Reply With Quote:angryfire Of course Amtrak is threatend again. When is America going to start funding a first class rail system like the rest of the world?
Sources: Amtrak subsidy subject to elimination
Wednesday, February 2, 2005 Posted: 2:32 PM EST (1932 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Bush administration will for the first time propose eliminating operating subsidies for passenger train operator Amtrak as part of a push to cut budget deficits, people close to the budget process said Tuesday.
President Bush's fiscal 2006 budget, which he will send to Congress on Monday, will allocate no subsidy for Amtrak to run its trains. But it will offer $360 million for maintenance on the flagship Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston -- which Amtrak owns -- and for commuter services.
The proposal must be approved by Congress, and the administration faces a fight in getting approval for a budget that aims to nearly freeze the growth of domestic spending not tied to national defense.
An influential Democrat warned that if enacted, the Bush administration's budget would set the nation's only city-to-city passenger service "on a course to bankruptcy."
Last year, the Bush administration proposed $900 million in subsidies, but Congress increased that to $1.2 billion after the railroad said the administration's proposal would force it to shut down.
An Amtrak spokesman would not comment when asked about the possibility of the rail service losing the bulk of its federal allocation.
Senior administration officials declined to discuss the 2006 budget figures, but described the decision as part of Bush's broader push to restrain government spending and eliminate what they see as wasteful programs.
"The approach in the budget is to make clear that we cannot support an approach that does not work and calls for increasing burdens on federal taxpayers. But we'd feel differently if reforms are accomplished," an administration official said.
Another senior administration official added: "Amtrak should be treated like any other form of transportation and funded like any other form of transportation. The other forms don't get operating subsidies."
An official said the Bush administration would continue to support commuter rail services, "if necessary, even in the absence of reform."
The administration has long hoped to wean Amtrak from federal subsidies, criticizing the state of its infrastructure and service. It wants to open its rail lines up to competition.
Amtrak employs 22,000 people and operates 265 trains a day, excluding commuter service, in 46 states.
The administration budget has proposed funding levels over the previous two years that the railroad said were unsustainable. Each year, Congress came through with extra money at the last minute to boost Amtrak's appropriation to levels the railroad said it could live with but still far below what it sought.
Amtrak has never made money in its 34-year history.
To get its subsidy in recent years, Amtrak has had to agree to much closer Transportation Department oversight of its books and its operations.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee on transportation and a strong Amtrak supporter, said she was deeply concerned about the budget move.
"For four years they have played budget games and fought congressional efforts to keep Amtrak afloat," Murray said.
"Now, despite the fact that Amtrak has gone to great lengths to get their costs under control and run more efficiently, the president is again offering a budget that sets the rail service on a course to bankruptcy," she added.
Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation said the move was long overdue.
"The White House is saving money for the taxpayers and hopefully serving notice to other agencies that they must be efficient and effective in order to continue receiving tax dollars," Riedl said.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
:angryfire Of course Amtrak is threatend again. When is America going to start funding a first class rail system like the rest of the world?
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
uhhh.. BC unlike the rest of the world we are not scocialist... If America want to keep the rail sevice... RIDE AMTRACK.. It is not a form of public transportation.
Of course, the airlines will continue to suck up money. All or none, if they cut off Amtrak, they'd better let the airlines suffer, too. A free market means a free people, right?
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Everyone else is socialist if they fund a nationalized rail service. And I cant ride Amtrak if their booked solid, the feds hasnt allowed them expand any service since 2002, even though they've had record ridership. Also, It is a form of Public Transportation because its subsidized by the govt..just like airlines and highways.Originally Posted by JSteffen
Last edited by texman; 06 February 2005 at 02:06 AM.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
Booked solid ehe.... Hmmm... I wonder... I will just leave this alone.....
Amtrak has NEVER made a profit.... subsidy was never intended to be permanent... Some Airlines do make money and it has not always been subsidized.... Infastructure can be subsidized NOT OPERATIONAL I would be all for infastructure costs, but in a free market... The current way of doing thigs just dosent cut it..... Heck even the post office can make a profit.
