Amtrak may have competition...

[opus722]

I once read an interesting study comparing the total costs per passenger mile of Amtrak vs. highway that examined more than just the direct government subsidies each receive. Just a few examples included lost tax revenue from real estate that was converted to rail right of way or highway, pollution each produces, consumption of resources, CO2 contribution to climate change, and so on. Up front it appears that roads are far more cost effective,something like 25 cents versus 1 cent per passenger mile, than rail, but digging deeper with these factors revealed that rail comes out with just a slight, maybe 1 cent advantage, that will increase as oil prices increase and the environment degrades. More drastic though was the conclusion that rail users paid roughly half of their share of the total costs with drivers paying less than 5%. In Europe rail's advantages were greater due to the higher costs of petroleum on average when compared to the US.

Such a study presents a few issues though, chiefly that rail use and automobile don't exist entirely separate from one another. One must drive to and from the train station in the absence of light rail or other public transit for starters. Also it doesn't examine the costs of various forms of electricity generation for Amtrak's electrified lines. Coal generated power, for example, is going to have a larger carbon footprint than nuclear or some alternative energy. The basic conclusion however, remains sound.

Building on that I say that the entire US transportation system needs to be rethought. Rail is just one piece to a much larger puzzle. The American Society of Civil Engineers suggested that the US would need to spend something to the tune of $2.2 Trillion USD over five years, and this was back in 2009 so this figure is probably larger now, on infrastructure to bring it up to an acceptable level. The small amounts provided for by legislation to date, like the ARRA, are essentially wasted. It's like trying to clean up a tanker spill with a Shamwow. It's going to take a cooperation between federal, state, and private investors over the long term. Far less possible though would be the significant shift in thinking the United States would have to undergo to fix the situation. As long as the current political climate remains in place though it will continue to be just tossing a few bucks here and there to worthless projects to placate lobbyists and the occasional constituent. I suppose the only hope is that the changing demographics of this country will result in a changing mindset towards our future.

 

[amtrak2041864]

I once read an interesting study comparing the total costs per passenger mile of Amtrak vs. highway that examined more than just the direct government subsidies each receive. Just a few examples included lost tax revenue from real estate that was converted to rail right of way or highway, pollution each produces, consumption of resources, CO2 contribution to climate change, and so on. Up front it appears that roads are far more cost effective,something like 25 cents versus 1 cent per passenger mile, than rail, but digging deeper with these factors revealed that rail comes out with just a slight, maybe 1 cent advantage, that will increase as oil prices increase and the environment degrades. More drastic though was the conclusion that rail users paid roughly half of their share of the total costs with drivers paying less than 5%. In Europe rail's advantages were greater due to the higher costs of petroleum on average when compared to the US.

Such a study presents a few issues though, chiefly that rail use and automobile don't exist entirely separate from one another. One must drive to and from the train station in the absence of light rail or other public transit for starters. Also it doesn't examine the costs of various forms of electricity generation for Amtrak's electrified lines. Coal generated power, for example, is going to have a larger carbon footprint than nuclear or some alternative energy. The basic conclusion however, remains sound.

Building on that I say that the entire US transportation system needs to be rethought. Rail is just one piece to a much larger puzzle. The American Society of Civil Engineers suggested that the US would need to spend something to the tune of $2.2 Trillion USD over five years, and this was back in 2009 so this figure is probably larger now, on infrastructure to bring it up to an acceptable level. The small amounts provided for by legislation to date, like the ARRA, are essentially wasted. It's like trying to clean up a tanker spill with a Shamwow. It's going to take a cooperation between federal, state, and private investors over the long term. Far less possible though would be the significant shift in thinking the United States would have to undergo to fix the situation. As long as the current political climate remains in place though it will continue to be just tossing a few bucks here and there to worthless projects to placate lobbyists and the occasional constituent. I suppose the only hope is that the changing demographics of this country will result in a changing mindset towards our future.

Words well said, I was trying to say that but the word didn't come out properly.

