The real point to be made here is that no form of transportation in the United States exists without some for of government aid; call it subsidy, call it what you want. Another point that has to be clarified for the sake of the argument having a focus is to define what is to be the definititon of success in relation to running a passenger train? Is it totally out of pocket expenses from the executive offices to the last stop at the end of the day or at the end of the run or at the end of whatever? Is it how many people ride per car or per train or per mile or the total riding the service and in what time frame? Is it how many cars it takes of I## or how much pollutants it takes out of the air? Or is it how much the conductor makes or how much the railroad president makes. All we seem to do here in these discussions is dismiss means of measurments and argue the politics of who should or who shouldn't pay for what.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Sam1 henry6 The airline industry is in fact heavily subsidized by all levels of governent. The obvious is nationwide air traffic control followed by municipally owned and operated airports. But also the US military's investment in air and space research and development and purchase these products takes the financial burden off private airline companies by them being able to buy an already researched and proven product without financial risk. Then there are the safety guidlines for operation and employee responsiblity, all spelled out and enforced by the government. There's probably a lot more. But you cannot say the airline industry is not subsidized. Your claim is long on generalizations and short on facts. The airline industry is not heavily subsidized, whatever heavy means, NARP's claims to the contrary not with standing. In fact, although it would take an enormous amount of time to demonstrate it, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the subsidies received by the airlines could pale compared to the NPV of the local, state, and federal subsidies (low cost bonds, land grants, etc.) given to the railroads. Sam I am going to jump in on this argument in your own back yard so if I state something not correct please correct me. 1st there is a 80 - 100 year difference in starting point for RR subsidies from the 1820s -1880s to the start of Airline subsidies of the orighnal airmail contracts. So to measure actual subsidies may be complicated. With the advances in technology measuring back to original RR subsidities may be moot.. Most airports in the United States were built by the military (turned over to civilian operators) or local government authorities. They are paid for by landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, parking fees, etc. Most of them are self-supporting. Now Mueler field in Austin was an adequate airport but not outstanding as the commercial field for Austin. The US airforce pulled out of Bergstrom air base. Instead of the US government selling the field to private interests and putting the money back in to treasury (has been done -- Wilmington OH); the city of Austin was allowed to purchase the whole airfield for ($ ? ) a very small sum. Now that is a direct subsidity to the airlines who moved into the new terminal built at Bergstrom since they did not have to pay for the land in their rental payments. Plus any runway and navigational aids are paid for by a 90% match from the FAA and depending on your state setup another 0 -10% from Texas. I was told by the cargo operators on the north end of the airport that those facilities were a bargin but why I do not know why. Nation wide the airlines use about 30 to 35 per cent of the U.S. aviation infrastructure. As an airline employee I find that figure suspect. The upper level ( flight level ) travel is over 90% airline and the Major airports are the same. The remainder is used by general aviation and the military operating in civilian airspace. Not all of the monies transferred from the general fund (approximately $2.2 billion in FY08), which is a federal subsidy, go to the airlines. They only benefit from a proportional share of it. Most airports in the U.S. were built with tax free municipal bonds. The difference between the interest paid on these bonds and the interest that would have been paid on fully taxable bonds could be seen as a federal subsidy. Moreover, they may or may not qualify for a state subsidy, depending on whether the state has an income tax and treats the interest on the tax free bonds the same way that it is treated by the federal government. Historically, the rate spread between a AAA municipal bond and AAA corporate bond has been less than one per cent. For example, the spread between a AAA corporate (there are very few corporates with this high of a rating) and U.S. Treasury long bonds, which are a good emulator for municiple rates, was 90 basis points between 2000 and 2008. By using tax free financing, airports are able to charge slightly lower fees than would be the case if they had to resort to taxable financing. However, because the airlines, as well as other commercial users, pay slightly lower fees than would otherwise be the case, they have high income, assuming that they have any income at all, which results in higher taxes, which in turn means that a portion of the so-called subsidy is actually paid back to the federal government in higher income taxes.stin Now in Austin I watched the road subsidity for the Bergstrom airport. The rebuilding of the intersection of I - 35, US 290?, and TX 71? (what?-- 5 miles from the terminal) was a collosal overbuilding of that intersection to provide a some what faster connection to the airport. The rebuilding of 71 from a 2 lane road to a 6 lane semi controlled access road took about 4 years?. Any idea of costs? my own estimate is 1.5B but I imagine you would have a better figure. All that road building from road funds not airline fees. Since i have not been there for a while I will assume all the road work is complete?. Now isn't that another subsidity though indirect for the airlines? I can come up with many more examples. But this is irrelevant. The key question is how to fund passenger rail, if funding it at all is appropriate, and what transport problem is it addressing. It does not matter how or why the government funds other activities. Yes the relevant fact is that there should only be one transportation tax pot. Then we would have funds for Passenger rail, transit, roads, airports, waterways, etc. All tax funds should go into that pot and the funds dolled out as seen fit. That might cause projects to be more interactive with different transportation modes. How to fill the tax pot? One way of course is a fuel tax on all transportation. Others I'll leave to other posters.
henry6 The airline industry is in fact heavily subsidized by all levels of governent. The obvious is nationwide air traffic control followed by municipally owned and operated airports. But also the US military's investment in air and space research and development and purchase these products takes the financial burden off private airline companies by them being able to buy an already researched and proven product without financial risk. Then there are the safety guidlines for operation and employee responsiblity, all spelled out and enforced by the government. There's probably a lot more. But you cannot say the airline industry is not subsidized.
The airline industry is in fact heavily subsidized by all levels of governent. The obvious is nationwide air traffic control followed by municipally owned and operated airports. But also the US military's investment in air and space research and development and purchase these products takes the financial burden off private airline companies by them being able to buy an already researched and proven product without financial risk. Then there are the safety guidlines for operation and employee responsiblity, all spelled out and enforced by the government. There's probably a lot more. But you cannot say the airline industry is not subsidized.
Your claim is long on generalizations and short on facts. The airline industry is not heavily subsidized, whatever heavy means, NARP's claims to the contrary not with standing. In fact, although it would take an enormous amount of time to demonstrate it, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the subsidies received by the airlines could pale compared to the NPV of the local, state, and federal subsidies (low cost bonds, land grants, etc.) given to the railroads.
