Sam1 A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23. The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it. If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point. Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense.
A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23.
The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it.
If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point.
Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense.
Taxpayers pay for everything that receives an investment in government funds whether they use it or not. This is one of these statements that sounds like it means something profound, but it really is just stating the obvious, or at least what should be obvious. The same thing could be said of National Parks. Most people don’t use them, either, and all the people don’t use all of them.
Mark Meyer
VerMontanan Sam1 A passenger traveling from Chicago to Seattle during the first six months of FY09 received a federal subsidy payment of $392.67 before interest and depreciation or approximately $491.93 including all allocated items. In FY08 the subsidy would have been $218.39 and $240.23. The financial performance of the Empire Builder is better than any of Amtrak's long distance trains save the Auto Train. Taxpayers should ride the train; they are paying for it irrespective of whether they use it. If Amtrak was a real business, it would fly each passenger from Chicago to Seattle for an average fare of $164, thereby saving the federal treasury $327.93 for each passenger carried end point to end point. Long distance trains are a 1950s anachronism. They should be discontinued and the funds wasted on them should be re-directed toward the enhancement or development of moderate speed corridors where they make sense. Taxpayers pay for everything that receives an investment in government funds whether they use it or not. This is one of these statements that sounds like it means something profound, but it really is just stating the obvious, or at least what should be obvious. The same thing could be said of National Parks. Most people don’t use them, either, and all the people don’t use all of them.The average fare by air from Chicago to Seattle is $164? I doubt it’s that low as an average. Six months from now Southwest offers $159, and it goes up from there. But it really doesn’t matter because the average trip on the Empire Builder is about 850 miles, so you COULD buy everyone on board an airline ticket from Chicago to Seattle, but it wouldn’t do most people any good. Purchasing an airline ticket in the next week from Minot to Spokane would cost well over $600. And if you wanted to buy an airline ticket from Rugby to Cut Bank or Sandpoint to Stanley, however, it wouldn’t cost you anything. That’s because there’s no airline service, or bus service. Only Amtrak. The lack of alternate transportation was once one of main reasons that passenger train service was retained along the Empire Builder route, but given the decline of airline and bus transportation in this country, more and more cities elsewhere are counting Amtrak as their only - or one of few – transportation alternative(s). Sam’s entitled to his/her opinion, and his/her mind isn’t going to be changed by anything that’s said in this forum. But his/her statement about flying each passenger from Chicago to Seattle speaks volumes about what he/she knows about the Empire Builder route. That long distance trains lose money is undeniable, and if money was the absolute defining factor, a lot of things would be different. In the early 1990s, I made trips every two to three weeks between Seattle and Northern Montana (where there was no bus or air service) on the Empire Builder to attend to my father with a malignant brain tumor. My mother was already in the local nursing home, and there were no other relatives. Amtrak allowed me cross the three major mountain ranges, even when the roads and airports were closed (not uncommon occurrences along the Empire Builder route) to tend to my parents until I finally took a leave of absence from work. Without the train, I could not have been at my father’s side as often when he was dying, or I would have had to take a longer leave of absence, or risk my life driving over those mountains in the winter (if it was even possible, due to the weather). I’m sure I didn’t pay Amtrak the entire cost of their transporting me all those times, but the value of having the train available was immeasurable. A 1950s anachronism? Only if you know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. --Mark Meyer
The suggestion to give everyone a Chicago-Seattle plane ticket is indeed a glib response to the lifeline aspect of the Empire Builder.
But would you accept twice daily day train service in exchange for sleeping car service? Considering that more people in more towns along the route in your situation could be served? Considering that some 80% or so of the trip miles are in coach? That the 1950's anachronism is travelling end-to-end on the Empire Builder route in sleeping car, incurring perhaps fully half of the subsidy requirement?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The airfare comparison was for illustrative purposes only.
