Amtrak Official: Jacksonville-Miami rail going to happen

[jis]

Let's be very careful about using New Mexico as an example It might be gone as fast as it came :unsure: though I am hoping it won't. A motivated Governor can make a lot happen very quickly, just as a negatively motivated Governor can undo things just as fast. OTOH, if something happens in spite of a lukewarm Governor, it is more likely to be more lasting.

Just because something was difficult to achieve doesn't mean it can't be easily swept away.

However, the best guarantee for the survival of any system is its user base. The more people use a service and depend on it, the more there are to angry if it dies and hence political powers will think hard before touching it.

As long as a system hasn't carried a single rider, who is there to be angry or sad when it is killed (besides a handful of railfans?).

Actually there has eventually got ot be enough people who are going to be mad who are willing to pay for the service, either through fares or through taxes. Just because enough people will be mad because the service is not being offered free or nearly free to them won't make the service survive. New Mexico has a serious farebox recovery problem at present. I am hoping they will be able to fix it to some extent. Doesn't have to be 100% but something in the area of 30 to 40% would be sustainable.

Don't get me wrong there are other places where lines exist and thrive with very very low farebox recovery for that specific line. But there are other counterbalancing lines to subsidize it from. For example the NJT Atlantic City Line and the River LINE have horrendous farebox recovery, but they are balanced out by over 100% farebox recovery on NEC and close to 100% farebox recovery on the M&E. The other possibility is to set up a sustainable Passenger Rail Trust Fund with predictable source of income, a method that is used to some extent in New Mexico, but income has been somewhat less than predicted in the Trust Fund causing some of its woes. Without such a Trust Fund in place there is the annual legislative bellyaching that we are so familiar with all around. And that is where a supportive Governor comes in handy.

 

[AlanB]

For example the NJT Atlantic City Line and the River LINE have horrendous farebox recovery, but they are balanced out by over 100% farebox recovery on NEC and close to 100% farebox recovery on the M&E.

Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.

Some systems top 30%, like for example, Salt Lake City which comes in with 37.18%.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.

If light rail is that inefficient, they might as well operate improved bus service, like BRT or short motorcoach routes.

edit: error

 

[jis]

For example the NJT Atlantic City Line and the River LINE have horrendous farebox recovery, but they are balanced out by over 100% farebox recovery on NEC and close to 100% farebox recovery on the M&E.

Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.

Some systems top 30%, like for example, Salt Lake City which comes in with 37.18%.

For obvious political reasons the details are not publicized too widely, but with inside contacts the information is available, and of course it is available via the NJ equivalent of FOIA. Part of the problem again is what is counted as expense vs. what is considered capital, in the computation of farebox recovery. The former counts and the latter not. Add on top of that that year over year State of NJ has converted what is supposed to be Capital funding from the TTF into fare support funding to maintain fare levels at the already relatively high levels that it is at, and the confusion becomes worse.

The LRT lines in NJ were mostly conceived as economic engine projects and thus have had their fares held relatively low and arguably have succeeded moderately to spectacularly in stimulating economic development of the areas they operate in. Interestingly, most LRTs in NJ were projects pushed in a non-partisan manner by both Dems and Reps, though Warrington took the trouble to disown projects that were previously supported by Dems, upon being appointed the CEO of NJT by Corzine. Fortunately that wild ride is over both in the CEO and Governor's office.

 

[cirdan]

Actually there has eventually got ot be enough people who are going to be mad who are willing to pay for the service, either through fares or through taxes. Just because enough people will be mad because the service is not being offered free or nearly free to them won't make the service survive. New Mexico has a serious farebox recovery problem at present. I am hoping they will be able to fix it to some extent. Doesn't have to be 100% but something in the area of 30 to 40% would be sustainable.

yes and no.

Sometimes people just have to want the service for it to happen.

Paying for it is secondary to that and quite often even when the farebox recovery is low as a percentage it is still peanuts in absolute figures and the government does many more stupid things with its money (that is your money) so cutting that spending wouldn't have any noticeable efect on your tax bill. Of course many small amounts to add up to big amounts so this shouldn't be an excuse to support every stupid project. But you get my drift?