Sam I am going to jump in on this argument in your own back yard so if I state something not correct please correct me. 1st there is a 80 - 100 year difference in starting point for RR subsidies from the 1820s -1880s to the start of Airline subsidies of the orighnal airmail contracts. So to measure actual subsidies may be complicated. With the advances in technology measuring back to original RR subsidities may be moot..
Most airports in the United States were built by the military (turned over to civilian operators) or local government authorities. They are paid for by landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, parking fees, etc. Most of them are self-supporting.
Now Mueler field in Austin was an adequate airport but not outstanding as the commercial field for Austin. The US airforce pulled out of Bergstrom air base. Instead of the US government selling the field to private interests and putting the money back in to treasury (has been done -- Wilmington OH); the city of Austin was allowed to purchase the whole airfield for ($ ? ) a very small sum. Now that is a direct subsidity to the airlines who moved into the new terminal built at Bergstrom since they did not have to pay for the land in their rental payments. Plus any runway and navigational aids are paid for by a 90% match from the FAA and depending on your state setup another 0 -10% from Texas.
I was told by the cargo operators on the north end of the airport that those facilities were a bargin but why I do not know why.
Nation wide the airlines use about 30 to 35 per cent of the U.S. aviation infrastructure.
As an airline employee I find that figure suspect. The upper level ( flight level ) travel is over 90% airline and the Major airports are the same.
The remainder is used by general aviation and the military operating in civilian airspace. Not all of the monies transferred from the general fund (approximately $2.2 billion in FY08), which is a federal subsidy, go to the airlines. They only benefit from a proportional share of it.
Most airports in the U.S. were built with tax free municipal bonds. The difference between the interest paid on these bonds and the interest that would have been paid on fully taxable bonds could be seen as a federal subsidy. Moreover, they may or may not qualify for a state subsidy, depending on whether the state has an income tax and treats the interest on the tax free bonds the same way that it is treated by the federal government. Historically, the rate spread between a AAA municipal bond and AAA corporate bond has been less than one per cent. For example, the spread between a AAA corporate (there are very few corporates with this high of a rating) and U.S. Treasury long bonds, which are a good emulator for municiple rates, was 90 basis points between 2000 and 2008. By using tax free financing, airports are able to charge slightly lower fees than would be the case if they had to resort to taxable financing. However, because the airlines, as well as other commercial users, pay slightly lower fees than would otherwise be the case, they have high income, assuming that they have any income at all, which results in higher taxes, which in turn means that a portion of the so-called subsidy is actually paid back to the federal government in higher income taxes.stin
Now in Austin I watched the road subsidity for the Bergstrom airport. The rebuilding of the intersection of I - 35, US 290?, and TX 71? (what?-- 5 miles from the terminal) was a collosal overbuilding of that intersection to provide a some what faster connection to the airport. The rebuilding of 71 from a 2 lane road to a 6 lane semi controlled access road took about 4 years?. Any idea of costs? my own estimate is 1.5B but I imagine you would have a better figure. All that road building from road funds not airline fees. Since i have not been there for a while I will assume all the road work is complete?. Now isn't that another subsidity though indirect for the airlines? I can come up with many more examples.
But this is irrelevant. The key question is how to fund passenger rail, if funding it at all is appropriate, and what transport problem is it addressing. It does not matter how or why the government funds other activities.
Yes the relevant fact is that there should only be one transportation tax pot. Then we would have funds for Passenger rail, transit, roads, airports, waterways, etc. All tax funds should go into that pot and the funds dolled out as seen fit. That might cause projects to be more interactive with different transportation modes. How to fill the tax pot? One way of course is a fuel tax on all transportation. Others I'll leave to other posters.
henry6 The real point to be made here is that no form of transportation in the United States exists without some for of government aid; call it subsidy, call it what you want. Another point that has to be clarified for the sake of the argument having a focus is to define what is to be the definititon of success in relation to running a passenger train? Is it totally out of pocket expenses from the executive offices to the last stop at the end of the day or at the end of the run or at the end of whatever? Is it how many people ride per car or per train or per mile or the total riding the service and in what time frame? Is it how many cars it takes of I## or how much pollutants it takes out of the air? Or is it how much the conductor makes or how much the railroad president makes. All we seem to do here in these discussions is dismiss means of measurments and argue the politics of who should or who shouldn't pay for what.
The situation is that there are those in the passenger rail advocacy community who start with a belief in the inherent goodness of trains and then work outward from that recruiting support for that belief, instead of considering a variety of problems that trains could solve, and then work inward towards whether trains are an effective solution.
Yes, yes, and yes, all modes of transportation require subsidy, but the level of subsidy required for intercity trains is roughly 10-fold the subsidy of the competing modes.
The reason Amtrak gets about 1-1.5 billion per year is that funding at that level is essentially "line noise" in the Federal budget. If Amtrak were of comparable subsidy effectiveness as competing modes, funding at that level would account for a 10-fold increase in train ridership. A ten-fold increase in Amtrak funding to the 10-15 billion per year level, were it to be as subsidy-effective as other modes, would bring it to the ridership of the airlines. 10-15 billion a year is just about above the threshold of budgetary "line noise" -- it is a funding level that would get people's attention. Were that level of funding to produce passenger miles comparable to the airlines, we would consider it to be a good value, but it cannot, hence we cannot get past the 1-1.5 billion/year level for Amtrak.
There were two government reports that are absolutely deadly to the cause of intercity passenger rail. One was the darkly infamous Inspector General Kenneth Meade report. The other, believe it or not, is the Vision Report which the advocacy community likes so much.
Both reports pretty much come to the same conclusion, that the required funding requirements of passenger rail are high for the amount of work product. The Meade report is hated because it recommends chopping the LD trains in half by dumping the sleeper, diner, baggage, and lounge service. The Vision report is praised because it recommends a 10-fold expansion of passenger rail. The Meade report is based on the idea that trains are an expensive mode of transportation, so lets pare them down to the minimum to provide "lifeline" service to the communities along the LD routes. The Vision report is based on the idea that the "line noise level" for Federal funding is at the 10 billion/year level, so lets increase trains to that amount. Both come to the same grim conclusion about the large amount of money you spend to get a small amount of trains.
