Justification for LD trains

[DesertDude]

So maybe this has been covered in other threads, but I wasn't able to find it.

I was talking to a friend of mine who works as an urban planner. He is certainly pro-transit, and has ridden Amtrak himself a few times on LD routes (such as the SWC). However, he was telling me that there really is no justification for routes like the Zephyr when running busses along the route would do just as good of a job of getting people from point A to point B (at a lower cost and probably with better OTP). I honestly didn't have a good rebuttal for him.

I'll be upfront about the following biases I have:

1. I'm a western boy, and I mostly follow what's going on with trains west of the Mississippi (so mostly LD trains).

2. I LOVE trains (of course, why else would I be on this forum?). I'd much rather take a train from Grand Junction to Denver than a bus.

So I guess my question is, do you think he's ultimately right? When any biases are removed, can the existence of trains like the CZ, SWC, EB, etc., really be justified against the alternative of just having dedicated busses run along the same routes?

I'm curious to hear people's take on this.

 

[zephyr17]

Just make sure he doesn't run for Congress.

 

[Barciur]

Well, the comfort and the amenities that a train can deliver are wayyy better than any bus can do. Sleeper service, sightseeing lounge (for the cruise type), full blown out diner car and even generous amount of space in coach for legroom, seat pitch etc - what bus can do that for the amount of people an AMTRAK train can carry?

 

[beautifulplanet]

Hi DesertDude! Thank you very much for your post.

I was talking to a friend of mine who works as an urban planner. He is certainly pro-transit, and has ridden Amtrak himself a few times on LD routes (such as the SWC). However, he was telling me that there really is no justification for routes like the Zephyr when running busses along the route would do just as good of a job of getting people from point A to point B (at a lower cost and probably with better OTP).

Many might assume that an urban planner being pro-transit, probably is not only pro bus transit, but also pro-rail, because in many major urban areas rail is (or some might think it should be, in case it isn't yet) part of the transportation mix. Then some might think, that this is always sad to see, when a pro-rail person advocates against rail, and that buses should replace rail is one of the classic arguments against rail. And there are unfortunately many historical examples of just this being done, in some cases around the world, it's still happening these days.

Some might think, it would be in the best interest of the urban planner himself or herself, to not make the case against rail, as then in case he would ever propose some rail service for some of the urban areas he or she is planning for, then people possibly might come back to them saying "But you said yourself it's better to replace rail with buses!".

One similar case of rail advocates making the case against rail was recently seen in Austin, and some might think it's unfortunate that many more such cases exist.

So I guess my question is, do you think he's ultimately right?

Many might think it is legit to have any position, so of course it's also legit to make the case that long-distance rail should be replaced with buses.

At the same time, the majority of people probably think he is not right. NARP cites several opinion polls that indicate this, also Progressive Railroading conducted an online poll that said so.

Of course long-distance passenger rail receives public funding, but so do air operations. For example the Essential Air Program subsidies to airlines who operate flights to smaller airports, including some of them in the state of Colorado. Often those planes are inefficient small ones, like 30 seater or even 13 seater aircraft, and the subsidy is as high as $200 per passenger (and often, the passengers still pay up to $300 of a fare, as additional revenue for the airline). Still, there is public funding for these flight operations. And in the same way Amtrak provides transportation choices and mobility for the commuties it serves.

Last year, Eric Jaffe of The Atlantic's Citylab published an article on why long-distance trains are important:

3 Reasons to Keep Amtrak's Long-Distance Trains Running

April 18, 2013

By Eric Jaffe

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/04/3-part-case-long-distance-trains/5330/

Many might agree very strongly with the last point he mentions: Once any long-distance passenger rail route is "suspended", then it will be gone permanently, no matter how temporary "suspended" may sound. So a lot of people might think that especially when recently the financial results of passenger rail generally kept improving, when the ridership numbers generally kept going up and up, then it might be foolish to stop any of the long-distance passenger rail services, or foolish to convert any long-distance passenger service to buses. Instead, it might seem more appropriate to invest in rail, just as investments into road and air travel are routinely made as well, and that by investing in rail, not only the financial results of rail will be even better and the ridership even higher, but also even more people would be able to enjoy the benefits of rail travel, as well as the communities served would be able to see even bigger benefits for them which would come along with improved services and higher ridership.

