Amtrak Questions

Great Debates
1

One previous thread: here
…I’m not satisfied that we’ve covered all the angles, so I’ll throw out a few more questions. Couldn’t Amtrak be better managed to make more money? Well, for one thing, would there be any way to adjust the schedules so that there would be less public perception of unreliability? Is the fare schedule set up to maximize revenues?

If Amtrak could make even a small profit, it could possibly add to its inventory of right-of-way, and perhaps continue to improve its on-time record (or at least start having one). It’d have more flexibility to maybe schedule a few more expresses, making it that much more convenient.

Maybe this needs to be split into more than one thread, but a few more questions: Over the course of history, has Amtrak been subsidized more or less than other forms of transportation? Federal highways? Airports? Harbors?

Yes, I’m sort of a railroad fan. I’d like to be more of one, but there’s a world of difference between arriving in downtown Los Angeles at the promised 9:00 p.m., versus the actual 1:00 a.m.

2

I think that the basic problems is that fuel is too cheap. If trains were economically viable, i.e: $6 a gallon gasoline, then all of the management problems would be worked out. Probably by someone other than government.

The fact that a highly efficient mean of transportation doesn’t work economically in most of this country shows how screwed up the economics and public policy concerning energy is in the US.

3

I occasionally look at Amtrack as an option when considering national travel, but the times I’ve looked (don’t know if it’s a representitve sample or not), I’ve found that it isn’t that much cheaper then getting a plane ticket. Since planes take much less time, I can’t really justify going on the train even though I’d like to 'cause trains are cool.

If they lowered thier prices so that they were signifigantly less then plane fares to the same destination, I think people would take advantage (after all, Greyhound seems to offer a similar service that is slower and less comfortable, and they seem to be able to fill thier buses). That Amtrack is chronically late wouldn’t really bother me, cause I can put up with that if I save money, and because planes usually have a crummy on-time record as well.

4

Why don’t we just bow to reality, which is that people travel in America by plane and bus? Trains are viable only in the Boston-Washington corridor for intercity travel, and for regional commuting.

When we stop running heavily subsidized trains cross-country, we’ll be a lot better off.

I do agree that we need alternatives to air travel in the post 9/11 world, as an emergency measure. We might want to work with the Trailways and Greyhound people on this one, and incorporate them into the disaster planning. Charter busses might play a role here as well.

5

In the NYC area the lateness is mainly due to sharing tracks with commuter rail. The commuter rails leave ‘slots’ for Amtrak, but if the commuter rail or Amtrak gets delayed just a bit the whole slot system falls apart and Amtrak is stuck behind a commuter rail train which rus slower.

The issue is that the commuter rail system has the upper hand as it’s hard to cause 1000’s of commuters to be late due to a single Amtrak trail. Most of these lines are opperated near or over 100% capacity so any delay gets carried down the line.

Amtrak has more of a cummuting funcition here then they would like to admit, I think if they dropped their goal of intercity rail system and concentrated in a x-burb (past subburbs) commuer rail they would do OK. Add intercity rail when they can get high speed rai.

6

Since 9/11, I’ve been travelling more by train, myself. Not because of terror concerns, but because of the annoying security proceedures. I don’t lose that much time.

7

I’ve taken the Amtrak between LA and San Diego dozens of times, and I think it’s been late only once, and only about 15 minutes at that.

I pay the $55 of Amtrak rather than the $26 of Greyhound precisely because the bus is so slow and uncomfortable.

Considering

8

I think Mr. Moto has hit on a large part of it - in general there isn’t the density to support a passenger rail line that can compete with other transportation modes - planes for long distances and buses for slower, cheaper travel which have the advantage of requiring a lower minimum passenger load for profitability.

That said, it should be noted that highway travel is effectively subsidized by the government in a number of non-transparent ways. If the “true cost” of vehicle transportation were passed on to the consumer than trains might be more financially competitive.

In addition, IIRC the deal that was struck when Amtrak was created, by which Amtrak use of the various railroads’ rails is a pretty good deal for the railroads, with a substantial portion of cost and responsibility for the roads being picked up by Amtrak (above and beyond what might be “reasonable” usage charge).

9

Right. I realize that Amtrak has been a target for conservatives for years, and that I’m fulfilling a political stereotype by taking this position. It isn’t because I have anything against trains, though.

I have used trains for regional travel in the Northeast and in Europe, where rail travel is practical because of population density. There aren’t many places in America that fit this bill besides lines designed to handle commuters, although the West Coast between the Bay Area and San Diego would be another.

