South Texas Why do all long-distance trains in San Antonio operate only in the wee hours and out of a poor station in a bad neighborhood?
Why do all long-distance trains in San Antonio operate only in the wee hours and out of a poor station in a bad neighborhood?
Yes, the trains operate in the wee hours, but what reasons do you have for calling it a poor station in a bad neighborhood? The times I've visited I thought the station was adequate, it looks about as sophisticated as Miami, Orlando or Jacksonville.
I thought the neighborhood was ok, and reasonable walking distance, about 2 blocks, from the bustling downtown riverwalk. Last time I was there was Thanksgiving weekend 2008, it certainly didn't look like a seedy part of town.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
South TexasYou are recommending the complete abandonment of passenger rail service to the nation's fourth largest city. No one of any political experience would believe that Amntrak could survive as a national organization after that.
It seems to me a rational examination of the future of Amtrak's LD routes, especially but not only west of the Mississippi, would examine passenger patronage on intermediate stops. Real services for more people might well be created by breaking those services into shorter segments, since very few folks ride between the endpoints. There are also large metro areas that for various reasons are underserved (several TX cities already cited and others) or not served at all (Phoenix, Las Vegas to name two). But there is little evidence that a rational analysis is forthcoming at Amtrak.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
You are recommending the complete abandonment of passenger rail service to the nation's fourth largest city. No one of any political experience would believe that Amntrak could survive as a national organization after that. I'm too polite to say any more.
V.PayneSo again, why is it ethical to deny equivalent funding (measured off the interstate cross-subsidy) per person mile for the safer intercity rail alternative? This same mode also just happens to allow one to travel in comfort, accomodates handicapped persons better than any mode, and allows older individuals who have lost eyesight and the ability to sit still in a confined space for long periods to continue to travel to visit their families. After you get past this question and the sillyness of eliminating routes while not touching $600 million in G&A and large station costs, a rational basis for intercity rail for the rest of US is evident.
The problem with this arguement is two-fold. One is the status quo isn't coming close to doing any of this except for a very, very small number of folk who happen to be plane/car adverse an just happen to live along an Amtrak route. Everyone else is SOL. The other is the most cost effective solution to the problem might not be more trains.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
V.Payneall rail routes as a consequence would be multiple tracks with no fluidity issues,
Not so fast. Some of the worst fluidity problems in the east this year were in multiple track territory. Just ask Amtrak.
V. Payne: Sorry and call me dense, but I have trouble reading and understanding your brand of techno-jargon. You may well be making some good points, but it is lost to me in the muddy prose. As a professional and an academic, I was taught to avoid using the specialized jargon of one's field with the general public, except when addressing people in the same field
"Continuing with the snarkiness or truth memes (depending on one's P.O.V.) how about seeing just how poorly the long distance routes' incremental costs would truly be if each paid rent to the freight rails that more accurately resembled the actual costs?"
That sounds fine as a conceptual exercise, just apply the same standards to highway costing, namely private capital Weighted Average Cost of Capital equivalent discount rates to match those needed by investor owned railroads raising money on the market and paying property taxes.
Where those rates to be used in the NPV analysis (I typically defalt to AAA bond rates) to determine highway costing, practically no mid or long-distance trucking could survive in the marketplace and practically all rail routes as a consequence would be multiple tracks with no fluidity issues, yielding infrastructure rental rates around 50% more per trainmile than current, or about $7/trainmile, that would cover all costs. You have to address the costing of freight to talk about ground infrastructure costs, this paper provides a simple method to price road freight that might be politically possible as it avoids automobile taxes.
So again, why is it ethical to deny equivalent funding (measured off the interstate cross-subsidy) per person mile for the safer intercity rail alternative? This same mode also just happens to allow one to travel in comfort, accomodates handicapped persons better than any mode, and allows older individuals who have lost eyesight and the ability to sit still in a confined space for long periods to continue to travel to visit their families. After you get past this question and the sillyness of eliminating routes while not touching $600 million in G&A and large station costs, a rational basis for intercity rail for the rest of US is evident.
If you answer that this is the way the Highway Trust Fund was configured in the past and rail cannot have the same benefits, I hope you understand that this is a much greater, unconsidered through-back than the scheduling and routes mentioned. The orginal intent of the HTF was inter-regional mobility, but the mechanism employeed intentionally destroyed financially solvent land use density in cities to solve traffic congestion problems through the taxing of use of local roads paid for by general city property tax funds to spread out daily destinations.
