Support for expanded Electrification?

[jis]

I have no way of knowing for sure what it might cost in the US today, since there is no current project under construction. PRR60, who knows a bit about these things being an industry insider quotes the figure of $5 million per double track mile for the New Haven - Boston segment which was completed some 10 years back, which possibly works out to something like $2.6 million per single track mile. (slightly more than half of what it costs for double track mile)

I found a study in the UK which says:

The cost of electrification per single track km is in the order of £550K to £650K. Work published last year by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB)

which at today's exchange rate works out to about $1.6 million per track mile in UK.

According to an article on Railway Electrification in India:

The average cost of electrification per rkm is estimated to be around Rs 65 lakh for a double-line section and around Rs 40 lakh for single-line section.

which works out to about $150K per track mile. Considering that those are 2001 costs and India has been running an inflation of about 5%, call it something like $240K per track mile today.

I have seen claims in Australia that it costs $650K per track mile.

So you can see that the costs can differ hugely depending on where it is being done and under what circumstances.

 

[George Harris]

As to New Haven to Boston: There was a GAO report that held this particular project up as an example of how not to do this sort of thing. In other words, it cost far more than it ought to have cost. The project also included some unique provisions. For example, carrying power through a drawbride, four of them I think it was.

Therefore, to use this one as an example of what would be the norm for electrification in the US would be wrong. I may be able to find a link to this report sometime, but right now I do not have the time to look.

 

[PRR 60]

New Haven to Boston was affected by several factors:

- Limited work hours to accommodate rail traffic. Getting clear rail only from 1am to 5am is not very productive.

- This was a "turn key" design-build project done outside the normal Amtrak engineering review process. It did not follow established ET standards and was performed with limited input from Amtrak Electric Traction engineering staff (who, by the way, finally were brought in when the project began to circle the bowl). It took many long proven designs and tossed them for some "innovative" ideas. The stainless steel banding around some of the failing precast structure foundations is testimony to the success of some of the "innovations."

- And finally, the basic inefficiency of the Amtrak work culture. Everything that involves Amtrak costs multiples of what the same work would cost done by others. If a project would require two crews of four in private work, it will require three crews of six for Amtrak to perform. That is a legacy of Amtrak's Penn Central heritage. It hasn't changed in 38 years. I don't expect it to change anytime soon. Whenever my work involves Amtrak, I double the estimate, hold my breath, and hope for the best.

 

[George Harris]

PRR 60:

I think you are being very polite.

Early in my post green suit time, I got somewhat involved in site layout for a small yard for Amtrak. It had another name, but I am trying to not be too definite since the field of people involved in this stuff is realtively small. Among many other things, a simple solution to the main drainage issue got lost because, since it improved drainage of the adjacent main line, there was an issue of who's budget was going to be tapped for the construction and for the maintenance. The first cost difference was minuscule, but the proposed solution would be easier and cheaper to maintain. In a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face move, both sides refused to agree because each thought the other MIGHT get something at their expense.

I would not call it left overs from Penn Central, but left overs from the Pennsylvania Railroad. PRR seemed to have fought all forms of modernisation after buying their first diesels.

 

[jis]

As to New Haven to Boston: There was a GAO report that held this particular project up as an example of how not to do this sort of thing. In other words, it cost far more than it ought to have cost. The project also included some unique provisions. For example, carrying power through a drawbride, four of them I think it was.
Therefore, to use this one as an example of what would be the norm for electrification in the US would be wrong. I may be able to find a link to this report sometime, but right now I do not have the time to look.

Yes, George, I have seen that report and I do agree with your assessment. Doing electrification across bridges always poses a challenge, even if they are not movable bridges. For example on several very long bridges they had to slightly modify the girder cross braces to make room for the catenary when they electrified Calcutta to Delhi in India.

The problem with the Boston electrification is that it appears to be incredibly over-engineered. Even the structures on the French LGV do not look as shall we say "robust" and poles as frequent as on the Boston segment, granted the curves do make it necessary to put poles closer - but why on the straight segments too?