As to the pollutants taken out of the air, does anyone actually know if Diesel trains reduce pollution over cars? The reduction in fuel use (related to CO2 emission, dependency on oil) is not known either, apart from a broad average for Amtrak that argues that the fuel saving is minor. In places from op-eds and letters-to-the editor in the Milwaukee papers to one of the fellows sitting next to me at the rail advocacy exhibit at the model train show, the claim is made that trains are a 4-5 fold reduction in fuel use over cars. Is this true? I haven't seen any evidence for this.
The Vision Report claims only a 2-fold reduction (trains use half the fuel of cars), and this is based on consists of a single locomotive with 6 Amfleet cars -- no heavy, high aero-drag cabbage car for push-pull, locomotive-at-each-end proposed for the 110 MPH Talgo operation. Even for an efficient consist, trains, following the spending plan of the Vision Report, are a particularly inefficient way of spending money to reduce fuel used by cars, compared with say, tax credits for hybrid cars.
When you subsidize something, you get rid of that pesky problem of going bankrupt and out of business. You can keep anything going with government subsidy. But even with subsidy, you don't repeal the laws of economics, namely, that economics is about choices. The money spent on a train system is not available to subsidize hybrid vehicles, and may, overall, cost more in imported oil as a result of making that choice compared with an alternative use of the money.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
With so little government money going toward railroads, Amtrak in particular, compared to what goes to air and highway, its hard for me to swallow the 10 fold cost of an Amtrak. What I read into what you are saying Paul, is that if there were a 10 fold increase in Amtrak funding there would be a 10 fold return. It is almost like a "build it and they will come" field of dreams! I can conclude from what you say then that the non rail contingent is fearful of rail's success should it get a foothold and therefore, through politiics, they work hard at keeping money from the likes of Amtrak in fear of their own lives. But again, this is not the answer I am looking for but rather a political conclusion and action. What are the side by side costs from Times Square to the U.S. Capitol building (or any other point to point in the U.S.) by air, by train, by bus, by car, by truck if there were no subsidies? and with each given a subsidy?...those are the answers nobody is coming up with. No politics, no emotions, no opinions; just facts.
Paul Milenkovic There were two government reports that are absolutely deadly to the cause of intercity passenger rail. One was the darkly infamous Inspector General Kenneth Meade report. The other, believe it or not, is the Vision Report which the advocacy community likes so much. Both reports pretty much come to the same conclusion, that the required funding requirements of passenger rail are high for the amount of work product. The Meade report is hated because it recommends chopping the LD trains in half by dumping the sleeper, diner, baggage, and lounge service. The Vision report is praised because it recommends a 10-fold expansion of passenger rail. The Meade report is based on the idea that trains are an expensive mode of transportation, so lets pare them down to the minimum to provide "lifeline" service to the communities along the LD routes. The Vision report is based on the idea that the "line noise level" for Federal funding is at the 10 billion/year level, so lets increase trains to that amount. Both come to the same grim conclusion about the large amount of money you spend to get a small amount of trains.
These two studies are very damaging to "the cause" because what is frequently not addressed is the issue of those costs that RRs and their general mainainence has to contend with. There are a lot of issues with a fixed route system as well I think.
That is why we frequently see people resortiing to political answers to get what is wanted/desired. The problem I have is that the political answer is not as cut and dried as what some may wish. I do not think that what was meant here is that throwing more $$$ at AMTRAK--or anyone else RR --- is going to be what works. Find other ways of financing and work on creating WORKING city pairs to build on. Work at getting people to think of passenger trains as something that'll work as a PART of an overall transportation system.
No whole hog system building
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
henry6With so little government money going toward railroads, Amtrak in particular, compared to what goes to air and highway, its hard for me to swallow the 10 fold cost of an Amtrak. What I read into what you are saying Paul, is that if there were a 10 fold increase in Amtrak funding there would be a 10 fold return.
But, that is not the end of the story, I think.
1. There are capacity constrained locations where even expensive rail construction is cheaper than the alternatives, particularly where there is exiting rail ROW that can be used.
2. It should be possible for some markets to arrange rail service to require little to no on going operating subsidy. You have to pick your spots carefully and allow for incremental improvements to improve the picture. The 3C corridor "quick start" plan is a loser, but by incrementally improving speed and with future connections to neighboring corridors, it should do much better.
3. It should be possible for the "current Amtrak" to get a whole lot better (not an order of magnitude, though). I'd like to see somebody ask Boardman about benchmarking against other US rail operations, passenger and freight , as well as other industries with related functions such as hospitality, airlines. (Amtrak has MORE than 2 people in their mechanical department for every piece of equipment they have - 3900+ people for 1435 cars and 368 locomotives. This compares poorly to frt RRs who generally have about half the number of Mech. Dept. employees as locomotives alone - with much lower OOS ratios to boot.)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
henry6 But again, this is not the answer I am looking for but rather a political conclusion and action.
OK--but then I fall over this in the same paragraph
henry6 What are the side by side costs from Times Square to the U.S. Capitol building (or any other point to point in the U.S.) by air, by train, by bus, by car, by truck if there were no subsidies? and with each given a subsidy?...those are the answers nobody is coming up with. No politics, no emotions, no opinions; just facts.
I'm kind of confused here----
It reads on one hand you are looking for a political answer but you don't want political answers----
Can you help this confused little puppy out please?
henry6 With so little government money going toward railroads, Amtrak in particular, compared to what goes to air and highway, its hard for me to swallow the 10 fold cost of an Amtrak. What I read into what you are saying Paul, is that if there were a 10 fold increase in Amtrak funding there would be a 10 fold return.
With so little government money going toward railroads, Amtrak in particular, compared to what goes to air and highway, its hard for me to swallow the 10 fold cost of an Amtrak. What I read into what you are saying Paul, is that if there were a 10 fold increase in Amtrak funding there would be a 10 fold return.
That a 10-fold increase in Amtrak funding brings only a 10-fold increase in passenger miles is not me saying that -- it is right there is black-and-white in the Vision Report, a document for which I have heard nothing but praise in the advocacy community. The Vision Report, in turn (if you read the Appendices), gets its cost figures from the experience in Europe.
The reason little government money is going toward passenger rail is you get little. I am reasoning that were Amtrak, or passenger rail in other parts of the world, more cost effective, you would in turn get more passenger rail in a virtuous cycle.