Glib means amongst other things, "marked by informality, showing little forethought or preparation, lacking depth and understanding". Really! I challenge anyone to demonstrate as much research and preparation that I put into most of my posts. Where do you think that I get the numbers? Out of thin air! Oh, by the way, I have been over every mile of Amtrak's system, with the exception of Chicago to New Orleans and Atlanta to New Orleans. I wonder how many other people can say the same.
I ran a similar matched city comparison for the Sunset Limited. It was a time consuming exercise. There were only four communities along the entire route where an airline reservation made 21 days in advance, which is probably typical for most people traveling on Amtrak's long distance trains, cost more than the price of a coach ticket plus the federal subsidy. Between every major city it would have been cheaper to fly the passengers or put them on the two to four daily buses that serve the community.
If American needs long distance trains for people who cannot or will not fly or drive to get to a location, then Amtrak needs to run trains to Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Harlingen, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, etc. in Texas alone. The argument is illogical.
Prior to my retirement I bought the argument that Amtrak had been unfunded, that there was a need for the long distance trains, and that the country should invest more heavily in passenger rail. After retirement, when I had more time, I used my analytical skills to dig into it my assumptions. I was shocked at the cost and inefficiency of the long distance trains. I changed my mind. There is scant economic justification for them. This is why I would discontinue them and use the money to enhance existing corridors or develop new ones.
Samantha is the name of my cat, and I thought it would be a good handle for use in these forums. It has produced some interesting surprises.
I have been riding a motorcycle for more than 20 years. It is a rush. But it is also dangerous. The probability of a motorcyclist being killed or critically hurt is 19 times greater than the probability for a motorist. Knowing this does not dampen my enthusiasm for motorcycling, but it makes me cautious.
I like riding trains. This year I have been on the CZ, Texas Eagle, Overland, and Country Link. The Empire Builder is arguably one of Amtrak's better trains. I have taken it twice. But it has only reached its 80th birthday because of significant federal subsidies. And these subsidies, on a per passenger mile basis, dwarf the subsidies of any other form of transport in the U.S. Look it up! Knowing this does not spoil my ride, but it is important to know both sides of the story.
Sam1 The airfare comparison was for illustrative purposes only. Glib means amongst other things, "marked by informality, showing little forethought or preparation, lacking depth and understanding". Really! I challenge anyone to demonstrate as much research and preparation that I put into most of my posts. Where do you think that I get the numbers? Out of thin air! Oh, by the way, I have been over every mile of Amtrak's system, with the exception of Chicago to New Orleans and Atlanta to New Orleans. I wonder how many other people can say the same. I ran a similar matched city comparison for the Sunset Limited. It was a time consuming exercise. There were only four communities along the entire route where an airline reservation made 21 days in advance, which is probably typical for most people traveling on Amtrak's long distance trains, cost more than the price of a coach ticket plus the federal subsidy. Between every major city it would have been cheaper to fly the passengers or put them on the two to four daily buses that serve the community. If American needs long distance trains for people who cannot or will not fly or drive to get to a location, then Amtrak needs to run trains to Abilene, Amarillo, Brownsville, Harlingen, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, San Angelo, etc. in Texas alone. The argument is illogical.
If someone called me "idiot", I would definitely take that as "fightin' words" but I was not aware that "glib" constituted a provocation to be resolved on a Field of Honor, and for that I apologize.
Sam, I respect your opinions and your research and skills of financial analysis, but sometimes a person needs to discern when another commentator is essentially taking one's side or not on a given question. Sometimes a person may be in general agreement with your point of view without being 100 percent in agreement, and sometimes one has to accept something less than 100 percent agreement as being within one's coalition instead outside of it.
I was responding to someone who took issue with the suggestion of purchasing Empire Builder passengers airline tickets with the subsidy money, and this idea that airline tickets could replace what the Empire Builder is not original with you -- I have heard a similar suggestion from other Amtrak critics.
This person said that he relied on the Empire Builder to be at the side of aging and seriously ill parents living in rural Montana. The claim was that airline service was unavailable or subject to weather closure, and that the mountain roads in winter were a challenging proposition. Generally I take a person at their word on their reported life experiences, and I have heard that the lifeline aspect of LD trains is especially true for the Empire Builder where the highway network is sparse. As far as people who have ailing relatives in these cities in Texas you have mentioned, I think you will find people in the advocacy community who say service should be expanded and those cities should get trains.
