Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
The Boston Globe and Amtrak Long Distance

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
If all commercial transport subsidies were eliminated, i.e. direct payments such as those received by Amtrak, the Essential Air Service Program, etc., and the true cost of driving, i.e. cost of protecting  overseas oil flows, cost of state and local streets, etc., was reflected in the price of fuel, passenger rail might be able to stand on its farebox take in relatively short, high density corridors.  But the long distance passenger train, which accounted for 76% of Amtrak's FY10 operating loss before interest and depreciation, would not be able to make it, with the possible exception of a tourist train or two operated like a cruise ship. Amtrak's FY10 federal and state operating subsidy was 21.13 cents per passenger mile compared to a federal subsidy of less than a penny per passenger mile for commerical airline passengers and  highway users.  The airline passenger and motorist subsidies do not include state and local subsidies, which would close the gap between the subsidies received by passenger rail and the other modes of transport.  However, the gap would still be significant.  Its because of the numbers.  The problem for passengers trains is in the numbers of people carried and, therefore, the number of revenue units that can be spread over the fixed costs.  It is a matter of economies of scale.  In FY10 Amtrak carried 28.9 million passengers 6.3 billion passenger miles.  The airlines, by comparison carried 578.3 million domestic passengers 509.2 billion passenger miles.  If one adds in the overseas passengers, the numbers go up significantly.  The nation's approximately 210 million licensed drivers racked up more than 3 trillion vehicle miles.     Highways don't pay real estate taxes.  True!  Neither do waterways, universities, places of worship, airports, public schools, police stations, fire houses, etc.  It would not make any sense for most of them to do so, since they are creatures of a government entity.  In most instances the entity would be paying taxes to itself, which might make some accountants happy, i.e it would give them a job, but it would not be very efficient.  Amtrak does not pay any taxes; it does not even pay fuel taxes.  The rents Amtrak pays the freight railroads to hoist its long distance trains, as well as other short services, would include a small portion of the freight carriers tax burden, which of course would include real estate taxes, but it would not be a material cost.  By the same token, I don't believe that any of the commuter railroads in the U.S. pay real estate taxes.  In FY10 Amtrak was only able to cover the Acel and Washingtion to Lynchburg service operating expenses.    The other services lost money, even those run on Amtrak's lines that attract no taxes.  So, if highways, waterways, and airways should attract real estate taxes, the same should apply for Amtrak, as well as all passenger rail carriers, which would not significantly close the cost gap between it and other modes of transport. The nation would be better served if Amtak discontinued the long distance trains and concentrated its efforts, as well as the taypayers monies, on operations that at least have a chance of breaking even.  That's relatively short, high density corridors.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag