Expanding Amtrak cheaper than other subsidies

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

George K

Conductor
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
1,192
Location
The Chicago Burbs
http://thegazette.com/subject/opinion/guest-columnists/expanding-amtrak-cheaper-than-other-subsidies-20150117

In a Dec. 17 Gazette article on the costs of subsidizing six smaller regional airports in Iowa, it was noted that $10.9 million in federal subsidies per year are currently provided to keep these airports functioning.

The total number of passengers at all of these airports (92,472 last year) averages out to only 42 passengers per airport per day. At the same time, the Iowa Department of Transportation is seeking to expand a total of 170 miles of interstate highway (including I-380 between Cedar Rapids and Iowa City) at a cost of approximately $1 billion dollars, with a cost of between $5 million to $10 million per mile for the entire process.

Meanwhile, Governor Branstad continues to oppose the expansion of Amtrak, initially from the Quad Cities to Iowa City, and then on to Des Moines and eventually to Omaha. This plan, available at IowaDOT.gov/IowaRail, anticipates about 820 passengers per day will use the system once the Iowa City link is established, and 1.3 million passengers per year once the entire Omaha-to-Chicago link is done. The yearly projected subsidy for the State of Iowa is expected to be $600,000 ($2 per passenger) as opposed to the current six regional airport’s subsidy of $118 per passenger.

The initial total investment in Amtrak would equal the cost of less than 15 miles of highway expansion.
 
Iowa is that big, but doesn't have a lot of population.

What population Iowa has is mostly very spread out in small towns rather than concentrated in sizable cities.

Hence the perceived need for small regional airports.

http://www.iowadot.gov/aviation/data_driven/publications/System_plan_reports/SPRMIW.pdf

http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/passenger/visionplan.htm

I wonder how accurate the 1.3 million OMA - CHI rail pax a year stated in the article would be in reality.

Cedar Rapid is 30 miles from Iowa City and I also wonder about the 820 pax per day number between those 2 cities.

The current Gov and I don't see eye-to-eye on very many issues facing Iowa today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What impressed me on my last trip was the accessibility that people in "remote" locations have to reasonable transportation, at reasonable prices. We breakfasted with a couple of nice ladies who had boarded the EB in MSP on the way to Havre, MT. What other options would they have for that trip?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'd guess few, and the probably would be very expensive. Much nicer and cheaper to travel coach on the EB, snooze on the way to Minot, have breakfast with a charming young lady and her dad, and then go on to your destination.
 
1.3 million passengers per year? That'd be Amtrak's sixth most popular route - the single most popular route outside the NEC and California. How did they make those numbers?
 
What impressed me on my last trip was the accessibility that people in "remote" locations have to reasonable transportation, at reasonable prices. We breakfasted with a couple of nice ladies who had boarded the EB in MSP on the way to Havre, MT. What other options would they have for that trip?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'd guess few, and the probably would be very expensive. Much nicer and cheaper to travel coach on the EB, snooze on the way to Minot, have breakfast with a charming young lady and her dad, and then go on to your destination.
Not many, only fly to billings on a regional jet only to transfer to a Cessna to havre.
 
Not many, only fly to billings on a regional jet only to transfer to a Cessna to havre.
https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=MSP;t=HVR;d=2015-02-13;r=2015-02-17;tt=o;q=fly+from+minneapolis+to+havre
Cape Air (?) will take you from Minneapolis to Havre for the bargain price of....$485. It's a 4.5 hour trip.

Amtrak is $123 (coach) for a 17.5 hour trip.

If you're a LOL (Little Old Lady), you'll save the $300 and sleep in coach.
still with $500 in subsidies per seat from billings on.
 
1.3 million passengers per year? That'd be Amtrak's sixth most popular route - the single most popular route outside the NEC and California. How did they make those numbers?
I believe that number is based on 5-6 round trips per day (there have been several versions; I recall one that had 5-6x to Des Moines with 4x to Omaha as the final tally). Outside of the NEC/California, for the most part corridors are 2-4 round trips per day with exceptions CHI-STL, BON-POR, NYP-ALB, and Virginia. In Virginia's case, you have six round-trips broken over four different route categories coming increasingly close to a million passengers per year. This corridor is also odd in having two major potential turnover points (Des Moines and Quad Cities) where a lot of corridors end up being either "two major endpoints and some incidental stations in between" or "lots of people going to/from one end" in terms of ridership.
 