Limited work hours to accommodate rail traffic. Getting clear rail only from 1am to 5am is not very productive.

This is usually the norm when an existing line is electrified, so I don't see why this should be a cause for adding significant cost. Actually these guys did get clear rail predictably 1am to 5am. Other electrifications that I have seen done got 2 hour windows two or three times a day on a per section basis and that was it. It was actually a site to behold working under those circumstances. As soon as the window opens first the base drilling machine trundle down the track and drill the base cast holes quickly one after the other and clear the section as time runs out. Then the big base pouring exercise happens in several windows, and simultaneously the posts are dropped by each pole location. etc. etc. It almost ran like a clockwork whenever two hour windows were found with massive forces deployed to complete the work scheduled for the segment in that window. Of course these guys have it down pat and are fully practiced with the routine since they work as a team allover putting in hundreds of kms of electrification a year, year in and year out.

I think this is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the difference between doing a few miles here and there at a time vs. doing a massive project continuously. I bet our highway system construction unit cost would be much higher too if we built it in fits and start thus allowing the logistical expertise to not develop or disappear between building activities.

 

[sueb]

Well, they recently reactivated the electrification on the Keystone service, which had been allowed to become derelict. That's the line I commute on. Don't know what that cost per mile, but I think it is worth it as it gives Amtrak more options for running our trains. We still see a diesel engine once in a while, when everything else is in the shop, I guess. But I still need a car to get about 10 mi to the station. Nothing big, I currently use a 12-yr old Toyota.

Also electrification doesn't solve the problem that the station at ELT is still inaccessible to my handicapped son, since it has a steep flight of stairs and a low platform. Nearest semi-accessible station (freight elevator available with employee assistance) is HAR, about 30 minutes drive away with limited and expensive parking. ELT station is currently being renovated extensively and is supposed to end up being fully accessible, but that is about 16 months off.

Another comment about people's choice of cars. We need a car that can fit my son's adaptive stroller in the trunk or in the body of the vehicle such as a van or SUV. My 12-yr-old Corolla can fit the stroller in the trunk, but more recent Corollas can't. The van we have is also old but runs OK and I will keep it as long as I can because it also fits the stroller plus luggage. There seems to be a trend to make vehicle trunks smaller, forcing people like us to look for larger cars than we might like if we have to replace our current ones. We don't need extra passenger space, but we need the cargo space.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Another comment about people's choice of cars. We need a car that can fit my son's adaptive stroller in the trunk or in the body of the vehicle such as a van or SUV. My 12-yr-old Corolla can fit the stroller in the trunk, but more recent Corollas can't. The van we have is also old but runs OK and I will keep it as long as I can because it also fits the stroller plus luggage. There seems to be a trend to make vehicle trunks smaller, forcing people like us to look for larger cars than we might like if we have to replace our current ones. We don't need extra passenger space, but we need the cargo space.

Obviously, if you have a need for a larger car for any number of specialized reasons, it can't be faulted. Actually, I once drafted a long and detailed memorandum detailing my suggestions for gas tax/road/rail/transit funding/incentivizing, I had a variety of items built in for things like that. A for instance would be a reduced tax for people with accessible plates. It also included reduced tax for trucks operating between points where freight rail doesn't exist or was inpractical.

I once discussed it with Corzine way back when he was a state senator and attending a local event, then later by invitation in his local office. He said he liked the general setup of the thing, but pointed out to me that backing it would be political suicide. Which comes down to one of the general problems with democracy, but whatever.

I know what you mean by cars getting less practical, although I haven't actually seen reduced trunk capacity in any meaningful way. What I HAVE seen is increasingly small and hilariously impractical trunk openings, driven by peoples apparent desire for more rakish C-pillars. It also increases glare, and peoples desire for more rakish A-pillars heavily compromises visibility. As does the perplexing desire for pill-box slit windoes.

