult in their government?
Gotta love the earnestness of a non-passenger-train-advocate who turns to Health Care in Cuba as model for Good Government getting Good Things Done, but seriously people, this doesn't move the cause of trains forward.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
V.Payne but there is a significant economy of scale in longer trains on existings routes. Roughly of the $40-50 a trainmile that is reported as the Direct Cost, about half of that is non-variable just to operate a train irrespective of the number of cars.
but there is a significant economy of scale in longer trains on existings routes. Roughly of the $40-50 a trainmile that is reported as the Direct Cost, about half of that is non-variable just to operate a train irrespective of the number of cars.
Show me the money!
Instead of arguing could-should-ought, make the case for adding trains, even segment day trains or part-route corridor trains with a case study.
On the other hand, your "roughly at the Interstate (Highway) cross-subsidy level" was where "roughly" meant within a factor of two. That is, the LD trains are still twice as expensive as rural Interstates in per passenger mile subsidy, even before considering the rural Interstates to be freight carriers, as they appear to be when I drive those roads.
Is "a factor of two" a valid "roughly the same"? Are there case studies where economy-of-scale has been demonstrated in passenger rail?
Paul MilenkovicGotta love the earnestness of a non-passenger-train-advocate who turns to Health Care in Cuba as model for Good Government getting Good Things Done, but seriously people, this doesn't move the cause of trains forward.
I agree. Would you make a solid case for some form of passenger rail service in the US?
schlimm I agree. Would you make a solid case for some form of passenger rail service in the US?
Are you asking would I make a solid case for passenger trains in some form or can I (am I able to) make such a case? Are you saying that I am "directing negative energy" at someone's long-reaching attempt to support trains using a circuitous analogy to Cuba's health care system but I am not offering any "positive energy" by giving the "proper" reasons to advocate for trains?
Do have to contribute "positive energy", say in the way there are some holdouts and believers on the Steam and Preservation Forum who reason we scrapped steam too soon or we can bring steam back in mainline service a la ACE 3000? There are a lot of steam enthusiasts on that site who concede that Diesels superceded steam for valid engineering operational, and economic reasons.
I don't think anyone has that solid a case for passenger trains. If we did, our arguments would be more persuasive and we would have more than the token 1.5 billion/year funding for Amtrak and more trains than the fraction of a percent of total passenger miles.
How do we generate such a case? As Amtrak after all these years is just a skeleton network and a demonstration project for trains, instead of fretting about how we are not getting enough government support, how about getting the most from the support at hand? Suppose the case for trains is in the doing, such as the TEMPO volunteer organization that is boosting ridership on Amtrak's Texas Flyer by making known the existence of the train and what travel plans of people it can accomodate, rather than in, no, you expressed your impatience regarding another accounting of the negative energy generated in Madison.
Paul Milenkovic schlimm I agree. Would you make a solid case for some form of passenger rail service in the US? Are you asking would I make a solid case for passenger trains in some form or can I (am I able to) make such a case? Are you saying that I am "directing negative energy" at someone's long-reaching attempt to support trains using a circuitous analogy to Cuba's health care system but I am not offering any "positive energy" by giving the "proper" reasons to advocate for trains? Do have to contribute "positive energy",
Do have to contribute "positive energy",
Please allow me to rephrase the question. I am asking you if there is a case to be made for passenger rail in the US? If so, what is it and will you make it on this forum?
Sam1I am at a loss to understand how third party payment systems for healthcare relate to passenger trains.
You ask a good question, Sam. A suggestion has been made that Amtrak subsidies be provided on a per passenger mile basis. The more passengers carried and the longer the distance carried would be the basis of the amount of subsidy. I think this is similar to Medical which pays medical bills on a fee for service basis. The more people a hospital treats and the longer it treats them the more money it collects from Medicare. I think this is related to the fact that the US has the highest health care costs in the world. And were Amtrak to be funded in a similar way I think Amtrak subsidies would also increase. Over time they would increase a lot.
The reason is, as you point out, "Amtrak bureaucrats have an interest in maintaining as large an organization as possible." I would only add that this is true of all bureaucrats. Over time all government agencies grow and grow and grow. And private agencies do the same thing. Even with they go bankrupt they manage to grow.
So we certainly can subsidize Amtrak on a per passenger mile basis. I just think we will wind up spending more, and not less, money.
This thread looks to be delving in politics. If I find that to be the case there's a good possibility it will be locked. Now surely you can find something less volatile to talk about.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
Jeffery,
How can you talk about government supported passenger trains WITHOUT talking about politics?
Mac
It could be difficult. But rules are rules and politics isn't allowed.
schlimm Please allow me to rephrase the question. I am asking you if there is a case to be made for passenger rail in the US? If so, what is it and will you make it on this forum?
