Passenger Train costs vs Hiway Costs

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

Ok a passenger railway may cost less then a hiway acording to the TRAINS article, but is it as productive ?

I use trains because I am interested in them, comuter type trains. Taking the train means I must make a better planned trip. The train allows less flexability like stop overs to shop on the way. Also if plans don’t pan out, the train trip can become a complete waste of time and money.

If I have to work late or get off early it may be seriously compromised by train schedual or even train tickets. Trains also don’t actualy take you to where you’re going so some other means is required to “dray” oneself to where on is going.

So even if passenger trains are cheaper, is it good for the economy if people become less flexable to deal with the real world wich has beome harder to plan in ? If I have to stay flexable to stay compeditive like others, then the inflexableness of the train can be a real problem. Cost isn’t everything, productivity matters too.

2

Nowadays there’s really less need to travel than in the past… More people work from home…the internet makes that possible. People nolonger need to travel as much on business thanks to teleconferencing. and most things can be bought on line and delivered…often at a cost and time saving to the consumer. Time is valuable…too valuable to waste in traffic gridlock…waiting for buses and trains…or even flying unless there’s a compelling reason to do so.

3

There certainly are trade-offs, and which mode (or modes) of transportation one chooses depends – more or less – on three factors: personal preference, cost, and suitability and availability. Not necessarily in that order. Personal preference is just that: people bias there choices – if they any at all – depending on what they like. In my personal situation (and, before I retired, my work situation) (Connecticut, USA) I had no choices at all; it’s either drive my own car, or forget it. When I get so old I can’t drive, I’ll have to move. On the other hand, where my son works (Montreal, Canada) he has a choice of car, bicycle, bus, or metro (subway), but car is hopeless for work (almost nowhere to park – a deliberate political decision on the part of the area in which he lives) and so he either uses a bicycle or a combination of bus and metro. For outlying travel, however, he has almost no option but to use a car – although there is heavy rail service, it doesn’t go all that many places. My daughter, now, (Edinburgh, Scotland) has a choice of walk or bus for work (again, car is hopeless) and prefers to walk – but for outlying areas, she has excellent heavy rail service to almost everywhere in the country, supplemented by bus service to a few really remote areas. You will note that cost does not enter into any of the above three: they’re all about suitability and availability. My sister, however, lives in an area where in most cases she can either drive, use a bus, or use a heavy subway, and all three are about equal in cost in most cases. There her personal preference kicks in: she prefers to use the subway, then bus, then drive in that order. Unfortunately, for reasons which elude me completely, most of her fellow citizens of the area (San Francisco Bay area, USA) prefer to drive, and as a result rush hour traffic (which lasts most of the day) varies between horrendous and just plain impossible. Surveys have shown that in that area, a change in the cost of any one of the services prod

4

[tup] Good analysis and examples, complete with distinctions as to the nuances of when it works and when it doesn’t.

In Portland, Oregon and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - to name just two - the light-rail and heavy rail systems are supplemented by buses and other types of transit - the trolley in Portland, a subway and elevated in Philly, among others, etc. The networks are so extensive and frequent that the essential “critical mass” is achieved and if your destination is not on the system, it could be said that it’s likely not worth going to very often.

Keep in mind the key difference between making such a trip once in awhile, and when it’s a daily or near-daily commute. The commuter volume dwarfs us occasional riders.

When I have to go to Phila., New York, or Washington for an all-day event such as a seminar, I’ll usually take the train. The scheduling/ flexibility issue is minor, for the trade-off of being able to eat on the train, read, get some billable or chargeable time in on some work, nap, etc. The door-to-door time is often equal or better by train - I love zipping past the gridlock on I-95 at 90 MPH - and when tolls and parking are included, it often comes close to the ticket price.

In contrast, if there are several people going with me, or if multiple stops are involved, or flexibility to reach locations off the system is needed, then that favors driving a car.

It isn’t a “one size fits all” system by any means. You have to be knowledgeable, flexible, and sophisticated to make it work well for you. And even if it doesn’t work for you, for those who it does work then there are that many less cars on the road with you !