 

[caravanman]

Given that there are already long distance buses, and that folk still take the trains, there must be some justification for keeping trains.

My main thought is that one train can move far more passengers than a bus, and is less damaging to the environment when well used. Putting more passengers onto the roads is not a great way to reduce global warming...

ed

 

[Ziv]

The way I look at Amtrak as a whole is that $1.5Bn a year buys our nation and entire MODE of passenger transportation. That investment holds the door open to increasing service via rail in the future, whether it is increasing the amount of sleeper cars on a route, or increasing the number of times a day a particular route runs or even, possibly, someday bringing back some of the old routes.

It is hard to believe but the federal outlays were $3.45Tn last year, even with sequestration. Amtrak received less than $1.5Bn.

$1,500,000,000 vs.

$3,450,000,000,000

Or just 0.0434% of the budget.

Less than 1/10 of 1%.

Amtrak is an incredibly useful service, and it requires just a sliver of the federal budget. Can you imagine what Amtrak could be like in 10 years if they received just $100,000,000 more a year?

On edit: What is the real amount actually spent on Amtrak per year? Wiki has it as slowly dropping from just over $1.5Bn to around $1.374Bn last year, but the Amtrak FY14 Budget has $2.032Bn as the amount of capital support they were requesting on page 27. Which is closer to the truth? Is the Amtrak budget a wish list of sorts? And the Wiki number is what they have actually been getting?

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/851/32/AmtrakFY14-Budget-Request-Justification,0.pdf

 

[jphjaxfl]

The gasoline,oil,tire and highway lobby are proponents of replacing Amtrak trains with buses as well as building bus ways instead of light rail or streetcar lines. The same anti passenger train people that have been around for years.

 

[George K]

What's the average number of people on a LD train? 200? 300? How many busses would it take to haul that number of people, and at what expense? How many drivers? How many fuel stops? What about rest stops for meals?

I believe I read that per passenger mile, rail traffic is still quite economical, even on the LD routes.

 

[WICT106]

Hi DesertDude! Thank you very much for your post.

I was talking to a friend of mine who works as an urban planner. He is certainly pro-transit, and has ridden Amtrak himself a few times on LD routes (such as the SWC). However, he was telling me that there really is no justification for routes like the Zephyr when running busses along the route would do just as good of a job of getting people from point A to point B (at a lower cost and probably with better OTP).

Many might assume that an urban planner being pro-transit, probably is not only pro bus transit, but also pro-rail, because in many major urban areas rail is (or some might think it should be, in case it isn't yet) part of the transportation mix. Then some might think, that this is always sad to see, when a pro-rail person advocates against rail, and that buses should replace rail is one of the classic arguments against rail. And there are unfortunately many historical examples of just this being done, in some cases around the world, it's still happening these days.

Some might think, it would be in the best interest of the urban planner himself or herself, to not make the case against rail, as then in case he would ever propose some rail service for some of the urban areas he or she is planning for, then people possibly might come back to them saying "But you said yourself it's better to replace rail with buses!".

One similar case of rail advocates making the case against rail was recently seen in Austin, and some might think it's unfortunate that many more such cases exist.

So I guess my question is, do you think he's ultimately right?

Many might think it is legit to have any position, so of course it's also legit to make the case that long-distance rail should be replaced with buses.

At the same time, the majority of people probably think he is not right. NARP cites several opinion polls that indicate this, also Progressive Railroading conducted an online poll that said so.