The question remains whether train service is about lifeline service, fuel saving, congestion relief, an alternative to the stress of air travel or driving, or a memorable travel experience, and the Sunday paper op-ed response from many in the advocacy community is that it is all of those things, all the time, for every train on the Amtrak network.
I would like to think that it is settled that the LD trains are not about saving fuel or relieving highway congestion in any meaningful way, and if one is at all serious about using trains for that purpose, the emphasis should be on corridor trains without sleeping cars and with high density seating arrangements or on commuter trains. Anyone who has been following my responses on this thread or other threads pretty much knows where my comments are leading to on this question.
The issue of stressful air travel and white knuckles driving tends to be emphasized by the advocacy community, perhaps more than with the non-railfan public, many of whom have had stressful rail experiences on the one time they tried Amtrak. That leaves the lifeline issue.
As to the LD trains as transportation lifelines, that issue has been addressed by the I G Kenneth Mead Report -- run them as lifelines and cut the "memorable travel experience" part. This might save only half the subsidy spent on the LD trains compared to cutting them completely, but the Report is at least a thought experiment about what these trains are really for and what social benefit comes from the public expenditure.
What I have observed is that the Mead Report has provoked an angry reaction in the advocacy community? Why? Aren't we about things like the California Corridors and the Empire Service and the Midwest Regional Rail Initiatives and using trains to combat oil dependence and traffic congestion. Why are we so angry about cutting costs on LD trains? Is it remotely possible that the California Corridors, Empire and Keystone Service, MWRRI are what we promote to get broader public support, but as train-riding railfans, in our heart of hearts, what the Amtrak subsidy is about is preserving the memorable travel experience, and what is so memorable about a hop on the Hiawatha anyway apart from connecting to the "real" trains at the Chicago hub?
That is why I agreed with a user of lifeline Amtrak service that the suggestion of buying everyone airline tickets was dismissive of his concerns (OK,. dismissive may be as much an affront as glib, I will have to find yet another word). But I also posed the question, to which I have not received a response, and maybe the response was that this person booked sleeping car passage, of whether the particularly high cost part of the LD trains, the diner-lounge-sleeper-crew dorm-baggage car, and it is high cost on account of crew costs and on account of railroad car expenses, of whether that part was essential to the lifeline function.
Maybe you are angry with the Mead Report because it only goes halfway in Spartanizing the LD trains instead of doing away with them altogether? I see the Mead Report as a kind of thought experiment and perhaps a shibboleth to determine where someone is coming from on trains. Are trains really about the utilitarian aspects of lifeline transportation, fuel saving, and congestion relief that are the talking points in support of all trains in all forms and in all places, or is it really about the memorable travel experience. And if in our heart of hearts it is about the memorable travel experience, what defense can we offer of the level of subsidy?
Paul Milenkovic The suggestion to give everyone a Chicago-Seattle plane ticket is indeed a glib response to the lifeline aspect of the Empire Builder. But would you accept twice daily day train service in exchange for sleeping car service? Considering that more people in more towns along the route in your situation could be served? Considering that some 80% or so of the trip miles are in coach? That the 1950's anachronism is travelling end-to-end on the Empire Builder route in sleeping car, incurring perhaps fully half of the subsidy requirement?
Again, it comes down to value, and sleeping car service on the Empire Builder is valued. Maybe not everyone travels from Chicago to Seattle, but a lot of people travel from Montana overnight to the Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle or to Winona for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Sleeping cars are expensive, but the value of the passenger train in this case is to offer a comfort that no other form of transportation can provide for people who would find traveling by other means a relative hardship.
If you cut the sleeping car service or dining car service, even IF it didn't affect ridership, you still couldn't cut the expenses by half, because you'd still have a lot of fixed costs like stations, station personnel, and the like. Of course, you could cut those too, but then you probably will start cutting into the ridership even here.
