Amtrak shut down imminent

[Tea]

Yup. My figures are about right.

Qantas has 20 scheduled flights going Melbourne-Sydney today (including some BA flights that appear on their timetable too). Assume that every one of those flights is a 767 (i.e., a large aircraft) and throw in the piddling little influence of Virgin Blue's handful of 737s, and we are within cooee of my "one 767 flight an hour, averaged out".

 

[time]

Virgin's one-class 737s seat almost as many as a Qantas 767 anyway (and given their higher seat occupancy, probably carry more people on average). Qantas also prefers 737s for domestic routes and has been busy buying another 15.

But that's cute, converting real planes to virtual 767 units. How about I choose the Cessna as my virtual plane unit?

With regard to Qantas' schedule, I can't help it if you can't count. 26 flights my friend, not 20, and a further 12 with Virgin Blue, all of which are domestic flights stopping at domestic rather than international terminals. I think the BA planes are part of their ongoing co-operation and swaps, aren't they?

 

[Tea]

Ha. You are quite right. I can't count. I went back and checked. On a more careful reading of their (badly designed) web page, I see that it's 29 flights. All 767s bar one of the morning ones that is obviously an international repositioning - 747s are not economic for that route, it's too short - and a couple of evening odd-bods - presumably another international, and a 737. That's still within cooee of my one 767 worth an hour. Or, at least, certainly closer to the mark than Seagate are with their seek time claims.

A 737 seats ~150 or just over, a 767 ~250 or just under. Round figures, two 767s = three newish 737s.

As a matter of interest, Qantas didn't select the 737 initially, they were hot to trot with A320s to go with the A380s and A330s they just ordered. But one of the major US airlines - Continental as I recall - had just ordered a whole stack of 737s when September 11th hit. They were going to lose their non-refundable deposit and Boeing were going to lose the sale. So the two of them got together and made Qantas an offer they just couldn't refuse.

The Qantas-BA relationship is indeed a long-term deal. BA own a portion of Qantas now, I think it's 25%. Must be nice for BA to own something that is making a profit.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Sydney airport has been sold for $5.3 billion I believe?

 

[time]

737-800 = 189
737-400 = 168

Note these are one-class seating arrangements, which boosts the numbers for Virgin Blue.

767-238 = 205
767-338ER = 229-253 (Qantas doesn't say which seating patterns are most common. I'd guess their ultimate plan would be lower numbers for international and higher for domestic).

Ah, I just noticed that Qantas is using a seating pattern of only 158 with their new 737-838. Now I understand. And now that I've spotted the high capacity variant of the 767, I understand where you're coming from. Any idea which 767s they are using for domestic, though?

 

[Tea]

They have two sizes in service. From memory, the 200 and the 300. About 90% of the Melbourne Sydney trips are the bigger one. ("338" in Qantas speak - the "38" indicates that this particular aircraft was built for Boeing's customer number 38 (which is Qantas)). In theory, if they were to buy a second-hand 767-300 from, say, Saudia, then that would be a 767-394 (or whatever Boeing customer number Sauida are). I'll look the capacities up a little later and get back to you.

(Woops - didn't read your post properly - yes, it is the 200 and the 300. Two or three of the scheduled Mel-Syd trips were thet 238, the others the 338. I should imagine that they mostly use the 200s on medium-density routes, such as Sydney-Perth or Melbourne-Brisbane. Somewhere around here I should have a listing of their current fleet.)

 

[Cliptin]

I'm not going to pretend to understand it but I found some interesting stuff.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45036-2002Jun25.html

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-419es.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-29-01.html

 

[Cliptin]

But would you live next to a nuclear power plant yourself?

What do you consider "next to"?

It turns out that there are four nuclear power plants within a 130 mile radius of me. In addition, there is a fuel rod and weapons grade plant within 130 miles.

Three of the plants are within 30 miles and one is within ten miles.

It didn't bother me when I didn't know and it doesn't really bother me now.

 

[timwhit]

Where did you find that information Cliptin? I would be interested to know how far the plants are away from where I am.

 

[Mercutio]

There are five plants in Illinois. Four of them are owned by ComEd (usually only two or three are running at any one time). The fifth is down state in Clinton, IL. AFAIK, no surrounding states have nuclear plants.

If you wanted to worry about a local plant, it'd probably be the Dresden facility. Honestly, though, if you ever get the opportunity, take a tour. It's pretty interesting and you will probably come away feeling a lot safer, until you ask where they're storing waste (ComEd likes to rent warehouses close to its plants. Just plain ol' warehouses. Nothing special about them. They're filled with 55 gallon drums of whatever is "hot").

The other thing that's amazing, and I know it's public relations, but the grounds of every plant I've been to are utterly, utterly pristine.

 

[timwhit]

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-power-reactors.html

Here is a map of all the operating plants in the US. The Dresden plant is about an hour west of me in Morris, IL. There are no nuclear power plants in Indiana though Merc. Wisconsin and Michigan both have a couple though.

 

[NRG = mc²]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,5812,180750,00.html

Fuck that, I do live next to one. Actually, four of them. I'm right next to Bradwell.

 

[NRG = mc²]

Excuse my language... I let that slip

 

[jtr1962]

I found a few "pearls of wisdom" worthy of comment in those links Cliptin posted:

Amtrak has failed to secure an increasing portion of Americas growing transportation market. It carries only about three-tenths of 1 percent of all intercity passengers. Its on-time performance on most routes is terrible, and it covers up this fact by measuring punctuality at a limited number of stops and building in lots of extra time before those stops.

Of course this is true, but the article should also mention that Amtrak has failed to get enough funding to enable it to be competitive. Try throwing the same amount of money at Amtrak as the government has put into roads and airlines, and then if Amtrak still fails to capture riders you will at least have something to talk about. Most of Amtrak's trains run on freight railroads' tracks, and are therefore subject to their dispatchers' whims, meaning that it is not unusual for an Amtrak train to be put on a siding while a freight train gets priority. Amtrak needs more lines like the Northeast Corridor where it has exclusive ownership. And frankly, no passenger train running at 79 mph can be competitive with air or even auto. We need high-speed lines here, and not the 110 mph diesel-powered being talked about, but 200 mph electric trains like every other developed country either has or is planning.

Many of Amtrak's trains run much more slowly today than did trains on the same routes earlier this century.

The fact that these routes haven't had anything other than emergency money poured into them is why. It takes a certain amount of maintainence to keep a line suitable for a given speed. Anything up to 125 mph is relatively inexpensive. After that the costs gradually start to go up.

In a "Three Stooges" approach to the future, Amtrak proposes to build so-called high-speed train routes more than a thousand miles long. But not even the fastest train can compete with aviation for more than a 300-mile trip. Such absurd projects are guaranteed to become astounding burdens on public treasuries.

This is so ridiculous I couldn't help but laugh my ass off for a while. Just look at Tea's post in this thread-he(sorry, she) eloquently showed rail and air neck and neck on a 500 mile trip. Add in the usual 1 to 2 hour security delays nowadays and rail is competitive at 600 or 700 miles. Throw in the fact that you'll save running around and taxi fare by taking the train, and I think most people will still go for the train even on a 1000 trip. Increase the running speed from 186 mph up to 223 mph(France is planning this, and any new line built in the US should feature at least 225 mph running speed) and you're neck and neck with air at 700 miles(or at 800 to 900 miles if the airport security delays continue).

Given that you're treated no better than a common criminal at airports these days, I venture to guess that a fair number of people wouldn't bother flying at all any more if we had an interconnected series of TGV-like lines across the US. It would take you maybe 20 hours to go coast-to-coast vs about 10 by air, and I'm quite sure the comfort, safety, and convenience of rail would be worth those extra ten hours for most people.

Even Amtrak at its best is disappointing. Amtrak's fresh-out-of-the-factory Acela Express between Washington and Boston is slower than high-speed trains that have been running for many years in Europe and Japan.

I don't know whether to laugh at something this asinine, or cry over the writer's ignorance(if you're going to write about something, you should at least research it properly). All of the high-speed lines of which he speaks where built brand new expressly for high-speed passenger trains only. There are no freight trains or slower conventional trains on these lines, period. There are no grade crossings, and the signaling system and train controls are designed to eliminate the consequences of human error. So much so, in fact, that not one passenger has been killed on any of these high-speed lines in over 30 years of operation. You simply can't expect Amtrak's new 150 mph Acela to perform up to potential when it's running with mixed traffic, and on commuter lines with many curves for a good portion of it's run.

Perversely, under the guise of patriotism, some lawmakers want to lavish record-high subsidies on Amtrak. One bill would give Amtrak $3.2 billion in "emergency" aid because its ridership increased. (Ironically, the airlines are receiving $15 billion because ridership decreased.)

