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

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="henry6"] My claims are that Amtrak was a political device to rid the freight railroads of the passenger train with the idea that the passenger train could be eliminated entirely freeing freight railroads to pursue purely freight products.  As time progressed freight railroads realized that there might be value in passenger rail in that some got some major track improvements which allowed for higher speeds and efficiencies for freight.  And Amtrak paying a "fair" share of their track use is another manipulation of numbers for one's own benefit.  Passenger rail is expensive to produce but will give greater fuel and environmental efficienciesl and can carry more passengers per mile than highways.   I maintain that if passenger rail received the comperable funding to highway and air from say, 1920 we would not be having this conversation.  Hell, when it comes to moving people buses are also losing money as well as air companies who  could not survive without huge amounts of government aid. [/quote] In FY10 the federal operating subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak was 21.13 cents.  The comparable federal subsidy for the airlines and highways, which includes bus operators, was less than a penny a mile.  How this translates into huge amounts of government aid for the airlines and bus companies is challenging to understand.  The numbers can be found in the FAA, DOT, and Homeland Security budgets and performance reports.   In FY10 the nation's major commercial airlines had a combined operating profit of $6.6 billion and net income of $2.2 billion.  They were profitable in 2007 but lost money in 2008 and 2009 in large part because of the recession.  These numbers can be found in DOT Transportation statistics.  I have not looked at the financials for the few intercity bus operators, but they have to cover their costs or go out of business. Prior to retiring in 2005 I too thought Amtrak was under funded.  I would have agreed that it had been treated unfairly.  After retirement I had the time to look at the numbers closely.  I came to the conclusion, based on reviewing the relevant federal budget and performance reports, as well as historical documents, that Amtrak is not under funded.   People who don't understand statistics or don't want to under stand them or don't like the outcomes of statistical analysis claim that liars figure and figures lie. However, they seldom offer contrary statistics to disprove the presenting statistics. The federal government has invested heavily in transportation infrastructure.  Those who complain about federal government investment in highways and airways, most of which has been paid back by the users, fail to remember that federal and state governments were heavily involved in helping to underwrite the cost of the nation's rail system.      Whatever the government has or has not done to promote highways, airways, and railways is history.  The monies are sunk costs.  Moreover, whatever the government spends on highways, airways, railways, education, etc. is irrelevant to this key question:  what investment should be made in passenger rail?
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