That would seem like an easy $20 million cut. AMTRAK passenger service is losing money and dying everywhere but on the Northeast corridor. Why are we pumping STATE subsidies on top of FEDERAL subsidies for a service that is done BETTER and QUICKER by aircraft? Don't we BUILD aircraft somewhere in this state?

Page 46 Washingtons Transportation Plan April 1996 Service Objective 1 Preserve and Maintain Existing Service Action Strategy 1 (Advocacy) WSDOT Cost: $20,200,000 Promote and facilitate the preservation of existing intercity rail passenger service statewide. Promote rail safety, maintain partnerships, and educate the public about the benefits of rail passenger service as a transportation option. Actions include: a. Partner with Amtrak to preserve existing Amtrak system rail passenger service in the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor. b. Promote and facilitate the re-establishment of daily service between Seattle and Spokane via the Empire Builder train. c. Promote the re-establishment of daily service between Spokane and Portland via the Empire Builder train. d. Promote public railroad safety by participating in the Operation Lifesaver Education Program and advocate other safety related issues. e. Develop and implement a public involvement plan for the PNWRC. f. Educate the public about the role of existing rail passenger services as an alternative transportation mode in congested regions of the state and promote their use through marketing and other public outreach efforts. g. Maintain existing and establish new partnerships with public, private, and nonprofit organizations at the local, state, federal, and international level.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 11, 1999

Answers

OOPS! Make that $192.7 Million. From the NEXT page:

Intercity Rail Passenger Action Strategy 2 (Investment) WSDOT Cost: $172,500,000 Continue operation of existing state supported rail passenger services and facilities. Partner with other jurisdictions to provide public safety through grade crossing consolidations, grade separations, closures, eliminations, and pedestrian crossings. Facilitate the development of rail technology to provide additional safety. Actions include: a. Operate existing rail passenger service between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., via the Mount Baker International train. b. Operate existing rail passenger service between Seattle and Portland via the Mount Adams train. c. Partner with Amtrak and local jurisdictions to maintain existing intermodal facilities. d. Partner with Amtrak and the private railroads to preserve and maintain capital equipment and infrastructure in statewide rail passenger corridors. e. Work with federal, state, and local jurisdictions and agencies to consolidate, grade separate, or close highway grade crossings throughout the state. f. Work with local jurisdictions to identify, prioritize, and implement pedestrian overcrossings throughout the state. g. Study and demonstrate the application of Positive Train Separation (PTS) technology in the PNWRC.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 11, 1999.

It only gets worse. On page 49 they want a BILLION!

Action Strategy 2 (Investment) WSDOT Cost: $1,046,700,000 Enhance rail passenger services in the PNWRC between Portland and Vancouver, B.C., by increasing service levels through safely adding frequencies, higher speeds, and reliability. Partner with Amtrak, railroads, ports, federal, local, and regional jurisdictions to provide infrastructure investment in track system capital, intermodal facilities, rolling stock, and operation of trains. Actions will include: a. Improve the rail system between Seattle and Portland to provide for approximate run times of 2:30 and operate a minimum of eight daily corridor round trips, with up to 17 daily corridor round trips depending on incremental performance review and market demand 4 . b. Improve the rail system between Seattle and Vancouver, B.C., to provide service with approximate run times of 3:00 and operate a minimum of four daily corridor round trips, with up to eight daily corridor round trips depending on incremental performance review and market demand. c. Implement advanced technology train equipment within the PNWRC to allow for effective operation of an enhanced intercity rail system. d. Improve the intermodal access and user quality of existing rail passenger terminals and partner with Amtrak and local jurisdictions to construct or remodel new or existing intermodal facilities. e. Conduct Wetland Banking Pilot project to evaluate the potential for wetland banking in the PNWRC. Service Objective 2: Improve Intercity Rail Passenger Service WSDOT Costs $ 1,070,700,000 5 Private/Amtrak/Oregon/BC/Others 1,329,600,000 6 Total 20-Year Costs $ 2,400,300,000 Less Operating Revenues 491,800,000 7 20-Year Net Costs $ 1,908,500,000

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 11, 1999.