So the formula should be that you give more money if riders are lost? Or reward failure, in other words. The airlines screwed up big time, and not just with 9/11. They have been allowed to operate noisy, inefficient planes for years. If any other group or industry made the noise and pollution that the airlines do, their executives would be doing hard time but the airlines get away with it by greasing the palms of our lawmakers. $15 billion could have built hundreds of miles of new high-speed lines and paid for the new trainsets to run on them. It would have been enough to make all of the short range shuttle flights a thing of the past, and once people saw how much more civilized train travel was, they would be begging for more, and the airlines would have some real competition. Not to mention that many cities would gain acres of prime waterfront real estate when the airports shut down, plus clean air and silence to boot.

Amtrak averaged only 10 passengers daily on a slow Wisconsin train. When earlier this year Amtrak learned the empty seats were to be shown on NBC's "The Fleecing of America," bureaucrats suspended the route.

I'll agree here that running trains when there is little ridership is wasteful. I'll grudgingly admit that some markets are better served by buses or even autos. However, Amtrak is not solely to blame for this since frequently legislators get a train running through their district as a sort of trophy even if it makes no financial sense. Amtrak has little choice but to run the train as best they can.

 

[Cliptin]

My basic issue with the problem as it stands right now is that I'm being asked to fund something that I will not use. It fact, most of the rest of the country is asked to fund something that only a very small percent of the population uses.

A basic component of the problem is that people should not be expected to commute to NYC. If NYC lost its precious commuter lines, I guess it have to resort to hiring actual NYers. D.C. is the only city that I think people should be making long commutes to. People should be working in the communities in which they live.

Trans-contenental travel is a different story.

 

[Cliptin]

At least there is some hope for you jtr.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/Amtrak Announcement.htm

 

[time]

That's well stated, jtr1962.

I wonder though whether your call for ultra-fast trains is the wrong priority, based on the existing problems you identified. My state has ancient tracks that are shared by freight trains, long distance diesel passenger trains, and medium speed electric tilt trains.

The tilt trains have been trialled at 210kph (131mph), but their operational speed has been limited to 170kph (106mph). The longest route so far is roughly 800km (500 miles), which with stops takes seven hours. But that's still faster than by car non-stop, so it's quite popular.

BTW, the trains are narrow gauge of only 3'6". With 4'8½", yours should be able to do better.

My point is that all this is possible because the business is 100% government owned, and we happen to have a government that isn't either obsessed with ideology or needs to sell assets to cover their debts.

Whether it be highways, communications, or railway lines, essential public infrastructure needs to be either owned or closely controlled by government. There just isn't enough incentive for private companies to co-operate in the public interest.

 

[Tea]

Remember how I fantasised about a high-speed rail link from Ballarat to Melbourne a few posts above? Well, it's official. The Premier announced it today. Contracts are signed, the opening day is set: 64 minutes Ballarat to Melbourne.

 

[Mercutio]

Cliptin, everyone funds things with their tax money that they don't use and don't like. I happen to strongly dislike social security. Why should I have to pay in such a huge chunk of my gross income when it's highly unlikely I'll ever get anything back? I also have to pay for silly things like missle defense and the lifetime care and upkeep of some presidents and other politician I don't like.

But jtr's trains have merit in a different way, even if you personally will never use them. Assuming enough routes were put into place to actually be useful, think of how much less traffic would be on the road on a given day. That isn't a benefit?

 

[Cliptin]

I have no problem with traffic. I can certainly see why other people would have trouble with their city's level of traffic but if they have trouble with it then they should move closer to their job.

 

[jtr1962]

My basic issue with the problem as it stands right now is that I'm being asked to fund something that I will not use. It fact, most of the rest of the country is asked to fund something that only a very small percent of the population uses.

As Mercutio pointed out, most people fund something that they will either never use or don't think is worthwhile. In my case, I'm less than thrilled about the trillions poured into social welfare programs with little results, and I'm 100% in agreement with Mercutio about social security. I doubt I'll ever see a dime of what I put into the system, and even if I get what the government claims I will, this is a less than 2% return. Other things my taxes personally fund that I'll likely never or rarely use are the airlines and most of the nation's roads. Nevertheless, I recognize the value of the Interstate highway system, and wouldn't for a moment suggest that we stop funding it(although measures should be taken to make vehicles zero emission). Airlines are another matter, and can eventually be replaced entirely by rail or maglev depending upon the situation, and those modes will offer equal or better journey times with far less pollution and noise.