The high subsidy rate of trains is a serious barrier to getting more trains, and we cannot dismiss this by ongoing complaints about trains being the transportation step child, that increased funding would somehow bring about economies of scale without changing the fundamental business model, or "so much money is wasted on highways and airports, why can't we waste some money on trains for a change?" We have been pounding on that line of reasoning since the inception of Amtrak. Maybe it has kept us the trains, but it hasn't gotten us a lot more trains.
[But again, this is not the answer I am looking for but rather a political conclusion and action.]
"But again, this is not the answer I am looking for but rather it is a political conclusion and action."
Paul Milenkovic henry6 With so little government money going toward railroads, Amtrak in particular, compared to what goes to air and highway, its hard for me to swallow the 10 fold cost of an Amtrak. What I read into what you are saying Paul, is that if there were a 10 fold increase in Amtrak funding there would be a 10 fold return. That a 10-fold increase in Amtrak funding brings only a 10-fold increase in passenger miles is not me saying that -- it is right there is black-and-white in the Vision Report, a document for which I have heard nothing but praise in the advocacy community. The Vision Report, in turn (if you read the Appendices), gets its cost figures from the experience in Europe. The reason little government money is going toward passenger rail is you get little. I am reasoning that were Amtrak, or passenger rail in other parts of the world, more cost effective, you would in turn get more passenger rail in a virtuous cycle. The high subsidy rate of trains is a serious barrier to getting more trains, and we cannot dismiss this by ongoing complaints about trains being the transportation step child, that increased funding would somehow bring about economies of scale without changing the fundamental business model, or "so much money is wasted on highways and airports, why can't we waste some money on trains for a change?" We have been pounding on that line of reasoning since the inception of Amtrak. Maybe it has kept us the trains, but it hasn't gotten us a lot more trains.
But what I read is that if you first equalize Amtrak to the rest of the transportation system then do a 10 fold increase you'd have different results. Again, point to point, a no subsidy from the ground up, all equal at zero start comparison is needed.
henry6Again, point to point, a no subsidy from the ground up, all equal at zero start comparison is needed.
The political answer for 40 years has been, "Here's $1B a year, Amtrak. Don't do anything different". And, every decade or so, "Heres another $1B or so. Buy some new equipment or go fix up the NEC a bit more." Right now, the political answer is, "Lets sprinkle some seed money around and see what grows." Presumably, some won't even get planted, some will be planted, but will fail, but some will sprout and grow. The ones that grow will have a chance to serve as the model for spending some more money. I would suggest that success stories better darn well cover their operating costs, or at least show the promise of getting there. I don't think there is any political will or popular support for increasing levels of federal operating subsidies.
Interestingly, the EU is pressuring the SCNF to stop operating subsidies for their TGV service. Check out Yonah Freemark's recent entry in his "The Transport Politic" blog.
blownout cylinderThat is why we frequently see people resortiing to political answers to get what is wanted/desired. The problem I have is that the political answer is not as cut and dried as what some may wish. I do not think that what was meant here is that throwing more $$$ at AMTRAK--or anyone else RR --- is going to be what works. Find other ways of financing and work on creating WORKING city pairs to build on. Work at getting people to think of passenger trains as something that'll work as a PART of an overall transportation system. No whole hog system building
Then there are nothing but political solutions to transportation problems in general and railroad in particular? So why not have just free enterprise build, operate, and maintain the whole transportation system and leave government out of it?
henry6 Then there are nothing but political solutions to transportation problems in general and railroad in particular? So why not have just free enterprise build, operate, and maintain the whole transportation system and leave government out of it?
Are you OK?
I can understand the natural desire to have the last word in a discussion, but I am having difficulty parsing your last two replies.
You once disclosed that you are not a "young person." If a person who made sense is starting to not make as much sense, it could be something that needs attention. I like to argue the fine points with transportation policy, but were something happening to one of my friends around here and I did nothing about it, I don't think I could forgive myself.
If you are just tired, that is OK, we all sometimes hit "Post" without careful proofreading, but let us all know that everything is alright.
Thanks,
Paul
What I am saying is that those are the two polarized points of these conversations. And because of that there is no consensus and resolve, only continuous round robins of the same things with no one giving ground.
henry6 What I am saying is that those are the two polarized points of these conversations. And because of that there is no consensus and resolve, only continuous round robins of the same things with no one giving ground.
Why not try to work with those who are not as "polarized" then?
I think that trying to gain political points with a "radical other" when one is tired does not work very well. BTDT....got lots of big headaches and aggro-----
henry6What I am saying is that those are the two polarized points of these conversations. And because of that there is no consensus and resolve, only continuous round robins of the same things with no one giving ground.
As inefficient as Amtrak is and a big a waste as I think some of the LD trains are, I'm still glad when Amtrak doesn't get "zeroed out" each year. I like that there are passenger trains to ride. I just get embarrassed about how much tax money they suck down doing it. I'm really excited that we are finally going to try some "higher speed rail". I'm hoping some of the projects come off smoothly and are successful by every measure, so there can be expansion. I think there is plenty of consensus and resolve. I'm just not drinking any Kool-aid, from either of the radical camps.
blownout cylinderWhy not try to work with those who are not as "polarized" then? I think that trying to gain political points with a "radical other" when one is tired does not work very well. BTDT....got lots of big headaches and aggro-----
As much as I want everyone to agree with me, I must be aware that, in any discussion and exchange of ideas, we must listen to each other, consider and respect our differences of opinion, and accept that we may never come to an agreement.
HarveyK400 ....accept that we may never come to an agreement.
....accept that we may never come to an agreement.
Harvey, you come closest to what I am trying to show as to what is actually happening on these threads and posts...same people taking the same extreme position with no resolve. They don't allow for compromise. Here or in the real world today. Thus my statements are my conclusions after reading all the forums, posts and threads leading to this topic.
henry6Harvey, you come closest to what I am trying to show as to what is actually happening on these threads and posts...same people taking the same extreme position with no resolve. They don't allow for compromise. Here or in the real world today. Thus my statements are my conclusions after reading all the forums, posts and threads leading to this topic.
First, I may not always behave as I should; and it's embarrassing to called out.
