The Antiplanner

Why Use Buses When Trains Cost So Much More?

4th December 2009

Why Use Buses When Trains Cost So Much More?

posted in News commentary, Transportation |

Whenever the Antiplanner reads a news story such as this one, which tells how Amtrak’s Boston-to-Portland Downeaster train hit an automobile, I think, “There were only 48 people on that train. We’re subsidizing a train to carry just 48 people?”

Flickr photo by lazytom.

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.

Instead, the four locomotives and ten passenger cars on the Downeaster cost around $25 to $30 million (which, at 7 percent over 30 years, amortizes out to about $2 million per year). Operating the train costs taxpayers $6 million per year. That works out to a subsidy of $18 per one-way trip. (Boston-to-Portland fares are $24.)

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. Moreover, I don’t see any real benefit to TODs; if they have to be subsidized, they are merely another form of social engineering.

Of course, given all this “demand,” it only makes sense that Portland-to-Boston is one of the FRA’s high-speed rail routes. No doubt many people think that it makes perfect sense to spend a billion dollars or so speeding up these trains from their current average of 46 mph to 55 or 65 mph. Trains that fast might actually attract more riders than could fit on a single bus!

This entry was posted on Friday, December 4th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under News commentary, Transportation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 25 responses to “Why Use Buses When Trains Cost So Much More?”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On December 4th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Downeaster delayed after it hits car
    Submitted by Dennis Hoey on Mon, 11/30/2009 – 21:17
    in Portland Press Herald

    NORTH ANDOVER, Mass. — An Amtrak Downeaster train bound for Portland is
    delayed tonight after crashing into an unoccupied car that was left on
    the tracks in North Andover, Mass.

    THWM: WTF?

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 3:44 am

  2. 2 On December 4th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    Randal, there was a superb article by Matthew Stevenson about the pain involved in getting from New York City to Bangor, Maine by way of Amtrak recently on the NewGeography.com site at the URL below:

    Bangor or Bust: Navigating To Thanksgiving At Grandma’s:
    http://www.newgeography.com/content/001223-bangor-or-bust-navigating-to-thanksgiving-at-grandmas

    The interesting part (which is directly relevant to your posting) is that it is not possible to take a train directly from New York City to anyplace in Maine. The Downeaster departs Boston from North Station, which is requires a “cross-town taxi” trip from Boston’s South Station, which is where Amtrak trains from New York and points south of Boston terminate.

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 7:18 am

  3. 3 On December 4th, 2009, prk166 said:

    The article was a nice read. But his list of “it’d be as easy as buying a ticket” countries is a bit wrong and a bit pointless. The distance he’s talking about traveling is nearly impossible in most of the countries on his list. They’re just not that big. You could only pull that sort of length of trip off in the less rich, less developed east Malaysia. I’m not very familiar with that area but my impression has been that if one is trying to get around there, the choices are flying or boat. And Russia? I’m not sure why he thinks this trip would be so easy in Russia. Bangor is relatively small, @25k-40k IIRC, and – more importantly – out of the way. It’s not on any main routes. There are plenty of similar trips out of Moscow, especially to the east and north, with that sort of town for a destination. Many of them like Nyandoma aren’t served by rail at all. And those that are, like Velsk, require a painful train ride. If he thinks driving to Bangor from NYC is a pain, and I’d imagine it is, I fail to see how 2 solid days on a train is any better. I’m not exaggerating, it’s 14 hours on the train one-way to from Moscow to Velsk. I understand some would prefer that over driving. But a lot of us would rather have that extra day to do something more productive thank drink chai and reading a book on too hot and then too chilly train.

    It’s an interesting article but the author seems to want to ignore that for all practical purposes Bangor is BFE. Not just in terms of distance but in terms of population.

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am

  4. 4 On December 4th, 2009, Spokker said:

    As of the most recent report average weekday ridership on the Downeaster is 1,539. They say their cost recovery is 66%. Shrug.

    http://www.amtrakdowneaster.com/userfiles/file/Performance%20Report%20Q1%202010%20July-Sep%2008.pdf

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

  5. 5 On December 4th, 2009, Dan said:

    The title asks:

    Why Use Buses When Trains Cost So Much More?

    Ask the people who refuse to ride them. I had a GF in Seattle who finally came home crying one day, refusing to ride the bus for a while. She hated it. The noise, the drunks in the morning, yada. She drove for about a week and got tired of the traffic and parking costs, and bought earbuds and rode the bus.

    Anyway, the people that ride the train do so to avoid the bus, in part.

    That’s how the world works, despite certain ideologies wishing it weren’t so.

    DS

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  6. 6 On December 4th, 2009, Borealis said:

    Thank you, Dan, for the open and honest posting. As you said, the generally unsaid truth is that buses attract a lot of people that most people do not want to hang out around. Trains attract far fewer of those people.

    So what does that mean for transit? Do we throw more money at trains just to have a more attractive clientele? But if that is what it takes, why not?

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

  7. 7 On December 4th, 2009, Spokker said:

    Dan, it may be a girl thing. My girlfriend hates the bus as well and has much more tolerance for the train. I’m personally not scared about riding the bus and do so without hesitation. I ride the bus at night in Los Angeles all the time. It’s fine.

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

  8. 8 On December 4th, 2009, msetty said:

    Borealis said:
    So what does that mean for transit? Do we throw more money at trains just to have a more attractive clientele? But if that is what it takes, why not?

    During my twenty years as the City of Vallejo’s transit planner (1985-2005, e.g. I jumped ship because my associates and I saw their bankruptcy coming), we consistently found that local buses attracted the largest share of transit dependent clientele and “undesirables” (many people think junior high & many high school students fit in this category, “them” being a large percentage of local Vallejo Transit ridership).

    The express buses to BART carried a much more varied ridership, much more closely matching Vallejo’s demographics, though there were many transit dependents who used that service–and gained jobs in the Central Bay Area because they could use the bus.

    And not surprisingly, the Vallejo Baylink high speed ferries to downtown San Francisco attracted the highest income clientele for commuters, plus large numbers of tourists traveling to San Francisco, particularly between May and October.

    I think the lesson here is that public transit will generate much more public support when the general public sees it meeting at least a portion of their travel needs. There is a place for all modes.

    In my view, the choice between BRT, express buses and rail really depends on economics and potential for focusing development.

    For more insight on mode selection, not tainted by U.S. short-sightedness, see etcproceedings.org/paper/download/1679.

    If you multiply the “places per hour” volume times ten (page 7 of 19), you’ll get a rough approximation of the findings from the various other studies we documented, allowing for the fact that no transit service, bus or rail, consistently carries maximum vehicle capacities during the peak hours.

    In this paper, the “break-even” in operating costs calculated by London Transport between “street trams” and buses reflects various work around the work that Demery and I documents a few years ago here: http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/specialreports/sr2.trafficdensityretrospective.htm.

    Keep in mind that “places per hour” isn’t the same as “passengers per hour” which will be some lower figure, such as 60% to 80% of the maximum capacity offered, depending on the city, what part of the peak period you’re looking at, and so forth (these sorts of studies tend to significantly overestimate the maximum vehicle loads that people will tolerate, particularly when autos are a viable alternative).

    Of course, I doubt many of the ideologues who often comment on this blog will understand this point, because it is a very “practical” exercise, not one based on bullsh– “principles” built on empirically dubious premises …

    posted on December 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

  9. 9 On December 5th, 2009, Dan said:

    Borealis,

    We’ll figure out how to cope as gas prices go up and more people ride transit. More important IMO is the ‘final mile’ problem for buses and transit, but esp buses, as the density needs to be there for service.

    DS

    posted on December 5th, 2009 at 5:35 am

  10. 10 On December 5th, 2009, Spokker said:

    I find that since I started walking that “final mile,” I have lost weight.

    posted on December 5th, 2009 at 7:01 am

  11. 11 On December 5th, 2009, MJ said:

    As of the most recent report average weekday ridership on the Downeaster is 1,539. They say their cost recovery is 66%. Shrug.

    Their annual data for 2008 shows that they recovered 47 percent of their operating costs through fares. The report linked to here indicates that ridership and revenue are down during the current FY. I wonder what has changed?

    because it is a very “practical” exercise, not one based on bullsh– “principles” built on empirically dubious premises …

    Which “empirically dubious” premises would those be?

    posted on December 5th, 2009 at 8:53 am

  12. 12 On December 5th, 2009, msetty said:

    MJ spake:
    Which “empirically dubious” premises would those be?

    The Inverted Marxism of the Randoids.

    posted on December 5th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  13. 13 On December 5th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    msetty said:
    MJ spake:
    Which “empirically dubious” premises would those be?

    The Inverted Marxism of the Randoids.

    THWM: A.K.A. “Free Market Communism”.

    posted on December 5th, 2009 at 6:12 pm

  14. 14 On December 6th, 2009, prk166 said:

    “Anyway, the people that ride the train do so to avoid the bus, in part. “–DS

    NYC doesn’t have trains????

    posted on December 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am

  15. 15 On December 6th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    prk166 wrote:

    > It’s an interesting article but the author seems to want to ignore that for all practical purposes Bangor is BFE.
    > Not just in terms of distance but in terms of population.

    Only if you think that the continent ends at the U.S./Canada border.

    Having been up to the northern end of I-95 at Houlton, Maine, I can assure you that civilization and economic activity continues into the provinces of New Brunswick (2009 population about 750,000) and Nova Scotia (2009 population about 940,000).

    But if your point is that a taxpayer-subsidized Amtrak train to Maine from any other U.S. state is a waste of money, then I agree with you.

    posted on December 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  16. 16 On December 6th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    C. P. Zilliacus said: But if your point is that a taxpayer-subsidized Amtrak train to Maine from any other U.S. state is a waste of money, then I agree with you.

    THWM: Basing an agenda on hate doesn’t help you.

    posted on December 6th, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  17. 17 On December 7th, 2009, Mike said:

    Borealis: “So what does that mean for transit? Do we throw more money at trains just to have a more attractive clientele? But if that is what it takes, why not?”

    The entire problem, and the answer to your lead-out question, is in your use of the word “we.” It evokes the notion of some sort of voluntary cooperation among people, but what it really means is forced expropriation from taxpayers at the point of a government gun, by government-imposed regulation and mandate. It’s easy for “us” to spend “our” money when the cost is borne by others. As Bastiat wrote, “The state is the fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.”

    Better to leave transit to private providers, who are free to expel meth-heads and such from their vehicles if they wish. It’s not so simple when it’s a public carrier, because even justified enforcement is likely to be a lawsuit magnet and dangerous besides… all magnifying the public expense that has already been identified as too great.

    posted on December 7th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  18. 18 On December 7th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Mike, the war on drugs is a waste of tax money.

    If some one wants to do meth or smoke pot in their home that’s fine.

    posted on December 7th, 2009 at 3:36 pm

  19. 19 On December 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    TWHM,

    For once you have it right. In fact, no drug should be illegal. The existing laws governing dangerous conduct, if enforced, would already be sufficient to address the common canard that legalization would have “stoners roaming the streets, laying waste to society.”

    However, if transit were a PRIVATE enterprise, they could include or exclude at will, the same way a shopping mall will kick out “thuggish” kids even if they haven’t done anything wrong yet. A private business has the right to create the artificial environment they believe their most lucrative customers want to enjoy.

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 7:51 am

  20. 20 On December 8th, 2009, Scott said:

    A freeway lane can handle 22,000 vehicles per day.
    Compare that to rail use.

    Methodology:
    2,000 cars/hour max, right?
    6 hours rush hours (6-9 & 4-7) traffic (12,000)
    10 hours remainder [of "active" day] at 1,000/hr. (10,000)
    Other 8 hours negligible, can be accounted for other.
    Lookup bridges’ traffic (ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland_Bay_Bridge), to verify; do the math. Get it?

    When looking at “passengers” for a transit route, it can be falsely seen that the total, traverse the whole route (ie rail over 40 miles, yet avg ~VMT is 8 or whatever).
    How many passengers passenger pass through a point?
    How many travelers could pass thru, if that space was a road instead? How much less “public” money (us taxpayers)? And how much more $ does that transit cost, vs just a road?

    BTW, the most used public transit system [in the US] is the NYC area [where 1/3 of all transit users live)is not financially viable.
    In other words, quantity (sales/volume) does not necessarily mean, “contribution to overhead” (yes for the private sector).
    Unions can be blamed for many things, this especially, but not the point.
    ?????
    Overall, you people know the stats?
    Reality is not encouraging (yet the left go on, by fallacies & buying votes).
    The avg bus route carries ~9 people (~7 is break even for BTU/passenger-mile).
    The avg light rail carries ~20 persons & obstructs much vehicular traffic (ie light timing).

    Mass transit!!!
    Sounds good. Really?
    You live on a route stop?
    You find your job & other needs/wants on a stop?

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

  21. 21 On December 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Though Mike & Scott, you’re both “thuggish” persons.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 3:50 am

  22. 22 On December 9th, 2009, Mike said:

    Nice racism, Railwayman. A man who isn’t lily-white like you tries to make a point, and all of a sudden he’s a “thug”? Very classy.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 7:48 am

  23. 23 On December 10th, 2009, Spokker said:

    “Better to leave transit to private providers, who are free to expel meth-heads and such from their vehicles if they wish. It’s not so simple when it’s a public carrier, because even justified enforcement is likely to be a lawsuit magnet and dangerous besides…”

    Would a private carrier have handled this differently?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/23/2009-11-23_san_francisco_bart_police_officer_.html

    posted on December 10th, 2009 at 11:13 pm

  24. 24 On December 13th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Spokker, you’re right. A private carrier wouldn’t have done any thing different.

    http://www.9-1-1magazine.com/magazine/1998/1198/feas/24larton/index.html

    posted on December 13th, 2009 at 4:40 am

  25. 25 On December 13th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Mike said: Nice racism, Railwayman. A man who isn’t lily-white like you tries to make a point, and all of a sudden he’s a “thug”? Very classy.

    THWM: Nice try Mike.

    posted on December 13th, 2009 at 4:42 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.