Many roads have lousy farebox recovery rates. Many airports do as well. But why doesn't the government shut those down? Because there would be an outcry. Hence my initial statement that the most important thing when you want to protect a service is to have enough people who need it and use it and will get angry if someone wants to cut it.

 

[jis]

I understand what you are saying. But my point is mere anger of the masses is also not always enough to keep something going. But I think we both understand each other and no point in beating this horse to further stupor.

 

[cirdan]

Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.

If light rail is that inefficient, they might as well operate improved bus service, like BRT or short motorcoach routes.

Because often commuter services are not run like a business but more like a service for outside benefit.

So if a service costs a certain sum to set up and a further sum per year to run, it may still be worthwhile due to external benefits such as stimulus, bringing business, tourism, regeneration, gentrification etc (and thus highter tax income) to an area or maybe even because the equivalent amount of car journeys would have required highway widening which might actually have cost more.

Buses may have a higher farebox recovery ratio, but they generally attract considerably less ridership overall and so these external benefits are not delivered to the same extent. It's not just about the amount you spend but what you get in return.

 

[AlanB]

Interesting. I've never seen a route by route breakdown of NJT. Overall, in 2010, they only managed 50.97% recovery on the commuter lines. Light rail is actually horrible by comparison to many other systems, with a fare box recovery of only 18.48%.

If light rail is that inefficient, they might as well operate improved bus service, like BRT or short motorcoach routes.

Because often commuter services are not run like a business but more like a service for outside benefit.

So if a service costs a certain sum to set up and a further sum per year to run, it may still be worthwhile due to external benefits such as stimulus, bringing business, tourism, regeneration, gentrification etc (and thus highter tax income) to an area or maybe even because the equivalent amount of car journeys would have required highway widening which might actually have cost more.

Buses may have a higher farebox recovery ratio, but they generally attract considerably less ridership overall and so these external benefits are not delivered to the same extent. It's not just about the amount you spend but what you get in return.

New Jersey is an odd case, in part because NJT has quite a few commuter buses that run into NY City. That's something that many transit agencies don't have, so that improves NJT's fare box recovery rates on the buses.

But in general, buses have a lower fare box recovery rate than light rail. Not much lower, but nonetheless lower. On average in this country for 2010, buses have a 26.75% recovery while light rail averages 28.14%.

The aforementioned Salt Lake City buses comes in at 17.69%, which is why out in Salt Lake City when the dust settles from all the recent construction to expand light rail in just a few years from now light rail will be moving more people and the total cost to taxpayers over the last 20 years will be less for light rail than for the buses. This despite the hefty upfront costs to build light rail.

 

[Anderson]

With respect to who is likely to get irritated about a not-yet-built project, in some cases there's the likely user base. While that's not the same as a user base, if people in an area have been promised a project and are looking forward to it, then axing it can tick some of them off.

A case in point here would be the Orlampa train. No, this reality didn't save the project, but the degree of the backlash was pretty stunning all things considered, and I think he lost a decent bit of capital with a number of folks in Central Florida over that move.

As to why light rail and other projects like that get support in spite of higher costs/lower cost recovery, the answer is "Who rides them?" For example, of those 4-5k daily riders on The Tide, I'm willing to bet that about half wouldn't have been caught dead on a bus. Likewise, my suspicion is that in spite of the bus interchanges that are available, that traffic is very rare. Bus riders are, in many places, not "choice riders"; for example, the only time I have ever "chosen" to ride a bus that I can recall, it's because the other alternative is axing a train ride up to DC and fighting NOVA traffic. On the other hand, there are plenty of cases where I will choose to take a train (heavy rail, light rail, or otherwise). Some of this is, of course, bad bus service...but as I've said before (and as Alan has noted, studies also seem to show), there's something about rail that attracts ridership that bus options just don't tend to. For example, in the DC area, the Metro makes up something like 5/8 of the combined Metro/Bus ridership (620k/day on the buses in the region versus 980k on the Metro), and I know that the weekday frequencies on a number of those buses are pretty respectable even if the weekend options stink.