 

[RRSignal]

Well, here's the problem - money-losing mass-transit is funded on the back of largely self-sustaining roads. Drivers pay a gas tax that funds road infrastructure just as aviation funds its own infrastructure. Can rail do that? Ok, then ticket-buyers need to start paying the real cost of their travel e.g. $164 each way from NY to DC.

 

[H222]

It's not us being negative, it's more like you're being ignorant. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but the US (and the world) has plenty of problems. If it works, (even just barely,) pollies are going to pronounce it working at full capacity and you're still screwed anyway

Jamie

 

[SantaFebuff]

You know...

Amtrak is government owned...

Cheers,
Joshua

 

[amtrak2041864]

It's not us being negative, it's more like you're being ignorant. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but the US (and the world) has plenty of problems. If it works, (even just barely,) pollies are going to pronounce it working at full capacity and you're still screwed anyway

Jamie

I am not ignorant, I was just looking out for our future in this country and how we move and communicate within our country. Call me what ever you feel, I still wont change my view. A balanced transport system must me created to
Meet the demand of the future. Not just building more roads and expanding Airports is not the key.

 

[rbar_164]

I respect you for sticking with your views no matter what people think... you should run for government, you would be the first politician to stick to his word :hehe:

 

[RooRocz]

Seems to me if it was truly vital to that intermodal station, the freight railroads would want to pay to fix it.

Well that's intermodal as in intermodal transit. (Norristown Transportation Center is the terminal for the Norristown High Speed Line and the SEPTA Regional Rail Norristown Line, plus 10 or 12 bus lines.)

And the state of Pennsylvania hasn't any superfluous programs they could cut to get some money to fix it or tear it down?

Ultimately Tom Corbett considers SEPTA a superfluous program, I think...

So how about we start calling it a "Fix our crumbling infrastructure" program and focus it entirely on doing just that?

This. This is what I'd like to see the government focus on. The only real way to do it is to raise the gas tax and index it to inflation (or to gas prices), or to find some new dedicated revenue stream for transportation improvements. (a road mileage tax, for instance).

The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993. It's 18.4 cents, and 18.4 cents just doesn't buy what it used to, especially when we consider that vehicles are getting more fuel efficient and using less gas than ever before. Plus, with increasing rail ridership and alternative transportation modes (cycling to work, for instance), fuel consumption is only going to go down. The transportation revenue stream is going to continually get smaller and smaller and unless we raise the gas tax or find some alternative source of revenue, there will be no money to fix anything and our infrastructure will continue to decay.

Now, I'd throw "adequate regional passenger rail service" in there with "fixing" our rail infrastructure, because there's no reason why a city the size of, say, Milwaukee shouldn't have at least four or five commuter rail lines radiating from its downtown. Most of America is without any kind of reasonable rail service (Who the hell is going to get on the City of New Orleans at 3:00 in the morning at the unstaffed station in Fulton, KY?), and with that comes a reluctance to invest in rail. Some more useful commuter lines in regional cities (Richmond, Birmingham, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, etc.) might change that a bit

Ideally we'd see, rather than true high-speed from scratch, more projects along the lines of Denver's Fastracks project, which will open 119 miles of commuter rail on existing rights-of-way in highways and along freight rail lines. More 110-120 mph service along high density lines (like the Hiawatha Corridor between Chicago and Milwaukee which is already straight as an arrow and really only needs some extra heavy rail tracks) for intercity service would probably be the next step. A lot of people don't really see the benefit of frequent rail service just because they don't use the train, mostly because the train is far away and you have to drive to get to it.

Only then could we start thinking about crazy things like 220mph Chicago-Cleveland-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-New York or whatever alignment you want. (experience the beautiful Horseshoe Curve bypass? :\)

 

[opus722]

Well, here's the problem - money-losing mass-transit is funded on the back of largely self-sustaining roads. Drivers pay a gas tax that funds road infrastructure just as aviation funds its own infrastructure. Can rail do that? Ok, then ticket-buyers need to start paying the real cost of their travel e.g. $164 each way from NY to DC.