A basic component of the problem is that people should not be expected to commute to NYC. If NYC lost its precious commuter lines, I guess it have to resort to hiring actual NYers. D.C. is the only city that I think people should be making long commutes to. People should be working in the communities in which they live.

Here I agree. There is no good reason for people to commute 60 miles each way on crowded roads, especially if their job is amenable to telecommuting. There should be more affordable housing in NYC, and employers should make a greater effort to hiring NYers(improving our public schools here would help that matter considerable). That being said, if people must commute 60 miles, it is best done on rail. I do in fact have a major problem with suburban automobile commuters. Just look at the pollution and noise from traffic jams on the LIE every day. I'm not sure if the current rail system has enough capacity to absorb all of these drivers, but if so, then nobody should be driving in. Ditto for commuters from NJ and Connecticut.

 

[Tea]

My basic issue with the problem as it stands right now is that I'm being asked to fund something that I will not use.

Here we have a perfect example of the way that most people misunderstand basic economics. It ain't like that at all Cliptin.

On the face of things, that seems like a perfectly sensible point of view; something to balance up against Mercutio's argument that we all of us fund lots of things that we don't use: we all help pay for hospitals but many of us are not sick, we all help pay for schools but many of us don't have children, and so on.

However, we need not resort to Mercutio's argument (which is in itself quite valid nonetheless) to refute it, as it rests on a gross distortion of the economic facts of life. For every passenger that travels by road, you (the taxpayer), pay too, and pay a great deal more than you pay for rail passengers. You are already paying for road construction and maintenence, hospital care for people who injured in road accidents, health care for people who have pollution-related respiritory problems, massive police coverage (much more than rail needs), inflated land values because so large a part of our cities is taken up with unproductive pavement, even a number of quite obscure but in total financially significant expenses that result directly from road travel: for example, increased storm water and flood control costs because pavement has much faster run-off than forest or grass or housing, and increased water quality management expenses because the run-off contains a much higher number of particles. I mention this last 'obscure' cost not because it is in itself an enormous burden, but because it helps to highlight the enormous ramifications of our dependance on the motor car: motor vechicles push up the cost of all sorts of things that on first sight seem to be totally unrelated.

But there is more. You are already paying the higher interest rates that are a direct consequence of your country's dependance on imported products to support the motor car - fuel is the most obvious of these but by no means the only one. Every imported product affects your balance of payments and thus the national debt, and the higher the debt rises the higher your central bank has to raise interest rates in order to attract enough foreign capital to fund that debt. And (more controversially, this one, but quite possibly equally true) you are already paying for the world's most expensive military force, and a good deal of US military spending is (according to many observers) required in order to guarantee continued US access to foreign petroleum products. (Other car-dependant nations take other approaches to this same problem - in Europe it is common to spend the money on more diplomacy and more aid, as opposed to more fighter planes - but they still spend money in the hope of maintaining access to foreign oil, just spend it a different way.) And you are already paying higher life insurance and medical insurance premiums because of the high rate of car accidents, the health effects of air pollution, and the increased stress levels that car drivers suffer as compared to public transport users (the stress leads, of course, to a greater number of heart attacks, strokes, and so on - and these all cost you money). And you are already paying for a small but no doubt measurable decrease in national produtivity because of the lost production of those expensively-trained and highly skilled people who are killed or crippled early in their lives and never go on to make a contribution to the nation. Not to mention the vast numbers of people who spend their working lives dragging crash victims out of cars and trying to repair the damage - hell, there is real work for our doctors and physiotherapists and mechanics to do.

I could go on, but it's late and there are already enough items for which you are already paying listed above to easily outweigh the very low cost of a decent public transport network. The point of rail systems is that they save you money. Lots of money.

 

[jtr1962]

That's well stated, jtr1962.

Thanks for the compliment.

I wonder though whether your call for ultra-fast trains is the wrong priority, based on the existing problems you identified. My state has ancient tracks that are shared by freight trains, long distance diesel passenger trains, and medium speed electric tilt trains.

The tilt trains have been trialled at 210kph (131mph), but their operational speed has been limited to 170kph (106mph). The longest route so far is roughly 800km (500 miles), which with stops takes seven hours. But that's still faster than by car non-stop, so it's quite popular.