  • Paul North.
5

But it also underscores the word “service”. Commuter operations are more service oriented in that they can provide up to half hourly or better schedules on heavily used lines. Many will say that one train a day is not a service but only running trains. It seems to me that commuter roads, especially in the NY Metropolitan area, have found there are more riders the more service they provide. I have ridden all area lines on weekdays and weekends and always find full trains and platforms and come away wondering why we get crammed with misinformation that nobody rides trains. The success of NJT’s Midtown Direct service is a good example. On the non-commuter front, Amtrak’s DownEaster and CalTrans San Diego trains are great examples of services which have excelled.

6

Henry: A good example of your service example in a smaller metro area that has increased service is the Tri-Rail service Miami- West Plalm Beach. Now hourly service during off peak and 20 minute during rush hour.

7

The analysis is irrelevant! We cannot afford to sell much more of our country to OPEC. They are playing us as long as they can to own us. We have a daily trade deficit of roughly $Billion (that is daily folks). It means that each and every one of us is putting a dollar in an envelop and sending it to OPEC and one dollar to China and one dollar to some other place (Venezuela). They do send some of those dollars back, but right now China and OPEC each own about $Trillion mortgage on the U.S.

If we keep up the fantasy of running cars on foreign gas, you can tell your kids that they will be working for foreigners and living in a 2nd rate country. We cannot afford to let any analysis of autos vs trains tell us to keep the status quo.

When you travel on a train you use roughly 1/3rd the oil per passenger mile and if electric (as in NE Corridor) all of the fare money stays in the U. S. Of course your polliticians don’t want to change the status quo, but the end of the auto is near.

8

Actual application. Recently I was going to a place in NJ and spending $6.50 for parking. I realized that I could park my car for free at a particular NJT station, ride round trip for $3.50 (Sr. discount), and save 40 to 45 miles round trip in heavy traffic and approximatley 2 gallons of gas. So I netted about $8.00. Actual travel time was probably about the same from the point I boarded the train to my destination. However, I did have a quarter mile, 10 minute walk at the destination end (no problem: normally excercise with a 2 mile walk anyway which I wasn’t going to be able to do; weather was fine). Return was a little more convoluted in that I had about a 60 minute wait for my return train after my business was finished earlier by about that much time. Double benefit was that the train ride was much more relaxing than the drive and I like trains. So. Was taking the train an effective trip for me? Would the same be for you? Take away being a railfan and answer the question.

9

I think it all depends…

When I go from my home in Wisconsin to downtown Chicago, I drive to Fox Lake and take Metra’s heavy rail commuter service for the rest of the trip. I figure my gas, parking and train ticket at about $25 for the round trip. To drive all the way, my gasoline cost, at the current $2.75 per gallon, would be about $25.00. Then there would be big bucks for parking. Taking the train cuts my driving distance by over 100 miles and at my full cost to own and operate my car that’s worth about $50. Chances are that my total time away from home is longer when I take the train, but looking at the scenery while driving in the Chicago area is not an option.

On the other hand, I go to the Northwestern University Transportation Center in Evanston about a half dozen times a year. My driving distance there is almost the same as downtown Chicago, but between service schedules and conections, public transit takes way too much time. So, I always make that trip in my car.

I sometimes get the impression that people who speak out against public transit, especially rail transit, have a fear that the someday the government is going to come in and take away the keys to their car. I don’t think that will ever happen here, but sometime in the future it is likely that gasoline costs and perhaps supplies way below needs may make it exceedingly difficult to travel by car. In the interim, those who can’t or won’t use public transit ought to understand that each person riding a train to work is one less person buying gasoline for a commute to work. Forget about highway congestion, think about $4.00 gasoline being a deal.

10

But it is relavent. First are trains even fuel efficient ? My observation is that they idol alot and spend much travel time not very populated including empty return runs. At rush hour they are standing room only ((one direction)) but that is not a civilised form of transport.

Trains do use less fuel per mile theoreticaly, but the real world may have many inefficiencys. It would be easy to put 3 people per car and double the auto independabcy on oil, easier then pooling 500 people on one train with limited destinations in many regions.

