All forms of transportation are subsidized - why pick on Amtrak? Highways and airports don’t pay their own way either (Can you imagine what we are paying just for the thousands of nonproductive TSA personnel?) .
There is a new reality creeping up on us and its called Peak Oil. As this really kicks in over the next 5 years its going to change how we live. I would suggest that as the most energy efficient form of travel and the one most suitable to being powered by renewable energy sources, rail is well worth holding on to.
America is huge and diverse - there is room for high speed corridors and LD trains. There are a few areas suitable for true high speed with separate ROW, but far more territory where existing service can be incrementally improved. This is happening now on the PNW routes from Eugene to Portland and Seattle, ridership and frequency are both up.
I like the idea of adding a luxury land cruise class to the LD trains, that could help subsidize the coach class which does have an important role in all the smaller towns en route. We could also innovate to make train travel more convenient. For example: Travel originating in Spokane must deal with 1-2AM departures in both directions and the Westbound Builder is often late, having originated in Chicago. If a sleeper was made available for boarding at say 10PM for Seattle and/or Portland passengers it would be far more user and family friendly.
The Superliner cars are great designs, having superior views, on board showers,etc. - we just need more of them. And we need increased investment in doubletracking and signaling so that freight and passenger trains can coexist more easily. As air travel becomes more of an expensive ordeal every day and as gas prices inevitably rise to the $5 mark we will be glad to have a real alternative.
Last point: Amtrak and maintainence of way jobs are real and can’t be outsourced the way, for example, aircraft service work or car manufacturing is now.
Points well taken and clearly stated. I could not agree more and I’m a VERY conservative right winger! There are some roles for government. Passenger rail is one!
Since part of my arguement is on fuel efficiency I did some more reading of the previous posts addressing this. There appears to be some difficulty in coming up with real world numbers due to the importance of capacity factors, deadheading, etc. Nevertheless rail will generally be the best due to the physics of steel wheels and low air resistance per passenger.
I would further submit that comparing a cramped seat in a plane or even an average car is nothing like the quality of the rail experience. Being able to walk about freely, dine on board and sleep lying down is such a different world that its not really comparable. Too bad so many have forgotten this or have never had the opportunity to experience it. With luck the time will come again.
All forms of transportation are subsidized - why pick on Amtrak? Highways and airports don’t pay their own way either (Can you imagine what we are paying just for the thousands of nonproductive TSA personnel?) .
There is a new reality creeping up on us and its called Peak Oil. As this really kicks in over the next 5 years its going to change how we live. I would suggest that as the most energy efficient form of travel and the one most suitable to being powered by renewable energy sources, rail is well worth holding on to.
America is huge and diverse - there is room for high speed corridors and LD trains. There are a few areas suitable for true high speed with separate ROW, but far more territory where existing service can be incrementally improved. This is happening now on the PNW routes from Eugene to Portland and Seattle, ridership and frequency are both up.
I like the idea of adding a luxury land cruise class to the LD trains, that could help subsidize the coach class which does have an important role in all the smaller towns en route. We could also innovate to make train travel more convenient. For example: Travel originating in Spokane must deal with 1-2AM departures in both directions and the Westbound Builder is often late, having originated in Chicago. If a sleeper was made available for boarding at say 10PM for Seattle and/or Portland passengers it would be far more user and family friendly.
The Superliner cars are great designs, having superior views, on board showers,etc. - we just need more of them. And we need increased investment in doubletracking and signaling so that freight and passenger trains can coexist more easily. As air travel becomes more of an expensive ordeal every day and as gas prices inevitably rise to the $5 mark we will be glad to have a real alternative.
Last point: Amtrak and maintainence of way jobs are real and can’t be outsourced the way, for example, aircraft servic
To address only a portion of the OP’s argument; when peak oil or imported oil arguments are made here I believe that the argument is that with electrification, trains can be powered by fuels other than oil.
Wind, hydro, etc are one source, but other means of electric generation don’t require imported oil. Coal is dirty and not great for the environment, but at least we have a lot of it. Nuclear will be a reasonable source if they manage to deal with the waste issue. None of that is available for aircraft. Cars are making a sincere effort to use electricity for short trips, which is the largest portion of automobile use.