South TexasExamples are all around us.
A couple more:
Why does the Crescent move through growing, populous, Piedmont area in the dead of night, but through rural AL and MS at prime time?
Why does Florida - the 4th largest state - have less service than it did a couple decades ago?
South TexasPlease somebody smell the coffee and send a wake-up call to Amtrak and the Congress.
It has become readily apparent that neither really care - except about the subsidy. NARP is not helpful, either.
South TexasWhy are there absolutely no passenger trains today between the two largest metropolitan areas in Texas? Because that was not where the traffic patterns stood during WWII. Why does the fourth largest city in the United States today have only tri-weekly passenger train service? Because Southwest Airlines believes that competition would hurt business.
Very true. Train services in TX (and elsewhere) for passengers are the tail wagging the dog. In this case they are the remnants of long distance (transcontinental/western) routes from the post-WWII era.
Route improvements are not rocket science. Many solutions to fit train schedules to current travel demand are self explanatory - and can easily be seen to have more benefit than cost. Resistance is the result of variations on themes of politics or lack of concern.
Examples are all around us. Why are there absolutely no passenger trains today between the two largest metropolitan areas in Texas? Because that was not where the traffic patterns stood during WWII. Why does the fourth largest city in the United States today have only tri-weekly passenger train service? Because Southwest Airlines believes that competition would hurt business.
Why do all long-distance trains in San Antonio operate only in the wee hours and out of a poor station in a bad neighborhood? Because nobody cares enough to change it. Why is there no passenger train service to the fastest growing areas of the Lone Star State, Laredo and the Lower Rio Grande Valley? Because they don't have political cloudt.
Why does passsenger train service along the U.S. Gulf Coast vary between poor and non-existant? (Let's not bother to go there.)
Please somebody smell the coffee and send a wake-up call to Amtrak and the Congress.
oltmannd V.Payne Why the need to ask would a train recover its incremental costs from direct users when the interstates did not and are increasingly not doing so at about double the rate in the past? Two wrongs make a right? (I am trying to be snarky! )
V.Payne Why the need to ask would a train recover its incremental costs from direct users when the interstates did not and are increasingly not doing so at about double the rate in the past?
Two wrongs make a right? (I am trying to be snarky! )
dmikee If Amtrak made any efforts at all to advertise and cultivate these intermediate stops as destinations, they would need to at least double the number of present trains.
If Amtrak made any efforts at all to advertise and cultivate these intermediate stops as destinations, they would need to at least double the number of present trains.
dmikee Exactly, and true of all long distance trains. If Amtrak made any efforts at all to advertise and cultivate these intermediate stops as destinations, they would need to at least double the number of present trains. Of course, that would prove that passenger trains are still needed and worth developing, anathema to today's budget and tax cutters.
Exactly, and true of all long distance trains. If Amtrak made any efforts at all to advertise and cultivate these intermediate stops as destinations, they would need to at least double the number of present trains. Of course, that would prove that passenger trains are still needed and worth developing, anathema to today's budget and tax cutters.
Proving LD trains are still needed is a highly subjective exercise - and probably not worth the effort. It depends a great deal on how you define need.
However, your point about Amtrak making an effort to improve the utility of these trains has merit, I think.
Fit the trains to the current travel demand. What people are likely riders? Where do they live? Where do they want to go? What time of day is likely to attact them. What schedule yields the best results?
Fit the service to the current state of the art. What processes and practices are the state of the art in the hospitality industry? How can these be applied to improve service qualilty and cut costs simultaneously?
We need a better Amtrak! Everything else comes second.
V.PayneWhy the need to ask would a train recover its incremental costs from direct users when the interstates did not and are increasingly not doing so at about double the rate in the past?
oltmannd LehighLad The network effect could be much improved by doubling the frequency of all long-distance trains terminating at the Chicago hub.
LehighLad The network effect could be much improved by doubling the frequency of all long-distance trains terminating at the Chicago hub.
We could make it very simple. Run one cross country train Washington to Oakland. Collector north south trains meeting the cross country train at Washington, St Louis, and Oakland.
7 Total long distance trains. Covers most big cities. If you want to keep off line cities connected, limit it to cities that can make coach daylight connection. Kind of severe, but should cut cost.
What the heck, set up some collector trains to meet the Canadian on the northern border.
"Could a second train cover it's above the rails incremental costs? Probably not."
