Well, if I may share another two cents. Congress determined that we should have a national passenger rail system. What we have now is marginal, at best. Creating a truly national system requires intelligent growth of routes, but not necessarily sticking to the greatest financial drains. Surely, for example, we can agree that there is demand for Houston-Dallas service, and trains extending to Corpus Chirsti, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Abilene, Lubbock, and Amarillo. More service tends to spread the overhead, increase ridership, and improve feasibility of all the routes. Right now we are stuck in second gear. Congress should begin growing the system or enable Amtrak to do so. It is urgent that somehow we build up the national passenger rail system or lose even the appearance of a "national" system. And, once it's gone ...
Sam1As soon as someone can tell me why Midland, Lubbock, and McAllen, Texas, amongst others, don't have passenger rail, I'll buy the equity argument.
I picked up the equity argument from the Brookings Institution report, Sam. And I agree. Some places get more equity than others. But it seems to me that this is also a new day for Amtrak. New trains may come along but in order for them to do so there will have to be state funding.
John
South TexasSurely, for example, we can agree that there is demand for Houston-Dallas service, and trains extending to Corpus Chirsti, the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Abilene, Lubbock, and Amarillo. More service tends to spread the overhead, increase ridership, and improve feasibility of all the routes. Right now we are stuck in second gear. Congress should begin growing the system or enable Amtrak to do so. It is urgent that somehow we build up the national passenger rail system or lose even the appearance of a "national" system. And, once it's gone ...
Since the routes you mention are all in TX (not exactly a poor state) why doesn't your TXDOT come up with funding for the "state-sponsored" routes? Several states, such as Illinois and NC, notably, have done so to add or expand services.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
John WR oltmanndWe'd be better off with two ATL to NYP trains than one NOL to NYP train. The Carolianian. It could be extended to Atlanta. From New York to Atlanta is about 859 miles, long enough so the train would qualify for Federal funding. John
oltmanndWe'd be better off with two ATL to NYP trains than one NOL to NYP train.
The Carolianian. It could be extended to Atlanta. From New York to Atlanta is about 859 miles, long enough so the train would qualify for Federal funding.
V.PayneFinancially, the first test might be for the Long Distance route’s financial Short-Term Avoidable Operating Loss to be equal to or less than the financial Non-User Automobile Accident Costs ($0.036/VM) on an average per equivalent passenger mile. As it stands now, those that are using the Long Distance routes have already self-selected to not use another common carrier, so their most likely alternative is an automobile. However, they might only drive during the daytime, in shorter segments, take on more financial risk of accidents, or put up with a loss of productive time. In other words, the alternative for those users would increase their disutility of time.
I have to ask, and no insult is intended, as you obviously are very knowledgeable. However, do you seriously think that is the sort of argument that will convince anyone to increase/improve passenger rail services in the US, whether LD or corridors?
schlimm V.PayneFinancially, the first test might be for the Long Distance route’s financial Short-Term Avoidable Operating Loss to be equal to or less than the financial Non-User Automobile Accident Costs ($0.036/VM) on an average per equivalent passenger mile. As it stands now, those that are using the Long Distance routes have already self-selected to not use another common carrier, so their most likely alternative is an automobile. However, they might only drive during the daytime, in shorter segments, take on more financial risk of accidents, or put up with a loss of productive time. In other words, the alternative for those users would increase their disutility of time. I have to ask, and no insult is intended, as you obviously are very knowledgeable. However, do you seriously think that is the sort of argument that will convince anyone to increase/improve passenger rail services in the US, whether LD or corridors?
Good point!
Another question pertains to the PRIIA exercises for the long distance trains. If the studies are as sound as we are to believe, how come none of the key recommendations, as far as I know, have been implemented?
As per the company's 2012 Annual Report, Amtrak will spend money when there is a high probability of a payoff. It spent millions in 2012 to upgrade its reservations, ticketing, and customer service capabilities. E-ticketing and scanning, WiFi upgrades, etc. are some of the technological improvements made by the company. This suggests that Amtrak can get the funds it needs, within reason, for worthwhile spends.
According to the authors of the Crescent, etc. study, implementation of their recommendations for the Crescent would have generated 69,500 new riders (train and Thruway bus), on an investment of $1.4 million, and generate a return of $3.7 million. Unfortunately, the study does not have a robust section on methodology, thereby leaving one wondering what methods (regression analysis, moving averages, etc.) were used to generate the numbers. In any case, if the numbers were properly supported, Jamie Dimon (Chase Chairman) would love to have that kind of return.