Salt Lake is an interesting situation: On the one hand, the light rail there is increasingly running as an actual streetcar network of sorts, not just an oddball line or circuit. It also interchanges with FrontRunner as well, but its reach seems to be increasingly broad (and rising rapidly), covering lots of neighborhoods. Put another way, it is actually useful. And as a result of this, ridership seems to be flooding from the bus lines to TRAX (according to the APTA report, TRAX is up 34% year-over-year in Q1 while bus ridership is off by 7%). I know that part of this is recent expansions and a system reworking, but it's still stunning growth, and I suspect that adding the airport to the system is going to send ridership surging yet again (since it will allow a lot of folks to skip airport parking and/or a not-so-cheap cab ride into downtown). It wouldn't surprise me to see TRAX ridership overtake bus ridership in the next 2-3 years (and for the record, the airport connection will also help me when I need to dump a rental car and ride back into town...even at a $5 one-way fare, I'll save something like $15 net on not having to pay for a cab).

 

[cirdan]

But in general, buses have a lower fare box recovery rate than light rail. Not much lower, but nonetheless lower. On average in this country for 2010, buses have a 26.75% recovery while light rail averages 28.14%.

I don't mean to disagree with your overall argument (in fact I couldn't have put it better), but I think care should be taken with the above statement because

- Light rail often replaces the most heavily used, and hance most profitable bus lines. Hence we would expect a higher farebox recovery even if no additional riders were won.

- In fact light rail is considerably more attractive than buses and whenever a new light rail line opens you always see that ridership is considerably higher than the buses it replaces, hence farebox income will also be higher.

- Ridership on buses also typically increases when a light rail opens because bus lines often act as feeders into light rail stations and people are more prepared to ride a bus if it is just a short trip to a light rail intechange.

- Sadly, costs are also often higher. This depends of course on the style of construction. Light rail can be done on the cheap and be built wholly or largely on old railroad lines or on street. However once you start getting into tunnels and viaducts and things that not only pushes up up-front costs but also maintnenace costs as these things have to be inspected, clean, repaired etc regularly. I believe that if light rail planners were more cost conscious and avoided these things more, the economic case for light rail could be far stronger. I am of course aware that NIMBYs are a problem here and that expensive infrastructure is often required not for operational reasons but in reaction to protests.In fact it is a strategy of light rail opponents to object to items on a case by case basis in the hope of driving up costs to the point that the system is doomed to failure.

 

[jis]

Didn't Alan have a study or computation which showed that over a longer period of time LRT comes out overall cheaper than buses because buses have much higher equipment replacement rate and cost than LRTs?

But what has all this got to do with Amtrak service on FEC completely beats me.

 

[AlanB]

Cirdan,

First, let me say that the numbers that I've provided are based solely on operating cost, no capital costs are included. So cost of construction has no impact on those numbers.

Next, while there may be a small impact on the numbers due to "taking over the busiest bus routes", it is a very small impact on the numbers. Returning to SLC with it's 17.69% bus recovery rate, back in 1996 & 1997 prior to light rail opening its first line, their fare box recovery was only about 2.5% better coming in at 20.31% & 20.75% respectively.

So I have to believe that the bigger reasons for the better fare box recovery rate of LRT is due to the fact that it just costs less to maintain a rail car (fewer moving parts) and perhaps the biggest reason is staffing. Out in SLC their bus division in 2009 required 1,023 employees and LRT only 314. They moved 20,000+ riders per employee by bus and 40,000+ per employee by light rail. That's huge!

And to your point about capital costs, consider the following. I went to the National Transit Database and pulled the numbers for several transit systems. NTD data only dates back to 1996, so in some cases part of the capital costs of the LRT system pre-dates my numbers, but still the idea comes across. Out in Portland, OR, in the 15 years between '96 & 2010 they've spent $2.914B on buses and $2.717B combined operating & capital. Denver $3.908B on buses & $2.986B on LRT.

