Dave's post is well written, but I believe his assertion that "alternative(s) can cover the cost of its own existence just as cars do" is a narrow, stilted way of looking at the issue.

IMO mass transit has to be evaluated on a cost recovery basis, but it also must be assessed by how it relates to the overall community.

People may love or hate Portland, OR, but there is no doubt that the mass transit system there helps enhance the community--which in turn promotes sustainable growth within the community.

Detroit, on the other hand, isn't a tough sell to potential businesses and residents primarily because it is lacking in mass transit (yes, I do know about the People Mover), but there is no doubt that Detroit is severely hurt by its poor infrastructure, which is reflected by its lack of downtown hotel space and mass transit, among other things.

How does this relate to Amtrak? The current debate is more about whether Amtrak should be funded or not, but the debate we should be having is what Amtrak can do effectively--within the overall sphere of transportation planning in America. We should worry less about whether Amtrak covers its costs, and more about whether a multi-faceted transportation structure is appropriate and necessary for a large, diverse country such as ours.

My feeling is that Amtrak (or some other rail-based alternative) has a place in our future--not necessarily as a long distance option, but certainly as a corridor and regional option. We should also have an honest debate about the state of our transportation infrastructure--which is rapidly deteriorating. Transportation infrastructure is vital to rebuilding our cities and metro areas, and that in turn is vital as we face a changing economy and world in the 21st century.

Jeff C

Dave,  I am sorry about the confusion between you and your brother.  

I think  that the discussion about the profits of the auto industry is misleading and not relevant when we are talking about companies  and organizations that transport people.  I tried to bring up GM as an example of poor private management versus government management.  I think that this got confused with the discussion about transporting people.

At its core, GM makes vehicles.  Boeing makes airplanes.  Gillig makes busses.  None of these companies are in the primary business of transporting people.  They make transportation vehicles.  Making vehicles may be profitable.  Operating them is not.

Amtrak, airlines, bus companies, subways, commuter rail lines and even taxi companies, require government support of some sort to continue operations.  Therefore, I stand by my contention that no one has figured out how to transport people and make a profit without government support.

I think that Jeff C. said it best.  "We should also have an honest debate about the state of our transportation infrastructure--which is rapidly deteriorating."  

Amtrak will never make a profit or be self-sustaining from the fare box.  Therefore, the question is how much do we want to support Amtrak or a similar service?  We need to ask the same question about the airlines, bus companies, etc.  Cars will never meet all of our transportation needs.  I think we will always need a mix of transportation options and that subsidized rail will be needed until some option that has not yet been invented comes along.

Beam me to Seattle Scotty,

Joe

I'd like to know how much SeaTac actually cost and how much Washington State taxpayers kicked in.

 

Gilbert

 

Sea-Tac airport was built in the 1940s by the Port of Seattle.  The Port took on the project at the request of the federal government.  They wanted to remove civil aviation from county owned Boeing Field to allow Boeing Field to be fully devoted to the production and testing of B-17s and aircraft for the war effort.  The original construction funding was $1.1 million with $1 million from the federal CAA and $100,000 from the city of Tacoma.  Today Sea-Tac is operated by the Port under Washington state law as an enterprise fund financed by operating revenue.  Landing fees and terminal rental paid by airlines and other businesses totaled over $200 million in 2011.  The business paying those fees then passed them along to the 32 million people who used Sea-Tac last year.  With four trips in and out of Sea-Tac last year I must have contributed about $25.  Count me as a satisfied customer. 

 

Well, the Feds/US taxpayer threw more than $300 million your way just to build that billion-dollar-runway, so your reply certainly doesn't answer my question.  Not that I expected you to answer my question, since I realize it would take a certain amount of digging through the years.

 

 

Gilbert

 

And where did that $300 million come from? 

 

 

 

Gilbert

In case you didn't have a chance to look up the source of federal funding for airport improvements....

Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)

 

The Trust Fund's purpose was to establish sources of funding that would increase concurrently with the use of the system, and assure timely and long-term commitments to capacity increases.

 

Trust Fund revenues are derived from excise taxes on:

• Domestic airline passenger tickets
• Domestic airline passenger flight segments
• International passenger arrivals and departures
• Air cargo waybills
• Aviation fuels
• Amounts paid for the right to provide mileage awards

For more details and info on general fund revenue used by the FAA you can check here.

http://www.faa.gov/about/offic...rs_offices/apl/aatf/

IMO mass transit has to be evaluated on a cost recovery basis, but it also must be assessed by how it relates to the overall community........

 

We should worry less about whether Amtrak covers its costs, and more about whether a multi-faceted transportation structure is appropriate and necessary for a large, diverse country such as ours.My feeling is that Amtrak.....

Jeff

When I read about you feelings for multi-faceted diversity.........

Um...........

I had a Portlandia flashback!!!!!!!! 

Call me Grumpy Grumperson but a decisions on government transportation infrastructure spending need to begin with the math on how may people can be moved from where they are to here they want to go for the least money. 

For the Portlanders who derive their personal and community identity from the presence of rail transit without regard to its cost effectiveness...

Well, I think U2 has a better critique than I do.

http://www.u2.com/discography/lyrics/lyric/song/179

Rather than spending other peoples money to promote a self image of being "mild and green and squeaky clean" I'd like to think we can objectively look at transportation as transportation. 

Amtrak will never make a profit or be self-sustaining from the fare box.  Therefore, the question is how much do we want to support Amtrak or a similar service?  We need to ask the same question about the airlines, bus companies, etc.  Cars will never meet all of our transportation needs.

Joe

If you look back at page 1 the 2005 numbers show cars, trucks, buses and airplanes meeting 99.4% of our passenger transportation needs. 

How much money should we spend on the 0.56% provided by rail?

Where should the money come from?

If other modes provide a more cost effective way of moving people than rail shouldn't we look at moving the funding to those other modes?

Ted,  There are no easy answers.  Your profile shows that you live in WA north east of Seattle.  My relatives live in Redmond, Seattle and Camano.  I-5, 405, I-90, and 520 are all at capacity most of the work day.  Should more lanes be added to these roads increase capacity?  Would this be the best solution to the area's increasing traffic problems?  Should another auto bridge be built across Lake Washington?  Should the government buy a fleet of buses instead of building light rail or using Amtrak or the equivalent to move people along these corridors?  

Would you and your neighbors support adding extra lanes to all the roads in your area as the population continues to grow?  

Would you or your neighbors support building a commercial airport in your area so you can get SeaTac.  (I understand the Boeing field at Everett is being considered or has started commercial service. This service will most likely not pay for itself from the fare box and will have to subsidized just like most other small airport operations.  I understand that Ely, Nevada service is subsidized at the rate of $5,000 per ticket.)

Should we just let people sit in traffic and not add capacity of any kind?

I think the only solution is a mix of transportation options.  Rail may not pay for itself but it may be least expensive of the available alternatives to keep our economy moving.  Amtrak already serves Stanwood and Everett.  Why not continue to use it?  Why not increase service since the rails are already in place?

Joe

Joe

Thanks for the thoughtful questions based on your knowledge of the Seattle area.  If any major metropolitan area is looking for a good example of what NOT to do to provide for a economical transportation we might be it!

My relatives live in Redmond, Seattle and Camano.  I-5, 405, I-90, and 520 are all at capacity most of the work day.  Should more lanes be added to these roads increase capacity?  Would this be the best solution to the area's increasing traffic problems?

In a word YES!

In the 1950s and 60 the Washington State Highway Department developed excellent plans to build highways that would still be serving us well in the 21st century.  In the later 60s and the 70s the state failed to follow through on those construction plans.  We are paying a high cost for that shortsightedness every day now.