I myself walk to work and avoid car or train, but times are changing wich may lead to driving as my only choice. But in the past I have used comuter trains, but flexibility wasn’t suitable and it was a long walk.

I have lived and traveled in Europe, but still most of my train travel there was railfanning as the train was never suitable for work, shopping and ultimate destination realy.

11

Most people, when calculating the cost of driving a car, make the same mistake. They figure only on the cost of gas for car operation. The cost of gas is only about 1/3 the full cost of operating a car. When you factor in depreciation, finance charges, maintenance and repair, etc. the cost goes up a lot.

Here in SoCal the AAA calculates that the true cost of operating a car is 55.6 cents per mile. Use those figures and the numbers favor taking the train just on a cost basis.

One thing to remember: the above example works best for just one person, the driver. Add one passenger and it changes to be a very close thing. Add a third passenger and the numbers favor the car. Obviously car pools are the cheapest way to go.

Jack

12

That sentence is a misleading conclusion. Side by side, an automobile and a diesel locomotive, the locomotive will burn more fuel. BUT when you compare passenger miles per gallon you get a fair comparison of the fuel usage. Also, many people compare a seemingly empty train or bus or an operation in a less populated area to a full vehicle in center city and conlculde a waste of fuel without understanding the dynamics and operations of a mass transit system. It is much more complex than what I can explain especially in the space and time available. Suffice it to say that if an empty train or a lack of ridership in a sparsely populated area were true and too costly, the train or bus would be eliminated. I always emphasize “service” as opposed to runnin a train or bus.

13

Hasn’t this subject been done to death in these forums? Has one single person changed his mind because of anything he read here?

This is nearly as mind-numbing and depressing as reading opinions about Amtrak from “railfans” here who detest Amtrak and/or commuter service.

Can anyone seriously imagine the USA being a great country in this century without expanded rail travel, no matter how it’s paid for?

14

I’m sure few minds have been changed, but opinions notwithstanding, there is information shared here. And misinformation is often debunked. That makes us all the wiser should we become involved in a local effort to start/expand rail transit (or even bus - not as economical as steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, but still better than one person per car).

We’ll ignore long-distance rail - it’s a topic unto itself.

I recall reading about Cleveland Union Terminal in Trains some time back. One item in the story was particularly germaine to this discussion. IIRC, the Van Sweringens built a light rail line out to the 'burbs, with the idea that people would a: move there because of the availability of transit, and b: ride the line. We’ve been without organized transit in most of the country for so long that those clusters of people no longer exist - everyone lives everywhere and works everywhere.

As has been discussed, there are people for whom no form of public transit will work. Their schedule, home/work endpoints, and any number of other factors simply aren’t servable by transit.

As for the economy of transit - if we take the CSX ad as a basis (numerous variables noted), then we can haul 10 people 423 miles by rail on a gallon of fuel. If we assume a 50 mile trip, we can opine that the same gallon of fuel can move some 80 people.

15

As with airplanes, the most expensive and fuel-inefficient seat is - - - the empty one ! So anyone who is riding and filling an empty seat can do so for next-to-zero added cost and additional fuel, as viewed from a holistic or “systems” perspective.

More accurately, the train is probably running and using the same amount of fuel anyway - at least in the short-term - whether you’re on it or not. In that sense, it is a “fixed” expenditure. But the fuel for your car is 100% variable - it gets used if you drive, and doesn’t if you don’t. So that’s why the train can be more fuel-efficient than your car. The rest is dependent on load factor - how many people riding for how far for each train. The fact that you’re observing some “downtime” or less-than-optimum performance at specific locations or times doesn’t mean that the rest of the operation as an average - and especially not when at peak performance - is as bad as it may seem to you right then.

  • Paul North.
16

The AAA figures can be misleading, too. True that the cost of gas and mainteance and repairs (tires, engine, other moving parts, etc.) varies pretty much with the miles driven.

But once you’ve decided to buy and own a car, the annual costs for depreciation, finance costs, insurance, registration and taxes, etc. are essentially fixed and don’t change regardless of the number of miles driven (unless you wear the car out really fast).

So the true variable or incremental cost of any given trip is somewhere between / more than just the gas (only), and less than the AAA’s figure. Exactly where between depends on the specifics of your particular car.

