U.S. Passenger Rail Needs $353 Billion, Panel Says

Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. should spend $353 billion through 2050 to expand intercity passenger rail service and ease highway and airport congestion, a transportation advisory panel urged.

The investment would help create routes between cities such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and Cleveland and Cincinnati, according to a report today from the panel, part of a federal commission studying the future of U.S. surface transportation.

Even spread over 42 years, such a sum would dwarf the U.S. subsidy for Amtrak, the national passenger railroad, which received $1.3 billion in the last fiscal year. President George W. Bush wants to cut spending to $900 million in fiscal 2008...

...`The price of not acting, the price of not going down this path, is probably significantly greater than the price tag you see here today,'' Amtrak Chief Executive Officer Alexander Kummant told reporters today in Washington, where he joined the report's authors at a news conference...

Bloomberg

Passenger Rail Working Group for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission Report

Suffice to say, the AAR holds a differing position; quite succinctly such is "if on dedicated ROW's, great; on the existing Class I system, not quite"

http://www.aar.org/Index.asp?NCID=4122

Brief passage:

• Successful passenger rail systems — like those in Europe and Japan — rely on publicly funded track and almost exclusively dedicated to passenger rail. We support the development of high-speed passenger rail systems like Europe and Japan, where dedicated, high-speed passenger rail corridors separate 200-mile-an-hour passenger trains from 50-mile-an-hour freight trains......This report does the opposite — it rests the future of passenger rail on the freight rail system. Piggy-backing on privately owned and operated freight railroad assets will give America a third-rate passenger rail system, one that is not attractive to passengers or competitive with automobile and air travel. It will place limits on the capacity of freight rail operations, creating delays for freight customers, forcing more freight onto our already overcrowded highways, and harming our economic and global competitiveness

IMO, locating upgraded or future passenger rail facilities in freight rail ROW is not a problem (and in fact is a positive) IF there are a sufficient number of tracks in the right-of-way to enable minimal conflict between passenger rail and freight rail operations and the tracks used for passenger service can accommodate high quality (i.e. high speed) operations. That if is the rub.

I think a distinction has to be made between heavy and light freight. Many European lines handle both freight and passenger traffic. Not the high-speed lines, but other lines. The difference is that they don't handle heavy freight on those lines. That's where the inefficiencies come in. In the US, our freight rail system runs on volume, not speed or quality.

So I think the real answer is that we really need to find a way to re figure our rail system from the ground up. There is a place for heavy freight, there is a place for light freight, and a place for passenger traffic. I don't think it is going to be cheap OR easy. But I think a) we have no choice - all road traffic just isn't cutting it anymore, and b) we only have ourselves to blame for letting it get this far behind.

Most of the regulars on this Forum know that any discussion of the issue can devolve into intense partisanship, but at the same time, the need to develop some plan of action in response to the fuel/mobility crisis is intensifying every day. My skepticism toward this particular report is fueled by the fact that the article contains little information on how the panel was chosen; with the White House and Congress in opposite camps, "inquiries" can be skewed in favor of a particular agenda.

But having raised that flag, few of us who pay regular attention to the transportation crisis believe it will ease any time soon. What is needed is:

(1) to draw more of the public's attention (through deeper coverage in the mainstream media) - we need the Sunday-morning public-affairs crowd, as well as the readership of Parade and Popular Mechanics
(2) to explore the alternatives via multiple approaches - such as revival of a forgotten intermediate-distance network on the East Coast, but a "true" HSR project for California or possibly, Ohio
(3) inclusion of freight/distribution questions; open access, an alternative to the 18-wheeler, (which is going to be much harder to wean away from fossil fuel than the personal auto), and possibly the development of a low-value, low-speed "land barge" freight network using abandoned ROW's, and
(4) a realistic portrayal of the cost and an understanding that while the long horzions and the prospect of permanent infrastructural improvements could entice the freight carriers to participate, they can't be portrayed as villains and stuck with the tab.

It's going to be a very long haul; those of us in middle age will be long gone before any "national system" (whatever that entails) can be completed, and there remains the prospect that some breakthrough on the technical front will again make the private vehicle more sustainable and render much of the investment redundant.

But it will keep the railfans plenty busy!

That's about one-third the cost of the Iraq war.
Should be doable.

It should be doable and nice thing is it actually benefits the taxpayers (not iraqy once)

Intercity trains don't really replace cars. Just look at Europe... most here laud their rail systems yet everyone there still has a car.

Most miles driven by people are either to do errands, get to school, or get to work. If we want to truly have an impact on getting cars off the road then solutions must be formulated to address those activities first and foremost. The total number of miles driven in Pennsylvania on any given day attributed to Philly - Pittsburgh trips is almost trivial on a state-wide basis. Penn Station (New York) is the epicenter of Amtrak yet fewer than 10% (I think that's right, I'm not looking it up again) of the travelers through NYP are Amtrak passengers. Commuter trains are what's moving the most people by rail since that's what passengers need five times a week.