Tilt trains do have a use on existing trackage. In fact, Amtrak's Acela has a tilt mechanism for that very reason. We do in fact have many lines running through populated areas with many curves that would benefit from such trains. This would allow a system where a high-speed tilt train can run on existing tracks for a portion of its journey at lower speeds(but still faster than a conventional train), and switch to dedicated high-speed trackage at some point in its journey. This is done in Europe right now in order to offer more one-seat rides while taking advantage of the high-speed network. The US has more miles of railway than any other country, and any technology that can use existing trackage to greater advantage is certainly welcome.

My call for ultra-fast trains would be mainly along existing airline trunk routes. The traffic already exists, it is simply a matter of making the train more attractive than the plane, and the rest will take care of itself. The original Paris-Lyons TGV line opened in 1982, and put the Paris-Lyons shuttle out of business in a few months. The economics of high-speed rail has been proven, the technology exists. It is only a matter of getting it built. Besides the obvious benefits of less noise and pollution, and faster than air or auto journey times, there is also a side benefit to those who must drive in the form of lower traffic(=faster journey times).

My point is that all this is possible because the business is 100% government owned, and we happen to have a government that isn't either obsessed with ideology or needs to sell assets to cover their debts.

Whether it be highways, communications, or railway lines, essential public infrastructure needs to be either owned or closely controlled by government. There just isn't enough incentive for private companies to co-operate in the public interest.

100% correct. Building anything on this vast scale requires more money than private investors can come up with. The government should provide the initial capital outlay for these types of projects, and then they should be self-sustaining through operating revenues. In the case of rail, the benefits exceed the cost by many times over.

 

[Cliptin]

Cliptin, everyone funds things with their tax money that they don't use and don't like. I happen to strongly dislike social security. Why should I have to pay in such a huge chunk of my gross income when it's highly unlikely I'll ever get anything back? I also have to pay for silly things like missle defense and the lifetime care and upkeep of some presidents and other politician I don't like.

Oh please. Well, since I'm already spending money on things, please find 17 more things for me to fund. That way I can sleep at night. I already feel privileged to participate in this funding endevour but I want to feel extra special. You argument is nonsense.

But jtr's trains have merit in a different way, even if you personally will never use them. Assuming enough routes were put into place to actually be useful, think of how much less traffic would be on the road on a given day. That isn't a benefit?

Answer this question, if you please: Can you envision a train route that would acceptably get you to your jobs?

 

[timwhit]

The trains to Chicago are pretty useful. I can get on about 3/4 mile from my house and in about 45 minutes I will be downtown Chicago on Michigan Ave for about $3. Versus driving which costs a couple bucks for gas and then between $10 and $20 for parking. The train is a bargain.

On the 3rd of July when over a million people go into the city to watch the fireworks the trains are the only way to get down there. There is no parking even if you wanted to drive.

The last time I drove downtown I got a damn parking ticket $30, I was only parked on the street for 20 minutes, at least I could pay it online...

 

[Mercutio]

Some, yes. I wish I could hop on a train someplace close to my apartment and arrive in Oak Brook or Naperville.

When I work over there, if I don't leave at 5:00AM, it takes me close to two hours to drive maybe 35 miles. If I *do* leave at 5:00AM, I'm there at a quarter to six, waiting for someone to let me in.

At worst, the same 35-mile ride has taken me up to six hours(!)

Still, I hate being in traffic. I feel like I'm killing my car. The brakes and transmission, if nothing else.

Also, yeah, the train into Chicago. Totally worth it. A $13 train ticket vs. gas + $15 to park all day in an inconvienent place (under Grant Park) + $6 in cab fare to whereever I'm going? And if I needed to park someplace besides Grant Park, and I got there after 9:00AM (for a meeting or a job interview), $18 - $25 an HOUR to park. Plus it's not like it takes longer than driving (30 - 45 minutes).

In northwest Indiana, where I actually live and do most of my working, there is simply no public transportation nor design for pedestrian traffic (Gary is the only city with any buses at all and most of the other towns don't have sidewalks except in a small downtown area) so a train probably wouldn't be as easy a solution.

 

[Fushigi]

The last time I drove downtown I got a damn parking ticket $30, I was only parked on the street for 20 minutes, at least I could pay it online...

I have a solution to this. At least one that'll work once. I went downtown on a Saturday, in the rain, & parked on the street while a friend of mine & I went to a shop for about 20 minutes. We returned to find a parking ticket. I was surprised because in Indianapolis, where I grew up, you don't have to feed the meter on weekends. Silly me had assumed that Chicago was the same.