Of course long-distance passenger rail receives public funding, but so do air operations. For example the Essential Air Program subsidies to airlines who operate flights to smaller airports, including some of them in the state of Colorado. Often those planes are inefficient small ones, like 30 seater or even 13 seater aircraft, and the subsidy is as high as $200 per passenger (and often, the passengers still pay up to $300 of a fare, as additional revenue for the airline). Still, there is public funding for these flight operations. And in the same way Amtrak provides transportation choices and mobility for the commuties it serves.

Last year, Eric Jaffe of The Atlantic's Citylab published an article on why long-distance trains are important:

3 Reasons to Keep Amtrak's Long-Distance Trains Running

April 18, 2013

By Eric Jaffe

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/04/3-part-case-long-distance-trains/5330/

Many might agree very strongly with the last point he mentions: Once any long-distance passenger rail route is "suspended", then it will be gone permanently, no matter how temporary "suspended" may sound. So a lot of people might think that especially when recently the financial results of passenger rail generally kept improving, when the ridership numbers generally kept going up and up, then it might be foolish to stop any of the long-distance passenger rail services, or foolish to convert any long-distance passenger service to buses. Instead, it might seem more appropriate to invest in rail, just as investments into road and air travel are routinely made as well, and that by investing in rail, not only the financial results of rail will be even better and the ridership even higher, but also even more people would be able to enjoy the benefits of rail travel, as well as the communities served would be able to see even bigger benefits for them which would come along with improved services and higher ridership.

One additional reason to support passenger trains is that, once service over a given route is "suspended," or terminated, then the structures and infrastructure related to passenger service in that particular place are removed or demolished. The LD trains act as placeholders for any future service along a given route.

 

[Guest]

So maybe this has been covered in other threads, but I wasn't able to find it.

I was talking to a friend of mine who works as an urban planner. He is certainly pro-transit, and has ridden Amtrak himself a few times on LD routes (such as the SWC). However, he was telling me that there really is no justification for routes like the Zephyr when running busses along the route would do just as good of a job of getting people from point A to point B (at a lower cost and probably with better OTP). I honestly didn't have a good rebuttal for him.

I'll be upfront about the following biases I have:

1. I'm a western boy, and I mostly follow what's going on with trains west of the Mississippi (so mostly LD trains).

2. I LOVE trains (of course, why else would I be on this forum?). I'd much rather take a train from Grand Junction to Denver than a bus.

So I guess my question is, do you think he's ultimately right? When any biases are removed, can the existence of trains like the CZ, SWC, EB, etc., really be justified against the alternative of just having dedicated busses run along the same routes?

I'm curious to hear people's take on this.

Take the trip from GJ to Denver, for example. One big reason those buses are so fast and efficient is that the government built and maintains I-70 through the mountains, including, at enormous expense, the route through Glenwood canyon and the Eisenhower tunnel. Remove _that_ bias, and the bus trip becomes much much longer and more dangerous. Remove _US_ Route 6 as well, and the bus takes days to get there via Wyoming or southern Colorado. So in this case, at least, the difference is at least partly due to truly massive, long term federal subsidies for a road system that is in place largely for the benefit of holiday-makers and tourists.

Guest

 

[Paulus]

What's the average number of people on a LD train? 200? 300? How many busses would it take to haul that number of people, and at what expense? How many drivers? How many fuel stops? What about rest stops for meals?

I believe I read that per passenger mile, rail traffic is still quite economical, even on the LD routes.

In FY09, the California Zephyr required a subsidy of 20 cents per passenger mile and had a total cost of 35¢ per passenger mile. In terms of train-miles, this amounted to $32.24 and $57.58. For comparison, Montana's subsidized intercity bus service costs $2.43 per bus-mile (with a subsidy of $1.05); the total cost per passenger mile is ~20¢ and the subsidy required is ~9¢ per passenger mile but this is due to the low passenger loads (thanks to hardly anyone living in Montana): An average load of only 12 passengers on a 55 seat bus (Source for the Montana). For Amtrak's stated rationale for the long distance trains of providing rural connectivity, an intercity bus is far superior. Some passengers will likely be lost to air or automobile in preference over such a switch, but the buses also allow running more frequent and convenient service for rural communities to the nearest major urban center at the same or lesser cost; this should likely result in a net ridership gain. A once daily, frequently late, and often in the middle of the night train is anything but a convenient service for such passengers.