A few years back, Ford introduced a car called the "Five Hundred", and they spelled it out like that. I was completely enthralled by the thing. I thought it was the best effort at building a car the domestic builders had done since Ford introduced the original Taurus in 1986. It was beautifully concieved and executed, well built on a solid platform using excellent materials and durable, proven mechancicals. The Duratec V6 has proven its durability, the platform was an expanded version of the Volvo P2 platform (S60/V70/S80/XC90 of the early 2000s) a very solid design, the CVT was solidly designed, and the availible Haldex AWD system was simplicity itself.

It was very tall, offering unbelievable space efficiency and very comfortable chair-height seats. The CVT allowed the smallish V6 to move the vehicle with decent alacrity while providing it with better fuel economy then it gave in the smaller (and lighter) Taurus. It was extremely safe - no surprise, it was a Volvo at heart - and handled, while unenthusastically, predictably and well. The window belt line was pretty low, visibility was excellent, the seats extremely comfortable, and the controls set standards for ergonomics. The trunk was huge and the opening allowed access to almost the entire trunk.

I thought this thing was going to give the Camry a run for its money. It was a dowdy looking car, but everything else about it was perfect, a paradigm of large, practical, family car design. It being a dowdy looking car killed it on the market place. In every quantifiable, objective way except outright acceleration it was the best mid/full-size sedan in the $20-40k market, period. It was made slightly less dowdy looking when it was renamed Taurus a few years ago, but it didn't help. Now they have fully redesigned it keeping its basic bones, but lowring the roofline, shortening the windows, increasing the rake on the A and C pillars, and its selling like hot cakes.

In a market that illogical, how can you expect decent products to prevail?

 

[AAARGH!]

GML:

As for cars, it's form over function. Always has been. As you said, that's why the Ford Five-Hundred failed.

I agree with your assessment, but I disagree with your statement: "In a market that illogical, how can you expect decent products to prevail?" It's not illogical at all. What is considered decent is different for each person. You (obviously) fall on the function side of the equasion, while the majority fall on the form side. It's all ego.

 

[George Harris]

GML:
As for cars, it's form over function. Always has been. As you said, that's why the Ford Five-Hundred failed.

Because people who go for function over form usually keep a car much longer. As a very solid functional car buyer, I have bought exactly 7 cars for self and family plus an assist to 4 for kids. Only 4 out of the 11 were new. That is in 49 years since I got a drivers license. Most were truly dead when unloaded, and all were well past the 100,000 mile mark, one over 300,000. Rigth now I am driving shoe leather or a rent car to go out of town since we live in the middle of San Francisco.

 

[volkris]

A few years back, Ford introduced a car called the "Five Hundred", and they spelled it out like that. I was completely enthralled by the thing. I thought it was the best effort at building a car the domestic builders had done since Ford introduced the original Taurus in 1986. It was beautifully concieved and executed, well built on a solid platform using excellent materials and durable, proven mechancicals. The Duratec V6 has proven its durability, the platform was an expanded version of the Volvo P2 platform (S60/V70/S80/XC90 of the early 2000s) a very solid design, the CVT was solidly designed, and the availible Haldex AWD system was simplicity itself.
...

In a market that illogical, how can you expect decent products to prevail?

Actually, at my workplace we have a lot of expertise in engineering. My coworkers, who are the type to know every part of a car inside and out down to the calculated heat capacity of threading of individual bolts, had some major criticisms of the Five Hundred's design.

As usual you present this absolute view of the world calling everyone else illogical or stupid when they don't buy into your perception. It's very closed minded and the height of arrogance, and it's an attitude that's all too prevalent in the world today.

 

[TVRM610]

For the Boston Line... was it not also additional costs due to the fact that trains would be running at such high speeds? If trains were never planned to operate faster than say 110, would the costs be as high as on the NEC?

 

[jis]

For the Boston Line... was it not also additional costs due to the fact that trains would be running at such high speeds? If trains were never planned to operate faster than say 110, would the costs be as high as on the NEC?

It is pretty standard Constant Tension catenary. 150mph does not require anything spectacularly more expensive in the catenary beyond that. Just a matter of setting the tension and alignment properly, which should be done anyway even for 110 or 135mph. Also, the total length where the train can ran at 150mph is relatively small as a proportion of the total length of that electrification.