Errands will probably never be addressed with rail transit. School and work can be. From there, it's in the nation's interest to integrate those solutions with inter-city rail networks. It's starting with the metropolitan solution that inter-city solutions will take shape and be maximized.

MudLake wrote:Intercity trains don't really replace cars. Just look at Europe... most here laud their rail systems yet everyone there still has a car.

Most miles driven by people are either to do errands, get to school, or get to work. If we want to truly have an impact on getting cars off the road then solutions must be formulated to address those activities first and foremost. The total number of miles driven in Pennsylvania on any given day attributed to Philly - Pittsburgh trips is almost trivial on a state-wide basis. Penn Station (New York) is the epicenter of Amtrak yet fewer than 10% (I think that's right, I'm not looking it up again) of the travelers through NYP are Amtrak passengers. Commuter trains are what's moving the most people by rail since that's what passengers need five times a week.

Errands will probably never be addressed with rail transit. School and work can be. From there, it's in the nation's interest to integrate those solutions with inter-city rail networks. It's starting with the metropolitan solution that inter-city solutions will take shape and be maximized.

How did the trolley line become extinct and the bus lines that take too long or simply have a bad reputation stay in business? I say for this bring back the old trolley lines and we start going back to how it was in the day which I hear from those that use to ride in Los Angeles it was the way to get around. The red car was the way to go. Its sad to see America fall behind when it was once so far ahead (or so it seemed). Growing up with this problem (im only 22) leaves me wondering what its going to be like for my kids and the generations to follow? will Amtrak be around in 30 years? or will it disappear like the red car did? Ive traveled to Europe and enjoyed their transit system which was well putt together. Our transit of any form be it rail,road etc. Is missing that of Organization and Funding (or the funding is un-even example: AIR and ROADWAYS get more funding YETT the problem never gets SOLVED).
When you rid things of Organization of course your left with chaos which is that of Amtrak. When you take away funding you get something old and out of date which is that of Amtrak. If you can organize get funding, partnerships (really don't know who?.....) as well as a large number of support which is not the only thing! you need SOMEBODY with a knack for running a railroad under stress and a limited fund and keep the public happy. You would then possibly see a healthy rail network. OH as well as said before, GOING WHERE THE PEOPLE NEED TO GO WHEN THEY NEED TO!. One other crazy solution is get the government out of the railroad and sale public stocks off to rail fans and a vote be casted for that of a foamer with experience in management to run the railroad. Only way to change this is to make phone calls and write letters. Well ive done my part but nothing ever seems to change.

farmerjohn wrote:How did the trolley line become extinct and the bus lines that take too long or simply have a bad reputation stay in business? I say for this bring back the old trolley lines and we start going back to how it was in the day which I hear from those that use to ride in Los Angeles it was the way to get around.

This is really getting outside the realm of Amtrak but I will say this:

In Portland, the trolley lines weren't purchased by the National City Lines - they were consolidated together by what later became a subsidiary of what is now known as Portland General Electric (to this day the electric company serving most of Portland). It was that company that decided to go to trolleybusses, and then diesel busses. In 1969 the system was sold to the newly formed Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, or Tri-Met, which then purchased up commuter bus lines thus serving the entire metropolitan area of Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties.

For the next 20 years, TriMet heavily invested in improving bus service which was well received and noted by many urban planners. Downtown Portland, once described as "you only visit downtown to take the kids to see Santa Claus at Meier & Frank", was reborn and a major shopping district - with Meier & Frank (now Macy's) in the center, grew up.

In 1986, TriMet launched its first MAX line to Gresham, with an expansion of bus service to match. 11 years later (1997) a second MAX line west to Hillsboro opened, along with another expansion of bus service.

Then, things went downhill. TriMet received a new General Manager that undertook TWO MAX expansions (Red and Yellow Lines) but without new bonding authority. Bus improvements stopped, and reliability went downhill. It's common for busses to run 15-20 minutes late - if they show up at all. Portland has one of the oldest bus fleets on the west coast, and the second highest fare structure.

Now, most visitors wouldn't know, because all that anyone pays attention to is the MAX system and the Portland Streetcar. While the bus system carries the bulk of the region's transit riders, it's all but "swept under the rug" when it comes to showing support for Portland's development policies. If you want to get to Gresham, Gateway, the airport, the Expo Center, downtown, Beaverton or Hillsboro - MAX works great. If you want to get anywhere that's not walking distance from a MAX station (which is 90% of the Portland area), you're on your own. That's why only 7% of Portland's trips are taken via mass transit. (In all fairness, 4% are taken via bike.)

In short - if you like your theory, move to Portland because that's exactly what is happening - we're investing millions into Light Rail and Streetcar, practically zero in bus service, and there is so much political infighting over anything else - so much that the rest of the state automatically votes "no" on any transportation package because it's known that most of the money will go towards another "choo-choo line for Portland".