I am not trying to be snarky, but I have let contracts (I am a licensed engineer) for one of the last Interstate routes being built, I-269. They do not pay for themselves from direct user revenue on the highway, but are instead funded by assembling a pot-of-money from taxes on the use of local roads, which are almost entirely paid for by local general funds, and now Federal general fund transfers direct to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).
This financial leveraging is the reason the Highway Trust Fund is dilligently fought for by groups like the ATA, why they spend so much to lobby, and why there is so much disinformation generated. The determination of the historical deficit by NPV analysis is discussed in this paper using FHWA historical data applied at different interest rates.
How would it not be reasonable to at least spend the same amount on inter-regional mobility on Amtrak per person mile (or say just 90%) in the same leveraged manner when rail is safer and allows for travel for individuals not up to driving long distances? In paticular expanding the route network or doubling frequencies would lead to greater revenue density per trainmile, hence better cost recovery rates as operating any train has a fixed cost of at least $20/trainmile.
Why the need to ask would a train recover its incremental costs from direct users when the interstates did not and are increasingly not doing so at about double the rate in the past?
V.PayneNRPC reports more than $600 million in corporate overhead (G&A #600)
Just what are they getting for all that G&A? I'm sure everyone is very busy, but are they actually DOING anything useful?
LehighLadThe network effect could be much improved by doubling the frequency of all long-distance trains terminating at the Chicago hub.
LehighLadAnd now I open the door for the lurking naysayers.
Good. Because I'm going to "naysay". The incremental cost has to be less than the incremental benefit. To get an idea of the incremental cost, look at what UP wanted to allow a daily Sunset. It's a lot more than just scrounging up more equipment and hiring staff. Maybe Amtrak could have negotiated them down some, but it still wasn't chump change. Doubling the freqency more than doubles the trouble of getting the train over the road and the cost of improvements to handle a second train for the routes we're talking about would likely be very high.
What of the benefits? Highway congestion reduced? not much. Smog? Not really. Avoided highway construction? No. Transportation as social justice for rural areas. Some select rural areas - not most. Would a second train improve the social justice equation? Not much. Could a second train cover it's above the rails incremental costs? Probably not.
The LD trains are a surviving vestige of the "best of the best" from the streamliner era, running on businessman's schedules, also left from that era. They provide political cover for Amtrak, but as transportation, they are irrelevant.
Re splitting and comsolidation of trains:
This works fine on the outbound (pre-split) leg but can have severe difficulties on the inbound (assembly) leg. If one of the arriving "children" is delayed then all of the siblings are delayed, waiting for it to arrive. Depending upon the severity of the delay, then comes the decision to abandon the straggler and proceed with the inbound trip, in which case the straggler's passengers are stuck until the next day. Or, see post above re the advantage of twice-daily frequency. In the olden days splitting worked fine since there were multiple trains per day, in the event one arm of the split encountered delay
Re twice daily frequencies:
The existence of significant delays to Amtrak trains has multiple effects that negatively affect the bottom line. Frequent delays prevent a large population of passengers from having a guaranteed arrival time, and if the delay causes them to suffer inconvenience, miss family events, or incur financial loss, they will very likely never be a repeat rider. Also, without the existence of a reliable arrival time, those other travelers who are well aware of the frequent Amtrak delays will never go by rail but will choose another mode for their trip. And finally, anyone thus aware who needs to make a connection in Chicago will also not ride. Even yours truly, a railfan of over 60 years standing, will absolutely never book a long-distance rail trip that involves a connection in Chicago, since a connection missed by an hour means a 23-hour wait for the next departure.
The network effect could be much improved by doubling the frequency of all long-distance trains terminating at the Chicago hub. Then a missed connection would entail no more than an 11-hour wait - - unpleasant, but more tolerable than a full day and night. This arrangement would of course double the operational costs but might triple the revenue, by gaining many trips now not taken, via individuals such as myself. And yes, I do know that Amtrak has a problem with insufficient rolling stock. But right now the single frequency per day (even fewer in some cases such as The Cardinal) just discourages any kind of useful network effect in Chicago that would generate more riders and reduce losses of the long-distance trains as a group.
And now I open the door for the lurking naysayers.
A McIntosh This reminds me of the Union Pacific's City of everywhere.
This reminds me of the Union Pacific's City of everywhere.
+1
Doing this defeats one of the main arguments for keeping the LD trains - providing service to rural places. If you do this, you start begging the question of why have the western LD trains at all.