Allow me to restate the answer I just gave, the response I had given some while on another thread, and the answer I give whenever asked.
The case for trains is the same as the case for highways is the same as Steve Balmer's case for Microsoft Windows. Say it with me after dashing out on stage in front of a roaring crowd, sweating profusely, doing a one-arm pushop to throbbing rock music, and yelling at the top of your lungs, "Developers, developers, developers, developers!"
I think the strongest case for passenger trains is in enabling communication between population centers so as to enhance that mode of living and working, just as the singular contribution of the automobile has been to facilitate the dispersal of population and the dispersal of work sites.
In recent years, with access to the Web search tools that I didn't have 40 years ago when I got interested in advocating for passenger trains, I have become discouraged at the prospect of trains being a way of saving energy and alleviating pollution and traffic congestion or being a cost-efficient solution to the energy, pollution, or congestion problem, especially in a one-for-one replacement of automobile trips. The numbers don't add up.
That is why I supported the plan of the then City of Madison Mayor, the Wisconsin Transportation Secretary, and Wisconsin Governor to site a train station in the Madison Downtown, a plan that engendered a strong reaction from the local advocacy community. Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz, himself a real-estate developer, part of a movement towards "smart growth" and 'green development", saw the train in terms of "Developers, developers, developers, developers", that is, as a tool for shaping development of Madison and outlining Dane County in those terms. It is perhaps ironic that much is said in train advocacy circles regarding convincing "greens" of the merits of trains, but when we "closed the deal" with a Green city mayor, we balked at the terms of the sale.
Members of the local advocacy group with no interest in selling their suburban homes and moving into one of the Mayor's favored Downtown car-less condos (our past group president told me that in so many words), see the train as a replacement for their car or an airplane booking on long trips. I get criticism for bringing this up (again) on this forum, but the points of view expressed in the local advocacy community reflect views that I see expressed on this virtual community. Before saying that I am repeating myself, I am answering a question that was previously asked.
Ultimately the case for passenger trains is one of values and how one wants to live. Some people relish city living and a city downtown workplace; others cringe at the thought. In my case, my formative years were in the transit-friendly near-Chicago environs but my adult lifestyle is definitely auto-centric -- the automobile is the only way I can contribute to operating my parents tree farm over 3 hours drive way.
I used to think that the auto and the sprawl it engenders is anti-environment, but when I look for where I live during the climbing turn on a jet departing on Runway 18 from Dane County Regional making the right turn towards Victor 9 heading west, all I see from the air are trees. Cars have become more fuel efficient and safer. Frank Lloyd Wright had similar ideas that suburban and exurban living can be incorporated into a living environment.
If ultimately trains are about values, this may explain why the new Wisconsin Governor so forcefully and precipitously "pulled the plug" on the Madison train. No, it is no about saving a few million per year in operating costs for that train, and no, it is not about the oil or the concrete lobbies contributing to the Governor's campaign. When we (I include me in the we as advocating for passenger trains) speak critically of cars, even to point out the disadvantages of being hurt or worse in a wreck or to have to creep along in congested traffic, when the Madison City Mayor wants to build a Downtown streetcar and have a Downtown-to-Downtown single-seat ride to Chicago and talks up car-less condos, a lot of people feel threatened that we want to take their cars away or at least restrict them, taking their freedom to live where they want and to come and go wherever they want.
The one take-home message in this is that trains are not about saving oil, saving on emissions, or reducing congestion, they are about the kind of transportation development we see (going forward) in promotion of the living and working arrangements that we see (going forward). And we need to stop scaring people that we are out to save the planet by rolling back the auto-centric lifestyle (love affair with the automobile -- it comes out as scolding and critical when we say that).
Paul MilenkovicThat is why I supported the plan of the then City of Madison Mayor, the Wisconsin Transportation Secretary, and Wisconsin Governor to site a train station in the Madison Downtown, a plan that engendered a strong reaction from the local advocacy community. Madison Mayor David Cieslewicz, himself a real-estate developer, part of a movement towards "smart growth" and 'green development", saw the train in terms of "Developers, developers, developers, developers", that is, as a tool for shaping development of Madison and outlining Dane County in those terms. It is perhaps ironic that much is said in train advocacy circles regarding convincing "greens" of the merits of trains, but when we "closed the deal" with a Green city mayor, we balked at the terms of the sale.
My personal opinion of the Madison and Wisconsin approach to High Speed Rail was Wisconsin was designing it's own system and largely gave the rest of the Midwest the finger. I am kind of happy Governor Walker killed it.
#1 Why the heck go with a Talgo if your top speed is going to be less than 120 mph? Really are not that many curves between Chicago and Madison and most of the CP mainline was engineered for high speed passenger trains making the Talgo unncessary. The real reason of course is it was a no bid contract and Governor Doyle got to promise jobs, jobs, jobs. Falsely promise that the rest of the Midwest would go with Talgo when at that point they were already looking at other alternatives.
