Group Wants Atlanta-Savannah Passenger Rail Line (taxi, to live in, pricing)

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Instead of continuing to lose $130 per rider, why not just hand out free $75 greyhound vouchers at the Amtrak station. It would be cheaper.

The Crescent is a long distance route and isn't really a comparison for an Atlanta-Savannah train. As the chart you posted shows, Amtrak's short routes typically have a per passenger loss in the $18-30 range, and some actually show a profit.

Those numbers are well in line with auto travel, if not a little better. The same chart shows that only 51% of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

The numbers someone else posted estimated that 1,000 people per day would use the train. Currently only about 300 people a day use the existing Amtrak route which goes to destinations like Greenville/Spartanburg, Charlotte, DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Birmingham and New Orleans. That route with all of those destinations only gets 300 riders a day from Atlanta. Why do you think a train to a city smaller than all of those would see 300+% more ridership?

They have a beach, and it's a shorter trip. You can almost make it a day trip even with the train ride. Try that with NYC or New Orleans...

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

They have a beach, and it's a shorter trip. You can almost make it a day trip even with the train ride. Try that with NYC or New Orleans...

So the presence of a beach near Savannah makes it more important for the taxpayers to subsidize your trip to the tune of $30+ for a one way trip?

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The Crescent is a long distance route and isn't really a comparison for an Atlanta-Savannah train. As the chart you posted shows, Amtrak's short routes typically have a per passenger loss in the $18-30 range, and some actually show a profit.

One shows a profit. Another shows a very small profit if you ignore the capital expenditure and depreciation. How many show a loss?

Those numbers are well in line with auto travel, if not a little better. The same chart shows that only 51% of the nation's $193 billion set aside for highway construction and maintenance was generated through user fees. The rest came from other sources, including revenue generated by income, sales and property taxes, as well as bond issues.

How do you justify that statement? You provide no facts whatsoever to justify that statement.

Amtrak pays a $0.18 per customer mile subsidy.

Now, using your figures, lets figure out how much of a subsidy passenger travel gets. There are about 200 million vehicles in the US. Lets assume that each travels 13,000 miles a year (which I believe is a conservative estimate based on Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group). There are about 250 million registerd vehicles in the US. Using those numbers you get about 3.3 trillion vehicle miles traveled per year. However, each vehicle can carry more than one person, so lets figure there is 1.3 people in a vehicle on average (another conservative estimate IMO). Therefore, you get 4.3 trillion passenger miles driven on the road system.

You say that $191 billion is spent a year on the road system. Therefore you get a cost of $0.045 per passenger mile. However, 51% of this cost is recovered by the gas tax, so only 49% is a subsidy. This brings the subsidized cost of road travel down to $0.022 per mile.

Amtrak $0.18 per passenger mile
Highway $0.02 per passenger mile

Can we stop with this "But.. but.. but... the roads get subsidies too!" argument already? If you can build a train system that operates at that level of efficiency and only needs a $0.02 per mile subsidy from the government (about $4.80 for the Savannah route) I'd support it. However, we both know that isn't feasible because this plan is a loser.

[MathmanMathman]

I guess part of Atlanta's problem is that it is on only one Amtrak line, the Crescent, and Savannah is on the Palmetto line. Atlanta is not a major nexus city for Amtrak trains nor is Savannah so connecting to them is not easy.

From Chicago, New York or Washington, you seem to be able to go almost anywhere. Amtrak seems to favor long travel lines, so maybe a better idea is to sell Amtrak on the idea of a Chicago, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Macon, Savannah line. That would connect the Palmetto and Crescent lines for better coverage not to mention a reasonable way to go from Atlanta to Chicago. But still, most people would rather fly. And if not Atlanta to Savannah then maybe Atlanta to Jacksonville and then you could change trains and go up to Savannah. Beats going to Washington DC to change trains to get to Savannah.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Can we stop with this "But.. but.. but... the roads get subsidies too!" argument already? If you can build a train system that operates at that level of efficiency and only needs a $0.02 per mile subsidy from the government (about $4.80 for the Savannah route) I'd support it. However, we both know that isn't feasible because this plan is a loser.

I'm not ready to concede that point, if you are categorically arguing that an Atlanta-Savannah train route cannot succeed. Passenger lines succeeded here in Atlanta for many decades, and they succeed in other parts of the country and in many other countries around the world. What makes Atlanta to Savannah so uniquely impossible?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

I guess part of Atlanta's problem is that it is on only one Amtrak line, the Crescent, and Savannah is on the Palmetto line. Atlanta is not a major nexus city for Amtrak trains nor is Savannah so connecting to them is not easy.

Yep, I've said all along that it's hard to evaluate a single route in isolation. Would air travel be successful if the only route was Atlanta to Savannah?

Connectivity is a key part of any system, and it takes time and attention to build that up.

I don't agree with the proposition that most people would rather fly. On short hops especially, flying is not necessarily the hands down choice. A lot of times the hassle of flying is a real deterrent. If we had good daily train service to Savannah I would take it and I believe a good many other people would too.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Yep, I've said all along that it's hard to evaluate a single route in isolation. Would air travel be successful if the only route was Atlanta to Savannah?

Connectivity is a key part of any system, and it takes time and attention to build that up.

Yeah, but planes can add and drop routes, and later add them again so easily. Creating new connections for air travel is a snap.

I don't agree with the proposition that most people would rather fly. On short hops especially, flying is not necessarily the hands down choice. A lot of times the hassle of flying is a real deterrent. If we had good daily train service to Savannah I would take it and I believe a good many other people would too.

I bet it depends on if a good price point could be found without requiring big subsidies.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

So the presence of a beach near Savannah makes it more important for the taxpayers to subsidize your trip to the tune of $30+ for a one way trip?

Where did this subsidization crap come from? I've already said price is a nonissue for me. I would use the rail for the convenience factor.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Where did this subsidization crap come from? I've already said price is a nonissue for me. I would use the rail for the convenience factor.

So you would ride it regardless of the price?

Do you think enough people would ride a train to Savannah, regardless of price, to make the line close to self sufficient?