For SLC I did things a bit different, in that I took the total combined costs and then subtracted revenue. Between 1994 (I found older numbers here) & 2007, the taxpayers spent $1.126 Billion on buses and $718.612 Million (with an M) on light rail. They started the massive expansion in 2008, as of the 2010 numbers light rail is currently in the lead at $1.787 Billion vs. $1.507 Billion for the buses. But as I alluded to in my earlier post, once construction stops late this year on the airport line, the huge disparity in operating costs will quickly push buses back into the lead. In 2010, they spent $106.093 Million operating buses and only $28.006 Million operating light rail.

Now I expect that light rail's operating costs will go up with the new lines, but even if it doubled and the increase should be far less than that, that's still $50 Million a year more being spent on buses. And light rail will be moving more people than the buses; right now the buses move about 7 million more rides a year than LRT.

 

[Anderson]

The one limitation of those numbers, of course, is that often the bus lnes have a sort of "reach" that you would have to spend billions of dollars to achieve with the light rail lines. Mind you, some of this can be achieved with either lots of parking at the stations or with bus feeder routes (the former is going to be necessary in at least some cases given driving habits, sprawl, and lousy bus schedules...nobody wants to spend forty minutes waiting for and riding on a local bus to travel five miles). To extend the SLC light rail network to have a similar reach, you'd probably need 3-5 times the system...and in such a case, you'd have some lines running as half-empty feeders.* Right now, a lot of LRT systems' operating expense is, in a sense, being helped by the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to set up light rail lines to cover those areas, so the systems get set up only in denser areas.

To toss out an example from my area, extending The Tide to the beachfront would send total costs to $1.1bn in capex for the light rail system. However, I haven't even seen estimates for getting the line extended to Norfolk Naval Station/ODU or into Chesapeake...and that still leaves much of the oceanfront requiring bus service, for example**, to say nothing of areas to the north and south...a second east-west line would likely be far more expensive (there's no dedicated RoW to work with like there is with the old Norfolk Southern line).

Now, it might be cheaper than some of the highway alternatives (I've seen some proposals for putting in a second east-west freeway down there, though those are stalled out), but it's still not going to be cheap, and the aforementioned ODU line is probably going to involve ripping up lanes in one or more major avenues no matter how you try to route it. Bottom line: Not cheap.***

*Of course, in a world where such an option came to pass, the main lines would probably be overwhelmed with traffic to the point that you'd need to either get longer trains or basically close the crossings for a few hours per day to accommodate all of the traffic. TRAX is apparently handling 60k/day pretty well and it should get up into the 75-90k range with the new sections, maybe a bit further. However, if you had a number of light rail feeder lines as well (accepting that light rail attracts a decent amount of choice traffic that buses, again, tend not to), it seems entirely possible that the downtown line could become overwhelmed.

**For an idea on what you'd need to ditch the bus/trolley line here and replace it with a LRT line, think directional running for street traffic. You'd basically need to wipe out half of either Atlantic or Pacific Avenue.

***And I won't even get into the issues with potentially crossing the James and/or running lines on the Peninsula; the former is likely to run a few billion, and the latter is a mess in no small part because the Peninsula Subdivision cuts through town in a bad way, so you would need to either have two semi-redundant lines (one on Warwick and one on Jefferson) with several bus cross-links or you'd need one line and a lot of bus feeders and a few pedestrian bridges to allow folks to get around the railroad. This is actually a major problem with the bus system as it stands right now...going from Warwick or Jefferson requires a clunky transfer that makes travel time laughable. And even doing all of this wouldn't cover large sections of Hampton, requiring at least one or two more lines.

 

[jis]

It is essential that the entire transport system be considered as a single unit for planning purposes, and then apply the right technology for each segment involved. An ideal situation would be a system which consists of a combination of LRT, Bus and Commuter Rail duly coordinated and integrated into a whole. That more than anything else is behind the success of SLC.