I can't take anymore!!!!! My sides are splitting, I'M LAUGHING SO HARD!!!! For those who can BEAR to read it, the URL is: (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/wtp/Web%20Page%2098/WTP%20Plan% 2096.pdf#xml=http://search.wsdot.wa.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?action =View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ewsdot%2Ewa%2Egov%2Fppsc%2Fwtp% 2FWeb%2520Page%252098%2FWTP%2520Plan%252096% 2Epdf&doctype=xml&Collection=WSDOT&QueryZip=ferries%2C+budget% 2C+fiscal&ViewTemplate=wsdotviewdoc% 2Ehts&ServerKey=Primary&AdminImagePath=%2Fsearch97admimg% 2F&Theme=Standard&Company=Washington+State+Department+of+Transportatio n)

I know that's long, but so is the plan.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 11, 1999.

Craig:

Since you mentioned aircraft, once I was in Spokane and had to get back to the West side on short notice. An Amtrak ticket was $185! I could have gotten a flight for $60. Plus, Amtrak would have taken (I'm not making this up) 11 hours to make the crossing, whereas the plane ticket that cost 1/3 as much would have taken 55 minutes.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), November 11, 1999.

Craig, you're using outdated info. the WTP is being updated and Amtrak is being dropped east of the mountains. if you want to know the current programs look at the STIP for federal allocations or call one of your transportation commissioners. WSDOT is one of the most efficient bodies in government. While the rest of the state has grown over 25 % the last 10-15 yrs. WSDOT has actually lost ground year after year. Plus for nearly every job WSDOT does, they contract out which nearly guarantees the most work for the money.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 11, 1999.

"Craig, you're using outdated info. " You may be right, but this was also in this year's report. If you have a better URL, give it. Is it any cheaper when we leave Spokane out? "WSDOT is one of the most efficient bodies in government. " That may be damning them with faint praise. Personally, I think that these reports are a TOTAL waste. And much as I love the electric train I got as a kid (still have it) anyone pushing passenger rail is WASTING money. AMTRAK is losing money hand over fist, is now using what was supposed to be capital improvement money to fund day-to-day operations, and even it's most loyal Congressional supporters are giving up on it. It isn't efficient to do things that waste money, even if the project is privatized, done on time, and ahead of schedule. Matter of fact, since it's going to lose money anyway, we're better off if it finishes WAY behind schedule. Better yet, just don't build it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 11, 1999.

"Plus, Amtrak would have taken (I'm not making this up) 11 hours to make the crossing, whereas the plane ticket that cost 1/3 as much would have taken 55 minutes. " My mother lives in Sacramento. She was looking at taking the train to Seattle. 21 Hours and $142 (one way). Southwest beat the price by $50 and the time by 19 hours 30 minutes. I would STRONGLY suggest that anyone who thinks AMTRAK is a good idea play with their reservation site (http://reservations.amtrak.com/) and compare it with other modes of travel.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 11, 1999.

If passenger rail is the ANSWER, it was a VERY stupid question.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/wtp/web_page_99/ like I said again, the wtp is being updated and your version is outdated. Plus the wtp is like a comp plan that is long range (20 yrs). the only programming is done biannially (sp). A project needs to be in the wtp to be funded, but doesn't have to be funded if it is in the wtp.

Trains and busses may be subsidized heavily in some parts, but I will stick to my argument that the total true cost of sov's is more than mass transit. A study by ketcham and komonoff shows that automobiles are subsidized at a cost of $730 billion /yr or $5.53/ gallon/ car. or:Litman, MacKenzie, Dower& Chen..$7.08/gal 935 billion/yr, Moffet & Miller 3.03/gal $403 billion/yr, Office of technology 4.78/ gal 631 billion/yr, OTA including non monetary (personal costs)$11-16/ gal or 1.475 - 2.127 trillion dollars/ year,

Sources of subsidies 1)police, fire,ambulance, road construction& maintenance 2)property taxes lost from land cleared for freeways 3)parking 4)air, water, land pollution 5)noise, vibration, damage to structures 6)global warming 7)petroleum supply line policing,security, petroleum production subsidies 8)trade deficite, infrastructure deficite 9)sprawl, loss of transportation options 10)uncompensated auto accidents 11)congestion 10/96 draft

References

Brian Ketcham & Charles Komanoff; Win-Win Transportation: A No-Losers Approach To Financing Transport in New York City and the Region; KEA, 270 Lafayette #400, New York 10012, 212-334-9767; 9 July 92 Draft

Todd Litman; Transportation Cost Survey; Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada, Phone/Fax: (250) 360-1560, litman@islandnet.com , web page: http://www.islandnet.com/~litman ; 2 Feb 92

James MacKenzie, Roger Dower & Donald Chen; The Going Rate: What It Really Costs To Drive; World Resources Institute, 1709 New York Ave NW, Washington DC 20006; June 92

John Moffet & Peter Miller; The Price of Mobility; Natural Resources Defense Council, 71 Stevenson Pl #1825, San Francisco CA 94105, 415- 777-0220; Oct 93

Michael Vorhees; The True Costs of the Automobile to Society; 3131 Bell Dr., Boulder CO 80301, 303- 449-9067; 4 Jan 92

Office of Technology Assessment; Saving Energy in U.S. Transportation; U.S. Congress, OTA-ETI-589, 1994

Mark Delucchi (Inst. of Transportation Studies, UC Davis, CA 95616); A Total Cost Of Motor-Vehicle Use,@ Access, Spring 1996

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Conversions

20 mpg average fuel consumption 132 109 gal/yr. U.S. gasoline & diesel consumption - all road vehicles [106 109 gal/yr. - autos & lt. tr.] S. Davis & S. Strang, Transportation Energy Data Book 13, ORNL-6743, 1993, Table 2.7 189 106 cars, trucks & buses in U.S. Davis & Strang

i 695 only encourages fewer options and more sov travel.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 11, 1999.

Blah blah blah blah blah.....Sheesh!

As said MOST appropriately:

If passenger rail is the ANSWER, it was a VERY stupid question.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 11, 1999.

-- Jim DeFord (jimdeford@home.com), November 12, 1999.

" but I will stick to my argument that the total true cost of sov's is more than mass transit" Hogwash! There are about 20 different ways to calculate this, and they all come out different. See: http://www.bts.gov/programs/jts/murphy.pdf

A Review of the Literature on the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States JAMES J. MURPHY Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Davis MARK A. DELUCCHI Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis

Any of the comparisons that show auto costs even approaching the per passenger cost of transit are comparing the voluntary costs of auto ownership against the public subsidies of transit. That might be appropriate in a communist country where all property is commonly held (although THOSE seem to be in increasingly short supply in the last ten years) but it certainly is not in a market based country with individual freedom. UNEQUIVOCALLY, the public subsidy to transit greatly exceeds the public subsidy to the auto. Fortunately, I-695 will let us take a few very modest steps towards rectifying this inequity. It also puts the pro-big government types in a spot. If they really do cut back massively on transit, it'll start into a death spiral of lower ridership>higher fares>lower ridership>less public support>lower ridership>higher fares>etc. Their only real options are to sacrifice their political base (the state employee unions) by privatizing, or pull money out of the general fund to offset the MVET losses (and thereby lower their headspace under 601). MY! ISN'T IT A LOVELY DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 12, 1999.

so much for social equity huh craig. I can see you don't like to talk about that. #@!^%&* all the people who choose or are forced to use public transit. let them fend for themselves. we can all drive our own car at once if we choose to, and if the roads are too crouded, we'll build more. that's an outdated idea craig. TDM has been the accepted view for 10 + yrs now. Maybe not in your engineering mind, but in the rest of the world it is. haven't they taught that at the U. Oh, I forgot there's a reason their planning/engineering college isn't accredited.

P.S. instead of reading these articles and being reactive, how about being proactive and actually show up to these meetings and speak your mind.

One more thing, anyone can copy and paste what someone has written, it is not an effective way to make an argument.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

"One more thing, anyone can copy and paste what someone has written, it is not an effective way to make an argument. " Nor is spouting unreferenced stupidity.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

"One more thing, anyone can copy and paste what someone has written, it is not an effective way to make an argument. " Nor is spouting unreferenced stupidity.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

"so much for social equity huh craig. I can see you don't like to talk about that. #@!^%&* all the people who choose or are forced to use public transit. " Actually, I have posted on numerous occasions my support for a basic system to support the transit dependent. I have also posted NTD demographic data that indicate that these are becoming fewer in both relative and absolute number. These demographics also demonstrate that transit is not the mode of choice, even for the "transit dependent," and that except in the very largest cities (NY, Chicago), they get more transportation bumming rides from They also use more taxis, whose fares we inflate around here by maintaining a government regulated monopoly. But building park n ride garages at $20,000 a stall, isn't about social equity. And $2.5 million a year for ferries between the UW and the IMPOVERISHED suburb of Kirkland, isn't about social equity. And a billion dollars worth of tax money to subsidize more AMTRAK service between Oregon and BC isn't about social equity.

And as another individual on this forum has explained in detail, you and other "shame on you, you're not socially responsible" types have long since forfeited any credibility on issues of morality.

So show me, in dollars and sense (pun intended), that the taxpayers ought to spend a billion subsidizing local AMTRAK, or admit that WSDOT had a DUMB idea. The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 12, 1999.

i 695 only encourages fewer options and more sov travel.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 11, 1999.

Or will it encourage them not to waste----

$20 million of OUR money on AMTRAK??

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

themouse--"so much for social equity huh craig. I can see you don't like to talk about that. #@!^%&* all the people who choose or are forced to use public transit. let them fend for themselves. we can all drive our own car at once if we choose to, and if the roads are too crouded, we'll build more."

Craig has talked amply about the poor and transit. . .in general, on other threads, he's made a good (supported with statistical evidence) argument that relatively poorer people rely on transit proportionately less than relatively more affluent people.

OTOH, you have done nothing but post your opinion. . .an opinion that containted nothing substantive except for the insubstantial and emotional appeal to "social equity." Fortunately for us, you didn't bring out the big guns--the ever present "let's do it for the children."

Furthermore, you create a classic strawman--that Craig believes "we can all drive our own car at once if we choose to, and if the roads are too crouded, we'll build more." You must apparently be new to this forum because I've never read anything Craig has written that implies (much less states) this is what he believes.

"that's an outdated idea craig. TDM has been the accepted view for 10 + yrs now. Maybe not in your engineering mind, but in the rest of the world it is. haven't they taught that at the U. Oh, I forgot there's a reason their planning/engineering college isn't accredited."

Hmm, an appeal to expertise (I take it you're a planner) and an ad hominem attack in the same paragraph. . .throw in a red herring and you're headed for home plate.

Since you saw fit to use an acronym many on the forum wouldn't understand (a common tactic used by people hoping to appear expert on a particular topic), we'd appreciate it if you'd share with us the obvious success of transportation demand management in the Puget Sound.

"P.S. instead of reading these articles and being reactive, how about being proactive and actually show up to these meetings and speak your mind."

Hmmm, I wonder if Rainier valley will get a tunnel. . .nope, but thanks for coming.

Rhetorical question: does anyone else ever wonder why they bother to have a meeting when they've already made up their mind? "One more thing, anyone can copy and paste what someone has written, it is not an effective way to make an argument."

A bit of a stretch, but I think we finally found the red herring we expected. . .

FWIW, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, strawman arguments, and appeals to authority are all ineffective ways to create a logical argument.

People generally copy others posts as a courtesy to their fellow readers.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 12, 1999.

point made about copying others statements. I'll use it now.

Rhetorical question: does anyone else ever wonder why they bother to have a meeting when they've already made up their mind? "One more thing, anyone can copy and paste what someone has written, it is not an effective way to make an argument."

If you can prove these decisions have been made behind closed doors, you can get the decision thrown out. only administrative decisions may be made behind closed doors.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

" Craig has talked amply about the poor and transit. . .in general, on other threads, he's made a good (supported with statistical evidence) argument that relatively poorer people rely on transit proportionately less than relatively more affluent people. " NOT EXACTLY. What I posted was that there are a diminishing number of transit dependent (poor, physically, mentally, or legally unable to drive) and that, based upon these individuals, we should be spending LESS not more on transit, since they are diminishing in relative and absolute numbers. Also, even these people don't prefer transit, they take it when they have no other viable options. If you are justifying transit as a safety net for these people, it does not need to be at the current level of service. We are NOW trying to get an increasing number of people to ride transit who are from demographic groups that are not transit dependent. The per unit cost of providing transit to these people is much higher, often to the detriment of the basic service. In fact, in Los Angeles, the Rapid Rail program was scaled back under court order since this was in fact siphoning funds from the more cost-effective bus programs for the transit dependent. Basically, the demographics of modern society are against transit, and it is losing market share world-wide, and declining in absolute numbers in most of the US, for perfectly good demographic reasons. I believe that we ought to fund a basic transit program for the transit dependent. Luxury programs ($20,000 a stall parking garages for park n rides, $100 million a mile light rail) is so non cost-effective it's ridiculous. Ditto floating transit such as the recent proposal for Kirkland to UW high-speed Catamaran ferries at $10 million capital expense and $2.5 million/year for 700 people a year. I have NO PROBLEM whatever if these are done privately. Paul Allen or someone wants to do this and thinks he can make it pay (or is willing to lose HIS money on it), it's no skin off my nose. Someone wants to tax ME for daily Yacht trips between Kirkland and the UW, he's got a fight on his hands.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 12, 1999.

by 700 people a year, I meant 700 the cost of DAILY commutes for 700 people for one year, not two people a day.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 12, 1999.

And AMTRAK continues to die on the vine, despite the best efforts of the railroad lobby to make it work. The interesting thing is not that they are going under, that's a matter of demographics, high capital costs, and poor execution, but the CREATIVE ACCOUNTING that they are doing to transfer operating costs to their capital budget to try to con Congress into thinking things are only MODERATELY terrible. Of course, as anyone who has ever run a business knows, by using capital funds for day to day operations, you are eating your seed corn. But then, good business practices never were AMTRAK's forte'. From the General Accounting Office (GAO) website:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00030t.pdf

The Congress gave Amtrak until the end of fiscal year 2002 to reach operational self-sufficiency. Amtrak has focused its ambitious strategic business plan to meet this goal 1 year earlier than required by the Congress. Yet, Amtrak has made relatively little progress over the past 5 years toward achieving this goal: In the next 3 years, Amtrak must achieve nearly four times as much in financial improvements as it was able to achieve through its business plans over the previous 5 years. In addition, Amtrak has substantial capital needs that, if met, could help it improve service, attract and retain passengers, and improve its financial condition. However, Amtrak does not have a comprehensive capital plan; nor has it identified funding sources to cover all its capital needs. The stakes are high: if Amtrak does not become operationally self-sufficient by the end of 2002, the Amtrak Reform Council must submit to the Congress plans for restructuring the railroad and Amtrak must prepare a plan for its own liquidation.

 Amtraks overall financial condition improved in fiscal year 1999. Its net lossrevenues less expenseswas $907 million in fiscal year 1999. 2 This loss is $23 million less than Amtraks net loss of $930 million in fiscal year 1998. Amtrak estimates that its net loss for fiscal year 2000 will decrease to $828 million.  The administration and the Congress have directed Amtrak to be free of federal operating subsidies by the end of 2002. Amtrak reduced its budget gapthe gap that it needs to close to be free of federal operating subsidies by $18 million in fiscal year 1999. However, it must reduce the gap by an additional $291 million in the next 3 years. This needed reduction is nearly four times greater than the reduction Amtrak has been able to achieve in the previous 5 years. Finally, Amtrak faces many challenges in meeting its business plan goals to achieve operational self-sufficiency.  The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 provided Amtrak with about $2.2 billion to acquire capital improvements and maintain existing equipment in intercity passenger rail service, among other things. Amtrak reports spending over $1.2 billion of these funds, as of May 31, 1999. Amtrak has spent over half of this moneyor $756 millionon capital improvements such as track signals and improvements to bridges and electric catenary systems.3 Amtrak has also applied $427 million, or about one-third of its Taxpayer Relief Act expenditures, to a pool of expenses for maintenance of equipment through May 1999. However, because of the way that Amtrak applies Taxpayer Relief Act funds to maintenance of equipment expenses, it has not identified specific expenses that the Taxpayer Relief Act funds were used to cover.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 22, 1999.

It would appear that the King County council has learned from AMTRAK how to cook the books. Let's use CAPITAL funds for OPERATIONS to STREEEEETCHH our operating budget.

Not exactly a good business practice but, what the hey, it's probably no less valid than building the underground parking garage for the Mercer Island park n ride. From the Metro King Couty website:

The council eliminated almost $30 million from the transportation budgets by trimming administrative costs and overhead. In addition, Sullivan was successful in suggesting that money from long-term transit capital projects be diverted into the public transportation fund. http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/news/9911/Budget_transit_cuts.htm

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 24, 1999.