 

[TVRM610]

thanks jls... fair enough!

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Actually, at my workplace we have a lot of expertise in engineering. My coworkers, who are the type to know every part of a car inside and out down to the calculated heat capacity of threading of individual bolts, had some major criticisms of the Five Hundred's design.
As usual you present this absolute view of the world calling everyone else illogical or stupid when they don't buy into your perception. It's very closed minded and the height of arrogance, and it's an attitude that's all too prevalent in the world today.

So am I, and ignoring a few items that seem to be the case in just about every car today, I can't think of any. So if you have heard of these, list them rather than being vague.

 

[volkris]

Actually, at my workplace we have a lot of expertise in engineering. My coworkers, who are the type to know every part of a car inside and out down to the calculated heat capacity of threading of individual bolts, had some major criticisms of the Five Hundred's design.
As usual you present this absolute view of the world calling everyone else illogical or stupid when they don't buy into your perception. It's very closed minded and the height of arrogance, and it's an attitude that's all too prevalent in the world today.

So am I, and ignoring a few items that seem to be the case in just about every car today, I can't think of any. So if you have heard of these, list them rather than being vague.

Cars aren't my area of expertise, so I only remember the harsh criticism my well-informed coworkers were dishing out at the engineering in the thing.

Point is, you talk as if there's no question that this car is extremely well-engineered (ignoring reasonable criticism) just like you talk about the One True Hamburger (ignoring sanity) and insist that people buying certain types of cars are in the wrong, proposing to "correct" them by instituting your personal opinions and values through the force of law. Your arrogance and selfishness is flat out sickening, and I'm not sure you can even see it for what it is.

We should support expanded rail and expanded electrification because it accomplishes goals IN ADDITION to other goals, particularly the subjective goals of individuals who pursue happiness, and not through punitive taxation seeking to tame the savages who value cars and SUVs. In practical terms, the population will see such attacks for what they are, and I don't think that's going to end well, politically, for Amtrak.

Rail can either be an ally to the large driving public, providing alternatives to congested roads and long distance driving, or it can be an enemy, taking tax dollars away from roads and seeking to "correct" their ways by force.

To be clear, I'm not seeking to hound on GML personally here, but rather to talk about how a certain attitude enters into the talk of expanding electrification. It just happens that GML is generally the extreme example of the attitude, but it's one many here share.

 

[Ryan]

Your arrogance and selfishness is flat out sickening

To be clear, I'm not seeking to hound on GML personally here

You could have fooled me.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Cars aren't my area of expertise, so I only remember the harsh criticism my well-informed coworkers were dishing out at the engineering in the thing.
Point is, you talk as if there's no question that this car is extremely well-engineered (ignoring reasonable criticism) just like you talk about the One True Hamburger (ignoring sanity) and insist that people buying certain types of cars are in the wrong, proposing to "correct" them by instituting your personal opinions and values through the force of law. Your arrogance and selfishness is flat out sickening, and I'm not sure you can even see it for what it is.

We should support expanded rail and expanded electrification because it accomplishes goals IN ADDITION to other goals, particularly the subjective goals of individuals who pursue happiness, and not through punitive taxation seeking to tame the savages who value cars and SUVs. In practical terms, the population will see such attacks for what they are, and I don't think that's going to end well, politically, for Amtrak.

Rail can either be an ally to the large driving public, providing alternatives to congested roads and long distance driving, or it can be an enemy, taking tax dollars away from roads and seeking to "correct" their ways by force.

To be clear, I'm not seeking to hound on GML personally here, but rather to talk about how a certain attitude enters into the talk of expanding electrification. It just happens that GML is generally the extreme example of the attitude, but it's one many here share.

I'm a socialist. I see people in general as too stupid to know what is best for them over the long term because time and experience have proven it to be so. People want their gratification, and they want it now. People have a right to pursue happiness so long as it does not infringe on other people's right to pursue their own happiness.

By driving a large SUV in pursuit of ones own happiness, one limits the happiness of people around them. Just as it is not right to play a bazooka boom box in the library, it is not right to drive around a large SUV and not pay for all the damages that it causes to everyone and everything. They are noisy. They make our roads less safe since they are less maneuverable and make visibility more difficult. They inflict more damage on other vehicles.

By driving a car at all, people are polluting the world. Not for me. Not for you. For everyone. They are doing this in selfish disregard for me, for my friends, for any descendants I may have, for every living person on earth. There are so many places in this country where I am allowed to discharge a gun. IF, even by accident, I discharge that gun and somebody happens to be between the bullet and the end of its trajectory, I am responsible for manslaughter. Pollution KILLS. It creates smog. It releases carcinogens. It releases molecules unhealthy for humans into the atmosphere.

I honestly don't see much difference between the two. If the imperatives were different... but then, in various places in this country, they aren't. And for most people, driving larger, larger engined vehicles that pollute more is no more imperative then firing off a gun at random. Its a want. Pure and simple. All I ask is that these people are taxed for their responsibilities.

As for your personally attacking my "arrogance and selfishness", I concede to being arrogant. Perhaps I am even sickeningly so. I don't make myself sick with my arrogance, so I wouldn't know. But selfish? I sit around and ask for things that, in my opinion, benefits mankind overall by requiring people to be responsible, in proportion, for the consequences of their own conspicuous consumption. You sit around and demand that you and others should have the right to engage in that conspicuous consumption without regard to the damage it causes.

I lose things to myself in many of the things I want for, in my mind, the overall good of society. It comes at cost to me. I'm willing to accept that cost to myself as part of my goals for what I consider to be a better world. If I die penniless, battered and broken, in a world that, in part because of my efforts, is what I consider a better place to live, I will die with my purpose in life met.

I personally think your standpoint is more selfish than mine. However, the very least I will concede to is that we are equally selfish in wanting our personal desires for the world to reach reality, regardless of our reasons.

As for my opinions being magisterial, pfui, sir. They are my opinions. Of course I think my opinions are correct and yours aren't. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't hold the opinions I hold. I'd agree with you. But I don't. I am not a two-bit diplomat. I'm not going to go ****-footing around carefully reminding people that my opinions are my opinions, based on my personal proclivities and experience, and therefore are not valid facts. If you can't tell that my opinions are, in fact, opinions, you don't belong on a discussion forum.

I'm not going to add to statements such nonsense as, "In my opinion" (Its obvious its my opinion), "I could be wrong," (Of course I could be wrong - I'm not god), "You're entitled to your opinion," (Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion- you hold it, don't you?), or "Do what you like," (of course you are going to do what you like!). I am not going to pretend to not dislike opinions I disagree with. I will argue with them, based upon all the points I can reasonably present in furtherance of my argument. Furthermore, I am not going to pretend I don't dislike people whose opinions indicate they are a kind of person I can't stand- and people that advocate for selfish goals that benefit primarily themselves under the guise of "freedom" are among them.

I don't like you, Volkris. I don't say you're stupid, because you're not. I don't say you're evil, because I don't think you are. I do say you're selfish, because I think you are. I do say you like to spin things to come out your way, because you do. You are well within your rights to do all of this, think all of this, and say all of this, because of the freedoms you cherish and have. You are generally even well within your rights to post them here because we have a fairly open moderating team.

And Volkris, I am not going to BS the whole world and say I'm not being personal. I am being personal. This post is directed at you.

 

[AlanB]

Ok, I think a little cooling off is required here, so this topic will be closed for a day.

 

[volkris]

I'm sure you don't realize it, GML, but your reply actually supports my points.

This topic was asking how we can garner the political support needed for expanding electrification, and I pointed out that the arrogant attitudes and arguments about taming the unwashed masses probably isn't the best way to get that support. I pointed out that Amtrak and expanded electrification can be presented as a partnership with peoples' lives or as an enemy, "fixing" their ways.

Well, you came in right off the bat labeling most people as stupid... which pretty much sums up the entire situation: there won't be political support for expanded electrification if the proponents spend their time mocking and insulting the citizenry, and yet that's exactly what we see all too often. Even if it's not explicit, the population will get the message as they're punished, through taxation, for their "evil" ways.