I'm sure that people would start buying that $164 ticket if all subsidies to the oil industry and highways were also removed and gasoline was sold at it's true price at over 6 bucks a gallon. For the average US driver that would mean the 230 mile drive between the two cities would, at the very least, cost around $90. That's estimated at highway costs and not including wasted fuel from idling in DC traffic for 2 hours. Throw on another $25 in tolls between the two cities. Remove the 18 dollars in highway subsidies that were unpaid by fuel taxes. That places the cheapest driving trip between DC and NYC at around $133. So its still cheaper than Amtrak, but given all the headaches that such a drive Amtrak becomes competitive with driving. Amtrak already beats airlines over the same route so there is no real need to analyze that. The problem with Mica's making Amtrak competitive is that he's never going to force other methods of transportation to also compete. It's basically what helped to kill US passenger rail in the first place. Please note that I am not arguing for all transportation subsidies to be removed. I'm only highlighting the foolishness in such an argument. Mica can continue these shenanigans because he, like a lot of these kooky politicians, hails from a gerrymandered district that prevents a serious challenger from ever arising.

 

[JCitron]

I'm sure that people would start buying that $164 ticket if all subsidies to the oil industry and highways were also removed and gasoline was sold at it's true price at over 6 bucks a gallon. For the average US driver that would mean the 230 mile drive between the two cities would, at the very least, cost around $90. That's estimated at highway costs and not including wasted fuel from idling in DC traffic for 2 hours. Throw on another $25 in tolls between the two cities. Remove the 18 dollars in highway subsidies that were unpaid by fuel taxes. That places the cheapest driving trip between DC and NYC at around $133. So its still cheaper than Amtrak, but given all the headaches that such a drive Amtrak becomes competitive with driving. Amtrak already beats airlines over the same route so there is no real need to analyze that. The problem with Mica's making Amtrak competitive is that he's never going to force other methods of transportation to also compete. It's basically what helped to kill US passenger rail in the first place. Please note that I am not arguing for all transportation subsidies to be removed. I'm only highlighting the foolishness in such an argument. Mica can continue these shenanigans because he, like a lot of these kooky politicians, hails from a gerrymandered district that prevents a serious challenger from ever arising.

You've summed this up nicely.

So does this video here dating back to the 1950s as narrated by Alfred Pearlman.

http://youtu.be/mf9qOeoLWxo

John

 

[RRSignal]

I'm sure that people would start buying that $164 ticket if all subsidies to the oil industry and highways were also removed and gasoline was sold at it's true price at over 6 bucks a gallon. For the average US driver that would mean the 230 mile drive between the two cities would, at the very least, cost around $90. That's estimated at highway costs and not including wasted fuel from idling in DC traffic for 2 hours. Throw on another $25 in tolls between the two cities. Remove the 18 dollars in highway subsidies that were unpaid by fuel taxes. That places the cheapest driving trip between DC and NYC at around $133. So its still cheaper than Amtrak, but given all the headaches that such a drive Amtrak becomes competitive with driving. Amtrak already beats airlines over the same route so there is no real need to analyze that. The problem with Mica's making Amtrak competitive is that he's never going to force other methods of transportation to also compete. It's basically what helped to kill US passenger rail in the first place. Please note that I am not arguing for all transportation subsidies to be removed. I'm only highlighting the foolishness in such an argument. Mica can continue these shenanigans because he, like a lot of these kooky politicians, hails from a gerrymandered district that prevents a serious challenger from ever arising.

The train is still not competitive unless one is travelling somewhere within walking distance of Union station.

Also, end those subsidies and odds are nobody will have jobs to take those pretty, overpriced trains to.

 

[amtrak2041864]

The train is still not competitive unless one is travelling somewhere within walking distance of Union station.

Also, end those subsidies and odds are nobody will have jobs to take those pretty, overpriced trains to.

Then you rent a car, people do it when they travel by plane anyway and when you take a long distance trip you rent a car or if you were traveling to New York the subway. Even if the Metro in DC is a pretty well developed system

 

[RRSignal]

Then you rent a car, people do it when they travel by plane anyway and when you take a long distance trip you rent a car or if you were traveling to New York the subway. Even if the Metro in DC is a pretty well developed system

Renting a car costs money. And it would cost even more so with higher gas prices. All told, driving would still be much cheaper in opus' example.