I don't understand why directional running in streets is a problem. You just have the trolley run only in the direction that the street runs. That is what is done in Portland between SW Yamhill and SW Morrison, both of which are one way in opposite directions, in downtown Portland OR, by Pioneer Square. Why is there this belief that LRT requires dedicated RoW everywhere. None of the LRT systems I know operates that way in City Center. Even the NJT RiverLINE which is more interurban than city oriented, becomes a street LRT in Camden NJ. That is one of the selling point of LRT.

 

[AlanB]

I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we want to build LRT every place. There is no doubt that would defeat the cost savings. They key is to have the proper mix of buses & rail of all types. Currently the Hampton's area is a long ways from the proper mix. Salt Lake on the other hand, while still needing some more work, is much closer to having the right mix.

 

[VentureForth]

And back on topic, Florida is just working their way into the mid 20th Century.

See my other post about how inefficient the connections to various effective transit modes are in Orlando. Governments complain about lack of ridership and discuss failures, but to have had next to no intermodal services for 40 years is inexcusable.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

And back on topic, Florida is just working their way into the mid 20th Century.

See my other post about how inefficient the connections to various effective transit modes are in Orlando. Governments complain about lack of ridership and discuss failures, but to have had next to no intermodal services for 40 years is inexcusable.

And your right about it too.

 

[Anderson]

It is essential that the entire transport system be considered as a single unit for planning purposes, and then apply the right technology for each segment involved. An ideal situation would be a system which consists of a combination of LRT, Bus and Commuter Rail duly coordinated and integrated into a whole. That more than anything else is behind the success of SLC.

I don't understand why directional running in streets is a problem. You just have the trolley run only in the direction that the street runs. That is what is done in Portland between SW Yamhill and SW Morrison, both of which are one way in opposite directions, in downtown Portland OR, by Pioneer Square. Why is there this belief that LRT requires dedicated RoW everywhere. None of the LRT systems I know operates that way in City Center. Even the NJT RiverLINE which is more interurban than city oriented, becomes a street LRT in Camden NJ. That is one of the selling point of LRT.

The problem is that right now, both streets are bidirectional when they really, really should be unidirectional. This is a big problem on Atlantic, where the street now basically consists of two trolley lanes and two "traffic" lanes (do consider that Atlantic is where almost all of the hotels open onto), and there is no room for left hand turn lanes. Try traveling four blocks north on Atlantic sometime in the summer...I dare you. Part of the problem is that, at the south end, Atlantic goes a few blocks past where Pacific breaks off to cross Rudee Inlet.

Also, there is no room for an extra lane on Atlantic. There actually might be some room on Pacific in some places if you're willing to wreck a bunch of parking lots, but even there you're hard-pressed. As to why a dedicated RoW would be desirable here, it is more to limit interference. I'd actually prefer a "semi-dedicated" RoW (that is, set things up so that traffic can cross the tracks with ease...but make the tracks into not-lanes).

And you do end up needing either a (semi-)dedicated RoW or some way to disperse traffic if your demand on a light rail system rises far enough. Having a light rail train come along every 2-3 minutes doesn't mix well with existing traffic if it is in a main lane, particularly since light rail vehicles can't get around stopped cars.*

As to Florida...the planned lines in Orlando are "interesting"; I think I noted at one point that the light rail line, SunRail, and the planned HSR line made for a royal transfer mess (IIRC, to transfer from one train to the other, you had to take the light rail line to SunRail to Amtrak...which had the potential to make for some interesting transit odysseys).

*There's a fun photo out there of about a dozen streetcars backed up on an empty street because one car is broken down and in the way.

 

[cirdan]

[

*There's a fun photo out there of about a dozen streetcars backed up on an empty street because one car is broken down and in the way.

Of course in the old days you would have had streetcar lines on every second or third street in downtown areas so you could divert around any obstruction at short notice.

The modern systems with theri very skeletal maps are less flexible of course. Maybe as they develop further that will improve.