We need to get over the either / or mentality that is so common in humans and consider integrated systems for our infrastructure, including transportation. One train can serve 10 communities on it’s trip. Such service would require multiple aircraft. Aircraft are best used for long trips between medium to large cities. Automobiles are best for short trips or travel to places where very few people need to go. The passenger train fits in between. Local mass transit should also be part of the equation. Go to the local airport. Look at the bizarre amount of parking that is required. Lots so big that bus service is required to get people and their luggage to and from their cars. Cars are left in paid lots for a week or more. Wouldn’t it be better if they could take local transit from their home to the airport, or commuter trains to the airport from small surrounding communities?
Electrification is a huge expense. If the Vision Report plan is not cost effective spending X dollars to save Y oil, it is not clear that spending some multiple K times X dollars to save only 2 times Y oil is more cost effective.
So yes, a Diesel train in corridor service may save half the oil of driving and an electric train may save all of the oil of driving, but in either case, Amtrak needs to make much more effective use of its subsidy.
More effective use of the subsidy goes under the rubrik of Amtrak Reform. Amtrak Reform is poison to many in the advocacy community, viewing it as a conspiracy to either do away with Amtrak or do away with things we like – diner, lounge, and sleeping cars in consists.
If you want to save energy and/or reduce oil consumption, the point of attack is NOT intercity passenger travel.
It is intercity freight and suburban commuting. This is where investment will provide the biggest yields. Get commuters out of their cars. Get truck traffic on the rails.
I would really, really like it if it were true that increasing intercity passenger rail as we know it, would be the best thing to invest in, but it just ain’t.
P.S. I’m all for a more efficient Amtrak. Maybe we can hang on to the trains we like. But, they most often don’t seem to be able to get out in front of any issue…or out of their own way.
True, there is more immediate fuel savings in putting more freight on rails but by improving the rail infrastructure we can benefit passenger as well. Electrification, although capital intensive, has many advantages and will have more in the future. Transportation should not be a hostage of foreign oil. For trips of up to 300 - 400 miles the total energy savings, including transfers to and from the airport, will greatly favor high speed rail. Add in cramped seats, security hassles and CO2 emissions from air travel and rail really shines.
Excellent point. Why must we only be dedicated to providing the infrastructure (airports and highways) to the most uncomfortable ways to travel? The only reason that buses can be more fuel efficient than passenger trains and that some airplanes can approach the fuel efficency of passenger trains is that people are jammed into a very small area. And it will only get worse. In Europe, low-cost air carrier Ryan Air is toying witn the possibility of flying people on shorter trips in a semi-standing position to save space. In Japan, airlines are advising passengers to use the restrooms before they board to avoid having to carry the extra “weight” on the plane. And even using the restroom has been suggested as something that might warrant an extra charge.
Passenger train opponents know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. There is value in NOT considering each trip an ordeal, and there is real value in a passenger train’s ability to serve small and medium-sized cities that air carriers and bus lines often ignore. I guess it all depends on what kind of public transportation the public wants.
Airplanes are not popular because they are uncomfortable, they are uncomfortable because they are popular. The decision behind President Carter’s and his advisor Alfred Ka
Yes there is value in a slower trip on a more comfortable conveyance, and yes, it costs more to operate. Why should the increase in cost be borne by much higher rates of subsidy to Amtrak than the other modes rather than charged as higher fares?
First, I don’t think we really know the amount of subsidy given to any form of transportation. Private enterprise airlines, trucking, and bus companies don’t tell all nor do we really know what is considererd in coming up with a subsidy figure for any of these modes. Oh, we have figures, but too often they are just a stand alone figure with no talley of what goes into to the sum.
Second, I don’t understand the term intrinsic as applied to dinning and sleeping cars. Once the railroad was a 24 hour, seven day a week operation always moving forward, not stopping its’ progress overnight; US mail depended upon it, people rode on it, coast to coast by changing cars at Chicago! So to dismiss out of hand what rail passenger service could be because of amenities I don’t is right.
My mantra is we should not consider rail passenger service running a train or trains but providing a service, then provide, market, and maintain the integrety of the service. Integrate that service with a service via air and bus. In otherwords, work to having a safe, efficient, effective, intergrated transportation service that can be used.
I take it you are OK spending about half a trillion dollars over a 40-50 year horizon increasing the passenger-mile share of Amtrak from .1 percent up to a full 1 percent? That is essentially the Vision Report proposal that is so popular in advocacy circles.
You know, you are right, we don’t rightly know how much subsidy, especially indirect subsidy goes to airlines and highways. But one of the tools of scientific and mathematical inference is to make educated guesses and ask if they make sense.
