Fort Wayne passenger service floated, again

[CSX_CO]

@CSX_CO, that 200,000 subsidy covers more than likely just improvements. Keep in mind most operational costs are covered by ticket revenue, so 141,000 might just be the required subsidy, not the entire operating budget. Not agreeing with or going against either side here, just pointing that out...

First, read the proposal first before you comment.

Secondly, "most" operating costs are NOT covered by ticket revenues, that's why AMTRAK is subsidized in the first place. So, hopefully, whatever ticket revenues + all the subsidies = operating costs. And, based upon how much each 'ticket' is subsidized by the tax payer, unless ticket price > than subsidy, then "most operating costs" are most certainly not being covered by ticket revenues. Last I checked, most routes don't have the ticket prices over and above how much that ticket is subsidized. Some routes are better, some worse. All receive some sort of 'subsidy' to keep the trains running. AMTRAK is one of the few 'railroads' out there that can continue to run a deficit and stay in business.

Third, $200,000 *might* cover the costs of the crews on ONE of the trains on AMTRAK (Engineer, Conductor, Assistant Conductor). That's only $68K a year each. There are what? 3 or 4 A DAY across Michigan? Doesn't begin to cover track, engines, cars, signals, etc. Railroading isn't cheap, and $200,000 goes fast. To put it in perspective: I saw the 'electric' bill for Avon back in 2008 or 2009. At THAT time, the electric bill was around $40,000 a MONTH. That doesn't factor in trash, sewer, communications, etc etc etc. Avon is a 'medium' sized terminal too. Now, I don't know if that $40,000 was for the entire facility, or if Mechanical had their own electric bills for the diesel shop and car shop. I would guess they do, since they are different departments, so the 'real' electric costs could have been higher.

Fourth, the HSR people are stating the projected numbers are in the MILLIONS. Not "141,000" as you quote. If you had bothered to read the proposal before you started typing, you would have seen that the $141 million WAS the entire operating budget of the trains. They say nothing about the trains being 'subsidized' that they will cover all their costs, AND turn a profit. Which, is hogwash.

Finally, in the case of Indiana HSR, they state that all revenues at the start will be $117 million, rising to $190 million. OPERATING COSTS for the trains (alone) is $121 million to $140 million in 2040. No mention of how they're going to keep the track up to 110 mph standards (I guess that just happens on its own). Somehow, they say that $117 million in 2020 revenues, results in a $5 million dollar profit. Must be that new math I don't understand.

I certainly hope the 'study' was commissioned from private funds. If it wasn't as a tax payer I'm outraged at how shoddy the work is. Still trying to figure out how $121 million in expenses, plus $117 million in revenues, equals a $5 million profit the first year...

Practice Safe CSX

[wildcatsa1fan]

It comes to mind that we live in rural (for the most part) USA. I for one do not want to use rail to go anywhere I cant go to with a car!! The highway system took away the passanger train!! We all love our vehicles and use them to go everywhere!! HSR works elsewhere in the world, will not work here!! As much as we love trains its just not an option here!!

[nathansixchime]

That 'presentation' looks like it was put together by a bunch of high school students.

That is the "executive summary" of the report meant for news organizations and the general public. The actual report is well over 100 pages long.

Also, a look at the client list for the high school glee club that put to the document together is worth a glance, I suppose: http://www.temsinc.com/rail.htm

Well, that is MY pizza and beer money and I already give up enough of my check to Uncle Sam and the State of Indiana.

But, your pizza and beer money already subsidize billions in highway and airlines. Where is the outrage about that? Do you use every rest stop or airline or mile of asphalt that your taxes fund?

You want passenger service between Fort Wayne and Chicago, start small and see if it even works rather than jumping on whole hog for a service people may or may not use.

Does Waterloo count as a small step? Two-thirds of the riders on that line are from Allen County and the immediate areas.

$200,000 for the Chicago-Michigan Line? CP 509 (state line) to Porter is 27 miles. That's a paltry $7407 dollars per mile. That doesn't include the Michigan Line portion of it. Throw in the Michigan Line Portion and its $4444 per mile. With contract prices for ties between $35 and $50 per tie, that gets you 101 ties per mile, or approximately one out of every 16. That's almost good enough for 10 mph track if you're relying on that 'subsidy'. $200,000 *might* pay for the fuel for one locomotive for a year too if you want to look at it that way.

My point to the other forum was that Indiana ponying money up for passenger rail has precedent, and while the actual rail portion is smaller, it is significant because of all of the agencies, states, regions, etc involved. Everyone has "skin the game."

As for Midwest Rail, were you out clearing trees and brush or replacing culverts lately?

I get enough 'railroad' with my full time occupation. Besides that, I would like to think if I were to 'volunteer' for an organization, it wouldn't be one that isn't a 'front' for a business that going to make a profit off my labors under the guise of 'helping' a museum.