In my opinion the case of Virginia NE Regional service, which has single seat continuation ride from all of NEC, makes it uniquely unsuitable for using as a model for anything else that does not have that huge extended rider base. So it should be avoided in these discussions for the time being.
 
Iowa is that big, but doesn't have a lot of population.

What population Iowa has is mostly very spread out ...

...

… Cedar Rapids is 30 miles from Iowa City and I also wonder

about the 820 pax per day number between those 2 cities.
I think you misread that figure.

The 820 pax per day estimate is for only the first, basic

extension from the Quad Cities to Iowa City.

So it would include Chicago pax but not any Cedar Rapids

service until the route is extended and branched.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1.3 million passengers per year? That'd be Amtrak's sixth most popular route - the single most popular route outside the NEC and California.

How did they make those numbers?
I believe that number is based on 5-6 round trips per day (there have been several versions; I recall one that had 5-6x to Des Moines with 4x to Omaha as the final tally).
Yeah, several permutations in the studies. One version way back when
mentioned a second frequency Chicago-Denver. Currently the Zephyr
passes thru Nebraska in the dead of night, arriving in Denver at 7 a.m. or so.
That's good scheduling; not like hitting Cleveland at 3 a.m. LOL.

Still, a daylight train thru Nebraska could serve a different market. Leaving
Omaha at 11 p.m. or Lincoln after midnight is not good for the older-skewing
Amtrak passenger base. Meanwhile, continually upgrading the route
Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha-Denver could easily
cut 2 or 3 hours out of the current run time via Ottumwa and Osceola,
allowing a later, more useful times at Chicago. Leaving at 2 p.m. now
sort of ruins the day for potential business riders. Arriving Union Station
near 3 p.m. is likewise far less than ideal.

Anyway, so far as I know, in every instance where frequency has been doubled
in the U.S., total ridership has soon doubled.
 
1.3 million passengers per year? That'd be Amtrak's sixth most popular route - the single most popular route outside the NEC and California. How did they make those numbers?
... Outside of the NEC/California, for the most part corridors are 2-4 round trips per day with exceptions CHI-STL, BON-POR, NYP-ALB, and Virginia… .

...
Inspired by your quick count (which overlooked the Keystone,

the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Corridor, and the Hiawatha

Chicago-Milwaukee) --

I was pleased to see how many corridors are going to get truly

significant boosts in the next couple of years.

That New Haven-Springfield route will get faster trip times and

more frequencies.

The Keystone will shave minutes as small fixes kick in, from

high level platforms to better interlockings and serious track work

within the SEPTA area as that agency gets investment money.

The Empire Corridor will get doubletracking and other upgrades,

making this six-train corridor better as far as Schenectady, where

the Adirondack and Ethan Allen split off to the north while the

Maple Leaf to Toronto, the two Empire trains to Niagara Falls,

and the Lake Shore continue west.

The Virginia trains are exceptional, and don't necessarily offer

any lessons for other states. But it has to be noted that the

Charlottesville-D.C. Corridor is 2 and 3/7ths trains today, with

the Crescent, the Cardinal, and the Lynchburger. It will get

to 3 and 3/7ths trains when a second Lynchburger is added

and one of them is extended to Roanoke. (A daily Cardinal

would probably help the other trains in this corridor a lot,

because 4 trains makes sense but 3 and 3/7ths is nuts.)

More frequencies to Norfolk, and perhaps to Newport News,

seem not too far in the future

The Raleigh-Charlotte corridor has two Piedmont trains a day

plus the Carolinian, with another Piedmont frequency promised

in a year or two, and iirc another one a year or two after that.

The big excitement will be around the Chicago hub. Upgrades

between Dearborn and Kalamazoo will speed up the three

Wolverine frequencies to Detroit by almost an hour. The coming

bi-level cars will increase capacity by about 30%. Usually

the Wolverines carry 500,000 pax, when the service is not

disrupted by construction and a really bad winter. Adding

30% more seats could give it 650,000 riders. With two more

frequencies it could perhaps exceed a million. How soon

another frequency can be added is hard to say, because

of the bad congestion between Chicago and Porter, IN,

the segment known as South of the Lake.

