Why Use Buses When Trains Cost So Much More? ( Maine to Mass )

Antiplanner ^ | December 4th, 2009

[george76]

While the route of the Downeaster is 116 miles, it is considered a commuter train and was subsidized by the Federal Transit Administration, so it is in the National Transit Database. Amtrak timetables indicate the train makes five round trips each day (which means two train sets each make 2-1/2 round trips). The 2008 transit database reports that it carries an average of 492 passengers each weekday, and slightly more on Saturdays and Sundays. That means the average train carries about 50 people. Since not everyone goes the whole distance, the average number of people on board at any given time will be somewhat less.

This means that two 55-seat buses could handle all of the people carried by the Amtrak train. Allowing for variability in traffic demand might require four buses (two each way) on some trips. Better yet, four buses could offer twice the frequency provided by Amtrak. Those buses would cost about $2 million and fares would easily cover their operating costs.

[MNDude]

And guess what. If it costs more, than it ultimately requires more energy to sustain as well.

A million dollars of tax-payer subsidies comes from thousands of tax payers commuting daily in stop and go traffic to make it so.

[bIlluminati]

What? This wasn't posted by Willie Green? I'm shocked!

[Paladin2]

Yeah, buses represent much less of an investment and are just too flexible in their potential routings.

[gthog61]

I want to apply for a government grant to get a few million dollars to see why liberals are so obsessed with trains. My application will be in the bag when I add that I am going to investigate whether minorities and women are more frequently afflicted with the train obsession.

[Willie Green]

What? This wasn't posted by Willie Green? I'm shocked!

I don't waste my time posting the delusional rantings of some libertarian blogger.

[UNGN]

I would guess the Carbon Footprint of the that Train per passenger mile is 10X to 20X of a Bus on the same route.

But I thought trains were green...

[Yo-Yo]

Yeah, buses represent much less of an investment and are just too flexible in their potential routings.

I never could figure out why busses displaced streetcars. Oh yeah, greedy GM killed the streetcar.

[cameraeye]

I had to stop and think of what it means to have a “carbon footprint”, the I took a breathe. No more words need to be said.

[Leisler]

Money talks, Willie walks.

[VRWCmember]

It points out the inefficiency and cost disadvantages of trains, so there is your answer.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Easy answer. Trains run between two fixed points. How better to corral people?

[Grut]

From the article:

What do we get for this subsidy? According to one report, we get transit-oriented developments — but I’ll believe it when I see it; most TODs require subsidies of their own on top of the transit subsidies.

To Maine's business community, an 'opportunity' is anything with a subsidy attached.

[massgopguy]

This train has got a Bar Car this train
This train has got a Bar Car this train
And as this train goes down the line
I’m gonna help myself to beer and wine
This train has got a Bar Car this train

[Olog-hai]

---

And guess what. If it costs more, than it ultimately requires more energy to sustain as well. A million dollars of tax-payer subsidies comes from thousands of tax payers commuting daily in stop and go traffic to make it so

---

You sure about that? There's a reason why this sign is on so many highways.



The money for that train doesn't come from the highway trust fund. Neither does the money from ARRA going into the highways.

I'm no Libertarian, but I do believe that the government needs to get out of all transportation, no matter what mode. The railroads have been regulated to death, so they can't compete with the government-subsidized highways and airports when it comes to transporting passengers.

[VRWCmember]

Ah, too bad we can’t bring back the stage coach. Now there was some quality transportation for you.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I don't waste my time posting the delusional rantings of some libertarian blogger."

Perhaps not, but you "do" spend an inordinate amount of time posting the blathering of leftist/socialist/green bloggers when they talk about trains.

[Willie Green]

No, I generally avoid bloggers of all stripes.
Why would I want to post somebody else's vanity rant when I could easily just write my own?
I primarily post published articles from legitimate mainstream publications.

[Cacique]

Trains require a humongous government work force, unionization and registration in the democrat party.

[Noob1999]

............Ah, too bad we can’t bring back the stage coach. Now there was some quality transportation for you.................

Now, right there is a wonderful image!

They talk about “less desirables” riding the bus.

Think about spending a few days bouncing along next to a guy who hasn’t taken a bath for many, many moons, eating dust, behind some sweaty horses taking dumps along the way!