Fifty years ago the 520 floating bridge was supposed to be 6 lanes.  The state legislature cut the budget and built four.  Fifty years later they are replacing the bridge with, hold it, four lanes plus two carpool lanes.

The I-90 bridge was planned to be 10 lanes plus the original 4 lane US 10 was to be retained as a local business access highway.  Instead we have 6 lanes plus two reversible HOV lanes.  There are plans to take away two lanes from carpools and buses and replace them with light rail.  The light rail will serve fewer passengers in a smaller area at greater cost than the current buses and that is using the rail agencies numbers.

The R.H. Thompson expressway was planned to link 520 and I-90 on the west side of the lake while avoiding downtown Seattle.  Forty years after construction was started and abruptly stopped you can still see the "Bridges to Nowhere" where the interchange with 520 would have been.

Should another auto bridge be built across Lake Washington?

In fact there were plans for a third floating bridge (really a fourth with two across Mercer Island) from Sand Point to Juanita.

And there were plans for addition north-south highways: the Harbor Freeway, 605 in east Bellevue, 805 on the Sammamish Plateau.

Instead of building for the future we had a series of bad decisions by the legislature, nimby law suites, a change in governors from a pro highway democrat republican in love with nuclear plants (WhoPPS!), two one term governors and then 32 consecutive years with Europhile democrats in the governors mansion and an exodus of working families from Seattle.  Like Portland, Seattle has become a very non-centrist place that is easy fodder for satire like Portlandia.  Transportation decisions these days are more influenced by repeated slogans or quasi-religious beliefs than any process involving math.  Google "Mayor McSchwinn" and you can see that all transportation problems in Seattle now will be solved by lowering traffic capacity to add bike lanes.  I'm not kidding!

Should the government buy a fleet of buses instead of building light rail or using Amtrak or the equivalent to move people along these corridors? 

That would be the most cost effective method of improving mass transit.  Our local transit agencies have ample numbers to prove it.  Sound transit's commuter rail service the the least cost effective mode by a wide margin.  Sound Transit light rail is next most expensive mode.  Buses, including bus rapid transit offers service to far more riders for the dollar.  Buses are also far more flexible as travel patterns change.  But buses are less Euro so we are spending billions of local tax dollars on the least effective modes.

Rail may not pay for itself but it may be least expensive of the available alternatives to keep our economy moving. 

If rail is the most cost effective means of providing transportation I'm all for it.  I do like trains.  But the numbers just don't support passenger trains very often.  Take a look at Seattle, we are proving it!

Quote - "Rather than spending other peoples money to promote a self image of being "mild and green and squeaky clean" I'd like to think we can objectively look at transportation as transportation."

Sure, we can look at transportation as transportation, and we can also "starve the beast" and neglect our infrastructure to the point where it is too damaged to fix economically. Why not...we've been doing it for 40 years already....

There seems to be a disconnect here--where some in our country can't seem to connect the dots between infrastructure decay and economic decay.

Good luck with that--because tax cuts, spending cuts, and cuts in services are red meat for the base, but it's a sucker's game to cut your way to prosperity; the GDP will always be dropping just a little bit faster than the receding spending as the economic momentum disappears.

Jeff C

Ted,  Thanks for your answers.  Hopefully there will be a robust and honest debate on the transportation options including adding road capacity.  

I think that the traffic congestion is eventually going to be solved by new technology involving "smart" roads.  I expect that by the end of this century all major roads such as I-5 will be computer controlled.  Cars will be automatically be driven by a signal between the road or a satellite and the vehicle.  People won't drive until they exit the major road to enter their city streets.  Driving on city and neighborhood streets will be as it is today.

This will allow 100 mile per hour speeds and cars running just 5 feet apart on major roads while the driver works on his or his computer, etc.  Essentially a smart road will be become a train track with all vehicles in a lane moving at the same speed one following the other.  Smart roads will also eliminate the need for commuter rail, etc.  I saw a vision of this at the 1962 World's Fair in New York.  The big technology introduction at that World's Fair was the IBM Selectric and the touch tone phone.  

We already have a version of a smart road in the form of BART and other rapid transit trains that are computer controlled.  The only function of the "operator" is to open and close doors at station stops.  BART's technology is rooted in the 1970's and is not reliable enough for a smart road.

Smart roads will require a huge technology upgrade and infrastructure expenditure.  Both cars and roads will have to be equipped with the new technology and people will have to gain confidence that it is safe.  I think that it will be first tried on new toll roads that built by public / private partnerships.  These public/private toll roads already exist in Orange County, CA.

I also agree with Jeff C. that we need to spend billions repairing the roads that were built in the 1960s.  There is a huge building and reconstruction program here in the SF Bay Area.  One half of the Oakland - SF Bay Bridge is being replaced with a brand new bridge that will be open in 2014.  All the overpasses on I-880 are being rebuilt to higher earthquake standards.  The 1930s Carquinez Bridge was replaced with a new bridge a couple of years ago.  Most of our freeways have various construction projects underway.  One of the most significant is a 4th freeway tunnel through the hills between Oakland and Walnut Creek.

The Bay Area, for better or worse, is also expanding rail service.  Most planners see rail service as major component of keeping people moving.  There is a brand new transit terminal under construction in SF.  SF is also building a billion dollar subway to China Town.  (Many people consider the subway a huge waste of money.)  There is talk of electrifying the CalTrain rail commuter service between SF and San Jose.  This has been a heavy travelled commuter rail route since the days of steam.  The Alameda County Express (ACE) train service was started a couple of years ago between Tracy and San Jose.  These trains are packed as are the freeways serving the same route.

I have been fortunate to see many wonderful changes during the 20th Century.  I think that the 21st Century will be even more amazing as the pace of change quickens.  A kid who is born today may be able to "beam" him or herself between SF and Seattle.

In the meantime, I just want to get the TMCC and DCS working on my own commuter railroad.

Joe

I have only been sort of following this thread out of curiosity, but I don't recall anyone mentioning:

parking

This is primarily a factor in dense downtown areas of cities, but it is an additional planning factor for government if the pov is used rather than mass transit, and it is an additional personal expense for pov operators. It is also a factor for the suburban end of the mass transit line.

There seems to be a disconnect here--where some in our country can't seem to connect the dots between infrastructure decay and economic decay.

Jeff

It seems that we can agree on a lot.  Some here is Seattle see their squeaky green cleanness and believe that they are responsible for the fact that we are doing a little bit better economically than the national average at the moment.  But that viewpoint fails to take note of the fact that we are spending billions of local tax dollars from car and truck drivers on transit systems that do not take passengers to the Microsoft campus or any Boeing plant and will never carry a singe airplane part or that Boeing just flew their first jet transport that wasn't assembled in the Puget Sound area.

The whole country needs to make huge improvements in our transportation systems.  Private railroads are making major improvements like the double tracking of the former SP mainline from California to El Paso, the double tracking of Abo Canyon or the triple tracking of Cajon Pass.  Railroads are very efficient at moving freight distances of over 500 to 1000 miles.  For shorter hauls or to handle highly perishable cargo we need an efficient highway system for trucks.  And we have not been making the needed improvements in our highway system for decades.

Highways serve both freight and passenger needs well.  And the users do pay billions to support the system.  Air travel is essential and the users pay taxes to help support air ports and the air traffic control system.  But rail travel provides less than 1% of our passenger trips and that figure would go down if the users had to pay a greater share of the cost of the service.

In recent years the federal government has spend trillions more than it has collected in taxes and yet their has been no comprehensive improvement in transportation in this country.  We do need to provide for greater passenger and freight mobility or we will be facing economic stagnation.  But we can not afford to spend money on modes that provide the least transportation at the highest cost.

In the meantime, I just want to get the TMCC and DCS working on my own commuter railroad.

Joe

Now that is a problem we can solve!