If executive management and the board were comfortable with the pro-forma numbers, they could have taken their case to the market place and obtained the money to fund the improvements. As noted Amtrak does not need to go to Congress for every equipment acquisition. My guess is that management and the board did not find the output compelling.
There was congressional testimony in 2011 that basically said the PRIIA improvements are on hold as even though the per mile loss numbers improved with the recommendations you had to spend a little bit more, so here we are back were we were debating if it is the sense of Congress to have the system. BTW the first test is a pretty good argument for keeping services.
Texas and Oklahoma jointly fund the Heartland Flyer and are currently studying extending it south to Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo, and north to Tulsa and Kansas City. The Texas Eagle has way over a 750 mile route already and is being looked at for extension to Corpus Christi and the Valley, sponsor unknown. A potential route from Houston to Dallas, Abilene, Lubbock, Amarillo, and Denver (dubbed Cannon Ball Express) would also be way over 750 miles in length. Plus, there are several non-Amtrak studies underway. Trust me, the TxDOT Rail Division has the potential to act (Congress cooperating or not).
South Texas Texas and Oklahoma jointly fund the Heartland Flyer and are currently studying extending it south to Austin, San Antonio, and Laredo, and north to Tulsa and Kansas City. The Texas Eagle has way over a 750 mile route already and is being looked at for extension to Corpus Christi and the Valley, sponsor unknown. A potential route from Houston to Dallas, Abilene, Lubbock, Amarillo, and Denver (dubbed Cannon Ball Express) would also be way over 750 miles in length. Plus, there are several non-Amtrak studies underway. Trust me, the TxDOT Rail Division has the potential to act (Congress cooperating or not).
TXDOT is dependent on legislative authorization for its budget. The Texas Legislature has not authorized an increase in the fuel taxes, which are TXDOT's major source of revenue, since the early 90s. As a result the state has had to turn to toll roads to build some of the new roadways the state needs because of its significant population growth. Accordingly, it is a stretch to believe that the tight fisted Texas Legislature will fund any additional passenger rail operations in the near future?
I try to stay abreast of passenger rail developments in Texas. I have never heard any serious proposals by a person or group to extend the Texas Eagle to Corpus Christi and the Valley. What is the source for this information?
For what it is worth, most of the points I am making about leverage mostly concern me in regards to the roadway system, my day job. Some others are beginning to see the financial problems, sometimes with slightly different solutions, but this was true even in the 1950's we just hadn't tried it yet so they could be dismissed. This engineer's entire blog is more or less devoted to the design problems and assumptions behind them in the local and state road system, as well as financial leverage.
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/1/4/the-next-generation-dot.html
I believe the future years will be different for financial reasons, not so much environmental reasons. It really would be quite sad to see us throw away the intercity rail system when on even a long-term avoidable cost measure it is quite frugal in comparison, we just don't realize it, and is really the only middle-class alternative to driving.
V.Payne It really would be quite sad to see us throw away the intercity rail system when on even a long-term avoidable cost measure it is quite frugal in comparison, we just don't realize it, and is really the only middle-class alternative to driving.
It really would be quite sad to see us throw away the intercity rail system when on even a long-term avoidable cost measure it is quite frugal in comparison, we just don't realize it, and is really the only middle-class alternative to driving.
I "buy into" the transportation right-of-way preservation argument, and that is why I supported the Madison train, even though the economic argument in the right-here-and-now might be weaker than the Milwaukee-Chicago train. Once the land is developed, it is nigh impossible to put anything through -- road, train, monorail, Hyperloop, what have you.
Only middle-class alternative to driving? That would have to be aviation. Seriously. Suppose I am invited to a family member's wedding in Florida? One definition of middle-class is needing to meet the demands of employment to support oneself, and there is no way I could get the time off to take a train trip, even if Chicago-Florida had more direct train service.
I don't travel all that much in my job, but I have colleagues that do, and someone discussed taking the Lake Shore Limited to Boston (is it?) for work-related travel, but by and large, we don't get to take more than the bare minimum time off from work, are required to travel the cheapest way possible, and at least back-in-the-day, it meant Super Saver coach with Saturday night stay and time spent away from family. Business Class -- make me laugh . . .