So I guess 1 billion a year for a NATIONAL 24,000 mile+ system is a total waste (DART is requesting 2 billion for 50 miles extentions). Oh yes, and I forgot to mention, Amtrak returns 60% of that money in profits, Sounds like a bargain to me considering the money we throw at airlines to help them get by in this "free market".
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
^How can they return 60% of "that money" in profits if they've never made a profit? Which is it?
By the power of greyskull!
Sorry, I should make my writing more understandable, Amtrak return 60% of the subsidy it receives in revenue from ticket sales.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
How is it returned? Do they give it back to the federal government? Do they reinvest it in Amtrak?
By the power of greyskull!
An interesting paper on transportation subsidies.
FACTS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION SUBSIDIES
All Im saying, pay for the track, let the rest be, the government does not buy AA their planes, it pays for the FAA.
Remeber why Amtrak was formed. The private sector could not make a profit with passengers (and sometimes frieght) against its subsidized competitors who got all their airports and highways funded by the public. Railroads were expected to pay for all their own dispatching, stations, and infrastructure costs (Airlines pay landing fees and gate rents, but they do not cover costs of the entire airport, your taxes pay the rest, also whoever said freeways pay for themselfs through the gas tax is wrong, why do you think were building so many tollways now?).
Also, think about this, the FFA (or your taxes) pay for all Air Traffic Control so AA and every other airline can run their planes in the sky free. But Amtrak is expected to pay for all its own dispatching in the Northeast Corridor. If the airlines had to pay the tremendous cost for ATC or 'dispatching' they couldnt be profitable. To much is expected out of Amtrak.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
are you sure? The airline industry costs much much more and is propped up by the gov big time.
Those are some OLD facts.. Mid 1900's.. LOL Looks like the webpage was made about the same time.
And how! It's absolutely ridiculous. And it isn't just the airlines. Had it not been for the federal government's unique way of screwing around with the economy, there would probably be no Chrysler today. Not that I'd complain...
Roadway
Waterway
Airway
Railway
Only the railroad pays it's own way.
Your correct, thats because the problem has existed so long.
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
Surprising Forecast for Amtrak: Growth
Visit: NY Times article.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — Amtrak could see a ridership growth spurt of 50 percent in the next five to 10 years, but it would require billions of state and federal dollars invested in the tracks of other railroads, and millions more of private investment in passenger rail cars, the new president of the railroad said Thursday in an interview.
Much more after the jump. . .
I've got ideas for running Auto Trains through Texas and Oklahoma, but first, a word from our Congresscritters.
Senators Try Again to Fund and Reform Amtrak
By Eric M. Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; A04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011601459.html
Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) introduced legislation yesterday that would authorize $3.2 billion a year for Amtrak over six years in exchange for greater efficiency and increased investments by states.
Supporters said the plan would place Amtrak on a firm financial footing after years of instability.
A similar bill was passed by the Senate in November, 93 to 6, but was not taken up by the House of Representatives. Lautenberg said prospects were much improved with Democrats now in control of both houses of Congress.
"It's not going to be that difficult this year," Lautenberg said yesterday at a news conference at Union Station, where he was joined by Lott and Alexander K. Kummant, Amtrak's chief executive.
Amtrak, the main operator of passenger trains in the country, has been beset with money-losing routes, hobbled by technical troubles, criticized for mismanagement and crippled by a lack of capital investment. Conservatives especially have questioned whether large operating subsidies for Amtrak are a wise investment.
Amtrak received $1.3 billion in federal funding last fiscal year.
Jim Berard, spokesman for U.S. Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, agreed that Democratic control of the House will help place Amtrak funding on an express track this year.
"Given the change in management and the new management's more favorable view of Amtrak, we expect it to get through the committee and to the floor," Berard said.