Airline travel is to Amtrak as 100:1. If Amtrak is getting 1.5 billion/year, are you able to tally up 150 billion/year going to airlines? That is a whole lot of money, and I don’t see how when you add up all of the indirect subsidy that airlines get that much.
Auto travel is to Amtrak as 1000:1. Is 1.5 trillion in government money somehow supporting highways and the auto industry – 1.5 trillion/year? That is roughly half the Federal budget, and even when you tally up all of the indirect subsidy, I am skeptical that it amounts to that much. Who knows, maybe half the Federal budget is somehow directly or indirectly contributing to auto travel, but a figure that big does not make any sense.
So yes, I don’t “really” know how much subsidy cars and planes get, but I am certain that it is multiples less the subsidy rate that Amtrak gets, because to stipulate otherwise leads to an implausible scenario.
I believe that the high rate of subsidy of Amtrak is what keeps Amtrak stuck on small.
Don’t put words in my mouth! I did not say I was comfortable with any spending of any kind. What I said is that subsidies are so open to interpretation and accounting “skills” that we don’t…and probably can’t…determine real and total amounts of monies that could be considered “subsidies”. Throw figures around all you want but we can’t figure them all out and each will be challenged by so many you won’t know which dime is up! Your final statement above, Paul, saying that Amtrak gets a high rate of subsidy cannot be determined to be high when rhetoric gets going about who gets what, how much, where, and when, and by whose interpretation. We’ve got to stop using these ghostly figures from the past and start the accounting and doleing from scratch.
One thing most doing cost comparisons do not seem to consider is most rail depots are (or were, at one time!) right downtown of the communities they serve. Getting to the depot from your home is done quickly and easily by cheaper public transportation, in most cases. To get to the airport requires much longer commutes; additional time consumed in traveling there is time lost, with added transport cost. Indeed, sometimes commute time is longer than flight time! Not, you say, if traveling by auto? How about the additional cost of auto purchasing/finance, fuel, other fluids, and labor and parts for mechanical repair/upkeep, as well as tolls, garaging, parking fees, etc, at home and/or at destinations. Parking cost can be considerable downtown in larger cities, as well.
The only thing I would add to Paul’s post is that looking at passenger miles for Amtrak as it is currently configured is a bit misleading for looking at how heavily rail travel would be in the future. Amtrak currently consists of one corridor that approximately covers OE, at least for its Acela service. The new service in Carolina has come close. A couple of other corridors may also come close. Unfortunately those cases (which are good examples of what henry6 likes to call real service) are dragged down by the high cost, low revenue, old-time long distance trains (hardly services) so that in the aggregate, Amtrak doesn’t come close to operating without a large subsidy. However, with a sensible route structure in which many less labor-intensive (thus lower variable OE) trains provide a service for many passengers, the fixed overhead costs on any route can be spread out over a much larger base, instead of two trains daily. Of course this would require the will to seek the sort of reform that Paul M, Phoebe Vet, doltmann and others are talking about., which many advocates regard as heresy.
The cost of individual automobile ownership is high. But, how much of it is avoidable when intercity rail service is introduced? Some, but some of the biggies - time based depreciation and insurance are unaffected. If you introduce suburban/urban transit, you can start hitting these costs pretty hard. You might not need multiple cars in the household, or one can be a “station car” beater, or the car will last 20 years instead of 7. Your insurance is less because your miles driven to work, which is a big driver of insurance cost, is much lower.
Air vs. Rail and connection to transit. This was very true 20 years ago, but not so much now. Cities with rail transit connection to the airport. NYC, Newark, Phila, Baltimore, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and probably some I missed… Some are coming - Harrisburg, Atlantic City, Denver. And, some of those that don’t have decent public shuttle bus routes - Boston and Denver come to mind.
Air vs. Rail travel. As you point out, if you stay within 500 miles or so, rail has a chance to com
Your statments, mogul264, state some of the reasons I say we will never really get a grasp on the cost of any one form or all forms of transportation because everyone puts in or leaves out sometihing either on purpose or inadvertently: there is no forumulas or requisite set. Airline fares are from airport to airport not taking into account cost of getting to and from airports, parking, etc. Downtown railroad stations don’t necessarily mean convenience, either; because of population shifts access to downtowns can be just as inconvenient as airports. But how many inlcude gas, insurance, purchase price and sales tax, and maintenence of a car towards any trip either totally by car or in conjunction with train, bus, or airplane? That’s one of the reasons I think we should forget the past and start a new system of accounting for transportation costs.