People complain about how terrible air travel is, but for any serious sort of distance in the U.S., and the comparisons to rural interstates are a defense of long-distance, not corridor trains, air transportation is the low-cost mode (even to driving, when all costs are factored in). Air transportation is the middle-class common carrier transportation mode, we hate it, but long-distance train travel isn't even an option for many of us.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Assuming one is making a trip that is compatible with driving on a dis-utility of time basis, it does seem like the only alternative to driving if price + quality is a concern, as motorcoaches have about half the seating personal space. Seems like roughly speaking that is for trips between 180 to 750 miles off the high-frequency rail corridors, depending upon your choice of accommodations. The consumer is behaving as such:
Average Travel Distance: (Crescent)Coach Passengers ............... 526 milesSleeper Passengers..............755 milesTotal (Average)........................ 552 miles
Here is the 4Q 2012 average consumer airfares, without fees and access costs to get to the airport. On average the stage length that makes sense is above the coach trip lengths it would seem. Yes, I fly over 750 miles or so depending on the route.
V.Payne Assuming one is making a trip that is compatible with driving on a dis-utility of time basis, it does seem like the only alternative to driving if price + quality is a concern, as motorcoaches have about half the seating personal space. Seems like roughly speaking that is for trips between 180 to 750 miles off the high-frequency rail corridors, depending upon your choice of accommodations. The consumer is behaving as such: Average Travel Distance: (Crescent)Coach Passengers ............... 526 milesSleeper Passengers..............755 milesTotal (Average)........................ 552 miles Here is the 4Q 2012 average consumer airfares, without fees and access costs to get to the airport. On average the stage length that makes sense is above the coach trip lengths it would seem. Yes, I fly over 750 miles or so depending on the route.
V.PayneAssuming one is making a trip that is compatible with driving on a dis-utility of time basis, it does seem like the only alternative to driving if price + quality is a concern, as motorcoaches have about half the seating personal space. Seems like roughly speaking that is for trips between 180 to 750 miles off the high-frequency rail corridors, depending upon your choice of accommodations.
I wonder what is the rest of your thought in these fragments?
Sorry for the fragments. Since there was a comment earler about not posting from Word I was trying that. Bureau of Transportation Statistics was the soure of the data, I just graphed it for presentation. My point with the coach trip distances is that consumers don't follow highway corridor modeling methodology but dis-utility of time methods and such is borne out in the recorded data on rail trip lengths. So nominal time isn't always the only determination for a consumer but perception of time. But we live in a political world were we currently can't accept that the gas tax should be indexed to inflation.
OK
1. Whatever the true cost of highway miles is or should be, seems largely beside the point in the questions about what sort of rail passenger services are rational and likely to serve a useful purpose for a large number of people. Ditto with the gasoline tax. Ditto with the true costs, cross-subsidies, etc of the airlines. What matters to consumers is the fare, the total trip time to destination and convenience.
2. What probably matters most to taxpayers is the amount of direct subsidy Amtrak receives each year. Comparisons with highways and the various airway subsidies is irrelevant to making the case for passenger rail services. Since the LD services provide the least service for the fewest people for the most subsidy, given that the funding for Amtrak is not infinite, we need to attempt to serve the largest number for the greatest good. That is the way government-run operations like Amtrak should be evaluated, not by the standards of a for-profit corporation.
3. There are other benefits to passenger rail, though the environmental ones are chiefly achieved through electrified service (which the US should have far more of, IMO).
One quick thought about cost allocation on Amtrak.
While it may be possible that some costs are unfairly spread to LD trains that more properly belong on the NEC, one can't try to fix this problem in the name of "fairness" without coming to grips with the hidden subsidy paid by the host RRs to Amtrak. The fees paid by Amtrak to the host roads don't cover all the full costs of running the trains on those routes.
I think that trying to figure out a "fair" way to fund LD trains is a bit of a fools errand. Neither the NARP nor Mica really care a hoot about it and can't be convinced.
I think what can help is if Amtrak pulls itself up by it's bootstraps and tries to improve the performance of the LD trains by itself. It would take the wind out of the sails of "antis" and could get NARP out of the "defend the LD train" mode. Saying "you could buy every passenger a plane ticket for avg subsidy on the Sunset Ltd" or "It costs Amtrak $15 to provide a $9 hamburger" is really good theater. If the avg subsidy were only $50, and Amtrak made 10 cents on every burger, those may not be wonderful numbers, but they make lousy theater.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Why does this argument always promote competition between rail and air. In a well designed integrated system they would be serving different markets. At the speed our trains currently run: Long distance trains cannot compete with the speed of air travel. In commuter and corridor service, aircraft cannot compete with the efficiency of the train. Commuter and corridor trains should serve airports, including baggage transfer, as well as city centers.