What about the volunteers at the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum or Strasburg with their for-profit freight lines? Are they not taking advantage of volunteers to turn a profit? Or do you simply choose to view Midwest Rail as a "front" and TVRM and Strasburg as legitimate businesses that were little more than kids and old fellows in a cornfield 40+ years ago. Even the early days of the Ohio Central were nothing more than a "front" to run a steam locomotive, but did any of the volunteers get paid? Nope. Anyway, a substantial digression from the topic of the thread...In either case I appreciate the discussion.

It comes to mind that we live in rural (for the most part) USA. I for one do not want to use rail to go anywhere I cant go to with a car!! The highway system took away the passanger train!! We all love our vehicles and use them to go everywhere!! HSR works elsewhere in the world, will not work here!! As much as we love trains its just not an option here!!

Yes and no. The problem you have is the trend in transit-oriented development, which is a reversal of suburban sprawl. Population centers, walkable cities and towns, and TODs with multiple transit options are taking hold for a reason: growing numbers of the population don't want to own a car or drive, want easy, walkable access to every day amenities, and view public transit in a different light than the previous generation. Rural areas that are not built up are a different story than growing urban cores like Fort Wayne. It's not about "loving trains," it's about population centers that want options.

KL

[CSX_CO]

It comes to mind that we live in rural (for the most part) USA. I for one do not want to use rail to go anywhere I cant go to with a car!! The highway system took away the passanger train!! We all love our vehicles and use them to go everywhere!! HSR works elsewhere in the world, will not work here!! As much as we love trains its just not an option here!!

Until we give up the freedom of our personal autos, then that will be true. Plus, there is a major 'decentralization' of city centers going on. A lot of major metropolitan areas are in decline. Who is going to want to drive from their place in the 'burbs' to a 'city center' to then board a train? Plus, how many people are really traveling along the route in question? How many people are flying from Columbus to Chicago?

It is quite interesting to see the 'progression' of transportation and distances traveled and 'freedom'. Railroads made traveling long distances in hours and days possible. As speed increased, so did frequency. You were still at the 'mercy' of the steam roads as to when/where you could travel. In the Midwest, along come the interurbans, which added frequency (and in some cases speed) between points. They could afford this by running the smaller self propelled cars that kept operating costs down. So, now you had an additional option to the steam roads as to when/where you could travel. Finally, enter Mr. Ford and his Model T. Suddenly, you didn't HAVE to wait for a railroad or interurban to move you. You could go where you wanted, and more imporantly, WHEN you wanted. No waiting for a train or interurban. It gave Americans a new level in mobility and personal freedom.

So, are we as a society willing to give up our mobility to take a train? Some people might.

Practice Safe CSX

[nathansixchime]

CSX, you hit the nail on the head there.

KL

[CSX_CO]

But, your pizza and beer money already subsidize billions in highway and airlines. Where is the outrage about that? Do you use every rest stop or airline or mile of asphalt that your taxes fund?

That's right, my money does do that. If it didn't, I could probably afford to do more things I cannot do now. As it stands, 40% of my paycheck goes to 'taxes' of some form or another. I made less last year, had paid more, and STILL owed another $1K. We're reaching a point where the 'middle class' is starting to say 'enough' with the Government spending on all levels.

If I had my choice, personally, I would make all the interstates toll roads. You want to use it? Go ahead, pay your portion. If I used I-65 or I-69 I would gladly pay the tolls for my use.

So, no, I don't use 'every mile' of it. I haven't flown into every airport the FAA controls. That doesn't mean I agree with how my tax money is spent. I haven't used my local fire department (thank God) doesn't mean I don't want my local tax dollars to NOT go to it. It also doesn't mean I want my nipples squeezed more to fund some HSR dream railroad.

My point to the other forum was that Indiana ponying money up for passenger rail has precedent, and while the actual rail portion is smaller, it is significant because of all of the agencies, states, regions, etc involved. Everyone has "skin the game."

And yet Indiana has yet (last I knew anyway) to pass appropriations to keep the Hoosier State operating past October. That operating subsidy would be a drop in the bucket compared to what is 'proposed' across Northern Indiana. It would also serve Lafayette and Indianapolis directly. Yet, there isn't enough of a demand in the eyes of the State House to justify spending that kind of money. I'm sure Fort Wayne is bigger than Lafayette, but if Indianapolis, Crawfordsville, Lafayette, Rensellear, cannot support 'daily' service to Chicago, what makes anyone think Fort Wayne (et al) could support multiple departures a day?

I think I've highlighted how "insulting" a $200,000 subsidy is when it comes to running a railroad corridor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would bet the 765 society's operating budget is probably over and above that for a year? That is just one 'trainset' too.

Again, I still can't figure out how revenues being less than operating costs equals a profit...

CSX, you hit the nail on the head there.