Lautenberg and Lott said that having a viable passenger rail option is vital to the nation's economy and environment.
"We cannot depend entirely on airplanes and roads," Lautenberg said.
In addition to all the carrots, the bill offers several sticks, such as expecting Amtrak to reduce operating costs by 40 percent over six years.
"This is about reform and accountability," Lott said. "It's not just a big chunk of money."
Kummant declined to specify how he would reduce operating costs, but he said that encouraging passenger growth is just as important as cutting services to achieve efficiencies.
The bill would authorize $1.7 billion in debt repayment, $7.8 billion in new bonding authority and $300 million a year in grants that would have to be matched by states.
Lautenberg and Lott said that local matching grants would encourage overall investment in the system as well as states' sharing in the cost of providing services to less popular destinations, which generally require the largest subsidies.
Kummant said the bill fits his vision of the rail network of the future, which would be a series of state rail networks threaded into national corridors.
Hurdles remain, such as the House's new pay-as-you-go budget rules and the Bush administration's skepticism on Amtrak funding.
Lautenberg was asked how he would find the money to pay for the bill.
"The same way we find money to pay for other things,'' he said.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
^
This bill is pretty much the same as S.1516. And Robert did a good job of highlighting the good parts. Yeah, the reducing costs by 40% is kind of lofty, and I don't think real reasonable. As stated in another forum its like giving a starving child food, but saying he needs to loose weight. I also think the bill is too focused on state corridors and too little on the long distance network. Of course state corridors are important to Texas, but so is the long distance network.
I think the state-based plan may have the best chance of long-term survival, though -- not because it's efficient, but because it puts the service where the funds are. Oklahoma is subsidizing the Heartland Express, for example, and I believe Texas is making a sizable contribution to the Texas Eagle as well.
Moving projects down to the state level will help ensure that they remain funded, both by state funds and by federal funds allocated to states that are willing to match. It helps prevent the complaint that Texas taxes are going to build and operate rails in Montana, for example.
Linking up the state-based systems is another issue, and a potential headache. But that's really the case now -- cross-country routes are determined not as much by ridership as by politics.
And then, there's the other issue: locally-oriented systems seem to be the only parts of Amtrak that work well. The Northeast Corridor is one example. California has a dense network of Amtrak trains, thanks to its subsidies. This proposal seems to be intended to make the current situation clearer: trains run in states or regions where they're wanted.
This could really help Amtrak, I think. Take that Texas Eagle, for example. It's once a day, because it's part of a larger Chicago-LA line. That schedule is pretty well useless for getting from Dallas to Austin or San Antonio, and it prevents establishment of a Dallas-Houston route because the train is needed in California.
If this decentralization plan goes into effect, then you could see Texas and the surrounding states put something together that would actually serve the region's needs. How about this routing:
Dallas
Fort Worth
Austin
San Antonio
Houston
Lake Charles, LA
New Orleans
Meridian, MS (Trent Lott's baby)
Jackson, MS
Shreveport, LA
Minneola, TX (my favorite Amtrak station of the three I've visited)
Dallas
Here's a Google trip along that route (though note that Google uses road, not rails!).
Put four trains on that route, two each way each day.
There are plenty of ways to link that route with other regional routes... but the fact is, I don't think that should be the goal. The fact is that regular-speed rail can never compete for long-haul service against the airlines. Not when Southwest can take me a thousand miles for a hundred bucks. Amtrak needs to focus on regional rail -- a segment where it can actually have an impact.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
In Senate, a big boost for Amtrak
Democrats asked for more in funding than even the $1.5 billion the rail line had sought.
By Chris Mondics
WASHINGTON - In a sign that Amtrak's political fortunes have shifted, Senate Democrats yesterday proposed a huge boost in funding for it that goes well beyond what even the rail line had requested from Congress.
The chairman of the Senate budget committee, Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, announced a budget proposal for the forthcoming fiscal year that would provide $1.78 billion to the beleaguered rail line. Amtrak had asked for $1.5 billion, while the White House, which has long pushed for the restructuring and privatization of much of Amtrak, had asked for $800 million.
