With all of the recent discussions on this forum about the future of Amtrak and HSR, I am reminded that it is possible to have a successful passenger train service that doesn’t need billions in start-up costs and can be reasonably sustainable over the long-term. I’m thinking of the Lynchburg, VA regional service. The train is an extension of an existing Boston to Washington NEC service. From the beginning the train has been very well patronized and has not needed the projected state funds that were anticipated when the project was planned. We have ridden this train round trip from Lynchburg to Rte 128/Boston and we were pleased with the trip. The equipment is ordinary Amfleet I coaches and a snack car. From what I learned recently, the train-set would be stored overnight in DC if it didn’t come to Lynchburg. The route infrastructure was already in place since the Crescent uses the same tracks.
So, I guess my point is that good passenger service can be done without spending billions and waiting years. I’m glad they didn’t propose HSR to Lynchburg - we wouldn’t have this train that makes sense for the taxpayers and the traveling public. Are there other places around the country where the same type of service could be developed?
I hear that the Lynchburg service has been quite a success in its first year or two of operation. However, for some reason, there are those that don’t think the train can continue to be subsidized, despite it’s low(er) cost of operation than some services. I hope that this train can become a model for newer services and that it is not cut, as speculated by some.
I think that in some places where there is only one train each day, additional frequencies should be added in order to drive ridership. Some routes that already have long-distance service should add some shorter-running trains such as Chicago-Twin Cities and Chicago-Indianapolis (I know that the Hoosier State is there, but it is combined with the cardinal). As a student attending Purdue in West Lafayette, IN, I hear that Chi-Ind is a city pair that could use more options for people to get from one to the other and back.
I agree that a much better investment for Amtrak would be to add trains to their existing routes. One train a day is not useful transportation. But Politicians don’t think that way. If you give them enough money for 20 new trains they will add one train a day on 20 new routes.
When I first saw this thread, I said, “Oh, no, not another one.” I had pretty much given up on the Amtrak and passenger discussions, since they all seemed to wind up going in the same circles, but after reading it and remembering Phoebe Vet’s description in the " Fred W. Frailey:…" thread next door about the NC services and plans, I decided that these are two states who are doing it right. Instead of spending a fortune on glamorous-sounding HSR, you provide basic service where needed and upgrade as needed, using existing facilities and equipment as much as possible. This philosophy does not provide the opportunity for high-profile ribbon-cutting ceremonies or photo-ops, but it is the path to follow for the most efficient use of funds.
Spend the money on NEC extensions. Harrisburg upgrade, success. Lynchburg train, success. New Norfolk train coming. Hopefully, Richmond to Raleigh someday. Improve service from the NEC to NY, Conn, Mass, heck, even VT. The key is to leverage what you already have that works.
Don’t ignore them. I didn’t mean to imply that VA and NC were the only ones doing it right. I am just an outsider who believes in public transportation, and on reading the posts about these states, the good sense approach stood out. The Chicago area has the population density and history of doing a good job on commuter and transit, and as far as I can tell, are following similar policies.
It just so happened that I had recently read about these two cases, and they matched what I thought was the sensible approach. It’s impossible to justify the cost of HSR comparing it to other modes of transportation, but this approach gives you a relatively decent return for your buck, and can be upgraded incrementally as needed. Sometimes I think the proposal for HSR has actually hindered progress in providing better rail service because it’s high cost has stirred up opposition to anything rail-related.
Chicago is another good place to do extensions/expansions, but I suspect most candidates there wouldn’t “grade out” as well and NEC extensions on a cost/benefit basis.
I would suspect, that if you kept after it long enough, the NEC and Chicago networks would start to overlap.
What are the criteria used to “grade out?” The West Coast is also doing a pretty good job of developing.
Overlapping would be a long time off because of Ohio’s withdrawal. The state-sponsored routes seem to be the primary ones that are successful. Other states besides Illinois, CA, WA, OR, NC and the Northeast don’t seem to be doing much.
The usual criteria used for rail projects. Includes “soft” benefits like highway congestion mitigation and air quality.
Yes. It will be a long time. You can’t grow a network by plopping down isolated lines.
The west coast has two networks and one line. The networks are in the south and the Bay area. The line is Eugene to Vancouver BC. I’m not sure there is much room for expansion of either network except for improvements on existing routes. All the “dots” have been pretty much connected, although Las Vegas and Phoenix might work. Eugene to Vancouver BC just needs more frequency and speed.
It is apparent that taking on big annual operating subsidies, no matter how good the cost/benefit ratio, is not politically palatable. It’s not so hard to come up with the capital, though. That’s what doomed Wisc and Ohio.
I think it’s a reality that has to figure into what should get pushed and what shouldn’t
Also notice that these successful services and corridors are where there are few freight trains or where Amtrak has more control of the track than where they lease the space/time.