A subsidy should actually follow ridership here, not be used to prop up a seldom used service connecting cities thousands of miles apart. I’m not so much a small government fanatic that I think the subsidy should be eliminated altogether, but it should be used to encourage reasonable changes in behavior rather than an unreasonable expectation that folks will change.

It is a simple matter to keep the trains running between DC and NYC so that travellers choose a train or plane rather than driving and jamming up the I-95 corridor. It is unreasonable to expect someone to take a $300 train ride from DC to LA when they can fly for a similar or somewhat higher fare, or take a bus for less money.

10

Transportation systems don’t break even. All those roads you drive on cost every taxpayer (even those that don’t have or use cars) lots and lots of money all the time. We are constantly bailing out the air industry, not to mention running some airports, training pilots (in the military) and running infrastructure. Getting from one place to another has very rarely been a lucrative venture and usually involves lots and lots of money and taxes.

11

Actually, it cost me $99.00 to go from New York to San Francisco- much cheaper than a plane ticket, and actually cheaper than Greyhound.

12

Agreed, and I think setting priorities here is all we’re doing.

13

Yeah, and there are sales on plane tickets sometimes too, making them sometimes cheaper than a bus ticket. That doesn’t prove which one is cheaper to the rider overall.

The poor or budget mindeed traveller in America travels by bus, generally speaking. And all of these discussions are leaving aside the vast numbers of Americans who travel by car.

14

Researching this topic, I ran into this testimony from Scott Bernstein of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. He has the entirely commonsensical idea to remove barriers to coach services and allow them to link up regional rail and airports. In this way, they could create a seamless transport link in a region moving travellers not only between cities but also to and from the airports.

Link here.

Doing so will remove lots of cars from the streets and highways, which is a major impetus behind any transportation improvement. And it is cost effective, requiring few resources from the government besides a legislative change.

15

It’s been a long day at work, and I had a couple glasses of wine at dinner (which for me is more than enough), so that’s my excuse for being late in responding and possibly disjointed now.

If I understand, the recommendation by Bernstein is to increase surface transpo connections at the airport, in some sense allowing better substitutes for short range airline travel. Makes sense. In Southern California, we’ve never been especially sensible about connecting such light rail as we have with any of our airports. In fact, we have no direct connections. (Of course, we don’t have that much light rail, either.)

My observation: the decision to use Amtrak is not a simple one of time and money. The coach seats in Amtrak have a lot more leg room than either bus or plane - a lot more comfortable - and there aren’t many busses (or planes for that matter) where you can get passably (arguably) decent restaurant service on board. I do like the laid-back, no hurry, no worries, take-time-to-meet-your-mates atmosphere of train travel - worth a few bucks, even. (Oh, and the specific train ride I was talking about was the Coast Starlight between the Bay Area and L.A.)

If only it were slightly more predictable… itself a contradiction, because train travel is pretty predictably unpredictable.

This is in GD because no, I don’t expect that there’s a factual answer to any of these issues.

This is all food for thought. Thanks for your ideas.

16

I’ve done a significant (30-page paper, presentation before several legislators) project on just this subject.

There’s one real, big, huge problem that has to be overcome.

People will generally travel by the fastest method they can afford. Up to about 250 miles, that is by car, and beyond that it’s by airplane and car. A train that runs at 35 to 65 MPH is never gonna beat the mile-a-minute-door-to-door average of a car, or use the congestion and delay at the airport against the 'plane effectively.

The Acela makes money at roughly a normal rate of return (6-8 percent per year). This is better than any other transportation system in this country - we don’t subsidize the Acela at all, it pays for itself and then subsidizes Amtrak. This is because it runs faster than the car or the airplane over its entire route. If a train averages 100 miles per hour, station to station, it’s always going to be ahead of a car (well, unless I’m driving on a clear, dry day), and up to about 500 miles, it will beat the airplane.

No other passenger rail service in this country makes money. No passenger rail service that doesn’t average over about 80 MPH makes money, in any country. Any slower rail service in Europe is the equivalent of the Greyhound bus - cheap and only good when it has to match pace with whatever else is on the rail line.

In experimental testing, FRA Class 3 track, normally rated for 60 miles per hour, was found to be perfectly fine with a relatively light passenger express at 100 miles per hour, and track wear was not deemed excessive. Those tests were run 30 years ago. Modern Class 2 track (really light, cheap stuff) would be good enough for similar service today thanks to some metallurgical and engineering advances. Amtrak doesn’t run outside of stations on anything lighter-duty than Class 3 east of the Mississippi.