"This budget will provide the nation's passenger rail system with the necessary resources to keep Amtrak strong," contended Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), who had pushed for the additional money. "This funding sets the stage for Amtrak's transformation into a world-class passenger rail system."
After years of the rail line's struggling under tight budgets and ever-growing needs for bridge and track repair, the Democrats' budget proposal greatly improves its chances of a big funding increase this year.
For the last several years, Amtrak managers have embarked on an ambitious plan to replace track and repair bridges and wiring along the Northeast Corridor. Some of the equipment dates to the 1930s or beyond.
Yet for more than a decade, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the rail line has been under pressure to cut costs, which has slowed the reconstruction. The Bush administration, moreover, advocated that Amtrak be broken up, and portions of it privatized.
Yesterday's budget announcement seemed to signal that at least as far as Amtrak is concerned, the political climate had become more favorable, and that the pace of reconstruction might accelerate.
"This is a much bigger number than we have seen in some time...," said one senior Democratic aide. "It puts Congress on record as saying we would like to see this level of funding for Amtrak."
Amtrak operates 17 long-distance lines, each covering at least 500 miles, and service on the Northeast Corridor between Washington and Boston. Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, which serves 10,000 Amtrak passengers a day, is the second mostly heavily used Amtrak station in the country, after New York's Pennsylvania Station.
In its current proposal, Amtrak asked to increase capital spending from $675 million this year to $760 million in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.
It said it needed the money not only to repair track, bridges and wiring but also to renew aging passenger railcars and locomotives.
The rail line says it will also need at least $50 million to make its stations accessible to handicapped travelers.
Another sign that Amtrak faces a more congenial climate on Capitol Hill is that a Lautenberg-sponsored measure that would guarantee long-term funding for Amtrak is gaining political support.
The measure, which would commit the government to financing Amtrak operations over a six-year period rather than the current one-year cycle, had its first hearing several weeks ago. It now has eight Republican co-sponsors, in addition to substantial support from Democrats, who control the Senate.
This is the only thing that can enable Amtrak's success. It doesn't matter how many billions the agency gets in a one-year budget, when the next year could see funding cut to nearly zero by a less transit-friendly administration or Congress.
Some want Amtrak to operate "like a business", but no business could survive by making one-year plans. Especially not a business with thousands of miles of infrastructure. A six-year committment will allow the agency to function effectively, more "like a business" than ever, because it will know that its funding is (reasonably) secure.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
I would say that is only part of the problem. The other part is that they don't own the infrastructure and constantly have to be back seat to the freight companies that do own them and constantly make them late.
Case in point, last memorial day, the girlfriend and I took a weekend trip to OKC on Amtrak, just as we pulled out of the station, we stopped. The operator made an announcement that while coming up a hill, a freight train had lost its load and couldn't get the momentum needed to get up the hill once it attached. They had to get other engines from far away to help. All told we lost several hours, not to mention that it threw the entire schedule off-balance, forcing us to have to wait several times for another freight train to pass.
And also, with all the funding that goes into highways and airports, I think it is a miracle that they recover greater than 50% through the farebox. To me, that is pretty impressive and still shows the efficiency of rail. There is one unsubsidized mode of transport in this country, freight train, and they are taxed too. Rail is and continues to be one of the most efficient modes of transport in the word.
Has anyone taken the Amtrak Texas Eagle Dallas-Los Angeles route? I've flown and driven to LA but never taken Amtrak. Are the sleeper cars relatively comfortable and are the trains generally on time? How's the food? Or should I just forget it and fly?
I guess nobody's tried it yet...
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
My only experience with inter-city train travel was the Canadian railroad leg between Toronto and Montreal and that was great. But everyone I've talked to about Amtrak (not anyone on this board) has been negative, except for one guy who raved about the Pacific Starlight run from LA to the Bay Area.