Anyway, I ignored it and waited. A couple of months later they mailed me about it. I wrote a letter back that basically said I live in the suburbs, I work in the suburbs. I don't go in to Chicago so this can't be me. OK, I lied. Still, it worked. They never asked for payment & my record is clean.

- Fushigi

 

[Fushigi]

Some, yes. I wish I could hop on a train someplace close to my apartment and arrive in Oak Brook or Naperville.

This is one of the major problems. Going to/from downtown Chicago is OK but travelling around Chicago - suburb to suburb - is not really feasable unless the burbs are on the train's route & your destination is very close to the station.

Still, I hate being in traffic. I feel like I'm killing my car. The brakes and transmission, if nothing else.

I try to be easy on both by accelerating slowly & coasting before braking. My last car went almost 90K miles before it's first brake job & I got 61K on my current car before the rears needed work (fronts are still fine) so it must work. Still, stop-and-go driving does seem to slightly confuse the fuzzy logic in the trans.

Also, the potential for stop-and-go is what keeps me in cars with automatic transmissions. Too much clutch work ...

Also, yeah, the train into Chicago. Totally worth it. A $13 train ticket vs. gas + $15 to park all day in an inconvienent place (under Grant Park) + $6 in cab fare to whereever I'm going? And if I needed to park someplace besides Grant Park, and I got there after 9:00AM (for a meeting or a job interview), $18 - $25 an HOUR to park. Plus it's not like it takes longer than driving (30 - 45 minutes).

The Grant Park & Millenium Park garages are relative bargains at $10 for up to 12 hours; $13 for 12 - 24 hours. My car is in Millenium Park right now as this is one of the unusual days where I'm working downtown.

For me it is a convenient place. Up the elevator & across the street to the Aon building, where our company has a few floors.

Now, I will be taking the train sometime to compare it to driving. It's not faster but is cheaper. Not faster because it takes 60 - 70 minutes to drive vs. 10 minutes to drive to & park @ the station, 48 minutes on the express traing to get downtown, a few minutes to disembark & go wait for the shuttle bus, and 7 to 15 minutes for the shuttle bus.

In northwest Indiana, where I actually live and do most of my working, there is simply no public transportation nor design for pedestrian traffic (Gary is the only city with any buses at all and most of the other towns don't have sidewalks except in a small downtown area) so a train probably wouldn't be as easy a solution.

Many of the Chicago burbs are similar. Availability of sidewalks varies widely. You can generally find them in neighborhoods but not along more major roads (that would lead to the bus/train).

Avalability of buses varies as well, but they generally exist to shuttle people to popular shopping malls and the like. Some exist for corporate campuses (campi?) but again, it's very hit-and-miss. For me to get from home to the office, my normal office and not downtown, I would have to drive or taxi to the train station, take the train partially in, and then taxi to the office complex. Definitely more time & probably more expense.

...

As to funding things we don't want/use, that's a simple fact of life in the US & most of the rest of the world. But funding the railway system, road system, airports (not airlines!), and sea ports is important as those are the means by which the goods we use are delivered. So while you may not directly use the railway system, it's highly likely that 20+% of what you use on a daily basis was delivered via rail alone. That Florida OJ needs some method of transporation to get from FL to your local grocer. Most autos are rail-shipped to the destiniation city before being trucked to the dealer.

That said, I am against gov't funding of Amtrak. Amtrak needs to adjust their pricing to at least break even. If they continually operate in the red then they should face the consequences that every other company doing so faces. Amtrak owns many of the train hubs in the cities (Union Station, etc.). Amtrak should sell those off to raise the capital they say they need. They have had decades of government funding and have not been able to approach profitability. Enough is enough.

- Fushigi

 

[Cliptin]

*snip*

Hey, I am getting better at this rational argument thing. At least I can recognize a strawman when I see one. This disscussion is not about how I like the auto. It is about how I do not want to fund commuter train routes in states I may never visit.

Why is it that we expect certain methods of funding for a subway system and different methods of funding for commuter trains? Do they not do the same thing? Do they not require the same type of infrastructure?