Second, my point is not that we must compromise or reach a consensus; rather we should listen, consider, and respect their views even if we don't agree, and hope that they will do the same and accept that they may not. This forum is, after all, an exchange of ideas. Some of us will write our elected officials urging one thing and others will write in opposition.
For 36 years, I've urged an incremental approach to high speed rail and never prevailed on the majority of advocates. What would be the compromise or consensus? Most policy is driven either by the majority or the influential. Does that mean I should embrace a contrary position as my own? I deeply regretted joining a "consensus" recommendation for an LRT alternative for the Central Area Circulator in Chicago.
HarveyK400 blownout cylinderWhy not try to work with those who are not as "polarized" then? I think that trying to gain political points with a "radical other" when one is tired does not work very well. BTDT....got lots of big headaches and aggro----- As much as I want everyone to agree with me, I must be aware that, in any discussion and exchange of ideas, we must listen to each other, consider and respect our differences of opinion, and accept that we may never come to an agreement.
megh--I've gotten long past the idea that one can influence anyone else over to "the other side" as it were. In these charged areas, one sees all kinds of splits/oppositions such as rural/urban, HSR/regular passenger, incremental/whole hog, or what have you.
There are all sorts of things that reveal that some areas are indeed context sensitive and interest relative. And, if some things never get resolved, big whoop. Maybe the thing is not for our time to solve---
blownout cylinderIn these charged areas, one sees all kinds of splits/oppositions such as rural/urban, HSR/regular passenger, incremental/whole hog
Very true. Here there are folks with those three polarities and probably several others. But all of those would like to see some plan for improving passenger rail in the US. There are, however, several others who are basically opposed to any government investment in that area. That is the division that is hard to bridge. I still wonder why, feeling as strongly negative as they do, they continue to post in a forum that is "the place to discuss Amtrak, the future of passenger rail, and high speed proposals" according to the sponsors?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm blownout cylinderIn these charged areas, one sees all kinds of splits/oppositions such as rural/urban, HSR/regular passenger, incremental/whole hog Very true. Here there are folks with those three polarities and probably several others. But all of those would like to see some plan for improving passenger rail in the US. There are, however, several others who are basically opposed to any government investment in that area. That is the division that is hard to bridge. I still wonder why, feeling as strongly negative as they do, they continue to post in a forum that is "the place to discuss Amtrak, the future of passenger rail, and high speed proposals" according to the sponsors?
I am not aware of anyone posting to the Trains forums who does not see a legitimate role for passenger rail or believes the government should not be a player.
I have said consistently that passenger rail can be a viable solution in high density, relatively short corridors where the cost of expanding the highway and airway systems is cost prohibitive.
Given the low probability that the capital required to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones would come from the private capital markets, one can make the case that the government should fund the infrastructure development, much as it did with the Interstate Highway System as well as other transport infrastructure. But the users should cover the operating costs and, ideally, the infrastrucure cost or at least most of it.
The dismal story for passenger rail around the world, as was pointed out by the GAO, amongst others, is that most passenger rail systems cannot cover their operating costs, without some creative accounting, let alone pay for the infrastructure. And that is the rub for this writer. Because if the users will not or cannot pay for the cost of the service that they use, then the taxpayers have to pick up the tab.
blue streak 1 Sam1 henry6 The airline industry is in fact heavily subsidized by all levels of governent. The obvious is nationwide air traffic control followed by municipally owned and operated airports. But also the US military's investment in air and space research and development and purchase these products takes the financial burden off private airline companies by them being able to buy an already researched and proven product without financial risk. Then there are the safety guidlines for operation and employee responsiblity, all spelled out and enforced by the government. There's probably a lot more. But you cannot say the airline industry is not subsidized. Your claim is long on generalizations and short on facts. The airline industry is not heavily subsidized, whatever heavy means, NARP's claims to the contrary not with standing. In fact, although it would take an enormous amount of time to demonstrate it, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the subsidies received by the airlines could pale compared to the NPV of the local, state, and federal subsidies (low cost bonds, land grants, etc.) given to the railroads. Sam I am going to jump in on this argument in your own back yard so if I state something not correct please correct me. 1st there is a 80 - 100 year difference in starting point for RR subsidies from the 1820s -1880s to the start of Airline subsidies of the orighnal airmail contracts. So to measure actual subsidies may be complicated. With the advances in technology measuring back to original RR subsidities may be moot.. Determining the present value of the subsidies granted to the railroads and those granted to the airlines would be a very difficult task. It would take a very long time because it would mean unearthing every subsidy in every form. Having said that, it is possible that the present value of the subsidies granted to the railroads would be much greater than the subsidies granted to the airlines because of the time value of money. The subsidy gains greater value over time. And it does so exponentially. Most airports in the United States were built by the military (turned over to civilian operators) or local government authorities. They are paid for by landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, parking fees, etc. Most of them are self-supporting. Now Mueler field in Austin was an adequate airport but not outstanding as the commercial field for Austin. The US airforce pulled out of Bergstrom air base. Instead of the US government selling the field to private interests and putting the money back in to treasury (has been done -- Wilmington OH); the city of Austin was allowed to purchase the whole airfield for ($ ? ) a very small sum. Now that is a direct subsidity to the airlines who moved into the new terminal built at Bergstrom since they did not have to pay for the land in their rental payments. Plus any runway and navigational aids are paid for by a 90% match from the FAA and depending on your state setup another 0 -10% from Texas. I was told by the cargo operators on the north end of the airport that those facilities were a bargin but why I do not know why. In 1942 Austin purchased the land for the Bergstrom Army Air Force base with the understanding that it would revert to the city upon closure as a military installation. Upon the departure of the military, the base reverted to the city. In turn the city had to upgrade the runways and build the current terminals, using tax free bonds to cover most of the cost. As is the case for all airports in the U.S., the cost of the facility is being recovered through landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, and parking fees. The primary subsidy is the difference between what the city would have paid had it been required to fund the improvements through fully taxable bonds and what it paid thanks to tax free municipal financing. As I pointed out, the historical spread between fully taxable bonds and municipals has not been that great. Nation wide the airlines use about 30 to 35 per cent of the U.S. aviation infrastructure. As an airline employee I find that figure suspect. The upper level ( flight level ) travel is over 90% airline and the Major airports are the same. The figures are taking from the FAA's statistics. I have no reason to suspect them. It is true that airlines account for a higher percentage of controlled operations obove flight level 18, but below this flight level the majority of the operations are general aviation. Texas has three airports where the airlines would account for more than 30 to 35 per cent of the operations (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio). But at many other fields, e.g. Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, Longview, San Angelo, etc., which are served by a single commuter airline, most operations are general aviation. Moreover, at several tower controlled fields in Texas, e.g. Georgetown, San Marcos, etc., there are no airline operations. The remainder is used by general aviation and the military operating in civilian airspace. Not all of the monies transferred from the general fund (approximately $2.2 billion in FY08), which is a federal subsidy, go to the airlines. They only benefit from a proportional share of it. Most airports in the U.S. were built with tax free municipal bonds. The difference between the interest paid on these bonds and the interest that would have been paid on fully taxable bonds could be seen as a federal subsidy. Moreover, they may or may not qualify for a state subsidy, depending on whether the state has an income tax and treats the interest on the tax free bonds the same way that it is treated by the federal government. Historically, the rate spread between a AAA municipal bond and AAA corporate bond has been less than one per cent. For example, the spread between a AAA corporate (there are very few corporates with this high of a rating) and U.S. Treasury long bonds, which are a good emulator for municiple rates, was 90 basis points between 2000 and 2008. By using tax free financing, airports are able to charge slightly lower fees than would be the case if they had to resort to taxable financing. However, because the airlines, as well as other commercial users, pay slightly lower fees than would otherwise be the case, they have high income, assuming that they have any income at all, which results in higher taxes, which in turn means that a portion of the so-called subsidy is actually paid back to the federal government in higher income taxes.stin Now in Austin I watched the road subsidity for the Bergstrom airport. The rebuilding of the intersection of I - 35, US 290?, and TX 71? (what?-- 5 miles from the terminal) was a collosal overbuilding of that intersection to provide a some what faster connection to the airport. The rebuilding of 71 from a 2 lane road to a 6 lane semi controlled access road took about 4 years?. Any idea of costs? my own estimate is 1.5B but I imagine you would have a better figure. All that road building from road funds not airline fees. Since i have not been there for a while I will assume all the road work is complete?. Now isn't that another subsidity though indirect for the airlines? I can come up with many more examples. I fly out of Bergstrom two or three times a month. I drive there from my home in Georgetown. At least 90 per cent of the traffic on TX 71, as well as 290 and I-35, is either commuter traffic or through traffic. If you want to argue that the road enhancements associated with airports are a subsidy for the airlines, then you would have to admit, I think, that the cost of constructing and maintaining the roadways to the nation's major passenger train stations (Penn Station, 30th Street, Washington's Union Station, Los Angeles Union Station, etc.) are a subsidy for passenger rail. I would not want to go there. But this is irrelevant. The key question is how to fund passenger rail, if funding it at all is appropriate, and what transport problem is it addressing. It does not matter how or why the government funds other activities. Yes the relevant fact is that there should only be one transportation tax pot. Then we would have funds for Passenger rail, transit, roads, airports, waterways, etc. All tax funds should go into that pot and the funds dolled out as seen fit. That might cause projects to be more interactive with different transportation modes. How to fill the tax pot? One way of course is a fuel tax on all transportation. Others I'll leave to other posters. Outside of jump start funding, i.e. airways, roadways, railways, etc., the government should not be in the transportation business. The users (all of them) should be charge the required user fees to cover the operating costs and the infrastructure costs. Don't worry! It won't happen. The politicians would never give up their prerogrative to dole out transportation funds. Many passenger rail advocates appear to believe that the dismise of the passenger train was a function of nefarious government policies. Perhaps. But the real reason lies in the superior technology of the airplane for long distance travel and the economics and convenience of the car for short to intermediate intercity travel, especially for families, and especially in low congestion areas of the U.S., which is most of the country.
Sam1 henry6 The airline industry is in fact heavily subsidized by all levels of governent. The obvious is nationwide air traffic control followed by municipally owned and operated airports. But also the US military's investment in air and space research and development and purchase these products takes the financial burden off private airline companies by them being able to buy an already researched and proven product without financial risk. Then there are the safety guidlines for operation and employee responsiblity, all spelled out and enforced by the government. There's probably a lot more. But you cannot say the airline industry is not subsidized. Your claim is long on generalizations and short on facts. The airline industry is not heavily subsidized, whatever heavy means, NARP's claims to the contrary not with standing. In fact, although it would take an enormous amount of time to demonstrate it, the Net Present Value (NPV) of the subsidies received by the airlines could pale compared to the NPV of the local, state, and federal subsidies (low cost bonds, land grants, etc.) given to the railroads. Sam I am going to jump in on this argument in your own back yard so if I state something not correct please correct me. 1st there is a 80 - 100 year difference in starting point for RR subsidies from the 1820s -1880s to the start of Airline subsidies of the orighnal airmail contracts. So to measure actual subsidies may be complicated. With the advances in technology measuring back to original RR subsidities may be moot.. Determining the present value of the subsidies granted to the railroads and those granted to the airlines would be a very difficult task. It would take a very long time because it would mean unearthing every subsidy in every form. Having said that, it is possible that the present value of the subsidies granted to the railroads would be much greater than the subsidies granted to the airlines because of the time value of money. The subsidy gains greater value over time. And it does so exponentially. Most airports in the United States were built by the military (turned over to civilian operators) or local government authorities. They are paid for by landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, parking fees, etc. Most of them are self-supporting. Now Mueler field in Austin was an adequate airport but not outstanding as the commercial field for Austin. The US airforce pulled out of Bergstrom air base. Instead of the US government selling the field to private interests and putting the money back in to treasury (has been done -- Wilmington OH); the city of Austin was allowed to purchase the whole airfield for ($ ? ) a very small sum. Now that is a direct subsidity to the airlines who moved into the new terminal built at Bergstrom since they did not have to pay for the land in their rental payments. Plus any runway and navigational aids are paid for by a 90% match from the FAA and depending on your state setup another 0 -10% from Texas. I was told by the cargo operators on the north end of the airport that those facilities were a bargin but why I do not know why. In 1942 Austin purchased