V.Payne Sigh, this is an artifact of running less than daily. Numerically think about it, if there is a away trip but not a return trip that matches your plans you have the possibility of cutting out about six-sevenths of possible volume if daily, while still operating three-sevenths of trips if daily (each train is half of potential). This is why increasing the frequencies to daily, or better yet twice daily, has such a positive return, why the less than daily trains do so poorly, and why daily operation was targeted in the improvement reports.
Sigh, this is an artifact of running less than daily. Numerically think about it, if there is a away trip but not a return trip that matches your plans you have the possibility of cutting out about six-sevenths of possible volume if daily, while still operating three-sevenths of trips if daily (each train is half of potential). This is why increasing the frequencies to daily, or better yet twice daily, has such a positive return, why the less than daily trains do so poorly, and why daily operation was targeted in the improvement reports.
Yes, if you can't do daily, forget it.
A trip I took this fall turned on availability of the least train I rode, the Sunset. It was stupid. I had to start with a reservation on the Sunset, then work backwards and forwards.
I secured all my reservations six months ahead of time or it wouldn't have worked. People who have to plan on shorter notice, or are committed to certain dates, will look elsewhere.
Sigh, this is an artifact of running less than daily. Numerically think about it, if there is a away trip but not a return trip that matches your plans there is the possibility of cutting out about six-sevenths of possible volume if daily, while still operating three-sevenths of trips if daily (each train is half of potential). This is why increasing the frequencies to daily, or better yet twice daily, has such a positive return, why the less than daily trains do so poorly, and why daily operation was targeted in the PRIIA improvement reports.
This is also why the consolidation plan is a poor alternative to just running trains with longer consists at least daily.
NRPC reports more than $600 million in corporate overhead (G&A #600), just think about how silly it is to talk of efficiencies to be gained by further operating route consolidations throughout the nation...
dakotafred Wow, those numbers are bad -- low -- especially since we're talking Arizona and Texas. Even for three days a week each way. Houston, 4th largest city in the U.S., is ridiculous.
Sam1 Mariacopa had 10,804 passengers in 2011 vs. 12,995 in 2013; Tuscon had 23,896 in 2011 vs. 25,921 in 2013; Yuma had 4,011 in 2011 vs. 3,891 in 2013; Beaumont had 2,401 in 2011 vs. 3,458 in 2013; El Paso had 11,470 in 2011 vs. 13,393 in 2013; Houston had 19,637 in 2011 vs. 21,167 in 2013; and Alpine had 4,322 in 2011 vs. 4,921 in 2013. Except for Yuma, every station showed an increase in passenger activity.
Wow, those numbers are bad -- low -- especially since we're talking Arizona and Texas. Even for three days a week each way. Houston, 4th largest city in the U.S., is ridiculous.
Yes, wee hours are wee hours. It can take a determined, or desperate, traveler to start or end his trip about three in the morning.
Johnny
Deggesty Sam, the Fall-Winter 2011-12 public TT is the last one with the 8:30 am arrival and 3:30 pm departure at Los Angeles. The May 7, 2012, TT has the early, early arrival and late departure.
Sam, the Fall-Winter 2011-12 public TT is the last one with the 8:30 am arrival and 3:30 pm departure at Los Angeles. The May 7, 2012, TT has the early, early arrival and late departure.
Time flys when you are having fun. I would have sworn that the changes to the Sunset's timetable were made last year.
I did find passenger activities for 2011 and 2013 at several intermediate stations served by the Sunset Limited. They include boarding and detraining numbers. It appears that they are before and after the schedule changes.
Mariacopa had 10,804 passengers in 2011 vs. 12,995 in 2013; Tuscon had 23,896 in 2011 vs. 25,921 in 2013; Yuma had 4,011 in 2011 vs. 3,891 in 2013; Beaumont had 2,401 in 2011 vs. 3,458 in 2013; El Paso had 11,470 in 2011 vs. 13,393 in 2013; Houston had 19,637 in 2011 vs. 21,167 in 2013; and Alpine had 4,322 in 2011 vs. 4,921 in 2013. Except for Yuma, every station showed an increase in passenger activity.
Ignoring the problem of isolating the cause and effect variables, i.e. change in passenger activity due to improving economic conditions, it appears that the change in the Sunset's schedule had a positive impact on passenger activity at the intermediate stations along the Sunset's route as shown.
I only included those stations that are served exclusively by the Sunset Limited, and I did not include the ones that were served in the wee hours and are still served in the wee hours.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.