Excuse my ignorance, but if I 'hit the nail on the head' with the decline of railroad passenger service, what makes the group think they can reverse 100 years of automobile culture, and societal opinions on mass transit, in only 20 years? Let alone enough to actually make a system 'profitable'. Relatively speaking, Interurbans were a 'flash in the pan' and in decline almost as soon as they were up and running. Indiana bought into them and it created a mini 'boom' and 'bust'. The routes with freight running on them fared a bit better. But, they still proved the point you cannot run a business based solely upon the movement of people.

Practice Safe CSX

[nathansixchime]

I should have been more specific with the nail-hitting.

Until we give up the freedom of our personal autos, then that will be true.

So, are we as a society willing to give up our mobility to take a train? Some people might.

Those are trends driving a lot of transit-oriented development nationwide in mid-to-high level cities, as I noted above in my response to Wildcatsa1.

It's also largely generational: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... n/2435173/

What makes the group think they can reverse 100 years of automobile culture, and societal opinions on mass transit, in only 20 years?

To be frank, in 20 years many baby-boomers will not be using any transit, car or otherwise. The market drives trends and if the market says "I want options," options will materialize. A lot of the argument against passenger rail seem to think that the auto culture will stay exactly the same and not be influenced by gas prices, total cost of car ownership, or the redevelopment of communities as walkable urban cores.

We can discuss cost and subsidization and inflation ad naseum, but imagine if there was an anti-highway crowd in 1956 (I imagine there was...) I wonder what their arguments would have sounded like. "Who will pay for it! Who will drive on it! Who can afford it!..."

And I agree with you entirely, the cost and politics aside, the single greatest hurdle against passenger rail is the culture. But cultures adapt, evolve, and change, and that's happening right now: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/sunda ... d=all&_r=0

[Raildudes dad]

CSX_CO: Well said You spent far more time articulating this than I would As for the $200,000, any state DOT can urinate that much away in a heartbeat. As for "expert studies", figures don't lie but ........ can figure

[JStryker722]

This is why I find ironic that my beloved State of Michigan is home to the Automobile,yet the trend here has been more and more demand for Amtrak service,especially the Detroit-Chicago Wolverine Service.the difference between Indiana and the Wolverine Service is that it goes downtown to downtown along major cities on the I-94 corridor that aren't that far apart with frequency and convenient departure times. Indiana outside of the South Shore line shines away mostly from passenger rail cuz of the car culture and how it would run through mostly cornfields and the birthplace of the auto can't keep up with the increased demand for Amtrak passenger trains. Heck the govt here is like " $25 million/year before maintainence of track? That's better than having to expand I-94 again and again." Driving in Michigan have actually flat-lined and gone down since Amtrak became so popular according to MDOT. I think our state has more common sense and forward thinking to having a chance of becoming another NCDOT case of having in-state passenger trains that actually pays for itself now.

[JStryker722]

Goes to show that with a right attitude and appreciation of what Amtrak can be if actually done right on the state level in states willing to put time and money and know-how into it,you really could have a passenger rail system not seen as a waste but an economically viable necessity for the good of the people.

Jack Stryker,
21,
Dearborn Heights,MI

[Raildudes dad]

Driving has gone down in MI due to losing a million people in population in the last dacade - nothng to do with the popularity of Amtrak.

[CSX_CO]

I think our state has more common sense and forward thinking to having a chance of becoming another NCDOT case of having in-state passenger trains that actually pays for itself now.

I don't know where you're getting the NCDOT trains 'pay for themselves'. It states right on the NCDOT's website that they get Federal Grants and funding to run the trains, maintain the highways, etc. That is not "paying for itself".

http://www.ncdot.gov/about/finance/

"Additional funds come from the Federal Government for federal-aid highway, transit, ferry, rail and airport projects."

Practice Safe CSX

[chriiis]

Driving has gone down in MI due to losing a million people in population in the last dacade

A quick look at the US Census numbers shows that Michigan dropped from a population of 9,938,444 in the year 2000 to 9,883,640 in 2010, a −0.6% drop.

Until we give up the freedom of our personal autos, then that will be true. Plus, there is a major 'decentralization' of city centers going on. A lot of major metropolitan areas are in decline.

Sorry, these notions went out with the 1980's.

Generation Y simply isn't driving as much as previous generations: the statistics for mileage is lower, the rates of car ownership are lower, even the percentage of young people who have licenses is lower. And the auto industry has figure out new ways to market to them, however fruitlessly.

Across the board, the nadir for urban population and their cities' fiscal difficulties was 25-30 years ago. Run the numbers on cities, or talk to a real estate agent, there is a major recentralization of city centers going on. Alan Ehrenhalt's The Great Inversion has a square explanation of it. So much so, that urban growth has outpaced suburban growth for the last two years - as we come out of the Great Recession caused by a bursting housing bubble.

