The brief time I have used the Wilshire bus line, the main issues were the bottlenecks west of the 405. The rest of it moved fairly well.

by Andrew on Jun 16, 2011 9:51 am  

I don't see the danger of just selling off the NEC. It makes a small profit right now (60M a year).

I see the arguments about splitting the infrastructure from the operator, but essentially the NEC is just one line. Plenty of competition from bus and air. You would have to negotiate to make sure commuter rail users would still get access to the network.

Or, just split Amtrak from the NEC, and allow the NEC to borrow at government rates (like the TVA). Should not be a problem to find $10B that way.

by charlie on Jun 16, 2011 10:39 am  

@charlie

I don't see the benefit of "just selling off the NEC." How does that get us better service?

by Alex B. on Jun 16, 2011 10:53 am  

@AlexB; it doesn't get us better service. It does, however, raise 5 to 10 billion, and would allow a more experienced operator (presumably european) to take over the line.

Virgin, for instant, would probably bid on that. Or SNCF, if they issue another round of apologies.

The NEC corridor is profitable as is. With better management, it could be far more profitable. It is also a ripe candidate for private investment, as opposed to public money.

by charlie on Jun 16, 2011 11:06 am  

I don't see any evidence that it will get us a better operator, or convince that operator to invest.

The split arrangement (private operation, public track ownership) is far more interesting - but that's not what you've advocated for.

There's also no reason that you can't include private investment in publicly owned infrastructure - it's a matter of structure.

by Alex B. on Jun 16, 2011 11:13 am  

Can someone clarify what is meant by 'dedicated' for the two bus lanes in LA and NYC? To me dedicated is when there is a true curb cut and only buses can access the area of the road. From what I get from the articles (and that might just be my quick scan of them) it seems like they'll be like the bus lane we have on 7th Street Northbound here in Chinatown. And as anyone who rides (or for that matter sits in traffic) the 70's or the Circulator can tell you, to call that a 'dedicated' bus lane is farcical at best.

by Shipsa01 on Jun 16, 2011 11:26 am  

Politically I also worry that if the NEC (the most successful part of Amtrak)is sold off the rest of amtrak will look worse off and it will be easier for its service to be degraded even more. In today's political climate anything the goverment does that isn't an outrageous success is then seen as a failure and the only option is to cut it off thus cutting "waste" rather than thinking about if there is a way to instead invest to make it better.

by Canaan on Jun 16, 2011 11:30 am  

+1 to Canaan - I agree totally (and here's my conspiracy theorist opinion coming out) and think this is the R's strategy to killing off Amtrak completely. Once the NEC is sold off, the rest of Amtrak will fall on it's own and they can be rid of the system entirely.

by Shipsa01 on Jun 16, 2011 11:32 am  

Killing off the rest of Amtrak would be a benefit to everyone.

@AlexB; where you have a nationwide (public) rail network and you auction off the rights the operate trains your split model makes sense.

NEC right now is a bascially its own little railroad. Yes, commuter trains share tracks. But getting the entire thing out of public ownership would enable it to grow at its own pace.

(and my gut feeling is the future for NEC isn't high speed. It is fast enough. What is really needed is capacity -- as you can see from Chinatown buses, there is a demand for $20 tickets to NYC)

(or network growth. Jasper made the point yesterday which Richmond/Tidewater isn't part of the NEC. Or for that matter, Portland. I doubt very much there is enough demand ever to run HSR from Richmond to NYC, or Portland to Philly, but I do think there is demand at a lower price point. That might make sense (invest in dedicated lines) than blowing $120B on HSR between DC and NYC.

by charlie on Jun 16, 2011 11:44 am  

Virgin, for instant, would probably bid on that. Or SNCF, if they issue another round of apologies.

Virgin's got a pretty checkered history as a train operator. They were regarded for a time as one of the worst in the UK. Their rail services are nowhere close to being on par with their (excellent-if-you-can-afford-it) airlines.