the land for the Bergstrom Army Air Force base with the understanding that it would revert to the city upon closure as a military installation. Upon the departure of the military, the base reverted to the city. In turn the city had to upgrade the runways and build the current terminals, using tax free bonds to cover most of the cost. As is the case for all airports in the U.S., the cost of the facility is being recovered through landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, and parking fees. The primary subsidy is the difference between what the city would have paid had it been required to fund the improvements through fully taxable bonds and what it paid thanks to tax free municipal financing. As I pointed out, the historical spread between fully taxable bonds and municipals has not been that great. Nation wide the airlines use about 30 to 35 per cent of the U.S. aviation infrastructure. As an airline employee I find that figure suspect. The upper level ( flight level ) travel is over 90% airline and the Major airports are the same. The figures are taking from the FAA's statistics. I have no reason to suspect them. It is true that airlines account for a higher percentage of controlled operations obove flight level 18, but below this flight level the majority of the operations are general aviation. Texas has three airports where the airlines would account for more than 30 to 35 per cent of the operations (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio). But at many other fields, e.g. Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, Longview, San Angelo, etc., which are served by a single commuter airline, most operations are general aviation. Moreover, at several tower controlled fields in Texas, e.g. Georgetown, San Marcos, etc., there are no airline operations. The remainder is used by general aviation and the military operating in civilian airspace. Not all of the monies transferred from the general fund (approximately $2.2 billion in FY08), which is a federal subsidy, go to the airlines. They only benefit from a proportional share of it. Most airports in the U.S. were built with tax free municipal bonds. The difference between the interest paid on these bonds and the interest that would have been paid on fully taxable bonds could be seen as a federal subsidy. Moreover, they may or may not qualify for a state subsidy, depending on whether the state has an income tax and treats the interest on the tax free bonds the same way that it is treated by the federal government. Historically, the rate spread between a AAA municipal bond and AAA corporate bond has been less than one per cent. For example, the spread between a AAA corporate (there are very few corporates with this high of a rating) and U.S. Treasury long bonds, which are a good emulator for municiple rates, was 90 basis points between 2000 and 2008. By using tax free financing, airports are able to charge slightly lower fees than would be the case if they had to resort to taxable financing. However, because the airlines, as well as other commercial users, pay slightly lower fees than would otherwise be the case, they have high income, assuming that they have any income at all, which results in higher taxes, which in turn means that a portion of the so-called subsidy is actually paid back to the federal government in higher income taxes.stin Now in Austin I watched the road subsidity for the Bergstrom airport. The rebuilding of the intersection of I - 35, US 290?, and TX 71? (what?-- 5 miles from the terminal) was a collosal overbuilding of that intersection to provide a some what faster connection to the airport. The rebuilding of 71 from a 2 lane road to a 6 lane semi controlled access road took about 4 years?. Any idea of costs? my own estimate is 1.5B but I imagine you would have a better figure. All that road building from road funds not airline fees. Since i have not been there for a while I will assume all the road work is complete?. Now isn't that another subsidity though indirect for the airlines? I can come up with many more examples. I fly out of Bergstrom two or three times a month. I drive there from my home in Georgetown. At least 90 per cent of the traffic on TX 71, as well as 290 and I-35, is either commuter traffic or through traffic. If you want to argue that the road enhancements associated with airports are a subsidy for the airlines, then you would have to admit, I think, that the cost of constructing and maintaining the roadways to the nation's major passenger train stations (Penn Station, 30th Street, Washington's Union Station, Los Angeles Union Station, etc.) are a subsidy for passenger rail. I would not want to go there. But this is irrelevant. The key question is how to fund passenger rail, if funding it at all is appropriate, and what transport problem is it addressing. It does not matter how or why the government funds other activities. Yes the relevant fact is that there should only be one transportation tax pot. Then we would have funds for Passenger rail, transit, roads, airports, waterways, etc. All tax funds should go into that pot and the funds dolled out as seen fit. That might cause projects to be more interactive with different transportation modes. How to fill the tax pot? One way of course is a fuel tax on all transportation. Others I'll leave to other posters.
Determining the present value of the subsidies granted to the railroads and those granted to the airlines would be a very difficult task. It would take a very long time because it would mean unearthing every subsidy in every form. Having said that, it is possible that the present value of the subsidies granted to the railroads would be much greater than the subsidies granted to the airlines because of the time value of money. The subsidy gains greater value over time. And it does so exponentially.
In 1942 Austin purchased the land for the Bergstrom Army Air Force base with the understanding that it would revert to the city upon closure as a military installation. Upon the departure of the military, the base reverted to the city. In turn the city had to upgrade the runways and build the current terminals, using tax free bonds to cover most of the cost. As is the case for all airports in the U.S., the cost of the facility is being recovered through landing fees, hangar fees, vendor fees, and parking fees. The primary subsidy is the difference between what the city would have paid had it been required to fund the improvements through fully taxable bonds and what it paid thanks to tax free municipal financing. As I pointed out, the historical spread between fully taxable bonds and municipals has not been that great.
The figures are taking from the FAA's statistics. I have no reason to suspect them. It is true that airlines account for a higher percentage of controlled operations obove flight level 18, but below this flight level the majority of the operations are general aviation. Texas has three airports where the airlines would account for more than 30 to 35 per cent of the operations (Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio). But at many other fields, e.g. Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, Longview, San Angelo, etc., which are served by a single commuter airline, most operations are general aviation. Moreover, at several tower controlled fields in Texas, e.g. Georgetown, San Marcos, etc., there are no airline operations.
I fly out of Bergstrom two or three times a month. I drive there from my home in Georgetown. At least 90 per cent of the traffic on TX 71, as well as 290 and I-35, is either commuter traffic or through traffic. If you want to argue that the road enhancements associated with airports are a subsidy for the airlines, then you would have to admit, I think, that the cost of constructing and maintaining the roadways to the nation's major passenger train stations (Penn Station, 30th Street, Washington's Union Station, Los Angeles Union Station, etc.) are a subsidy for passenger rail. I would not want to go there.
Outside of jump start funding, i.e. airways, roadways, railways, etc., the government should not be in the transportation business. The users (all of them) should be charge the required user fees to cover the operating costs and the infrastructure costs. Don't worry! It won't happen. The politicians would never give up their prerogrative to dole out transportation funds.