 

[transit54]

As much is this is really a deep interest of mine (having majored in economics and having a career in transit), I really don't want to get too much into this, because it's gotten to be a pretty charged conversation.

But I feel the need to relate a story from last night.

Yesterday, I took a roundtrip to Bellows Falls, VT on the Vermonter. There's $12 promotional fares anywhere in the state till the end of the year, so I've been checking out some places I'd otherwise probably never get the chance to visit.

Coming back, a friend of mine got on the train a few stops up the line. She takes the train every weekend from Essex Jct to Windsor, VT. When she first started traveling regularly on that route, she was taking the Greyhound, but I convinced her to give the train a try, especially since it went right to Windsor. Since that time, she's become on a first name basis with all of the Vermonter crews and is a well known frequent rider of the service.

Last night, she sat down next to me and told me that she's thinking of buying a car. Not for local trips, mind you - she's still planning on biking and taking the bus around town, especially because the local university makes the latter free. The car would pretty much be for replacing Amtrak on the Burlington to Windsor commute.

The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.

How are we going to encourage train ridership in this society when the financial incentives are such that a highly satisfied and regular train rider has to move to driving in a single occupancy vehicle to save money? Even at the gas prices of last summer, the train would have given the car a run for its money. No one wins in this scenario, except auto mechanics, paving companies and perhaps, the oil industry.

I just feel like I'm constantly fighting an impossible struggle to get more people to take the train because of stuff like this. I see this with Amtrak, I see the with the transit system I work for, I see this everywhere. I just don't see how we can see a successful expansion of passenger rail in this country without aligning financial incentives with societal costs.

 

[Ryan]

I'm sure you don't realize it, GML, but your reply actually supports my points.
This topic was asking how we can garner the political support needed for expanding electrification, and I pointed out that the arrogant attitudes and arguments about taming the unwashed masses probably isn't the best way to get that support. I pointed out that Amtrak and expanded electrification can be presented as a partnership with peoples' lives or as an enemy, "fixing" their ways.

Well, you came in right off the bat labeling most people as stupid... which pretty much sums up the entire situation: there won't be political support for expanded electrification if the proponents spend their time mocking and insulting the citizenry, and yet that's exactly what we see all too often. Even if it's not explicit, the population will get the message as they're punished, through taxation, for their "evil" ways.

I don't think that GML is trying to convince anyone here that expanded electrification is a good thing. You may have correctly identified his motives for believing that way, but how he goes about doing it is a completely different topic.

 

[wayman]

The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.
How are we going to encourage train ridership in this society when the financial incentives are such that a highly satisfied and regular train rider has to move to driving in a single occupancy vehicle to save money? Even at the gas prices of last summer, the train would have given the car a run for its money. No one wins in this scenario, except auto mechanics, paving companies and perhaps, the oil industry.

What calculations have convinced her that this will save her money? I don't believe "the financial incentives are such ...". I believe she doesn't understand the actual costs of buying, owning, and driving a car.

Annual cost of a weekend round-trip every weekend (at this promotional fare): $12 x2 x52 = $1248

"The average auto insurance premium for residents in Vermont is $1,329 in 2009." (carinsurance.com)

Highway distance from Essex Junction to Windsor: 100 miles each way. 2x100miles x52 = 10,400 miles/year

Assuming a fuel-efficiency of 30mpg, that's 347 gallons/year. Assuming $2.50/gallon, that's $868 in gas.

PA annual inspection and registration costs about $100 total, assuming nothing's wrong with the car. I'll guess Vermont is comparable.

Toss in a couple oil changes per year at $30 each, plus some other minor maintenance (new wiper blades every now and then), and guess $100/year for that stuff total.

So far we're at $2397/year ... already almost double the cost of the train ... and that's without calculating the cost of actually buying a car. Say she buys a used car with 80,000 miles for $5000, and given its odometer and maintenance record, with her estimated 10,400 miles/year, she expects to get 10 years out of it. She pays cash, so as to avoid the additional costs of a loan. $5000/year over 10 years would be $500/year.