  • Paul North.
17

A line I used was a GO Train that ran rush hours only Milton to Toronto. Each of 5 trains made one trip in and out. After dropping off the last passengers at Milton the train would then be parked 5 miles away at the top af a grade of over 1%, this part of the daily trip was run empty ((this is like taking a crane and lifting train up 100’s of feet every day to store it )). That must have consumed alot of fuel to park 5 trains a day like this and also poor equipement utilation, one round trip per train of about 20 miles each way. And they leave the glaring lights on these trains on 24 hours a day. I’m sorry but it just doesn’t look enegy efficient and they don’t realy explain how they come up with their stats ?!

The trains were always full at the Toronto end of the journy. I walked to the station but most people drove or took a bus wich ment large parking lots and heavy auto traffic congestion every time a train arrived, the bus was as slow as walking. It also means no stores or life near the staions, just vast paved parking lots.The fact that people have to use a bus or travel by car to reach their final destination might well add up to that this consumes as much energy or more as driving to work. Car pooling is much cheaper realy.

Another nearby lakeshore route has hourly all day service but once again most stations are nowhere near anything. And the trains are big, slow and heavy 10 car double deckers , not very full much of the time exept at rush hour. So I suppose all the standys at rush hour are making the statistics look good for the rest of the day, maybe. 30 years ago the hourly trains were 4 coaches single decker trains, wich must have been more fuel efficient I’d think.

I only would support public transport if it was run more effi

18

The nature of suburban operations precludes more efficient use of equipment. Ridership is concentrated in two peak periods so approximately two-thirds of the equipment which is necessary to cover the peak periods makes only one or two round trips daily since off-peak ridership doesn’t usually require much more than hourly service. I’ve also observed that deadhead coaches have become more common on off-peak trains, a train may have 6-8 cars, but only two or three are actually in service, this may be a way of reducing switching expenses.

As far as station locations, many newer stations are located in open areas to allow for the larger parking areas that help attract ridership. This is a side effect of suburban sprawl, lots of riders live beyond walking distance of suburban stations so large parking areas are a necessity.

19

Two University of California enviormental engineers, Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, have taken the analysis a few steps further by including the ‘full life cycles of 11 modes of transportation’ along with tailpipe emissions. This required them to figure in the emissions discharged when building the infrastructure supporting the different modes, and the maintenance of the infrastructure over its lifetime.

They found that energy-intensive infrastructure operations and maintenance increase the carbon footprint of rail commuting more than they do cars and light trucks. Their work showed “that the total life-cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions contribute an additional 63% for on road, 155% for rail and 31% for air systems over vehicle tailpipe operation”.

Also, " An SUV with two passengers is equivalent to a bus with eight passengers". “Similarly, commuter rail at 34% occupancy (147 passengers) is equivalent to a bus with 13 passengers or a sedan with one (1) passenger”.

It seems to me there is no simple analysis to the topic of this discussion. Perhaps we should be much more concerned with sulfur dioxide emissions, a real pollutant, where rail fairs poorly when compared with cars, rather CO2 which is not a pollutent.

20

Parking decks will become more common at suburban stations, I expect, to make more efficient use of that high-value land. They can also offer the benefits of a much shorter walk, as well as providing cover for the cars from rain and snow for all but those on the top deck. They are now a mature science, and seem to be pretty much standard cookie-cutter pre-cast concrete construction for most sites, which reduces the costs and construction time. I anticpate that it will just be a matter of a few years until the various involved parties get their acts together and start building them in such places.

For example, new or expanded decks have been integral parts of many large-scale land development projects here in the not-very-expensive Allentown, PA area for the last 5 - 10 years - notably, except for the various shopping centers. A partial list of those I’m aware of includes the new LANTA Transit Center, the PP&L Energy building, an Aetna insurance building, the Agere (now LSI) Campus, the Good Shepherd rehab hospital, 3 decks at the Lehigh Valley Hospital’s Cedar Crest & I-78 Campus, the expanded Lehigh County Courthouse, the Lehigh County Govt. Center, etc.

  • Paul North.