I'm a wee bit confused, Mr Arlington. Let's review.
First you say:
Arlington wrote:
Calling them "complementary" is a dodge. If the bus is cheaper, more profitable, and works on the same route network (either as overlay or extensions) then it is not just "complementary," not just "competition," but a legitimate full modal replacement for the train. Except for the mental inertia that can't imagine deleting the train from the picture, we'd have already concluded that $600m/yr (LD losses) could subsidize a much larger network of buses (many of them profitable on their own, and our subsidy dollars going much farther by bus), serving far more communities and passengers, more often, at lower ticket prices, on a denser network--than LD trains do.
So the challenge is to be honest with ourselves: if we honestly believe that trains can provide essential transportation, then the should do so with lower costs, nimble routing, and more day service. Not all the way to a cramped bus, but certainly looking more like the Carolinian and Palmetto.
In the next breath, you mention:
Arlington wrote:So here's where Amtrak can--and should--beat the bus (there's lots of overlap here, but the idea is they are all things that highway modes cannot do:)
1) Wherever electrified (low emissions / cheap domestic fuel)
2) Wherever operating at 110mph (super speeds)
3) Wherever operating above 79mph (still safer+faster than bus)
4) Any trip into a dense metropolitan core at rush hour (CHI, ATL, NYP, BOS, WAS, PHL, California)
5) Wherever highways are congested for more than 4 hours per day
It once again show the prejudicial stance you demonstrated in your Crescent/Silver thread. The costs of such corridors are immensely more than it cost for a bus to operate over the same route. Once, again, you've proved you're willing to spend BILLIONS upon BILLIONS on train travel for a few "dense" segments while completely ignoring others, which probably would cost less than the NEC. In case you missed it, Amtrak is in the process of modifying the tracks on the raceway to accommodate the new catenary. This is 456 million (before overruns) for a grand total 24 miles of railroad. You're closing in on a half billion dollars of costs and you still have 204 miles to go!
Arlington wrote:Jersey_Mike wrote:Many people cite the value of Amtrak Long Distance trains to rural areas after airlines largely stopped serving such communities and then Greyhound cut back some years ago. More recently some of the new discount bus services seemed to step in to fill the void. Well it looks like they are stepping out again and leaving rural communities in the lurch. Just an FYI for those who get into Train vs Bus arguments with the Anti-Amtrak LD crowd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/by ... -void.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
You have not (yet) made it a fair comparison, but what if you put the LD "franchise" for "essential rural community ground transportation" out to bid and allowed the buses to bid on it--whomever demands the lowest subsidy (either in $ terms or in farebox recovery terms) wins. How many would the train win?
More gibberish. Let's take it from the top. Jersey Mike has made perfectly clear in the
Fung Wah Bus Line "Shut Down": Potential gain for NEC? thread that it will never be a fair comparison:
Jersey_ Mike wrote:
I always respected Fung Wah for providing a cheap and efficient service while keeping casualty rates within acceptable limits. I've said it before that this heedless drive towards "health and safety" is going to eat our country alive as more flexible countries like the BRICs readily accept less "safety" in exchange for greater economic growth. Moreover public transport providers face an enormous hurdle in terns of being able to compete effectively with private vehicles when a much higher accident rate is considered acceptable for private vehicles compared with public transport. By holding railroads and bus companies to such high standards, riders are necessarily forced into private vehicles where they will then die at higher rates. That's right, increased "safety" kills people.
BTW don't think this probably wasn't a hatchet job by the more "reputable" carriers trying to force Fung Wah out of the market. I would like Amtrak to succeed on its own merits, not as a side effect of anti-competitive maneuvering. Just be glad that our country isn't doing that open track access thing that is so popular in Europe because Fung Wah Train would decimate Amtrak's position. Hell, I'd ride it in a heartbeat without thinking twice. Not only would it be cheaper I'd get more interesting rolling stock like cast off AEM-7's, ALP-44s and Comet I coaches.
I didn't necessarily agree with some of his follow up comments, but he essentially hit the nail on the head. it will never be a fair comparison due to the inherent infrastructure demands that you never comprehend or understand.
There are those who think there should be a balance transportation network. The finances shouldn't always dictate the end result. I'm very pro-ferry which is another industry that often fails to turn a profit. However, it could be part of a broader, balanced transportation discussion if people look at the greater picture versus profit. Along those lines, I'd like to double down on your subsidy challenge.
Imagine if Mega Bus, Greyhound et al had to completely finance every single road they operated on. Imagine if they were completely responsible for every single bridge they crossed. Imagine if they were no longer allowed to have curbside drop off and pick up and needed designated terminals. Imagine if the federal government said any bus driver that exceeds the speed limit by 9 miles loses their license. Imagine if the federal government then told the bus operators that all of their buses must be built to withstand the impact of a collision with a double semi truck traveling at 65mph. On top of that, what if the government stated every single bus line must install and maintain a system that would reduce the likelihood of collisions.
Now imagine Amtrak and the freight operators paying a (relatively) small tax for rail usage, being able lay rail whenever and wherever they want with minimal oversight and regulation. Imagine the railroad operators hiring people that routinely violated the HOS of service laws. Imagine the rail carries having collisions and after being shut down, they have the ability to merely change their name, lease buses and continue operations a few hours later.
How can you even mention "fair" and "comparison" in a topic that talks about trains and buses? This of course brings us to your summary:
Arlington wrote:
So the challenge is to be honest with ourselves: if we honestly believe that trains can provide essential transportation, then the should do so with lower costs, nimble routing, and more day service. Not all the way to a cramped bus, but certainly looking more like the Carolinian and Palmetto.
Trains by nature cost a lot of money. This is due to federal guidelines. While you routinely overlook the infrastructure costs of your increasingly wild plans, those who see what they can approach can not. Based upon your simplistic statement, there should never be another train or subway operating in this country. The regulation and the costly, inflexible physical plant (which impacts "nimble routing") will always be a liability. Additionally, as you call for more "day trains" you have to arrange for their federally mandated inspections which are extremely costly and time consuming.
Until Greyhound has to salt and plow, sand and paint the bridges they use, there will never be a fair comparison. A bus will always have a lower cost structure. The tide may turn soon though. As electronic tolls eliminate the costly and obstructionist toll plazas, more areas will start charging tolls. There is even a effort to allow the states to start tolling the interstates. Previous efforts have been shot down, but the tide is slowly turning. When previously free roads and bridges are tolled in a few years, I think you will see bus operators taking a good look at their operations and costs. Yes, they will always be cheaper than a train, but the rush to expand and the fare structure will most likely change.