That said, the only long distance trains I use are the Carolinian and the Crescent. The Crescent is always full. I have seen people drag their carry on back and forth two or three times and the finally give up and sit in the Café car. It would probably sell even more tickets if it didn't come through Charlotte at 2:30 AM in both directions. The Carolinian spends an average of 30 minutes near the Virginia state line watching freight trains go by.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Without access to its books, it is impossible to know how Amtrak allocates costs across its product (service) lines. Unless one has access to the host carrier's books, he would not know the full vs. incremental cost of hosting Amtrak's trains.
In FY12 Amtrak would have had a $98.1 million operating profit if it were not for the long distance trains. The State Supported and Short Corridor Trains would still have been in the red, but an average fare increase of $15 would have enabled them to cover their operating costs.
Most of the short corridor trains don't compete with airplanes. Personal vehicles and buses are Amtrak's major competition in the short corridors. A $15 average increase in coach fares would widen the gap between Amtrak's fares and most bus fares. But for single travelers, who drive a mid-size car, the increase in Amtrak's fares would still leave them well below the cost of driving for a single occupant in a personal vehicle. However, put two people in the car, and the cost advantage accrues to the car.
Would an average fare increase of $15 really be needed? Not if Amtrak's management tackled its major cost. Labor! In FY12 salaries, wages, and benefits chewed up 50.4 per cent of Amtrak's operating costs and 70.7 per cent of its revenues. The ratio probably was higher for the long distance trains and lower for the other two service lines (NEC and short corridor). Amtrak must find a way to reduce its labor costs if it is to be a viable commercial enterprise.
The opening point for this thread was Congressional funding for the long distance trains. Given the debt burden of the United States (federal, state, local, personal), the Congress is not likely to come up with a lot of money to expand long distance trains. It may not even come up with the money to sustain the current long distance trains.
Getting labor costs down would involve some major renegotiation of contract terms between management and the various labor unions. This wouldn't be easy and there's no guarantee of success since it risks setting a precedent for contract negotiations for the freight railroads with their unions.
Phoebe Vet Why does this argument always promote competition between rail and air. In a well designed integrated system they would be serving different markets. At the speed our trains currently run: Long distance trains cannot compete with the speed of air travel. In commuter and corridor service, aircraft cannot compete with the efficiency of the train. Commuter and corridor trains should serve airports, including baggage transfer, as well as city centers.
Phoebe: Let us expand on this statement.
At first let us realize that many persons in the USA do not have an understanding of making connections as in Europe. That will change slowly as people learn how to do it.
In the east most short distance tains can provide connections to many locations that are not served by air. Of course there are not many airports that can provide direct connections to Amtrak at present but that number will slowly increase. Light rail connections will be the first to provide the connections airport - Amtrak. There are LD routes that can provide travelers connections to smaller cities. That will require airport connections to Pass RRs to be implemented., Some examples are Crescent especiallly south of ATL, Silver service especially in Florida, Downeasters, Empire service, Capitol, CNL, etc.
OUT west Once California connections to various airports -- San Diego, LAX, SFO, OAK + PDX , SEA in NW USA will provided many connection points by SD trains to these airports. But as well the LD trains will provide connections to msny out of the way locations -- airports when their rail connections are complete. As well as the above airports those at airports PHX, TUS, DEN, STL ( already served by light rail ) CHI, SLC, MSP, & DFW will provide those connections.
Once Amtrak can add capacity to their trains especially LD then Amtrak marketing wil need some focusing on the potential of these connections. That will require updating of the reservation systems to show many more connections from air to ground and the ability to access the connections for updated schedules. The problem of late Amtrak ttrains will need much work.
CSSHEGEWISCH Getting labor costs down would involve some major renegotiation of contract terms between management and the various labor unions. This wouldn't be easy and there's no guarantee of success since it risks setting a precedent for contract negotiations for the freight railroads with their unions.
Your correct! But I don't perceive that Amtrak's management has the intestinal fortitude to even have a go at it.