Many passenger rail advocates appear to believe that the dismise of the passenger train was a function of nefarious government policies. Perhaps. But the real reason lies in the superior technology of the airplane for long distance travel and the economics and convenience of the car for short to intermediate intercity travel, especially for families, and especially in low congestion areas of the U.S., which is most of the country.
The most rediculous conclusions to come out of all these pages!
Sam1 ON RAIL DEMISE:".... real reason lies in the superior technology of the airplane for long distance travel and the economics and convenience of the car for short to intermediate intercity travel, The facts are that the American public was subjected to a marketing/propaganda blitz which did not allow for broad political scrutiny of the transportation system. Air travel was sexy and glamorous, the automobile was private and supposedly allowed for "freedom" and definitley personal convenience. "....especially in low congestion areas of the U.S., which is most of the country."
ON RAIL DEMISE:".... real reason lies in the superior technology of the airplane for long distance travel and the economics and convenience of the car for short to intermediate intercity travel,
The facts are that the American public was subjected to a marketing/propaganda blitz which did not allow for broad political scrutiny of the transportation system. Air travel was sexy and glamorous, the automobile was private and supposedly allowed for "freedom" and definitley personal convenience.
"....especially in low congestion areas of the U.S., which is most of the country."
Two fold answer here. In the 50's, yes, most of the country was "low congestion" and by land mass, that remains true. But today while land mass may remain greater, it is not as great as it used to be, is just as prone to pollution problems as any place, and populations have grown and created more and larger urban areas.
It probably wasn't that the government and its politicians didn't walk away from private transportation companies but rather that private transportation companies didn't walk away from government. To sound contriadictory, however, transporation companies in many instances did threaten to close up shop but government stepped in with cash and incentives which no good thinking American would turn down (corporate welfare?).
The real facts are: the United States and its constituant governents and agencies never did come up with a universal transportation policy (note I did not say "fair" nor "balanced" just "universal"); today is different from, say 1955 give or take 15 years, so needs and solutions are different, i.e. it ain't your grandpaw's railroad no more, nor is any part of transportation, congestion, and pollution; it's too late to take government out of the equation, everyone from big business to the service user has relied, both willingly and unwillingly, both wittingly and unwittingly, on government guidence and investment in all areas of moveing people and goods. So are we here today capable of scrapping a 250 year old institution of government and business interreliance and starting from scratch? We're not going to overthrow the government by any means, that's for sure. We're not going to get rid of politics and its practitioners either. And big business is here to stay. So instead of fighting with personal political agendas, why are we not applying solutions to the problem? Of course the answer is we, here, are railfans and not business and political leaders, but are they listening?.
Sam1 I am not aware of anyone posting to the Trains forums who does not see a legitimate role for passenger rail or believes the government should not be a player. I have said consistently that passenger rail can be a viable solution in high density, relatively short corridors where the cost of expanding the highway and airway systems is cost prohibitive. Given the low probability that the capital required to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones would come from the private capital markets, one can make the case that the government should fund the infrastructure development, much as it did with the Interstate Highway System as well as other transport infrastructure. But the users should cover the operating costs and, ideally, the infrastrucure cost or at least most of it.
I am not aware of anyone posting to the Trains forums who does not see a legitimate role for passenger rail or believes the government should not be a player. I have said consistently that passenger rail can be a viable solution in high density, relatively short corridors where the cost of expanding the highway and airway systems is cost prohibitive.
That statement is highly inconsistent internally. You say you see a legitimate role for passenger rail and government, yet you go on to set up conditions which you indicate are impossible to meet. Does that mean that you accept the notion that government will have to fund the investment in infrastructure and provide varying amount of assistance to cover operating expenses?
You continue to portray the operational rail subsidies as very high. Yet several posters here have pointed out operations breaking even or better on the NEC, SDO-LA, and new VA corridors. I examined the Amtrak 2008 Annual Report and found the following for the entire system, including LD services:
State funding of operations: $165 mil.
Federal operating grant: 475 mil.
Passenger miles 6,120 mil. (6.12 billion)
That works out to 7.7 cents per passenger mile federal operating subsidy (10.3 cents/pm total) with a load factor of 52%. [BTW, the number you calculated, without showing the figures, was 22.6 cents per pass. mile. Perhaps that figure includes funding for infrastructure, not limited to operations?] If the expensive, lightly used LD trains were phased out and fast, frequent, convenient corridor services are built/expanded, one could realistically predict that the revenue would increase enough to close the gap on operating subsidies.
Sam1 I am not aware of anyone posting to the Trains forums who does not see a legitimate role for passenger rail or believes the government should not be a player. I have said consistently that passenger rail can be a viable solution in high density, relatively short corridors where the cost of expanding the highway and airway systems is cost prohibitive.
That's precisely what I've been kvetching about. I do not see you saying don't bother with passenger rail but there is this....adversarial(?) thing going on. We seem to be not paying attention to this point that is constantly raised by you and some others here. Projects that'll work do tend to work in those areas of high density so why do we have this idea that we need to place these things in areas that it won't work? One area that would be tricky---and I've heard people say it needs done---was Salt Lake City(any city pair there?) Get them done in areas that'll work--incrementally, upgrading ROWs as need be--then maybe things will get improving---
Then, of course, I'm thinking of other ways to finance the projects such that one can do them....
schlimm If the expensive, lightly used LD trains were phased out and fast, frequent, convenient corridor services are built/expanded, one could realistically predict that the revenue would increase enough to close the gap on operating subsidies.
oltmanndschlimm If the expensive, lightly used LD trains were phased out and fast, frequent, convenient corridor services are built/expanded, one could realistically predict that the revenue would increase enough to close the gap on operating subsidies.Yes. That has been the theory since 1971. It has yet to be tested. Read this: https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/192/RL32709_20041223.pdf?sequence=1
Seems to be a well-thought out study, though I have yet to find the portion that deals with the above. My contention is based on what seems to be happening lately on the three corridors, along with seeing the actual Amtrak figures on operating subsidies. It also discusses something I have been unsure of, but suspected: namely that Amtrak has high employee costs compared to those in competing transportation modalities.
Oops. Wrong paper. Try this one... https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/1446/RL31473_20020626.pdf?sequence=1
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.