#2 Why dead end the track in Madison at the station when in fact the Wisconsin HSR segment was intended to be part of a larger Midwestern compact with a route to Minneapolis - St. Paul. In fact, Wisconsin's DOT treatment of Minnesota on Amtrak service has historically been rather shabby.
#3 Why should it cost $800 million to implement train service to Madison. Much lower cost alternatives available including the Wisconsin and Southern proposal to just upgrade the tracks to 79 mph between Watertown and Madison and let it provide used equipment.
Anyways my two cents. I think what really killed Wisconsin HSR was the massive overreach and lack of financial discipline. Governor Walker was correct in that the system would have cost a LOT more than $800 million to complete and the State would have been on the hook for the money because of the rules the Feds attached to the original $800 million.
"Increasing volume does not necessarily produce better results. For example, between FY09 and FY12 the number of passengers on the Texas Eagle increased 29.8 per cent, and the average load factor increased from 60 per cent to 71.1 per cent. Revenues increased 33.2 per cent. Unfortunately, the operating losses increased by 35.2 per cent. The Eagle lost $9 million per year more in FY12 than it did in FY09. From FY09 through FY12 the Texas Eagle lost $118.9 million before depreciation and miscellaneous charges."
I believe that goes to the point that the Total Costs being reported are based on some type of ratio of Route Revenue / Total System Revenue. Fuel was a little higher in that span of time from the recession crash to 2012 but what else was really different operationally? Unfortunately the recent years have not had Direct Cost reporting in the annual reports as was done previously. I would suppose this goes to the ask for a big pot o' money culture that is current. I am all for breaking it down by variable measures. If I get some more time soon I will post an analysis of the eastern routes with Direct Costs numbers off PRIIA.
CMStPnP [ Why the heck go with a Talgo if your top speed is going to be less than 120 mph? Really are not that many curves between Chicago and Madison and most of the CP mainline was engineered for high speed passenger trains making the Talgo unncessary. The real reason of course is it was a no bid contract and Governor Doyle got to promise jobs, jobs, jobs. Falsely promise that the rest of the Midwest would go with Talgo when at that point they were already looking at other alternatives. #2 Why dead end the track in Madison at the station when in fact the Wisconsin HSR segment was intended to be part of a larger Midwestern compact with a route to Minneapolis - St. Paul. In fact, Wisconsin's DOT treatment of Minnesota on Amtrak service has historically been rather shabby. #3 Why should it cost $800 million to implement train service to Madison. Much lower cost alternatives available including the Wisconsin and Southern proposal to just upgrade the tracks to 79 mph between Watertown and Madison and let it provide used equipment.
[ Why the heck go with a Talgo if your top speed is going to be less than 120 mph? Really are not that many curves between Chicago and Madison and most of the CP mainline was engineered for high speed passenger trains making the Talgo unncessary. The real reason of course is it was a no bid contract and Governor Doyle got to promise jobs, jobs, jobs. Falsely promise that the rest of the Midwest would go with Talgo when at that point they were already looking at other alternatives.
#1 Talgo, or at least the Wisconsin-Oregon Talgo model, is not for true HSR and is not the top-speed Talgo model. Talgo is supposed to be ideal for the proposed 110 MPH where you take less speed reduction for curves. Actually, Talgo is probably the best fit for the Cascades. A lightweight train with a higher curve speed, ideal for a corridor through a mountain district. For the flatland Midwest, maybe not so much.
Much as I have studied the Talgo tech and hate to admit this, but the California Car style bi-levels that Illinois and some other states are pooling a purchase are probably optimal in terms of providing a good train ride with enough seats without having to expand station platforms. Talgo has a low floor throughout the consist whereas the California Car has a lower floor on the lower level used for boarding. California Car has a 50 percent increase in weight per seat over Talgo, but maybe better aerodynamic blending with a Genesis Diesel; in the flatland Midwest, the fuel economy might be a tie.
Talgo is supposed to be a comfortable train with nice amenities, but I have heard disrespect for the ride on rough track (doesn't any train ride well on good track?). One thing never mentioned is that Talgo is designed to the European loading gauge. Whereas the European A-320 is a tad wider than its Boeing 737 competitor and offers more elbow room (leg room? fuggedabout!), the Talgo is narrow and offers a little less elbow room.
As to the disrespect of Governor Doyle, I don't see corruption or bad government in the no-bid award to Talgo. What I see is a "Governor playing entrepreneur and picking winners and losers." Even in Europe, especially in Europe, the Talgo Company and the Talgo product have been "on the outside looking in", and their sales successes have been in the export market -- I think one of the former Soviet 'Stans in getting one.