It sure would be great if there was a second train a day on the Capitol Limited. A morning departure from DC so Pittsburgh and Cleveland weren’t middle of the night arrivals.
The second train between Pittsburgh and DC is the Pennsylvanian with a Phila connection. The second train from Cleveland is the Lake Shore with a NYP connection.
Those don’t help at all, to the extent that I wouldn’t even consider them an option. They are neither time nor cost competitive with other modes of travel.
The Northeast Regional departs at 9:25 AM and you don’t get to Pittsburgh until 8:05 PM. Eleven hours instead of seven and a half and you still arrive at night It also costs twice as much ($94 vs $45 for my next trip’s date). And if you head to Cleveland, you take a 15 hour trip (instead of 11) and arrive at 3:27 AM (exactly 30 minutes later than the Capitol Limited). And you spent three times the money ($79 vs $240). Return trips get even worse when you head back to DC from Cleveland and have an almost 17 hour trip that gets you back into DC at 11:30 PM. Those aren’t alternatives. They’re actually worse in every way.
The PIttsburgh-DC segment is competitive with driving in time and cost and is absolutely cost competitive with the airlines. I haven’t worked it out but I’d be willing to guess that door to door travel times from Dulles and BWI are competitive with the Capitol Limited. But not Reagan, because its downtown and on a metro line, which really helps. Although it does add frustration when the cheapest flight is IAD-DTW-PIT and you fly over Pittsburgh International (literally) on your way to your co
Rather then a second Capitol Limited (CHI-DC) , what might make sense is looking at a corridor or two with a minimum of 4 trains per day: PITT- DC and CLE-PITT. The CHI- PITT portion is not competitive with air.
In FY10 the Washington to Lynchburg service was the only Amtrak service outside of the NEC that covered its operating costs. The Acela, which is a premier service designed to serve the business community, was the only other Amtrak service to cover its operating costs. If the Acela’s wore their share of the NEC depreciation, they probably would be deep in red ink.
Whether the Lynchburg service operating margin ($2.1 million) was sufficient to cover any interest, depreciation, and other unallocated charges attributable to it is unknown. The average load factor on the Lynchburg service was 51.4 per cent.
The Keystone service, which had an average load factor of 38.9 per cent in FY10, lost $29.6 million before interest, depreciation, and other unallocated charges. The Capitols, with an average load factor of 27.7 per cent, lost $16.1 million before the aforementioned charges.
My entire working life was spent in businesses that had to cover all of their costs or go out of business. It is hard for me to understand how one can claim a money losing service, including those that have an operating profit but don’t cover their capital costs, as a success.
It’s interesting that someone made the comment on another thread with respect to the NEC or perhaps passenger trains likening them “to a public utility.” My gas and electric service are what I guess are called a public utility. Even though these entities (remain) regulated, and even though some utilities are government owned in some way (TVA), they pretty much cover all of their costs through the bill I pay for service every month.
On the other hand, the street in front of my house is something that I pay for through, I guess, mainly property tax. If I don’t pay the light bill, the power company has the authority to disconnect my service but I get to stay and shiver inside the house. If I don’t pay the property tax bill, eventually I will get tossed out of the house. And then when I turn a key in my driveway, I start paying the gas tax, which goes to support other roads, such as the Interstate Highways along with some transit systems.
So I guess I am resigned to transportation subsidy and cross-subsidy. But I haven’t given up entirely on the question of high cost of passenger trains.
That Acela train that covers its direct costs, what are the fares, about 50 cents/mile or so? I have asked before, what is so expensive about passenger train? Yes, the tracks are expensive to build, but once you have the tracks in place, why are the costs of a train so much higher than a bus – what I call the bus-on-steel-wheels argument? What is so much more expensive about owning, maintaining, and operating a thing with steel wheels and flanges compared to that other thing wit
Because they can possibly provide benefits outside of the cash flow that provide for an overall benefit/cost ratio >1.
Air quality, health, traffic congestion alleviation, CO2 reduction, reduction in dependence on imported oil, avoided public capital expenditure on highways (over and above that supported by increase fuel tax receipts), airports, et. al.
Would you call the NY City subway system a failure? It is a collection of failed private enterprises.
Oltmann: Nicely put. It is a difference in primary goals, which seem to get confounded. The goal of a business is to make a profit on capital by making something or providing a service. The goal of government endeavors like passenger rail is to provide a service, with additional indirect benefits you listed above.
I would think they are the same goals. It’s just where you draw the lines on your “control volume.” When I run my lawnmower, I burn a gallon a gas and my incremental amount of pollution means someone has an extra asthma attack. I don’t have to pay for his ER visit… if I draw my control volume around my house and yard, the consequences of my actions don’t cost