" If the PRIIA studies were as compelling as some readers believe, how come the recommendations have not been implemented. Is it because they are not very compelling? "
The reason mostly seems to be that there was no mechanism in PRIIA to increase the budget even if the expanded service could be operated for $1 more, but yielded twice the passenger miles with that extra $1. I described a lot of ways to get the operating loss down radically at the beginning of this thread through service expansion, but there would still be a loss, just like highways and aviation.
In my humble opinion some allowance has to be made in the reauthorization for expanding services where greater efficiency per mile can be had. The problem with buses is they can’t make intermediate stops as quickly as a train due to the access times off an interstate and the seat is smaller by quite a bit compared to rail. They have applications, but can’t do everything.
I agree it is a matter of personal choice. However, many passenger train fans get really out of shape when one points out bad things about train travel. On the other hand, those same passenger train fans have no issues doing the same about bus travel. It is pretty hypocritical if you ask me. I am not saying you can’t point out the downsides of a mode of travel, each mode has its own, just don’t get upset when someone points out the downside of your prefered choice.
BTW, “INDOT spokesman Will Wingfield said the communities will pay more than half of the monthly payment in cash or services.” When has INDOT convinced a collection of cities and counties to fund a intercity / interstate road?
Ouch. Shouldn’t bang head against wall. That could hurt.
Let’s backtrack a little:
A McInstosh made a post expressing a preference for train over bus, stating some reasons that we may or may not agree with and concluding that he/she doesn’t care for bus travel. That’s a valid choice, just like another person may greatly prefer to travel cross country by bus.
That generated a response about how train people turn their noses up at bus travel, yet don’t like airline people doing the same to train travel. Not sure how airline people got into the conversation, but it is what it is.
I entered the conversation presenting my travel preferences and the reasons why I feel that way, indicating this is a personal preference. That comment in turn generates a comment about “don’t get upset” and now we’re down to heads banging on the proverbial brick wall.
I fail to see what’s so frustrating about this thread. If we go back to looking at the overall thread, it’s about the Hoosier State and its continuance or not. For all the back and forth in this thread, the state of Indiana has spoken by making an agreement with Amtrak to continue running the train. Apparently they see benefits worth paying for… even if a bus can make the trip Indy to Chicago faster.
I look forward to seeing how the evaluation of the service plays out a year from now. Maybe the agreem
It is frustrating because I was not talking about conversations in THIS THREAD, but convesations that I have had. If you have failed to see that from my posts, maybe that is my fault for not articulating my feelings in written word, for that I am sorry. I never said that anyone IN THIS THREAD was upset about speaking bad about train travel after they themselves have spoken bad about bus travel. I said that people have jad in GENERAL, and that THAT is what I find hypocritical. YOU jumped in, and took issue with my feelings, and spoke of your issue and past travel history, which had nothing to do with the Hoosier State or its continuance.
Cities often pony up and pay an airline to operate flights to a certain town. Pittsburg paid Delta for service to Paris, South Bend paid Frontier for service to Denver just to name two off the top of my head. Grants for service at a local lever are not that uncommon.
Sure, but I know of no instance of a DOT asking a city to pay for a section of rural interstate, or any. Cities and counties pay for a majority of the local road costs but the statewide agency pays for longer distance roads. If anything it speaks to the level of local political support.
One is made of steel, wood, and rock, the other concrete…[:)]
The difference is the State of Indiana is not asking the areas to subsidize the right of way, which is all roads really are. CSX is already subsidizing the right of way for Amtrak. The state is asking the cities to subsidize the service, much like South Bend took it apon itself to pay Frontier to fly to Denver.
I have to challenge some assumptions of this statement. Roads, transit, and rails are not different systems but just one “transportation system”. Rails can mitigate those roads that for whatever reason a person who derives cannot use the rails. Even my red neck buddies down here in middle Georgia want rail so the rail riders can mitigate the road traffic slightly. The light rail in Charlotte NC is a very good example of what can happen with a “well” designed system. Phoebe can probably give us specific figures? So if Indiana does not add a lane to I-65 the funds would probably allow a HrSR or maybe a HSR rail line to be built cheaper ? The opposition of So Cal rail 20 years ago what vorxcificous but now it is supported by a large majority of the drivers there. Of course anyone connected to the auto business still hates rail ?
This is the reason there has to be a co-operative effort between the RRs and the Governments to rebuilt our rail infrastructure for HSR or at first HrSR for passenger and 70 MPH+ rail everywhere for freight trains ( thinking mainly of intermodal ). Getting even 10% of truck traffic off the roads will extend the life of the roads. Again how to best do this is a difficult question? Tax credits and property tax mitigation may be one direction. What ever the method there has to be incentives for passenger rail to operate on the freight RR lines.
"The difference is the State of Indiana is not asking the areas to subsidize the right of way, which is all roads really are. "
The government pays quite a bit for accidents not covered by road users, think of Medicaid and Social Security Disability along with direct payments to hospitals, police, and fire departments. A common carrier makes the passenger whole, I have never come out whole fiancially in an auto accident even when not at fault. Roads have an operating cost not meet by the users. Those financial costs borne by the users for accidents are about twice those of governments
All told there is a historical deficit of about $0.125 per automobile mile for an interstate type facility for capital and operations (accidents and maintenance) if there is no toll. It is made up by leverage off the local system. New build interstates like I-69 are running about $0.24 automobile mile for the capital deficit alone. If the goal was to design a train service for 200 passengers a train mile it could operate at a $20/train mile deficit and be better off than historical road expenditures.