As long as Amtrak remains a government agency, without any meaningful competition for its routes, it has little incentive to even attempt to rationalize its labor costs. But if it were a private business, and it either rationalized its labor costs or went out of business, the unions might be more receptive to making the needed adjustments.
I am not suggesting slashing wages and benefits, although some adjustment may be appropriate. Based on my observations from riding Amtrak eight to ten times a year, there is a lot of opportunity to reduce the size of the workforce and improve productivity. But as long as the long distance trains are part of the picture, getting productivity increases will be very difficult.
blue streak 1 Phoebe Vet Why does this argument always promote competition between rail and air. In a well designed integrated system they would be serving different markets. At the speed our trains currently run: Long distance trains cannot compete with the speed of air travel. In commuter and corridor service, aircraft cannot compete with the efficiency of the train. Commuter and corridor trains should serve airports, including baggage transfer, as well as city centers. Phoebe: Let us expand on this statement. At first let us realize that many persons in the USA do not have an understanding of making connections as in Europe. That will change slowly as people learn how to do it. In the east most short distance tains can provide connections to many locations that are not served by air. Of course there are not many airports that can provide direct connections to Amtrak at present but that number will slowly increase. Light rail connections will be the first to provide the connections airport - Amtrak. There are LD routes that can provide travelers connections to smaller cities. That will require airport connections to Pass RRs to be implemented., Some examples are Crescent especiallly south of ATL, Silver service especially in Florida, Downeasters, Empire service, Capitol, CNL, etc. OUT west Once California connections to various airports -- San Diego, LAX, SFO, OAK + PDX , SEA in NW USA will provided many connection points by SD trains to these airports. But as well the LD trains will provide connections to msny out of the way locations -- airports when their rail connections are complete. As well as the above airports those at airports PHX, TUS, DEN, STL ( already served by light rail ) CHI, SLC, MSP, & DFW will provide those connections. Once Amtrak can add capacity to their trains especially LD then Amtrak marketing wil need some focusing on the potential of these connections. That will require updating of the reservation systems to show many more connections from air to ground and the ability to access the connections for updated schedules. The problem of late Amtrak ttrains will need much work.
It would be nice to be able to see a whole trip with connections from a travel web site right now. Say, I want to go from ATL to Lancaster PA. I could fly to BWI, Newark or PHL with simple rail connections to Lancaster. You have to be pretty travel savvy to even be able to begin to piece these trip together.
oltmannd It would be nice to be able to see a whole trip with connections from a travel web site right now. Say, I want to go from ATL to Lancaster PA. I could fly to BWI, Newark or PHL with simple rail connections to Lancaster. You have to be pretty travel savvy to even be able to begin to piece these trip together.
D'ya think at this stage of the game that such could be role for passenger train advocates and enthusiasts, like those fine folks in Texas covered in another thread?
Also, in our enthusiasm, I think we need to be open about the pros and cons -- if a particular train is not very reliable, connection-wise or schedule wise, we don't want to get first-time train riders to miss the connection and swear off trains.
oltmannd Say, I want to go from ATL to Lancaster PA.
Don,
You might also want to consider flying from Atlanta to Dulles Airport in Virginia, changing planes and flying from Dulles to Lancaster.
Unfortunately integrated air-rail services requires rail stations at major airports or at least fast suburban services directly to the in-town rail station for easy connections. However, there are very few of these in the US: BWI is one of those very few.
schlimmUnfortunately integrated air-rail services requires rail stations at major airports or at least fast suburban services directly to the in-town rail station for easy connections.
Schlimm,
It is hard for me to understand why a person who flys out of Atlanta to get to Lancaster would want to take a train part of the way rather than simply flying to the Lancaster airport. It takes one change at Dulles.
However, if you did want to take the train part of the way you can fly to Philadelphia airport and get a SEPTA train to 30th Street, Philadelphia and then change to Amtrak Keystone Service. Or if you want to fly to Newark some Keystone trains stop at Newark Airport. Or if there is none on your schedule you can take a New Jersey Transit train to Trenton and change to Amtrack Keystone service there. And of course there is BWI with Amtrak to 30th Street and then a Keystone service train.
But if I decided to start on the plane I would just stay with the plane until we got to Lancaster.
schlimm Unfortunately integrated air-rail services requires rail stations at major airports or at least fast suburban services directly to the in-town rail station for easy connections. However, there are very few of these in the US: BWI is one of those very few.
Not a very inspiring list now and even in the future compared to Europe.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.