This decision on Talgo came from within WisDOT as far as I can tell as a "bet on the tech" (low floor lightweight passive-tilt) for the 110 MPH Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. The Governor's strategy on the no-bid contract was to get the Talgo factory in Wisconsin and then Talgo would be building the trains for everybody in the U.S. doing 110 MPH corridors. Sometimes you want to go with improved tech; other times you want to go with tried and true (California Cars). California Cars are probably a good-enough-tech that offers more seats for the current generation of corridor services for the U.S..
#2 (and #3) The decision to dead-end in Madison is related to the decision to put the station downtown and related to the 800 million dollars, and you are probably right and I am wrong in supporting this. The crack Hiawatha, 400, and Zephyr trains never went through Madison. Madison had train service until the inception of Amtrak, but it was a local branch and not the main line.
There is a certain Madison-centricism that probably inflates the commercial importance of this place. We are the Capital and home to University of Wisconsin-(Madison), but maybe in terms of commerce and people needing to go places, the line should go through Columbus to better connect Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Racine-Chicago than taking the (800 million dollar) dog-leg through Madison.
And for the problems (800 million of them) in serving Madison, serving the Downtown had another set of problems that Donna Brown of WisDOT tried to explain to the "angry mob" gathered in June 2010 at the Middleton Public Library. Such as the train line going through the Kraft Foods-Oscar Mayer factory, through as in right in the middle of the factory floor that they have to suspend factory work to let the train through (wouldn't that make a cool model train layout?). I think she was hinting "Chill, people, the train station may end up at Dane County Regional Airport where you want it, just humor your Green city mayor and get this thing underway and these things are going to work out in the end."
As to the current Governor, you are right, the State of Wisconsin may have dodged a bullet on massive construction cost overruns, especially if we had to build a subway under the Oscar Mayer factory. But the Governor was "selling" the cancellation on the operating subsidy question, and only a faint hearted attempt was made after turning down the 800 million to reapply for some Federal money for the Chicago-Milwaukee improvements and maybe some Milwaukee-Minneapolis improvements.
I get the vibe that the Governor wanted to drive a stake through the whole thing on ideological reasons. As I just said, the government shapes the landscape and how we live through transportation policy (and the home mortgage deduction on taxes). Just as cars shape the landscape towards dispersed housing, trains would shape in the other direction towards concentrated housing. Greens like David Cieslewicz like concentrated housing, but a lot of people dislike that and are anti-train because they feel (maybe incorrectly) that Big Brother wants to jam them into Mayor Dave's pricey downtown condos without automobile parking.
We get into these political discussion and locked threads, but maybe in advocating for trains we need to at least see where people who don't want the train are coming from and what it is that concerns them rather than dismissing them out of hand as part of a commercial conspiracy out to ruin the environment.
Paul,
The "Cascades" service in WA/OR extends from Seattle WA to Eugene OR. This is parallel with, not across, the Cascade Mountains. The route of the Cascades train is very definitely not a mountain route.
I rode a Talgo north one day and the Coast Starlight back. The Talgo was louder and rougher. Talgo vehicles made sharp jumps up down and sideways while the Starlight double deck cars rolled side to side. The fact I was in top level accentuated the rolling. From that experience, give me conventional equipment for ride quality.
FWIW, I agree there is NO case to be made for passenger trains today, except possibly in the NEC.
Mac McCulloch
PNWRMNM Paul, The "Cascades" service in WA/OR extends from Seattle WA to Eugene OR. This is parallel with, not across, the Cascade Mountains. The route of the Cascades train is very definitely not a mountain route. I rode a Talgo north one day and the Coast Starlight back. The Talgo was louder and rougher. Talgo vehicles made sharp jumps up down and sideways while the Starlight double deck cars rolled side to side. The fact I was in top level accentuated the rolling. From that experience, give me conventional equipment for ride quality. FWIW, I agree there is NO case to be made for passenger trains today, except possibly in the NEC. Mac McCulloch
I had the same experience last year on the Cascades. The topography is relatively flat, but the train route snakes along Puget Sound for a considerable distance south of Seattle, if I remember correctly.
The best case for passenger trains in the United States, at least from a cost perspective, may be in the short corridors outside of the NEC. I have been running a number of computer scenarios to determine what would be the optimum scaling. When I am done I will present my views in the separate thread.
I live along the Cascades corridor, and the speed limits around here are 10 MPH higher for Talgos than Passenger (conventional equipment), and 20 MPH higher than freight. This is why they lengthened the Vancouver-Seattle trip time by approximately 30 minutes when the Talgos were out for suspension cracks (2007 iirc). They were replaced by Superliners. So they are a bit quicker, but yes, they really don't like switches or jointed rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.