 

[PRae_Train]

I'm one of those who really can't fly cross-country because of sciatica/spinal stenosis. Just can't sit that long.

A bus would be worse because it would take so much longer sitting, and though you may stop every few hours, that's not enough.

I can't drive for more than 45-minutes or so for the same reason.

In the train, I can get up and move around, walk through, and this makes cross-country travel possible.

 

[beautifulplanet]

One additional reason to support passenger trains is that, once service over a given route is "suspended," or terminated, then the structures and infrastructure related to passenger service in that particular place are removed or demolished. The LD trains act as placeholders for any future service along a given route.

While there are some who will want to see those long-distance rail services whose operations are partially publicly funded eliminated, many probably couldn't agree more with what you wrote. Some might think, once service is "suspended" then sooner or later the necessary infrastructure will also disappear, and in result - at least in some cases - will make any future rail service unfeasible. So some might come to the conclusion, it's worthwhile to continue to support long-distance rail operations, both for the millions of riders annually using it now, as well as an appropriate investment in keeping rail operations and infrastructure in place for the benefit of the country.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

The train has better scenery.

 

[Herman]

Trains do better in snow. Toronto stuck with street cars for same reason. I had an 8 hr Scarry Bustitution in the icy night on the EB in Montanna/North Dakota.

 

[Peter KG6LSE]

the day I can get a superliner seat pitch on a salty dog bus Ill take the bus. I have knee issues and that is the number one reason I take the train ...... Heck Ill take the cascades coach any day over any other non rail transport .

 

[andersone]

I am always amazed at the irony,,,,,

planes and roads have a much greater subsidy,

yet Amtrak takes it on the nose

everytime

 

[RichardWSnow]

I'm in my seventies and travel from the San Francisco Bay Area to where I grew up near Buffalo, NY at least once every year. I take the CZ and LSL and have been doing so for 25 years now. I wouldn't even consider taking the bus. If the LD trains and their roomettes weren't an option, I'd not make the trip. It's magical on a train. It's that simple.

Richard Snow

 

[iggy]

From a glance I see comfort has been mentioned. Anyone who has endured bustitution quickly misses amount of room you get in a train seat.

Safety - much better overall safety record with passenger trains versus buses.

You move more people to destination - versus needing multiple buses to move same amount of people.

More overhead storage in almost all cases. On train you may not have bags right next to you - but can always access them - unless you opted to check them - to where they would be in baggage car. Sometimes amount of stuff Amtrak passengers travel with amazes me and I pack heavily.

Weather was mentioned - many times when roads are closed - airports shutdown - trains may be running slow - some even cancelled - but they are running - when other modes are shutdown. Always interesting how quickly business class on Lincoln Service fills up when O'Hare shuts down.

In some cases Amtrak still services towns without bus options - or towns where riding Amtrak is a bit more hospitable. Quick example - Greyhound shutdown their station in Springfield Illinois - local towing company took over - offering tickets from their business location. I'd venture a guess this is a less pleasant experience now - no real station - services etc. Versus Amtrak station - while old and heat and cooling less than working - at least offers more room - places to sit - somewhat clean bathrooms etc.

Interestingly enough - only taken a Greyhound bus long distance once - do to freight derailment - Amtrak put me on this horrible experience. Cramped, dirty, station bathrooms even in newer ones - disgusting. Only 1 onboard bus toilet versus multiple bathroom options on most Amtrak trains.

Interesting how many other countries understand advantages of rail and invest in infrastructure to support services. While many in United States still can't grasp the concept. Voters recently showed they must real hate passenger rail in USA.