[Typhoon]

A lot of the argument against passenger rail seem to think that the auto culture will stay exactly the same and not be influenced by gas prices,

A lot of argument FOR passenger rail seem to think that that auto culture will stay exactly the same and still be influenced by gas prices. One only has to look at what Tesla is doing with their car. It is a fantastic auto. 20 years from now, it will have far greater range, and the technology will be far cheaper to produce.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/ ... 56360.html

http://allthingsd.com/20130529/musk-mai ... n-model-s/

[JStryker722]

unless what I read out of Trains magazine wrong some time back,The Piedmont services actually recovers more than its operating costs and turns a small profit...then again that's not the whole NC DOT rail program,so i suppose that would mean subsidies none-the-less.

Yeah loss of Michigan residents have something to do with it but with now roughly 1 in 10 taking Amtrak in this state,you cant dispute the popularity of Amtrak here not having an effect of driving trends here

[nathansixchime]

A lot of the argument against passenger rail seem to think that the auto culture will stay exactly the same and not be influenced by gas prices,

A lot of argument FOR passenger rail seem to think that that auto culture will stay exactly the same and still be influenced by gas prices. One only has to look at what Tesla is doing with their car. It is a fantastic auto. 20 years from now, it will have far greater range, and the technology will be far cheaper to produce.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/ ... 56360.html

http://allthingsd.com/20130529/musk-mai ... n-model-s/

I agree that automobile tech is going to change along with everything else, but even with advances in automotive transportation, you're still looking at population enters rebuilding their urban cores, investing in placemaking, walkability, and mass transit.

As the cost of living goes up, and people can live in more robust, diversified, walkable, communities, the actual physical need for a car is capable of simply outweighing the availability and total cost of ownership of cars in the first place. If you only need a car maybe a handful of days a year, what's the point?

Cities everywhere are realizing they need to embrace these trends because the culture from established, connected urban cores like Chicago, Boston, or New York are setting the table. You face difficulty in recruiting talent to cities that aren't well connected or have a high quality of life and you can't retain talent in cities that lack connectivity, quality of life, and other pillars of economic development, like passenger rail.

KL

[JStryker722]

in other words,its history reversing itself again :the car culture and the resulting suburbia movement is slowly but surely reversing back to the days of walkable down towns with mass transit/commuter rail being the preferred method of getting there with my generation at the forefront of that change along with the cost of living of living being the way it is.

[Saturnalia]

in other words,its history reversing itself again :the car culture and the resulting suburbia movement is slowly but surely reversing back to the days of walkable down towns with mass transit/commuter rail being the preferred method of getting there with my generation at the forefront of that change along with the cost of living of living being the way it is.

FW to CHI is not a "commuter rail" project. Thread drift is making the subject lose focus...

IMO, fix the first 50 miles from Chicago Union Station out thru the suburbs FIRST, then talk about adding services. We could use a nice 110mph+ corridor from CUS to something between Porter and Gary. Multiple tracks, perhaps electrified, fresh signalling, minimal at-grade crossings with other lines. Heck, you could move the CSS over too. So now you've got commuter rail and interstate rail on one corridor actually built for it, without the freight obstructing. Now you go from Porter to downtown Chicago in 30 minutes instead of 60.

But of course it would cost more than most countries GDP to build...sigh

[937TrainFan]

I'm just going to wrap this up a bit, seeing this has gotten a little off topic, saying that we'll just have to wait and see for any of this to pick up steam. Discussion between us rail buffs is very good, but it's really not up to us to decide whether or not this train happens. It will be up to the general public of the affecting states and the politicians. I'll try and keep a heads up over on my end of the area.

[MSchwiebert]

Annnd here's why the driving for the younger generation is down compared to the rest of us...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/0 ... 90870.html

Once they cut the cord - things will change...

Driving has gone down in MI due to losing a million people in population in the last dacade

A quick look at the US Census numbers shows that Michigan dropped from a population of 9,938,444 in the year 2000 to 9,883,640 in 2010, a −0.6% drop.

Until we give up the freedom of our personal autos, then that will be true. Plus, there is a major 'decentralization' of city centers going on. A lot of major metropolitan areas are in decline.

Sorry, these notions went out with the 1980's.

Generation Y simply isn't driving as much as previous generations: the statistics for mileage is lower, the rates of car ownership are lower, even the percentage of young people who have licenses is lower. And the auto industry has figure out new ways to market to them, however fruitlessly.

Across the board, the nadir for urban population and their cities' fiscal difficulties was 25-30 years ago. Run the numbers on cities, or talk to a real estate agent, there is a major recentralization of city centers going on. Alan Ehrenhalt's The Great Inversion has a square explanation of it. So much so, that urban growth has outpaced suburban growth for the last two years - as we come out of the Great Recession caused by a bursting housing bubble.