[CedarDave]

Notwithstanding the validity of the information in the article, it is as late as most Amtrak trains!

[Wuli]

The inherent higher total cost, per mile, for trains lies in

(a) their inherent route structure - a fixed, generally single line path with a limited set of possible points of letting passengers on and off, together with

(b)the capital costs of that path plus the fact that those costs are generally not widely shared, because there is generally only one, or at most two or three train lines using the same route;

(c)the capital costs of each transportation unit on a train, from engine cars to passenger or freight cars.

They make a total cost per mile for trains usually higher than a group of buses or cars carrying similar capacity. But, if conditions were just right, they could, in theory, be less costly, on a cost per passenger mile basis, due to the greater passenger capacity of a single train.

However, trains are in competition with bus routes and independent automobile modes of transportation; which have inherent cost per mile advantages to trains, in that:

(a)they can take multiple possible routes and do so based on a large variety of factors, whether those factors are for saving time, reducing miles traveled, adding convenience or merely adding pleasure;

(b)the capital costs of the pathways used by buses and cars are shared (primarily fuel taxes) by hundreds of other buses and thousands if not millions of other individuals, over any one route over any one set period of time;

(d)the costs of each transportation unit, a bus or a car, is not only less per unit than the units of a train, but since they are able to travel independently, there is no fixed number of them expected to be taking a single route at one time - as there is with a train; therefor the cost is much closer, than trains, to “as needed”.

The only way that trains can overcome those disadvantages is:

(a)a high enough population density living in close proximity to the fixed train route and one that has demographics sufficient to supply an economically optimum number of passengers per passenger mile at most times the train is operating; sufficient to making the train route economically self-sufficient (which does not exist), and

(b)tax-subsidies to offset the fact that (a) does not exist, anywhere.

Item (a) above is true (it does not exist) not because they do not know how to price a train ticket high enough for the train to obtain economic efficiency, in theory, but, because that true cost cannot compete with other modes of transportation as often as “public transportation” advocates wish or believe (delusion) it could.

It could be we are all wrong. That trains could compete with buses and cars better than they do now.

The only problem is that process and technology advancements that could make that possible, if it is possible, will never come into being unless and until trains lost their addiction to taxpayer subsidies for their operating costs. That is not likely to happen; so they will always be subsidized and always be less efficient.

[Neidermeyer]

Yeah, buses represent much less of an investment and are just too flexible in their potential routings.
**************************************************
I can buy low mileage pusher diesel 92 passenger school busses with A/C for way under $10k ,, add $2k for a fancy paint job (or free if you sell advertising) , assume losing 1/3 of claimed seating to adjust for adult sized passengers and adding in insurance , employees and maintenance I could do the route with 6 busses (2 “hot spares”) at an annual cost of less than their advertising budget.

[Chickensoup]

Hardly any passengers on the downeaster and many are RR employees and family that ride free.

[Chickensoup]

and they are plannng to extend it to Brunswick so the Bowdin pointheads get their two cents in. What a joke, subsidizing the wealthy’s obsessions with trains and pretenses that we all live is Socialist Europe.

[tflabo]

The Long Island Railroad which services Penn Station, NYC. and Long Island daily round trip tickets at approx $22.00 Monthly pass is greater than $300.00. Not cheap but try driving in snarled traffic and paying rip off parking rate$ in NYC everyday.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

The railroads have been regulated to death, so they can't compete with the government-subsidized highways and airports when it comes to transporting passengers.

You might want to learn what those subsidies are before you rant against them:

From the Government's own report we find:

1. "On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002 (Figure 2)." NOTE: users PAID per 1000 miles, that's not a subsidy, that's a fee. No subsidy for highways.

2. "On average, passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passengermiles, averaging $186.35 (in year 2000 chained dollars) per thousand passengermiles during 1990-2002 (Figure 2)."

So those evil highways find users actually PAYING to use them (not subsidized), and passenger rail receives nearly $200 per 1000 passenger miles.

Facts are inconvenient things, when your premise is wrong...

[sionnsar]

Ah, too bad we can’t bring back the stage coach. Now there was some quality transportation for you.

Fueled by renewables, waste is biodegradable, and doesn't require CO2-intensive concrete.

What could be more green -- other than its passengers?

[dalereed]

A fence across the border and never let anyone out of Maine , especially those two broads in the Senate, would be less expensive and far more productive!