 

[jis]

The problem is that right now, both streets are bidirectional when they really, really should be unidirectional. This is a big problem on Atlantic, where the street now basically consists of two trolley lanes and two "traffic" lanes (do consider that Atlantic is where almost all of the hotels open onto), and there is no room for left hand turn lanes. Try traveling four blocks north on Atlantic sometime in the summer...I dare you. Part of the problem is that, at the south end, Atlantic goes a few blocks past where Pacific breaks off to cross Rudee Inlet.

Also, there is no room for an extra lane on Atlantic. There actually might be some room on Pacific in some places if you're willing to wreck a bunch of parking lots, but even there you're hard-pressed. As to why a dedicated RoW would be desirable here, it is more to limit interference. I'd actually prefer a "semi-dedicated" RoW (that is, set things up so that traffic can cross the tracks with ease...but make the tracks into not-lanes).

Ah! I see I missed the point you were making. That is a valid point.

And you do end up needing either a (semi-)dedicated RoW or some way to disperse traffic if your demand on a light rail system rises far enough. Having a light rail train come along every 2-3 minutes doesn't mix well with existing traffic if it is in a main lane, particularly since light rail vehicles can't get around stopped cars.

It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.

 

[GG-1]

It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.

Aloha

A perfect use for monorail, it can be above the street and no interference to traffic.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

This thread is getting really long! Does anybody know what was the longest thread ever on AU?

 

[jis]

It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.

Aloha

A perfect use for monorail, it can be above the street and no interference to traffic.

Or an elevated LRT. The advantage of the latter is it will tend to have a longer reach in a city with an established or planned LRT system. Monorail systems tend to be isolated segments.

 

[GG-1]

It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.

Aloha

A perfect use for monorail, it can be above the street and no interference to traffic.

Or an elevated LRT. The advantage of the latter is it will tend to have a longer reach in a city with an established or planned LRT system. Monorail systems tend to be isolated segments.

Aloha

Unfortunately Jishnu is correct about the isolated segments, but this does not negate the construction of Monorail is simpler, less invasive, that LRT systems. Also the constructions saving will offset the higher cost of rubber tired vehicles for quite a long time. Then there ins the noise issue, rubber tired vehicles are quieter than Steel wheeled vehicles.

 

[Anderson]

It is always desirable to find space for a dedicated RoW. But if such cannot be found, and that tends to be the case in many older cities (see Amsterdam for example), one can still come up with schemes with redesigned traffic flows etc. to make the thing work.

Aloha

A perfect use for monorail, it can be above the street and no interference to traffic.

Or an elevated LRT. The advantage of the latter is it will tend to have a longer reach in a city with an established or planned LRT system. Monorail systems tend to be isolated segments.

Aloha

Unfortunately Jishnu is correct about the isolated segments, but this does not negate the construction of Monorail is simpler, less invasive, that LRT systems. Also the constructions saving will offset the higher cost of rubber tired vehicles for quite a long time. Then there ins the noise issue, rubber tired vehicles are quieter than Steel wheeled vehicles.

There's also the fact that if you're planning a mostly LRT/bus system, adding in a monorail makes a change-of-mode mandatory, something that should be kept to a minimum. That's not to say that it should be avoided at all costs (let's face it, there are places that using buses instead of LRT make a lot of sense), but I'm also reminded of one of the sillier moments that I came across, where a local transit group generated a big plan for a regional system over the long haul...and then threw in a streetcar in one neighborhood, pretty much just for the sake of adding another mode from what I can tell.

As to the point about more/redundant lines versus modern skeletal networks, I've wondered about that myself. I know there's a desire not to have to spring for lines every few blocks, but I also wonder whether putting a line every 1/2-3/4 mile in some areas (say, surrounding downtown) and running one or two "loop" lines, primarily to both make transfers easy but also to allow emergency diversions wouldn't also make a lot of sense. The problem, it seems, is just going to be the sheer cost of the lines (that second line might be another $300 million you have to round up, and the connections would be even more to throw in...to say nothing of the hit that operating expenses might end up taking as a result).