 

[Cliptin]

As Mercutio pointed out, most people fund something that they will either never use or don't think is worthwhile. In my case, I'm less than thrilled about the trillions poured into social welfare programs with little results, and I'm 100% in agreement with Mercutio about social security. I doubt I'll ever see a dime of what I put into the system, and even if I get what the government claims I will, this is a less than 2% return. Other things my taxes personally fund that I'll likely never or rarely use are the airlines and most of the nation's roads. Nevertheless, I recognize the value of the Interstate highway system, and wouldn't for a moment suggest that we stop funding it(although measures should be taken to make vehicles zero emission). Airlines are another matter, and can eventually be replaced entirely by rail or maglev depending upon the situation, and those modes will offer equal or better journey times with far less pollution and noise.

I think what you suggest here is a great idea (including SS ). I too recognize the value of the nation's Interstate highway system even if I use them rarely. For those who don't know, the US interstate system is first and foremost a method to transmit troops in reaction to a ground war on US soil. The government graciously allows its citizens to use it. I think this concept could be enhanced by including high speed rail lines in the center divider (a suggestion from jtr). The land is already owned by the government. If the rail becomes popular, expansion would be easy as there would be dormant asphalt right next to the current track that could be torn up. It could also be used for troop movement.

 

[Cliptin]

inflated land values because so large a part of our cities is taken up with unproductive pavement, [and other assorted reasons why we should get rid of cars and roads].

Personally, I wish I could ride my bicycle all the place that I need to go. The biggest problem is a lack of secure racks. Even if we all had electric vehicles we would have nearly all the same problems.

Let's assume that there is edge-of-city high speed rail service with tracks maintained by the federal government and service run by the state or privatized. I think that the intra-city track network should be built and maintained locally. Just like the roads and subways.

 

[Tea]

Getting rid of cars is a pipe dream. But I see no reason at all why we should not use them a great deal less than we do. We could sit around all year talking about ways and means, but (if I may take a leaf out of the New Right's book) by far the best and simplest would be to simply pay some attention to getting the billing structure right. To make, in other words, the as-experienced-by-the-user costs proportional to the actual costs.

Once you remove the artificial externalisation of costs from the road system and require road users to pay something approximating the true cost of the service they use, then you can pretty much leave it up to the market to sort the problems out.Markets are actually very good at sorting problems out, but the moment you introduce distortions into the pricing structure, you destroy the ability of the free market to function as designed.

 

[James]

James, "twaddle", eh?
[...]
I suspect that you are getting mixed up with the frequency of Sydney airport as a whole, which indeed among the busier ones worldwide.

No, I'm not. As I said, according to the ICOA report on air routes, Sydney - Melbourne is the third busiest air route in the world, counting number of passengers carried. Note that's prior to Ansett biting the big one, but still. It doesn't seem to still be available on their web site, but have a poke around.

Sydney is way, way down the list of busiest airports in the world (it doesn't make the top 30) in terms of both passengers and movements. Bankstown airport is in fact by far the busiest airport in Australia in terms of aircraft movements.

Perhaps "twaddle" was a bit strong, but I don't get to use it nearly often enough. :mrgrn:

 

[jtr1962]

Why is it that we expect certain methods of funding for a subway system and different methods of funding for commuter trains? Do they not do the same thing? Do they not require the same type of infrastructure?

Well, the technology is similar but obviously there are differences in both the ridership and the method of operation. Subways are generally used on short trips(~5 miles average), have more frequent stops, lower speeds(NYC subway travels at 50 to 55 mph maximum), more frequent service, run mostly in tunnels or on elevated tracks, and receive a greater portion of their funding from the city they serve(which is only fair).

Commuter rail operates with fewer stops, less frequent service, higher speeds(70 to 100+ mph), and receive the bulk of their funding from either the state and/or federal government. I'm not sure how much the localities contribute, but I gather it isn't much. Commuter lines also generally require more subsidies per rider, and also as a percentage of operating costs.

To put things into perspective, the fare covers about $0.70 of every dollar it costs to run the NYC subway but only $0.45 per dollar for the LIRR. Both are operated by the same agency, the MTA. For all the complaints by many people in other states(I know you're not one of them ) about how much money they send to New York for it's subway, it's about as close to operating at a profit as any transit system is ever likely to be. Add in the pollution costs saved by about 2 million people a day not driving(not that the already congested roads would be able to accommodate them anyway ), and the subway is insanely profitable. Of course, a system as vast as this one only makes sense in cities of several million people, but the living patterns of the majority of the US is another matter for discussion entirely.

Personally, I wish I could ride my bicycle all the place that I need to go. The biggest problem is a lack of secure racks. Even if we all had electric vehicles we would have nearly all the same problems.

