Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
Long distance routes: Which to continue, which to cut?

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="John WR"] In January, 2001 President Clinton left office.  Amtrak had deficits at that time.  However, the U. S. Treasury has a surplus.  Events after President Clinton left office caused our deficit.   Amtrak does not threaten the economic stability of the United States. [/quote] In January 2001 the U.S. federal debt was approximately $3.3 trillion.  The on-budget deficit in 1998 was $29.9 billion.  However, because of the Social Security surplus of $99.4 billion, the combined budget showed a surplus of $69.3 billion. In 1999 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $1.9 billion on revenues of approximately $1.8 trillion. This was a surplus of 10/100s of one per cent of revenues. In 2000 the U.S. had an on-budget surplus of $86 billion, the best of the so-call surplus years.  In 2001 the on-budget deficit was $32.4 billion. The on-budget figures are the operating results for the United States. With the exception of 2000, the surpluses were mostly a function of Social Security surpluses, which came about because of the Greenspan Commission changes to Social Security. No one said that Amtrak threatens the economic stability of the United States.  But its annual deficits of more than $1.2 billion a year are a contributing factor, along with the other special interest runs on the Treasury. The federal debt and annual deficits has come about because of many variables. Amtrak's deficits through FY12 totaled $29.3 billion, which shows how a comparatively small amount each year can add up over the years to a sizable sum of money..   I am not proposing that Amtrak be abolished. However, if the U.S. is to solve its financial problems, it is difficult to see a way forward unless every special interest group, including those supporting Amtrak, gives up something. Just a little bit from everyone would work wonders. The numbers can be found at OMB, CBO, JCT, and the U.S. Treasury. The question that I posed is how do proponents of enhanced long distance train service or, for that matter, upgrades to  the NEC, propose to pay for it?  What is their realistic plan?   Part of my proposal to right Amtrak's financials is to eliminate the long distance trains and increase the fares on the remaining services to at least cover the operating costs. If Amtrak dropped the long distance trains, it could realize savings of up to $674.9 billion a year, although the savings during the first three years would be reduced by equipment disposal costs, labor payouts, and re-organization charges. Knowing how much could be saved is problematic, but lets say that it could average out to be $450 million a year.   Using a simple calculation, which does not take into consideration inflation, over 15 years the savings could amount to as much as  $8.2 billion, which could be used as seed money to upgrade existing corridors or build new ones. It would be approximately 80 per cent of Amtrak's current investment in right-of-way infrastructure, less accumulated depreciation. This estimate is based on the current rate for ten year Treasury notes.  It is very conservative; realistically, the savings probably would be much greater.
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