This could be where long distance rail travel in the United States is going. Luxury for the middle and upper classes. I guess Amtrak's real future (and profit) is in high speed and short hauls between city pairs.Amtrak goes luxe with new cross-country service
By Sarah Karush, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Mahogany interiors, five-course meals and personal butler service will be available on several Amtrak routes starting this fall, as the national passenger railroad embarks on a new partnership with GrandLuxe Rail Journeys.
The companies have teamed up to attach seven special GrandLuxe cars to regularly scheduled Amtrak trains. More than 90 departures are scheduled from November to early January.
The new service, dubbed GrandLuxe Limited, will be available between Chicago and the San Francisco Bay area; Chicago and Los Angeles; and Washington and Miami. Limited trips are also scheduled between Washington and Chicago; from Denver to San Francisco; from Denver to Chicago; and from Chicago to Albuquerque....
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/desti...rak-luxe_N.htm
"And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed."-"Farewell to Penn Station," New York Times Editorial, October 30, 1963
I've done the trip a time or two. Also done many other long distance trips. Do realize that Amtrak operates on freight tracks and does what they are told. So you will be late. I enjoy the trips though. Don't plan anything on the day of your arrival though. Sleepers are comfortable. The smallest one is adequate for one, a little tight for 2 people. Food pretty good still. Its gone downhill since the Congress mandate, but still not bad. Food is included in your sleeper ticket price though. It's a good trip, not the best out of the other routes though. I do like the scenery of the southwest however. Be sure to take a good book or two, maybe a laptop with movies also. And never look at your watch. You'll get there when you get there. Ask away for more Amtrak questions though. I've got 50,000 miles on them. Visit my link below. I have lots of Amtrak photos posted from past trips.
Last edited by saxman66; 17 October 2007 at 11:09 PM.
Great timing -- this is in the news today: Woman pulled from car just before train hits it. "The [Amtrak] train was delayed 5 1/2 hours, then continued its journey from New Orleans to New York City." D'oh!
PS: You've *got* to see the video of the train hitting the car. I don't usually waste my time with online video (I'd rather waste it posting and drawing maps), but that one's extremely impressive.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Oh yeah, when Amtrak hits cars, that'll delay it too. I'm not sure how often a train hits a car, but its usually only when Amtrak hits a car, that I here about.
Yes, quite impressive video. I don't blame that girl for screaming like that. She realized she could have been in that car.
Good News for Amtrak!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071109...AI71ghhbP8B2YD
Consumers are not [the same as] citizens, and when a system pretends that they are, peculiar and even perverse things happen to decision making and democracy... - Benjamin Barber
That is amazing news! Love the article. I sure hope this bill makes it the rest of the way through Congress.
My fiance will be riding Amtrak up to Norman to join me for Thanksgiving (I'm taking a vacation and going up early). The cost of a ticket from Fort Worth to Norman, OK? $22. Pretty great deal, if you ask me.
I tell everyone...I smile just because...I've got a city love...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...6770105.column
http://mwhsr.blogspot.com/
The House and Senate passed a veto-proof Amtrak funding bill that will build HSR in the midwest area. The bill is similar in stature to how the Interstate Highway system was built.
However, in a political election, where several "battleground" states patronize Amtrak a lot, John McCain was in the vast minority when he voted against the bill. Even GDub said he will sign it, meaning McCain is more an ardent opponent of Amtrak than Bush. And Bush tried to pull all federal funding from Amtrak a few years back.
Last edited by FoUTASportscaster; 07 October 2008 at 10:21 AM.
The Chicago area high speed rail network has been getting Illinois funding for years for improving the tracks and the grade crossings. The route from Chicago to Milwaukee is double track most of the way, has twelve Amtrak trains a day. The route from Chicago to Galesburg is triple track most of the way, has eight Amtrak trains a day. The route from Chicago to St. Louis is single track most of the way, has six Amtrak trains a day. The route from Chicago to Carbondale is single track, has six Amtrak trains a day. The fastest the Texas Eagle runs is in Illinois, at the full 79 mph maximum speed.
The Illinois passenger rail infrastructure is already in good shape. All that's really needed to improve the ROWs to faster speeds is new train sets, like Talgo trains, a few more grade separation crossings on each ROW, and incorporating automatic-positive train control on each ROW.
Here's a Florida HSR photo for a Talgo train:
Top speed of the Talgo diesel locomotive is around 110-120 mph, but it is much faster than the 80 mph of Amtrak's existing diesel fleet. The Talgo passenger cars have passive tilt technology that allows faster speeds through curves. They are the fastest trains capable of operating with existing American freight operations, and aren't that much more expensive to run.
And this is what Amtrak is planning to use in Illinois. Amtrak is not considering building dedicated HSR ROW anywhere is the USA. That's the business of States. Presently, only California has a ballot question up for voters for building a really fast HSR ROW this fall. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
Amtrak and Congress are also hoping to adopt similar technology in Texas. But, Texas hasn't spent one penny upgrading the existing railroad ROW Amtrak trains use. Texas politicians, when they talk about adopting HSR, are talking about building dedicated HSR corridors like California, specifically the Texas T-Bone. Maybe Texas should reconsider and build the Illinois scheme, it might get adopted and built quicker, at a much more affordable price?
Last edited by electricron; 01 November 2008 at 06:57 PM.
That's what I've been arguing for, as well. Dedicated high-speed rail in Texas, in the Japan/France model, would be like upgrading a mule path directly to Interstate standards. We'd see huge improvements by putting in a simple farm-to-market road, and plan for the expressway later.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
It would be far cheaper to continue to use the freight railroad ROW. To go ultra modern and ultra fast, someone will have to buy all new ROW and build new tracks. And that's very expensive. That's why the costs for the Texas T-Bone is so high.
Another advantage of improving the existing freight railroad ROW is increased freight train speeds along the existing ROW. There's several different ways to do it, meaning how thorough a job is done.
(1) Cheapest > Only replace the tracks that need to be replace, only add passing sidings that's required to allow desired passenger train headways. Only grade separate intersections where needed for safety. (Similar to what the T plans to do on the SW2NE line)
(2) Medium Expensive > Just add the second track along the entire line with new tracks, leaving the existing track and sidings for the freight railroad in place. This method allows both passenger and freight trains to share both tracks.(Similar to Amtrak's NE corridor, except it's electrified.)
(3) Most Expensive > Add passenger only tracks along the whole corridor. Passenger and Freight lines having their own passing sidings. Only add new grade separatations for the passenger tracks. (Similar to what UTA Frontrunner did north of Salt LAke City).
The advantages of the third method are passenger trains are physically separated from freight trains along the entire corridor, meaning they can use their own dispatchers and heavy freight trains don't abuse the passenger only tracks. It's like having two independent railroad lines in the same railroad corridor. It's more expensive because the passenger trains will not be using any of the existing tracks in the corridor, and there will have to be many grade separations between passenger and freight tracks to maintain that separation.
(4) Prohibitely Expensive > Build new passenger tracks/line in all new ROW. This allows using the fastest electrified trains available.(Texas T-Bone)
Let's look at the running times for the various trains.
(1) Standard Amtrak trainset (79 mph) on upgraded tracks.
Fort Worth to San Antonio (~250 miles) = 3.25 hours minimum, more likely 4.5 hours.
Dallas to Houston (~250 miles) = 3.25 hours minimum, more likely 4.5 hours.
Houston to San Antonio (~200 miles) = 2.5 hours minimum, more likely 3.5 hours.
(2) Talgo trains (110 mph) on upgraded tracks
Fort Worth to San Antonio (~250 miles) = 2.5 hours minimum, more likely 3.5 hours.
Dallas to Houston (~250 miles) = 2.5 hours minimum, more likely 3.5 hours.
Houston to San Antonio (~200 miles) = 2 hours minimum, more likely 3 hours.
(3) TGV Texas T-Bone (165 mph) in brand new corridor
Fort Worth to San Antonio (~250 miles) = 1.5 hours minimum, more likely 2.25 hours.
Dallas to Houston (~275 miles) = 1.75 hours, more likely 2.5 hours.
Houston to San Antonio (~275 miles) = 1.75 hours, more likely 2.5 hours
Basically the length of the train trip decreases by one hour depending upon how fast a trainset is selected. The Talgo equipment saves one hour, the TGV equipoment saves 2 hours over existing Amtrak trainsets.
But that's assuming all brand new tracks in the corridors. The Texas Eagle, capable of 79 mph speed, averages approximately 45 mph when it is on time because of the track's condition, and overcongested tracks.
For example, it's not unusual for the Texas Eagle to take 6 hours or more to travel 250 miles. If the tracks were in excellent shape, it could do it in less than 4.5 hours.
So, even just fixing the tracks along the existing corridors, without adding capacity, could speed the Texas Eagle up over an hour. Adding that additional hour saving for new tracks, the Talgo would save over 2 hours and the TGV over 3 hours, over what the Texas Eagle takes today.
Last edited by electricron; 04 November 2008 at 11:11 AM.
To add to this discussion, two recent TXDOT studies.
Study 1, It'll cost $2.1 Billion to build new double track line within the SH 130 Tollway median for 80 miles around Austin for 80 mph trains. But the study found a few design problems on each end of the new tollway. Average costs per mile ~ $26 Million
Study 2, It'll cost $1.2 Billion to refurbish, upgrade, and double track the 250 mile route Amtrak uses between Fort Worth and San Antonio for 110 mph trains. Average costs per mile ~ $5 Million
Assuming 200+ mph HSR has the same costs for new construction, just to build and lay the tracks, for the entire distance between Fort Worth and San Antonio would cost ~$6.5 Billion. The entire T-Bone, approximately 400 miles, track laying costs would be ~$10.4 Billion. But neither of those numbers include purchasing the right-of-way, buying the train sets, nor building trains stations. One could probably assume adding another $1 to $2 Billion just to buy the land for a brand new corridor.
Good numbers, but I'm curious how they compare with the costs of building new highways. That's the comparison budget-makers need to weigh when deciding where to put their (limited) funds.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals... Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. - B. Obama 1/20/09
Here's your answer, for an urban area, but in a different State. Freeway expansion and light rail expansion at the same time on the same Corridor. From http://colorado.construction.com/pro...OTProjects.asp
Colorado's mega design-build Transportation Expansion (T-REX) Project is moving at full speed and is on schedule and within budget. The project is a unique partnership between CDOT, RTD, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. The design-build project is adding 19 miles of light rail transit and reconstructing and widening 17 miles of I-25 and I-225 in southeast metro Denver.
Cost: $1.67 billion - Cost being shared by CDOT ($795 million) and RTD ($879 million).
Some math:
Freeway costs = 795/17 = $46.76 million/mile
Light rail costs = 879/19 = $46.26 million/mile
T-Rex added a brand new electrified light rail double-track in the freeway ROW. The widening of the freeway added two lanes, one lane in each direction.
Light rail costs are significantly higher than adding Commuter rail costs. The 19 mile T Rex light rail line in Denver cost $879 million. New Mexico spent $135 million for the first phase and around $250 million for the second phase, a total of $385 million, from Belen to Santa Fe. NMDOT estimated adding an additional two lanes to I 25 from Santa Fe to Albuquerque, a distance of 60 miles, at over a $ Billion.
For me its more of a space issue. Notice in that diagram the space a highway takes up compared with the Light rail or heavy rail. There is a lot of wasted land in highways when compared with Rail.
I agree. Any rail project is far superior to highways with land useage.
A random photo find today:
Advertising By Amtrak In TSA Security Line
Visit: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010...ture_is_wo.php
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks