Does anybody have suggestions for where to look for information on new technologies for light duty rail? It seems like some of the rail systems being suggested, most notably PRTs, would operate at far lower PSIs and would need far less massive rights of way than are provided by conventional embedded I beam steel rail. Can anybody point to technical papers that either consider other designs or that refute this impression?
Thank you.
streetcarpress Does anybody have suggestions for where to look for information on new technologies for light duty rail? It seems like some of the rail systems being suggested, most notably PRTs, would operate at far lower PSIs and would need far less massive rights of way than are provided by conventional embedded I beam steel rail. Can anybody point to technical papers that either consider other designs or that refute this impression?
ASME and APTA are cooperating on mechanical standards. The joint POC is:
Martin P. Schroeder, M.S.M.E., PE, Sr. Program Manager – Rail Programs, American Public Transportation Association, 202-496-4885, mschroeder@APTA.com
Off hand, I forget who is biggest on the civil side; there's a strong prejudice in favor of heavy rail standards, since it cuts back maintenance needs. Lots of transit agencies, and even private systems back in the day, have learned that, hard as it is to get capital money, it's easier than getting (or squirreling away) maintenance money later. A lot of the reason the Huntington lines lasted so long in LA was they were made to steam standards; this both allowed mixed freight revenue use, and allowed the use of standard maintenance equipment.
Why doesn't more transit agencies build to that freight and passenger track standard ,would it not help alleviate the need for constant and annual fed and state subsidizing?
I really don't think it has to do with track standards, it has to do with the nature of passenger operations. Even Europe, which is touted for it passenger railway systems, are heavily subsidized.
In the US many transits were the result of deregulation of the railroads going back to the Staggers Act. The freight railroads were losing money on passenger service but were required to provide it. This was a drain on their bottom line and it compromised their ability to provide good service to anyone. When they broke freight and passenger apart, railroad like Metro North Railroad and the Metropolitan Transit Authority came into being. What was the result, Metro-North Raiiroad for example has about 98% on time record. That would have never happened under the former system. Is that railway subsidized, yes but there isn't a rail or bus transit operation in the US whose fairbox covers its total cost operations -- hence the need for Federal and State subsidizing.
As far as building to track to freight standards, many of the transits that transitioned to light rail, began with buses. So they don't have extensive enginering experience in rail. What they have are tight budgets. So they typical hire consultants to design their systems. Any hired consulting engineering company recognizes their customer's financial constraints and builds to what they belive is needed -- not on the expanded possibility of mixed freight/passenger/light rail traffic.
If one one like need a better prospective for planning future light rail transit, read TCRP 57 Track Design for Light Transit published by the Transportation Research Board.
There are some custom search engines that may assist you in your searches:
Public Transit Agencies:http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012995479145342077058%3Aipxox2lxkha
University Transportation Center Search Engine:http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=010809592348763093458:3jsikrwi874
State DOT Search Engine:http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=006511338351663161139%3Acnk1qdck0dc
" The freight railroads were losing money on passenger service but were required to provide it. "
They weren't initially required to provide it. They did because they made money on the service or by destination end points - i.e. hotels etc. The reason it is a net loss activity now is solely because of the way the Government interferes in the economies of the world. Most passenger trains, when originally setup, could damn well easy make a profit. Even Amtrak, if it was allowed to run properly could profit at around 50-350 million per year.
Simply put, the system in which passenger rail (and transit agencies) are forced to operate in is not market oriented, especially not free-market or fair-market oriented. Please don't confuse this with defense of the automobile either - it is subsidized at a vast rate, and has been for almost a hundred years now. Simply put, people didn't and continue not to make market based decisions to drive vs transit vs intercity rail because the subsidies completely screw up any market data - if people see roads as free (well over 50% of the cost of auto transport) and build houses 50 miles from anything based on this massively subsidized transport mode - of course passenger rail and other means - which generally are responsible for infrastructure AND operations - don't add into the everyday decisions of Americans.
If we wanted to get the market providers - i.e. railroads or anyone interested in operating railroads - to really have a world class system again we have to level the subsidy playing field. Either be rid of them or equalize the hand outs so the competition can be better reflected of the means in which people have.
Anyway, I've done the math, ranted many times, and have pointed out how the "unprofitable transit/intercity/etc" mode myth is complete bullshit. If subsidies werent' there, railroads would have no problem competing in the field as they could easily keep the costs of tickets well below the net daily cost of automobile usage if people actually paid fairly for their road usage.
...that is all. I have follow up posts & more information on my site: http://www.transitsleuth.com if anyone is interested - just do a search or two.
Removed in editing. Less typo-ed version follows.
Adron Hall: " The freight railroads were losing money on passenger service but were required to provide it. " They weren't initially required to provide it.
They weren't initially required to provide it.
I think you will find that they quite often were. Charters and easements often explicitly, from the beginning, mentioned passenger service, and particular freight service that might not otherwise be feasible. Trading trackage rights for a local station is what made some of the granger roads, and what is now the NEC was even more complicated.
Adron Hall: Simply put, the system in which passenger rail (and transit agencies) are forced to operate in is not market oriented, especially not free-market or fair-market oriented.
Natural monopolies often aren't. (Yeah, that's overstating it, but I hope you'll address the general point, rather than quibble.)
Adron Hall: Simply put, people didn't and continue not to make market based decisions to drive vs transit vs intercity rail because the subsidies completely screw up any market data - if people see roads as free (well over 50% of the cost of auto transport) and build houses 50 miles from anything based on this massively subsidized transport mode - of course passenger rail and other means - which generally are responsible for infrastructure AND operations - don't add into the everyday decisions of Americans.
'
People don't make simple market decisions, based purely on price, about anything, and transportation (and housing) least of all. People in many cultures view their car as a form of personal ornamentation, and you can no more move them away from it on simple economic grounds (notice the word simple there, please) than you can get that guy wearing Armani to show up wrapped in a stained bed sheet. "Economic man" is a useful fiction, but still just that.
Point being, passenger rail isn't unprofitable because it's worthless, but because of market manipulations by external forces of to the industry. You state that people don't make simple market decisions, but if they paid full price - just the fluctuations of a mere few percentage points of difference in gas price prove this - they would absolutely make different decisions than they have and do. Automobile usage & airline usage is both dictated by massive and lopsided subsidies, direct and indirect, on many levels of society. Passenger rail receives nothing on such scale, never has, probably never will. Without such massive subsidies - either by reducing or eliminating them, or simply balancing the structure by some means of logic (I got zero faith in Government doing this, but let's run with that), passenger rail usage would skyrocket easily - and thus the prospective of profit and idealogically the value of said service.
To mandate and require is to equate worthlessness on an idealogical level to passenger rail, in our misconstrued and mixed mode economic system this would be folly.
Adron HallPoint being, passenger rail isn't unprofitable because it's worthless, but because of market manipulations by external forces of to the industry.
I agree that market forces influence it, and I suspect you are probably right that passenger rail could be more widely possibly profitable. It's a little more complicated though, not only by social forces, but also by legitimate state needs, and by monopoly effects.
All that said, I don't think we need to argue about fixing the final details, when anyone with an open mind can see the system is more in need of defibrillation than a haircut. Yes, making prices reflect cost will modify behavior, although payment mechanisms factor in - people see only the variable costs of a car ride, but both in an unsubsidized bus trip, for example. Once you've committed to car purchase, behavior shifts.
Adron HallTo mandate and require is to equate worthlessness on an idealogical level to passenger rail, in our misconstrued and mixed mode economic system this would be folly.
Please either edit this, or tell us what language it was translated from.
anmccaffI don't think we need to argue about fixing the final details
People commonly misunderstand the problems of the system before, and the positives of the system before, so often times they apply a solution that can't or won't solve anything. The details must be known to the policy makers, and even better if the public knows, in order for improvements to truly be made.
anmccaffwhen anyone with an open mind can see the system is more in need of defibrillation than a haircut
...translates to...
To say subsidies are required for X item means that it is not valued.
...or another way...
If someone won't pay willingly for a candy bar, forcing them to pay for it doesn't mean the candy bar is worth more to the person who didn't want to buy it at a fair price anyway.
Regarding cost and subsidies, the ONLY systems I have ever heard of to break even, and one which returns a profit, are:
1. The Chicago & Northwestern RR back in the days of Ben Heineman when the RR became employee-owned.
2. Automated monorail lines almost always pay for maintenance and operations out of the farebox. Even the beleaguered Las Vegas monorail is paying for the O&M from the farebox. The fact that (a) it was required to purchase bond insurance in pre-construction days which almost doubled the capital costs; and (b) is now struggling to pay off those capital costs from the farebox, do not mean that monorail cannot pay off it's capital costs as well given a fair crack at it. NOTE that the Las Vegas system has no daily commuter traffic, and simply conveys casino guests from one casino to another. The City's plan to extend it to the Airport and to the Convention Center could bring a "normal" ridership constituency that is more like what other cities' use of such a system would be.
3. Point of information - Yes, it was a World's Fair, but the 1 mile Seattle monorail paid for itself in the first 3 months of operation, and has been returning a profit ever since. Note too that the larger a profitable system is, the more spread out the costs are and the greater is the return. The longer a non-profitable system is, the more the costs grow exponentially. I say that with reference to steel tracks, for instance, and the longer the line is, the more intense maintenance is required.
4. I have heard that the Vancouver Skytrain pays for itself. I don't know this for sure. But if you're going to automate and elevate, it only makes sense to use a system that is designed for elevation -- monorail. Dual track vehicles can and do derail and fall off. Monorail is designed to be elevated and cannot fall off the track. Also note the massive substructure required for dual-rail elevation versus the sleek elevated narrow beam design for monorail.
AstntomRegarding cost and subsidies, the ONLY systems I have ever heard of to break even, and one which returns a profit,
Ahhh, summer. The soft sound of the breeze through the high, golden grass. The mellifluous crackle of the broom seed pods. The gentle grinding of axes.
Magnificently unresponsive.
Was there something else to actually reply to? Stating lines are profitable or at least break even just sort of proves the point that it is ABSOLUTELY feasible. We have the technology, we have the reasons to do so, why do we allow continued waste to be incurred in highly subsidized system (i.e. highways, US passenger rail as it exists)...
It IS truly broken, FIX IT.