She'll probably need to buy tires at least once in these ten years (over 100,000 miles). That'll cost at least $400, possibly more if she needs all-weather tires which might run more like $600. But let's be generous and say $400, amortized over 10 years for $40/year.

And at some point, she'll need a major repair like a new radiator, one of those unpredictable things you have to budget for. Better budget at least $500 over 10 years for that, or $50/year, to be safe.

Now we're at $2987/year. The train is $1248/year, less than half the cost of driving!!!!! And that's assuming she gets a good deal on a well-maintained used car which gets great mileage and that she doesn't need a loan. Oh, and that's assuming gas is $2.50/gallon for the next ten years.

Say train fare doubles after this promotional $12 fare expires. The train is still cheaper, by nearly $500/year.

Train fare may also increase over the ten year period. But will it increase more than the rising costs of gasoline? By so much that the cost of taking the train exceeds the cost of buying, owning, and driving a car?

That's how I do the math. How does she do the math? If she's the betting type, let me know. I'll put a lot of money on this.

 

[Tim_Metra]

The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.
How are we going to encourage train ridership in this society when the financial incentives are such that a highly satisfied and regular train rider has to move to driving in a single occupancy vehicle to save money? Even at the gas prices of last summer, the train would have given the car a run for its money. No one wins in this scenario, except auto mechanics, paving companies and perhaps, the oil industry.

What calculations have convinced her that this will save her money? I don't believe "the financial incentives are such ...". I believe she doesn't understand the actual costs of buying, owning, and driving a car.

Annual cost of a weekend round-trip every weekend (at this promotional fare): $12 x2 x52 = $1248

"The average auto insurance premium for residents in Vermont is $1,329 in 2009." (carinsurance.com)

Highway distance from Essex Junction to Windsor: 100 miles each way. 2x100miles x52 = 10,400 miles/year

Assuming a fuel-efficiency of 30mpg, that's 347 gallons/year. Assuming $2.50/gallon, that's $868 in gas.

PA annual inspection and registration costs about $100 total, assuming nothing's wrong with the car. I'll guess Vermont is comparable.

Toss in a couple oil changes per year at $30 each, plus some other minor maintenance (new wiper blades every now and then), and guess $100/year for that stuff total.

So far we're at $2397/year ... already almost double the cost of the train ... and that's without calculating the cost of actually buying a car. Say she buys a used car with 80,000 miles for $5000, and given its odometer and maintenance record, with her estimated 10,400 miles/year, she expects to get 10 years out of it. She pays cash, so as to avoid the additional costs of a loan. $5000/year over 10 years would be $500/year.

She'll probably need to buy tires at least once in these ten years (over 100,000 miles). That'll cost at least $400, possibly more if she needs all-weather tires which might run more like $600. But let's be generous and say $400, amortized over 10 years for $40/year.

And at some point, she'll need a major repair like a new radiator, one of those unpredictable things you have to budget for. Better budget at least $500 over 10 years for that, or $50/year, to be safe.

Now we're at $2987/year. The train is $1248/year, less than half the cost of driving!!!!! And that's assuming she gets a good deal on a well-maintained used car which gets great mileage and that she doesn't need a loan. Oh, and that's assuming gas is $2.50/gallon for the next ten years.

Say train fare doubles after this promotional $12 fare expires. The train is still cheaper, by nearly $500/year.

Train fare may also increase over the ten year period. But will it increase more than the rising costs of gasoline? By so much that the cost of taking the train exceeds the cost of buying, owning, and driving a car?

That's how I do the math. How does she do the math? If she's the betting type, let me know. I'll put a lot of money on this.

The real solution is that we need to raise the cost of driving and flying to reflect their true costs. I propose that we raise the gasoline tax and jet fuel tax to a level that it pays 1/2 of our military budget. Let's not kid yourselves; our military is now being used to ensure our access to petroleum world wide. These tax increases would reflect the "true cost" of driving and flying. Do this and we would have nation wide electrification in a decade in addtion to full Amtrak funding!