I'd sooner recruit a company like SNCF (Keolis), Deutsche Bahn (Arriva), or FirstGroup (who operate Greyhound, Bolt Bus, and parts of the Circulator; they operate several rail franchises in the UK).

That said, you're not going to win any political points by contracting an overseas operator. It's also going to be hard to woo an overseas operator to bid cheaply on the contract, given the clusterfuck of FRA regulations that prevent America from being able to buy cheap railcars "off the shelf," or the fact that there about a dozen different signaling systems used in the US, which requires lots of training and limits route flexibility. Rail operators in other countries do not have to deal with these things, which undoubtedly helps them be more efficient.

by andrew on Jun 16, 2011 11:49 am  

@Shipsa01, I believe the bus only lanes will be painted and have signage, but drivers will still have to enter the lanes to make right turns. They won't be dedicated lanes, and I think the estimate that 10% of drivers on Wilshire will switch to the bus is VERY ambitious. Regardless, the Wilshire bus lines are already among the most popular in the country, so I'm not sure if using $30 million to shave 11 minutes will be worth the expense. I think that the high bus ridership means that the corridor is ripe for heavy rail; the money should go there.

by Daniel on Jun 16, 2011 11:56 am  

@Canaan, Shipsa01

It's a no-brainer, Republicans have been trying to kill Amtrak since May 1, 1971 so yeah, this plan is basically just a way to separate the NEC from the rest of the network so Amtrak looks even worse and they can finally put a dagger in it.

If there was a bunch of money to be made some business would already be banging on the government's door to buy up the corridor. THEY'RE NOT.

by MLD on Jun 16, 2011 11:57 am  

"Killing off the rest of Amtrak would be a benefit to everyone."

Believe it or not Amtrak does have successful services outside of the NEC. California, the Midwestern routes centered on Chicago, and the Cascades service all have good ridership.

by Phil on Jun 16, 2011 1:49 pm  

@MLD It's a no-brainer, Republicans have been trying to kill Amtrak since May 1, 1971 so yeah, this plan is basically just a way to separate the NEC from the rest of the network so Amtrak looks even worse and they can finally put a dagger in it.

If those other lines aren't self-sustaining, why would we want to keep them around ... to require more tax dollar subsidies?

It's not like most air flights aren't a h*ll lot cheaper for the long haul routes ... AND far quicker.

by Lance on Jun 16, 2011 1:49 pm  

So, charlie, your argument boils down to privatization for the sake of privatization. Phrases like "getting the entire thing out of public ownership would enable it to grow at its own pace" are meaningless.

by Alex B. on Jun 16, 2011 1:59 pm  

Thanks Lance for proving my first comment, The lines may not be sustainable as they are but why does that mean we shouldn't entertain that it suffers from under-investment? If those who claim they want to see government run like a business actually meant what they said they'd understand that sometimes you actually have to put money up to make something work well.

by Canaan on Jun 16, 2011 2:08 pm  

If those other lines aren't self-sustaining, why would we want to keep them around ... to require more tax dollar subsidies?

I feel like I have to answer this question all the time, but in short, because government has different goals than a business.

A business cares about having revenue that exceeds expenses, and by a large margin and pretty quickly. They don't care about pollution, less congestion, mobility or options (some people can't fly due to physical limitations or overpowering fear).

Government does care about those things, and so they would be willing to take on a paper loss if they believe the gain from positive externalities exceeds the financial loss.

by David C on Jun 16, 2011 2:12 pm  

David C - one correction: "Sometimes" Government cares about those things.... Sigh

by Shipsa01 on Jun 16, 2011 2:16 pm  

So under that self sustaining argument, we should just get rid of all the interstate highways in Montana and Arizona. Amtrak believe it or not has a lot of value for people who live in places along the route that don't have airports in smaller towns. David C is right, government is not a for profit business, it's for serving its population.

by The Overhead Wire on Jun 16, 2011 2:25 pm  

The GOP is always threatening the NE corridor. We really should defund infrastructure in unsustainable GOP strongholds.

The trouble with buslanes is the vulnerability to defunding and the intrusion of other vehicles. Wilshire is heavily congested and needs light rail. Bus rapid transit won't put enough of a dent.

by Rich on Jun 16, 2011 4:56 pm  

@ David C; hmm. Somebody should tell Michael Perkins that. He keeps on asking Google to add features that, well, seem to be more about positive externalities than selling ads. But I forgot they aren't evil.

Felix Salmon had an interesting argument today about the value that a company like IBM has brought into the world during the past 100 years. I don't think you can make such bright line rules on government=good/company=externality. Like any externality argument, it only reveals you don't get it.

@AlexB; actually I am neutral on privatization. I think it would be more important to make NEC a success, and stop turning it into a political football. 60M a year profit, on the top of my head, might be a sale price of 3 billion. Throw in some growth, and I'd say you could raise 6 to 8 billion in a sale.

Another way, as I suggested, is turn the NEC into a corporation like the TVA and allow it access the debt markets on its own.

I think the opponents of privatization have other fears.

We know the NEC is the one place where HSR would work in the US. After all, it's making 60M a year. But if you've got 8-10 billion in deferred costs, you're not making money -- you are just pushing expenses into the future. So perhaps the NEC isn't really as profitable as rail proponents like to say. Much like when Tony Williams kept the city in the black by slashing road spending.

by charlie on Jun 16, 2011 4:59 pm  

Charlie,

I'm still failing to see how your "just sell it already" approach actually improves service.

Alon Levy notes that Mica's bill includes nothing to actually change the regulatory environment in the US that is restraining true HSR from even being possible (regardless of the operator):

http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/mica-introduces-nec-privatization-bill/

From my view, I'd consider some sort of state-owned infrastructure entity and franchised private operators as a positive step, but the government has to actually step in and make such an arrangement even potentially successful. Simply privatizing it as-is is destined to fail at all levels. It would kill existing rail service that's good and has potential (the Cascades, California lines, Chicago hub lines, etc), it wouldn't solve Amtrak's legislative mandates for long-haul service, it wouldn't guarantee any investment in the infrastructure we do have at all.

So, yes, the opponents have fears - legitimate fears, because Mica's proposal as-is is half baked.

Long story short - privatization is a solution looking for a problem at this stage. The real problem is the FRA and the entire North American rail regulatory structure - a structure that already governs private railroads (ergo privatizing the NEC solves nothing).

by Alex B. on Jun 16, 2011 5:28 pm  

charlie, I don't think you can make such bright line rules on government=good/company=externality. Like any externality argument, it only reveals you don't get it.

Well, I don't think I made a rule about government=good/company=externality argument. Obviously companies can do good while doing well - that's the ideal right? And you and I can cite hundreds of examples. But doing good isn't the primary goal. There are also a lot of companies that do well while doing evil, so I'm not sure what your point is.

There IS a name for a company that does good without making money - it's called a non-profit, and you don't find them on the NYSE.

As for "not getting it" perhaps you could try to explain what "it" is instead of just insulting me.

As for your plan for Amtrak, let's see if I get this straight (I have trouble getting it sometimes).

The government sells the NEC for $3B and hands it over, along with the $60M a year in profits.
Then the government uses the $3B for what? To build HSR for the private company or do we just pocket it? Does that mean we now have to come up with an extra $60m a year to subsidize the remainder of Amtrak that was subsidized be the NEC?

Would the private company be required to run passenger rail or could they use the NEC to run freight if that were more profitable? Would they be required to build HSR, and if so where would they find the money for that? What happens if the company mismanages it and has to be bailed out? Does the federal government do that?

Why is any of this better than having the federal government borrow the money needed - at a lower rate than anyone else can borrow - and having Amtrak upgrade the NEC?

by David C on Jun 16, 2011 5:53 pm  

RE: NY Ave

The NY Ave bridge work just east of Dave Thomas Circle has made for great commuting by car, but its ped impacts have been pretty substantial, including a rather long ped detour without the least bit of ADA compliance... at one point sending peds through a guardrail. The SeeClickFix link is below & I've made DDOT aware, but I'm not sure if any changes have been made since I switched to the other side of the ocean.

http://www.seeclickfix.com/issues/87403

by Bossi on Jun 16, 2011 5:53 pm  

@David C, charlie

Yeah, I don't get why we would sell off the NEC, especially for $3B or $8B. That money means nothing to the federal government. Also, the corridor has to be worth more than that (at least it cost more than that to build what's there). It might only be "worth" that much in the sense that that's how much a company would pay on the open market based on how much money they could make off of it, but then why should the government sell it off if it's not a fair price.

Charlie, all I "get" from your proposal is that we should privatize it for privatization's sake, not because it makes any sense for the government to do so.

by MLD on Jun 16, 2011 6:04 pm  

@ charlie: The NEC corridor is profitable as is. With better management, it could be far more profitable.

Why is this a relevant argument. Is I-95 profitable?

Jasper made the point yesterday which Richmond/Tidewater isn't part of the NEC. Or for that matter, Portland. I doubt very much there is enough demand ever to run HSR from Richmond to NYC, or Portland to Philly, but I do think there is demand at a lower price point.

I don't know how much demand there is from Richmond to NYC. Or from Portland to Richmond. Probably not very much. The point is to create a network. We need a mind-blowing fast connection between DC, Philly, NYC and Boston. To get that profitable, you need to feed people into that line. You can do that by alternating the direct service from DC to Boston with a HSR option that includes Tidewater/Richmond, Baltimore, and relevant stops in NJ, CT, RI and ME. Local, normal speed trains get feed people to those stations. For instance from Fredericksburg, Columbia and Annapolis.

Counterintuively, it is the people at those spots that will have the largest time gains because they do not have an easy connection to air service like customers in DC, Philly, NYC and Boston have. In other words, while it is easy at the moment to get from DC to NY because there are pretty much hourly flight from several airports, it's a pain in the ass to get from Richmond to Philly. Or from Portland to New Haven.

I see this happening with the HSR from Amsterdam to Paris. People from Amsterdam, Brussels and Paris probably don't care very much because they have flight options, which are similar in time. However, my parents, living somewhere in between, will soon have a HSR line shaving 20 minutes of the trip to Amsterdam, and a direct connection to Brussels, where they can hop onto the Eurostar to London. Furthermore, they can hop on the local train and be in Rotterdam in 20 minutes, where they can hop on the HSR to Paris and EuroDisney, saving them the trouble of driving or riding up to Amsterdam or Brussels and get on a plane. They are the ones winning massively in this deal, despite that part of their village was bulldozered away for the HSR track. Oddly, nobody told them this during the eminent domain procedures.

Similarly, Richmond should be interested in finding ways to get more people to itself and the Tidewater/VA Beach area. There's a lot more tourism tax dollars to be gotten there. Currently, I-95 and I-64 are pretty much maxed out in capacity (even on quiet days) and local opposition will prevent serious widening of either. So, Richmond should be very interested in finding other ways to get people into the state and towards its touristic assets.

Pro-business republicans should be pulling on this hard. Oddly, they don't seem to care about getting more tourism business to Virginia.

by Jasper on Jun 17, 2011 9:24 am  

@Daniel: That corridor IS slated for heavy rail - the Purple Line extension. But stop spacing on the line is on the order of a mile or more, which means that it cannot serve as a complete replacement for the Wilshire Bus Lines. Meanwhile, $30 million more for the subway project won't get them anything, as the project already is projected to cost ~5 billion and any substantive improvements to the current plan cost many times that (another station box probably would be $200 million or so, for instance).

by ossipago on Jun 17, 2011 9:55 am