The upgrades to St Louis-Chicago should finish about the time

the new bi-levels start to enter the Midwest fleet in 2017. Again,

about a 30% increase in capacity, before adding another

frequency here. The Lincoln Service carried 634,000 pax in

FY 2014; a 30% increase in riders to fill the new capacity

would put it over 800,000 pax. Adding even one more

frequency (requiring a new agreement with the UP) could

put it over 1,000,000.

In addition, two new smaller corridors are being created out of

Chicago, to the Quad Cities and to Rockford, again with at least

one train a day, probably two, in a 2017 time frame.

Out on the left coast, the Cascades service will grow from 4 trains

a day Seattle-Portland to 6 a day in 2017. With a 50% increase in

frequency and capacity, a 10-minute savings in trip time, and

much, much better OTP, this corridor will easily grow from about

850,000 to well over a million a year. (It's unclear to me if the

two added Talgo trainsets will allow a third or fourth frequency

south of Portland to Eugene.)

Looks like we're going to see a good return soon on the Stimulus

funds invested in a better Amtrak.
 
San Joaquins will be getting an additional Bakersfield-Oakland round trip later this year and another round trip in the near future while the Pacific Surfliner is looking at adding a new early morning San Diego to Los Angeles run.
 
Greensboro to Charlotte is actually 4 trains per day already, going to six trains per day in the foreseeable future.

Too bad the second Lynchburger cannot be easily extended to Greensboro connecting up with the NC Piedmont service there.
 
I believe the Iowa projections. It's a *good* route, and 5-6/day would get good results. Compare it to the Empire Corridor to Buffalo: the Empire Corridor could do better if it wasn't at the mercy of CSX and poor operational choices; and it also has only 2/day captive to the line, with the other 2 limping in delayed from further out. The planned Iowa line would not have those problems, being passenger-primary and 90-110 mph and with all 6/day services captive to the line. (The Denver trains would be extra.)

Unfortunately, the cited article is from Iowa City. Iowa City and the Quad Cities have been very clear that they want the line and they want it ASAP. Cedar Rapids has also been very positive. But the support west of there has been anemic. If we start seeing opinion pieces in Council Bluffs or Des Moines which are this positive, that might be a sign that the politics are going somewhere.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems to me that helping to pay the subsidy alongside cities and/or chambers of commerce would be the proper role of NARP and any local rail advocacy organizations.
 
Seems to me that helping to pay the subsidy alongside cities and/or chambers of commerce would be the proper role of NARP and any local rail advocacy organizations.
Silly Saturday or what? You're better than that, Paulus.

NARP has about 25,000 members on a good day. Retired

and students can pay less iirc, but let's say each member

sends in $50 a year. Unless my calculator is broken, I'm

getting a budget of $1,250,000. Lucky that they can pay

the rent and keep a website up.

Yeah, they might get a couple of foundation grants, but

we aren't talking serious money. We're being silly to think

that NARP or the Chambers of Commerce should take on

the government's role of providing basic service to its citizens.

It's projected to be a $2 per person subsidy, at least to start.

​We can well afford it. If you think we can't, let's tax everyone

who inherited more than $20 Billion, say 1/10th of 1 percent

of the overage. Because the Koch Brothers and the Walton

Walmart heirs can damn well afford it.
 
Seems to me that helping to pay the subsidy alongside cities and/or chambers of commerce would be the proper role of NARP and any local rail advocacy organizations.
Silly Saturday or what? You're better than that, Paulus.
NARP has about 25,000 members on a good day. Retired

and students can pay less iirc, but let's say each member

sends in $50 a year. Unless my calculator is broken, I'm

getting a budget of $1,250,000. Lucky that they can pay

the rent and keep a website up.

Yeah, they might get a couple of foundation grants, but

we aren't talking serious money. We're being silly to think

that NARP or the Chambers of Commerce should take on

the government's role of providing basic service to its citizens.

It's projected to be a $2 per person subsidy, at least to start.