 

[wayman]

Say train fare doubles after this promotional $12 fare expires. The train is still cheaper, by nearly $500/year.

I don't know what the non-promotional fares here tend to be, but this fare revenue plan from 2003 suggests $.25/mile is a typical fare. That would suggest about $25 as the non-promotional fare. So, by this, even with regular fares the train is still about $450-500 cheaper per year....

The real solution is that we need to raise the cost of driving and flying to reflect their true costs. (Tim Metra)

While I don't object to that plan, I think we really just need to raise awareness of the current costs of driving.

Have a look at the comments to this Lynchburg newspaper editorial on the new Regional train. Those who are anti-train think that it costs $50 to drive from Lynchburg to Washington, DC and back (or, at or just under the round-trip train fare for 1 person), because they only think of the cost of gasoline. Those who make arguments for the train quote figures around $200-250 for driving (round-trip train fare for 4), which are far more accurate. Until you can get the detractors to see what it actually costs them to drive they just won't get it.

 

[AlanB]

The reason? "I'm spending too much on Amtrak." And that's with $12 promotional fares each way.
How are we going to encourage train ridership in this society when the financial incentives are such that a highly satisfied and regular train rider has to move to driving in a single occupancy vehicle to save money? Even at the gas prices of last summer, the train would have given the car a run for its money. No one wins in this scenario, except auto mechanics, paving companies and perhaps, the oil industry.

What calculations have convinced her that this will save her money? I don't believe "the financial incentives are such ...". I believe she doesn't understand the actual costs of buying, owning, and driving a car.

Annual cost of a weekend round-trip every weekend (at this promotional fare): $12 x2 x52 = $1248

"The average auto insurance premium for residents in Vermont is $1,329 in 2009." (carinsurance.com)

Highway distance from Essex Junction to Windsor: 100 miles each way. 2x100miles x52 = 10,400 miles/year

Assuming a fuel-efficiency of 30mpg, that's 347 gallons/year. Assuming $2.50/gallon, that's $868 in gas.

PA annual inspection and registration costs about $100 total, assuming nothing's wrong with the car. I'll guess Vermont is comparable.

Toss in a couple oil changes per year at $30 each, plus some other minor maintenance (new wiper blades every now and then), and guess $100/year for that stuff total.

So far we're at $2397/year ... already almost double the cost of the train ... and that's without calculating the cost of actually buying a car. Say she buys a used car with 80,000 miles for $5000, and given its odometer and maintenance record, with her estimated 10,400 miles/year, she expects to get 10 years out of it. She pays cash, so as to avoid the additional costs of a loan. $5000/year over 10 years would be $500/year.

She'll probably need to buy tires at least once in these ten years (over 100,000 miles). That'll cost at least $400, possibly more if she needs all-weather tires which might run more like $600. But let's be generous and say $400, amortized over 10 years for $40/year.

And at some point, she'll need a major repair like a new radiator, one of those unpredictable things you have to budget for. Better budget at least $500 over 10 years for that, or $50/year, to be safe.

Now we're at $2987/year. The train is $1248/year, less than half the cost of driving!!!!! And that's assuming she gets a good deal on a well-maintained used car which gets great mileage and that she doesn't need a loan. Oh, and that's assuming gas is $2.50/gallon for the next ten years.

Say train fare doubles after this promotional $12 fare expires. The train is still cheaper, by nearly $500/year.

Train fare may also increase over the ten year period. But will it increase more than the rising costs of gasoline? By so much that the cost of taking the train exceeds the cost of buying, owning, and driving a car?

That's how I do the math. How does she do the math? If she's the betting type, let me know. I'll put a lot of money on this.

According to the IRS, your numbers are way low. The IRS calculates and allows a deduction of 53 cents per mile under the correct circumstances. They believe that with insurance, gas, maintenance, wear and tear, and other expenses that it costs you 53 cents per mile to drive your car. Multiply that by 10,400 miles and driving the car will cost her $5,512 a year.

And I for one would never argue with the IRS.