 

[amtrak2041864]

Renting a car costs money. And it would cost even more so with higher gas prices. All told, driving would still be much cheaper in opus' example.

Most cities along the East Coast have a subway system. If you taking the train and your on Business and you won't care how much a rental car cost, because your on business. I understand your viewpoint, cars invoke freedom. And allows you to travel within the city but cities if you haven noticed are creating great transit systems. For example NJT they have ridership of 300,000 a day commuter rail. Boston has a great subway system so does Washington.

 

[RRSignal]

Most cities along the East Coast have a subway system. If you taking the train and your on Business and you won't care how much a rental car cost, because your on business. I understand your viewpoint, cars invoke freedom. And allows you to travel within the city but cities if you haven noticed are creating great transit systems. For example NJT they have ridership of 300,000 a day commuter rail. Boston has a great subway system so does Washington.

Most cities DO NOT have a subway system. Boston, NYC, Philly and DC do. Baltimore has some light rail. The rest along the corridor do not, and that's not mentioning the rest of the country. That the infrastructure is already in place in those 5 cities is a major reason (if not the primary) reason rail travel works in this region and, due to the density, could break even or be profitable in terms of operating costs. The rest of the country lacks the infrastructure and demographics.

 

[amtrak2041864]

Most cities DO NOT have a subway system. Boston, NYC, Philly and DC do. Baltimore has some light rail. The rest along the corridor do not, and that's not mentioning the rest of the country. That the infrastructure is already in place in those 5 cities is a major reason (if not the primary) reason rail travel works in this region and, due to the density, could break even or be profitable in terms of operating costs. The rest of the country lacks the infrastructure and demographics.

But most of the time that is where the riders are heading, the major cities.

 

[opus722]

The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993. It's 18.4 cents, and 18.4 cents just doesn't buy what it used to, especially when we consider that vehicles are getting more fuel efficient and using less gas than ever before. Plus, with increasing rail ridership and alternative transportation modes (cycling to work, for instance), fuel consumption is only going to go down. The transportation revenue stream is going to continually get smaller and smaller and unless we raise the gas tax or find some alternative source of revenue, there will be no money to fix anything and our infrastructure will continue to decay.

This is an excellent point to consider. Consider that a gallon of gas averaged around a dollar in 1993 and compare that to the $3.60 that it averages now. Inflation has weakened that percentage even more.

Also I think some people missed the point of my previous post. I was only highlighting that subsidies are not this big government evil that Mica and his ilk want to portray them as. They are an important part of the national, and international economy for that matter, that pay themselves back in other areas than making back their ticket or toll price. Rail offers a more carbon neutral and fuel efficient method of transit to compensate its meager subsidy while roads are essentially the lifeblood of the modern economy. I was not advocating cutting road subsidies to fund a nationwide transit network. It would be an absolutely idiotic move to abolish subsidies to either just because they "are unprofitable". Removing these vital transportation subsidies would turn the US into something like the antebellum South. A single rail connection between major cities that can't exceed 35 MPH and dirt roads for everyone else.

 

[H222]

But most of the time that is where the riders are heading, the major cities.

Dude. We've heard your viewpoint and it hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is how silly you're starting to look

 

[amtrak2041864]

Dude. We've heard your viewpoint and it hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is how silly you're starting to look

Ok, I will stop. That was good we should do it again sometime.

 

[HSSRAIL]

Curious as always. The first and most important obligation of the Federal Government of the USA is to provide for the national defense. Providing rail transportation is not even in the program. If the Federal Government and Amtrak are so efficient and valuable to this nation then they should have no problem defending their worth against any bid free enterprise could muster. What are you afraid of, Comrade?