Used to be when Communist advanced technologies etc - we tried to compete - by outdoing them or at least matching them. China's high speed rail system - while questionable in regards to safety - was built in an amount of time where in USA we still be doing studies. Granted their system has run into debate about certain routes needing subsidized just like in United States. There used to be pride to want to outdo all others - that seems to have disappeared many decades ago.

 

[TVRM610]

The question also becomes what should be subsidized ever? Should a small town get a paved highway that runs to it? why?

Should smaller towns have subsidized flights running to them? why?

If transportation SHOULD be subsidized at all (and in this country it is, there is no getting away from it) what is the point that it is a worthwhile investment? If the Zephyr transports 200 people per day per train, isn't that 800 a day? 5,600 a week? So is 5,600 passengers per week a good investment? And 800 a day would be 13 or more busses vs. 4 train sets.

What determines the "justification" - number of total riders? cost per mile?

 

[cirdan]

Seeing your friend is an urban trasportation planner, it might be useful to make an urban transit analogy.

Many cities that have put in streetcars and light rail have seen enormous growth in passenger numbers on these routes. And the growth in passengers has been matched by collateral growth such as real estate locations close to the stations suddenly becoming highly desirable. The whole thing is a snowball. More people and more businesses close to stations mean more people can use the transit line mean it becomes more attractive and so starts a virtuous spiral of growth and and urban renaissance.

Critics say, a bus could have done the same for a fraction of the cost. But they are often missing he point that before there was a light rail line there was a bus. and that bus didn't do any of these things. There are multiple reasons for this, but one of them is that people simply prefer light rail over buses.

Now much the same thing holds for long distance travel. You can bustitute a train, but over the years the ridership will drop to a fraction of its former level. There are many people who will ride trains who won't ride buses.

 

[dlagrua]

Government is there to serve the people and the public interest. Yes they subsidize the service but it isn't free. The people pay for the service with their taxes and the fares.

Every other country in the world has accepted that it is necessary to have national train service. There are many reasons why.

Busses cannot replace train service. They are smaller, slower, more confining and would have a difficult time serving remote communities that are miles from major highways and service stops. Amtrak serves these small towns, some of which are hours away from the nearest airport where flight choices are often very limited. Around the cities commuters use Amtrak to avoid the gridlock traffic of rush hour. Rail is also the most fuel efficient means of transportation.

Amtrak is a job creator. It has a staff of 20,000 workers. Thousands of other people are employed by firms that supply and service the railroad. All of these employees pay federal income tax on their wages that goes back to the government. For the rail traveler, the advantage is comfort. You are not squeezed into an ever shrinking seat and can see America while you travel. There are also sleeping accommodations that you cannot have on most flights or on busses.

If you consider the number of air and rail passengers combined, Amtrak serves about 10% of the total at about 31.1 million passengers. They serve 500 towns (and cities) in 46 states. Revenue is about 2.88 billion and the numbers continue to increase every year.

Passenger rail is vital to the nations transportation system. It is just unfortunate that many people still fail to see it's importance. At a measly 3% of the total US transportation budget it is an important thing to have.

 

[PRR 60]

...

If you consider the number of air and rail passengers combined, Amtrak serves about 10% of the total at about 31.1 million passengers.

...

Amtrak serves a little less than 5% of the total air/rail market (646 million domestic air, 31 million Amtrak).

 

[Grayewolf]

I cannot fly, severe aviophobia plus social anxiety disorder and we all know how crowded those flying sardine cans are. I cannot ride the greyhound, again, a sardine can packed with people. On either of the two I'd have a serious panic attack. With so much room on Amtrak my medication works well plus the seats are far enough apart in coach that sometimes I don't need to take my medication. I priced the trip I start this evening and it is half the cost of an airline which is expensive for a person on a fixed income like me.

 

[anonymous]

Some of us don't want to be forced to allow a machine take naked images of us or a government employee touch intimate places of our bodies in order to travel about our own country. Trains provide us a way to travel with our dignity and religous values in tact, at least for now.