​We can well afford it. If you think we can't, let's tax everyone

who inherited more than $20 Billion, say 1/10th of 1 percent

of the overage. Because the Koch Brothers and the Walton

Walmart heirs can damn well afford it.
Didn't say that they ought to do it on their lonesome, but offering up $100-200K for a year or two, perhaps with some degree of extra funding via a special appeal to members, in conjunction with other entities or the state of Iowa, to make it more palatable or allow for a temporary trial run that would allow Iowa to see how much it would really cost to run, should be doable.
 
... Out on the left coast, the Cascades service will grow from 4 trains

a day Seattle-Portland to 6 a day in 2017. With a 50% increase in

frequency and capacity, a 10-minute savings in trip time, and

much, much better OTP, this corridor will easily grow from about

850,000 to well over a million a year. (It's unclear to me if the

two added Talgo trainsets will allow a third or fourth frequency

south of Portland to Eugene.)...
Its very unlikely we will see a additional frequency anytime soon Portland-Eugene. UP will not (and should not) allow it without major track additions as south of Portland its all single track and UP runs at near capacity during decent economic conditions, and did suffer meltdowns when UP tried to run over capacity (remember the Coast StarLate).
 
Seems to me that helping to pay the subsidy alongside cities and/or chambers of commerce would be the proper role of NARP and any local rail advocacy organizations.
Silly Saturday or what? You're better than that, Paulus.
NARP has about 25,000 members on a good day. Retired

and students can pay less iirc, but let's say each member

sends in $50 a year. Unless my calculator is broken, I'm

getting a budget of $1,250,000. Lucky that they can pay

the rent and keep a website up.

Yeah, they might get a couple of foundation grants, but

we aren't talking serious money. We're being silly to think

that NARP or the Chambers of Commerce should take on

the government's role of providing basic service to its citizens.

It's projected to be a $2 per person subsidy, at least to start.

​We can well afford it. If you think we can't, let's tax everyone

who inherited more than $20 Billion, say 1/10th of 1 percent

of the overage. Because the Koch Brothers and the Walton

Walmart heirs can damn well afford it.
Didn't say that they ought to do it on their lonesome, but offering up $100-200K for a year or two, perhaps with some degree of extra funding via a special appeal to members, in conjunction with other entities or the state of Iowa, to make it more palatable or allow for a temporary trial run that would allow Iowa to see how much it would really cost to run, should be doable.

Or they could just ask for the money on kickstarter.
 
Iowa is that big, but doesn't have a lot of population.

...

http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/passenger/visionplan.htm

...
Great pile of tidbits in that study. For example,

it proposes running two trains Chicago-Omaha,

with a 7-hour schedule, average speed 67 mph,

a big improvement over the current 10 hour run time.

Upgrades to the full Chicago-Omaha corridor would

come to $800 million in 2002 dollars, including

equipment costs.

(I can't figure what that amount would be in 2015 dollars.

A little inflation on the one hand, but with the Chicago-

Quad Cities portion paid ahead of the other intra-Iowa

investments on the other. I'm going to think of the total

remaining as about $750 million current dollars.)

The substantial investments would allow 2 trains to

Omaha, and revenues would climb modestly from

$53 million beginning year to $61 million 10 or 11

years later. But the operating and maintenance costs

for full route would only inch up, from $59 to $60 million.

(All 2002 dollars. Yes, the study is a little shelf worn.)

The leads to estimated operating ratio moving from

a not-so-bad 90% in the opening year to a positive

1.02 10 years out.

That info is in The Appendix, Part C. Another section

on page 43 discusses extending the coming new train

from Rockford to Dubuque to Sioux City! Sioux City?

Who knew? A few pages later are paragraphs about

a train St. Paul-Des Moines-Kansas City! And then

another route St Paul-Sioux City-Omaha-Kansas City.

These would require cooperation from Minnesota,

probably not too hard to get, but maybe some help

from South Dakota and Nebraska. Well, we'll see.

My theory is that when 5 or 6 or 7 trains a day start

running St Louis -Chicago in about 4 hours 30 minutes

instead of 5 hours 20 as now, extreme jealousy will set

in amongst neighboring states, with a clamor for more

corridors all around.

Well, it could happen. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top