I find this interesting. It comes down to whether a free market ever operated in transportation. Prior to Amtrak private operators ran the passenger services usually at a loss. The big problem in sorting all this out is that sometimes private operators chose to operate this service at a loss and designed it that way. This comes back to life before staggers and the business model of operating as a monopoly. Under that premise was designed the concept of cross subsidization. The best way to understand this is that to stimulate traffic in say manufactured products you might charge a lower rate on raw materials. The difference being made up on the transportation of finished goods. This model does not work in a competitive environment however; When railroads were first being built there was a need to get people into their service area. Offering cheap passenger train service enticed people to live near a railroad and stay there creating traffic opportunities for the railroad.

It is never a good idea to try set up a non-business as part of your business and the fact that the railroads did this complicates sorting out the passenger train network in the United States. For example the Long Island Railroad charged cut rate commuter rail fares to entice people out to Long Island but remained profitable because they hauled in the coal to heat all those homes in the suburban communities they helped create. Investers in the Long Island also made money on real estate speculation as land values rose along the rail lines knowing in advance where the rail lines were going to be was very profitable indeed.

Trying to evaluate rail passenger operations get complicated because a lot of people while able to comprehend value added to the presence of airports, or highways don't make the connection that the presence of a good rail passenger infrastructure raises property values along such a corridor and creates economic growth in the region by its presence. This is not to say that government takeover of rail passenger services was the correct answer, it occured because certain influencial people and communities stood to lose substantial economic value if the services were discontinued and fought to preserve them. Given the fact that Government, including the Federal, State and local governments support competing forms of transportation with operating subsidies it was difficult to make an arguement that passenger rail should receive subsidies as well.

Some assumption busters:
Historically, American Passenger rail operations ran at a loss. The amount of money being invested in air and highway infrastructure has not been adequate to maintain the existing system let alone expand it. As competing modes become more inefficient the amount of money a customer might be willing to spend on passenger rail, and the volumes may both increase. Just because always has been does not mean always will be especially if the environment in which a service is being provided changes.

The independent private railroads created a fragmented frankenstein network that lacks interconnectivity. The reason this occurred was to discourage patrons from using competing lines. In Chicago for example it is impossible to travel from Waukegan to say University Park there are no common stations between the Metra Electric District and the UP North Line. An interconnected system would be able to tap into more trips and the fact that the passenger rail network is so fragmented definitely reduces volumes. Also a lot of the thinking in how the service is provided is seriously flawed. Operators of passenger rail systems have historically and still view their networks as a method of getting people to and from their jobs. Well that function has never been able to provide a sufficient market demand to sustain these systems on a profitable basis. Does this mean that that the railroad can replace most automobile trips? I think not and here is where I begin to diverge from the assumptions. Just because your product (passenger rail) can't replace all trips doesn't mean it couldn't perform more trips than it currently is. An example of this thinking would be to say one large source of volumes is transporting people from home to their jobs another would be transporting people from their homes to the airport. One way to do this would be to create offsite parking ramps around a metro area with express passenger train service to the airport another volume move to tap into. You can do two things, cheaper parking than onsite at the airport and create a TSA screening point at the rail station. If the train is sealed and the doors and windows are not opened in transit and the train doesn't stop except at secured areas you could clear people thru security before getting to the airport combined with cheap parking such a service would generate solid volumes especially where airport security backlogs are most serious and highway congestion to the airport is particularly problematic. This is only a short example of thinking of alternate uses for rail besides taking people from their home to their jobs.

Costs have to come down:
I don't believe that government sponsored services have pursued cost control as effectively as possible. A couple of things can be done here one is to have a world conference and agree on world standards for rail cars used in passenger service and only build a limited number of variants this would greatly lower the unit cost of buying passenger cars. This is but one example.

Unfortunately, we are stuck in a situation where certain urban areas are dependent on this form of transportation and can not now function without it. Do you actually believe that New York City could operate without its subway system? New York is to densely packed to move everybody through the city by private automobile it would be like trying to pour a bucket of water into a glass.

The United States is in a mess in transportation. Integrated efficient systems have not been properly planned and built and co-ordination between modes to make the most effective use of the infrastructure we have just hasn't been happening. There are no easy answers to this problem.

Howard