[RobbyS]

Great idea. My guess is that it is a question of region and class. So many who work in Manhattan, Philadelphia, Chicago and DC. live in the wealth suburbs and commute to work by train. How many of them ride a bus at any time?

[CoastWatcher]

The reason is obvious.
If you build a train you can not change the route when it becomes obsolete.

[RobbyS]

Train Passenger service has never been profitable. It has always been treated as a public service. IAC. do you have figures for costs/subsidies for bus companies like Greyhound?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

do you have figures for costs/subsidies for bus companies like Greyhound?

LOL! Since it's a passenger vehicle, with 55 seats per bus, that would be about a $0.10 per passenger mile FEE they pay the Government!

[OrangeHoof]

I primarily post published articles from legitimate mainstream publications.

Including "Progressive Railroading", one of the best unintentionally-worded truisms I've witnessed in a long, long time.

[jla]

A fence across the border and never let anyone out of Maine , especially those two broads in the Senate, would be less expensive and far more productive!

LOL
I truly look forward to reading your posts.

[RobbyS]

I have never thought to ask any public official WHY they don’t subsidize bus companies like Greyhound. There are many, many remote towns that are inaccessible except by motorcar, who would use the bus if the price were low enough, and if they didn’t fear being mugged.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Didn’t you read the original post? We cannot subsidize buses because they are too convenient and don’t cost enough!

It’s not about the return on investment, it’s all about how much you can spend!

You have no future in politics with your logical, reasonable thinking...

;)

[Willie Green]

Including "Progressive Railroading", one of the best unintentionally-worded truisms I've witnessed in a long, long time.

"Progressive Railroading" is a legitimate professional trade magazine published by Trade Press Media Group
Other publications of theirs inclued: "Building Operating Management Magazine", "Contracting Profits Magazine", "Housekeeping Solutions Magazine", "Maintenance Solutions Magazine" and "Sanitary Maintenance Magazine".

Not what you'd typically find at your local newstand, LOL, but professional publications with informative articles targeted at a specific market.

Sorry that you don't have the professionalism to understand that.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

How much should we subsidize every train rider, Willie? Is the $0.20 per passenger mile enough, or should it be higher?

Or should we make them pay $0.20 per passenger mile, like cars and buses do?

[LibFreeOrDie]

There is bus service between Maine and Boston (South Station/Logan Airport).

http://www.concordcoachlines.com/schedules-a-fares.html

The problem with the Downeaster train is that it ends at Boston’s North Station. To get from there to South Station (to connect to another Amtrak train) or get to the big bus terminal next to South Station, or to get to Logan Airport, you have to schlep on the dirty Boston subway or take a cab. No thanks. The bus goes directly to South Station and Logan Airport.

In Nashua, NH, the “we must have a train to Boston” crowd keeps trying, despite the fact that express bus service has been available to Boston from Nashua (and neighboring Londonderry and Manchester) for years. The NH buses go to South Station and Logan Airport. The train from Nashua would end at North Station.

[Olog-hai]

---

From the Government's own report we find:

1. "On average, highway users paid $1.91 per thousand passenger-miles to the federal government over their highway allocated cost during 1990-2002 (Figure 2)." NOTE: users PAID per 1000 miles, that's not a subsidy, that's a fee. No subsidy for highways.
2. "On average, passenger rail received the largest subsidy per thousand passengermiles, averaging $186.35 (in year 2000 chained dollars) per thousand passenger miles during 1990-2002 (Figure 2)."

So those evil highways find users actually PAYING to use them (not subsidized), and passenger rail receives nearly $200 per 1000 passenger miles.

Facts are inconvenient things, when your premise is wrong

---

Listen to yourself. You're validating the very government that created the conditions that resulted in private railroads not being able to afford to run passenger service. You also need to be able to discern the difference between statistics and facts.

Why is it that you didn't look at the FRA's website (another government agency) and find out exactly what I was talking about, in terms of regulating those railroads to overly stringent degrees? Go and find out about signaling requirements, track classes (especially these), emissions and crashworthiness requirements that makes us look like a bigger nanny state than overt nanny states when it comes to the rails; it's impossible to fund a scheduled passenger rail operation out of pocket, and we'll never have fast freight trains again (i.e. above 79 miles per hour, something that ran alongside drag freights in the past but the government killed with regulation and didn't resurrect with the Staggers Act). Fine and dandy for John Mica to claim that you can, but when both parties in DC create conditions that drive away private investment and encourage government operation of passenger rail, that's hypocritical on his part. And back to freight: do you like the fact that we have a mere five Class 1 railroads now?