The problem dates back to a rule enacted in 1947 in order to REDUCE excessive passenger traffic on the rails. After World War II, the last steam engines and first-generation diesels hauled new stock at unprecedented speeds, and the public responded by piling onto those trains. Congress, scared by reports that the Pennsylvania Railroad T-1 had been doing 140 miles per hour on the western slopes of the Allegheny mountains while hauling a 1,000 ton (2000 passenger) train, and pressured by Ford and Chrysler to reduce the railroads’ sudden dominance of intercity travel, enacted a law that said, effectively, that no non-electric train could go faster than 79 miles per hour.

It broke passenger rail transportation in this country. Railroads stopped ordering fast, advanced equipment. Passenger rail technology stagnated. Schedules slackened (the premier New York-Chicago services were slowed by more than two hours), and luxuries went away, as did the passengers.

If you want intercity passenger rail here, you need two things. First, American railroads run diesel locomotives outside of the Northeast Corridor. That’s not the problem. What is is sticking them with a ridiculous speed limit. In the 1930s and 1940s, any top-end diesel express boasted beginning-to-end averages in the seventies with rail speeds generally around 100. The railroads’ passenger safety record was better then than it was now. The rails are good for 110. The trains are good for 125. They should run that fast.

Fast diesel expresses over 200-400 mile routes would take out almost all airline traffic over their routes. Would anyone fly from Chicago to St. Louis if the train could get them there in two hours at half the cost? Would anyone fly from St. Louis to Kansas City if there was a three-hour train? Would the Detroit-Chicago highway be undergoing an expensive overhaul if there was a decent train between those cities? These trains would have the equivalent of a 120% present market share - not only would they pick up almost every existing traveler between any of these city pairs, but they’d create additional ridership.

France supports the TGV with similar metropolis-to-metropolis distances. Paris-Lyon, Paris-Calais, Paris- Marseilles, and Paris-Nice are all a few hundred miles long and connect cities no bigger than Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Cleveland, or St. Louis-Kansas City. The insufficient population density argument holds true only once you get out into deep red state territory*. The blue and purple ones will support rail travel just fine.

*Exception - Texas Triangle - Dallas/Houston/San Antonio.

17

Huh. In your paper, did you consider how passenger rail gets along with freight rail (or doesn’t, mostly)? Seems to me that that could be another constraint on how fast you could get passenger rail to go, where there’s common use of track… Is the speed limit for passenger trains only? Do freighters go faster? It does seem like there would be pressure from the freighters to allow the higher speed limit for their trains - how does that work?

18

I despise busses. And Airtravel is too much of a bother for short trips. Amtrak is roomy, clean, and has places to walk around in.

Thus, for trips within this State- I go Amtrak.

19

Peachy. Everyone has a preference. Of course, it’s hardly surprising that train lovers might check out an Amtrak thread.

The question isn’t what you’ll do nevt time you have to buy a ticket somewhere. The question is what should the government subsidize, and in what amounts. And what should we be planning for in rail, car, bus and air travel.

There is a company now providing luxury motorcoach service between New York and Boston, on buses with conference areas, good legroom, DVD movies, Internet access and snack and drink services. The trip takes about four hours, and costs just $69 one-way. This is very competitive with train and air service, and I don’t think any of us would hesitate to ride a bus of this level of comfort and convenience.

http://www.limoliner.com/

20

The dominant argument in this thread has been about travel between major cities.

Out here in Red State land, that isn’t an argument at all. What we’re looking for is a service that connects smaller cities.

The state of Missouri doesn’t subsidize Amtrak because it goes between St. Louis and Kansas City. It subsidizes because the train stops at five cities BETWEEN St. Louis and Kansas City. On the other hand, Amtrak service between Chicago and Kansas City makes exactly ONE stop in Missouri, even though there is no direct four-lane divided highway between the two cities.

Greyhound recently announced that they were ending virtually all their service to smaller cities and towns in Missouri. If you want to take a bus to St. Louis, that’s fine. That last 90 miles to Hannibal or Cape Girardeau or Rolla – you’re on your own.

I can’t speak for any other part of the country, but we’re seeing an economic model where trains and buses are competing for exactly the same travelers as airlines and major highways, and everyone is ignoring all other markets. I can’t see all four of the competitors winning under that sceanrio.