There are many trips that are not convenient by public transit that are ideally suited to the bicycle. The bicycle is the world's most used method of transportation, and unfortunately it is frequently overlooked by transportation planners in the United States. We do need decent, secure bicycle parking, and business establishments should have indoor racks near the front door where the security guard usually stands. Crowded cities like New York should also permit bicycles on sidewalks(they are in most European and Asian cities, as well as in some US cities) since many novice riders are afraid to ride in traffic, and even an experienced rider like myself will occasionally take to the sidewalk when the traffic gets too heavy. Given how sloppy many people's driving habits are, there is a real need to separate bicycle and pedestrian traffic from auto traffic.

Let's assume that there is edge-of-city high speed rail service with tracks maintained by the federal government and service run by the state or privatized. I think that the intra-city track network should be built and maintained locally. Just like the roads and subways.

Exactly. A high-speed train system is useless if the stations can only be reached by auto. The whole approach I mentioned requires that there be a reasonably comprehensive local transit system in place, and this can be done in most medium sized cities. The savings in health care and cleanup costs alone make public transit cost-effective once it is viewed from a "big picture" perspective. Another thing overlooked by the detractors of high-speed rail is the fact that many Americans willingly give up their cars to fly because it is faster even though airports are for the most part inconveniently located. They would certainly take a train that offered similar or better journey times than air, and much more convenient terminals. A good local public transit system would just be the icing on the cake. In very small cities where public transit makes no sense, a rent-a-car at the local train station will do just as well.

 

[jtr1962]

That said, I am against gov't funding of Amtrak. Amtrak needs to adjust their pricing to at least break even. If they continually operate in the red then they should face the consequences that every other company doing so faces. Amtrak owns many of the train hubs in the cities (Union Station, etc.). Amtrak should sell those off to raise the capital they say they need. They have had decades of government funding and have not been able to approach profitability. Enough is enough.

- Fushigi

I think the government should fund capital costs only, and the fares should cover most or all of the operating expenses. Highly unprofitable routes should be eliminated, especially the "trophy" routes I mentioned. I agree that there should be more accountability, and trains should only run where it makes sense.

However, if this is done, then in fairness drivers should also be made to cover the true cost of their driving(including the damage done by pollution). The best way to implement this would be a gas tax since the damage is proportional to the fuel burned. I'm not sure exactly what the rate would be, but I have heard figures on the order of $5 per gallon. You simply can't look at each mode of transport in a vacuum. When considering train travel, you need to look at the saved medical, cleanup, and real estate costs in order to make a fair decision. Given that drivers don't pay many of the hidden costs of driving, this is in effect a heavy subsidy on auto use that we all pay. It can even be argued that 9/11 was a consequence of our heavy petroleum use. Had we not been dependent upon imported oil, we would have had no need to be in that region at all, and by extension no reason for OBL to attack us. The total economic fallout from 9/11 will likely eventually exceed $1 trillion.

 

[jtr1962]

Getting rid of cars is a pipe dream. But I see no reason at all why we should not use them a great deal less than we do. We could sit around all year talking about ways and means, but (if I may take a leaf out of the New Right's book) by far the best and simplest would be to simply pay some attention to getting the billing structure right. To make, in other words, the as-experienced-by-the-user costs proportional to the actual costs.

Once you remove the artificial externalisation of costs from the road system and require road users to pay something approximating the true cost of the service they use, then you can pretty much leave it up to the market to sort the problems out.Markets are actually very good at sorting problems out, but the moment you introduce distortions into the pricing structure, you destroy the ability of the free market to function as designed.

This is exactly what I mentioned in the previous post. Once pollution costs are added to driving, we will likely see a good deal less of it, much smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, the death of SUVs, and probably an acceleration to zero emissions vehicles which wouldn't be subject to the pollution tax. You would also see a groundswell of support for public transit in places where it didn't exist simply because the daily auto commute that used to cost $15 per week for gas is now costing $100. A daily train fare of a few dollars would suddenly sound good by comparison, and add in the fact that in certain circumstances people could save a bundle by getting rid of their vehicles entirely. Considering how expensive cars are to own, operate, maintain, and park, I'm amazed that so many people have chosen to live in areas where they are the only means of getting around(in NYC, it would cost me $8,000 annually just for basic liability coverage since I would be a new driver, and hence an assigned risk). Not to get too off-topic, but when a place of business decides to move to an out of the way area to save rent(and sometimes wages), in all fairness they should provide transportation for their employees(i.e. a company van or two making the rounds).