Furthermore, those long-outdated BTS graphs don't show where those ARRA funds are. If your premise (and conclusion) were true, then the highways would not require ARRA funds. But they do.

You can't have selective socialism; you'll end up fulfilling Khrushchev's prophecy of Americans being fed little bits of socialism until they wake up one day in horror to find themselves already living under communism. And the sixth plank of communism (from chapter 2 of the Manifesto) is "(c)entralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State". Your blind trust in the government to handle the transportation network (via taxes, not user fees paid directly to a private road company) is antithetical to the concept of free enterprise, but looks a lot more like the Soziale Marktwirtschaft that the USA propped up with the Marshall Plan.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So, to summarize:

Highways have subsidies when the BTS says they don't.

Trains don't need subsidies even though they receive them.

I'm a Communist for allowing drips of socialism because highways (which I favor) aren't subsidized, but trains (which you favor) are.

Got it...

In that case, perhaps you can answer the question that Willie NEVER answers:

How much subsidy should we have for trains? How much should we subsidize passenger rail per passenger mile? Simple question, should be easy for you to answer...

And just so you know where I'm coming from, here's a little editorial I wrote about high speed rail...

[Olog-hai]

Hmm, when outmaneuvered, resort to nonsequiturs and half-truths. Okey-dokey then.

---

Highways have subsidies when the BTS says they don't

---

Those are subsidies. Where does the BTS say they're not subsidy? Anything funded by taxation is a subsidy; none of that funding came from the free, private market. Your trust in the government to administer this well, never mind be totally honest in accounting (you should look up their accounting rules, which deviate wildly from standard accounting practices), if at all, is very big-government of you, with all due respect — after all, look how well Social Security turned out, and that's supposed to be funded how? via dedicated wage taxation, and look how well that's turned out.

BTW, did you look at this report out of the Budget Committee Republicans back in 2008, titled The Broken Highway Trust Fund? Only five years after the Bureau of Transportation Statistics numbers you cited. Where's the money coming from, again? and where is the ARRA funding for the highways coming from?

---

Trains don't need subsidies even though they receive them

---

Nobody said that. The matter is government interference in transportation. Railroads own and maintain their own vehicles and infrastructure; this is not the case with road or air modes (the latter meaning airports). Why does there need to be federal interference and funding direction when it comes to any transportation mode, is my question.

---

I'm a Communist for allowing drips of socialism because highways (which I favor) aren't subsidized, but trains (which you favor) are

---

You seem to have the problem of trying to put words in people's mouths. Read the up-to-date literature; highways have been subsidized the whole time, and to claim they weren't is to claim no federal or state governmental involvement and therefore market distortion.

I thought I made it clear that I dislike any and all "dirigiste" involvement in the transportation network?

I don't favor one mode of transportation over another. I do look disfavorably upon favoritism when it comes to unwelcome government involvement. I certainly do believe that a choice between modes ought to be available to us, at the technological limits of whatever modes of transportation are available.

And I believe that answers your question, the one I didn't quote and the one that you claim "Willie" avoids. But on the same tack:

Since you apparently favor and put faith in the whole "trust fund" mechanism, how come this wasn't applied to the railroads back when the highway trust fund was set up? There used to be a 10 percent federal tax on passenger rail tickets, but that money went into the general fund. The railroads were also heavily taxed on their infrastructure back then, especially at the state level. Government competition is hard to compete against. (The aviation trust fund was set up later; and frankly, the GAO said last year that this trust fund is also going broke.)

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Those are subsidies. Where does the BTS say they're not subsidy?

OOOO-KAY. So when you have a net payment of taxes to the Government, that's actually the Government subsidizing you?

Look at those numbers again - highways PAY more in taxes than they receive. There's a net flow AWAY from the users TOWARDS the Government. That's not a subsidy; that's a tax. You pay more to drive on the highways than you get back from the Government. Payments go out.

And I'm the one resorting to half-truths... Orwellian double-speak lives strong with you trainaholics!