That's the reason I stress value instead of cost. If you establish something has value and why, the costs are easier to justify. If cost is all the matters, you will always get what's cheapest, or nothing at all.
--Mark Meyer
There is also opportunity cost -- providing subsidy to something of value to one group of citizens means that less subsidy money is available for some other train or some other activity than may have value to other citizens.
I have no problem paying taxes to be used for a whole variety of government services I may not use or may only receive indirect benefit. I am receptive to the argument "Yes, this receives subsidy, and here is the individual and social benefit." The argument "knowing the cost of everything but not the value of anything", however, can be applied to everything the government spends money on because for every expenditure there is some recipient, beneficiary, or interest placing a high value on it, and that applies to many activities people around here find wasteful and would be better spent on trains.
Trains remain a high cost per passenger mile way of providing transportation, and to question the costs against the benefit or to ask if there are alternative ways of running trains is something that needs to be done if Amtrak is to be meaningfully expanded. I don't think the sparse nature of Amtrak service and the lack of economy of scale is the only cost concern -- the European experience involves comparable levels of subsidy per passenger mile.
There are a variety of models for providing overnight transportation -- the "Super Cambio" double decker express buses in South America, the type of deep recline seats in trans-Pacific airline business class, similar kind of seating on the overnight Tilt Train in Queensland, Australia. There is the possibility of taking the same subsidy and running day trains covering the different route segments of the Empire Builder route. There is the Canadian model of their one LD train where they provide sleeping cars and what people have noted is a high level of service and charging more for it given the value people place on it.
Paul Milenkovic There are a variety of models for providing overnight transportation -- the "Super Cambio" double decker express buses in South America, the type of deep recline seats in trans-Pacific airline business class, similar kind of seating on the overnight Tilt Train in Queensland, Australia. There is the possibility of taking the same subsidy and running day trains covering the different route segments of the Empire Builder route. There is the Canadian model of their one LD train where they provide sleeping cars and what people have noted is a high level of service and charging more for it given the value people place on it.
Has anyone looked into the possibility of bringing back the open section (this is the same as Milwaukee Road's Touralux sleeping cars, right?) ?
HOORAY FOR OPEN SECTIONS!!!
It would seem to be so easy to take out the walls of the economy rooms, allowing for "the widest bed on rails!" One of the many ways in which Amtrak is "sabotaged" is by not exploring alternative overnight accommodations. This is perhaps most directly due to its small fleet.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Maglev HOORAY FOR OPEN SECTIONS!!! It would seem to be so easy to take out the walls of the economy rooms, allowing for "the widest bed on rails!" One of the many ways in which Amtrak is "sabotaged" is by not exploring alternative overnight accommodations. This is perhaps most directly due to its small fleet.
Open sections were definitely not a favorite among travelers, which may explain why they were relatively rare among lightweight sleeping cars. The relative lack of privacy and security can be a major issue.
CSSHEGEWISCH Maglev HOORAY FOR OPEN SECTIONS!!! It would seem to be so easy to take out the walls of the economy rooms, allowing for "the widest bed on rails!" One of the many ways in which Amtrak is "sabotaged" is by not exploring alternative overnight accommodations. This is perhaps most directly due to its small fleet. Open sections were definitely not a favorite among travelers, which may explain why they were relatively rare among lightweight sleeping cars. The relative lack of privacy and security can be a major issue.
...and snoring! (as anyone who's overnighted in a coach can attest to....)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I did not take offense at glib. But it was not a good characterization of a cost comparative example. So I pushed back. Showing the cost of flying someone from Chicago to Seattle compared to the total cost of lifting them on the Empire Builder was an example and was not meant to be a system analysis and comparison.
Having spent more than 20 years as an Audit Manager and Audit Director for a Fortune 250 corporation, I long ago got over taking offense at anything said or with anyone who might disagree with my views. Heated disagreement goes with the auditing territory. My feathers do get a bit ruffled, however, if someone lunges at me or pulls a gun on me, both of which have happened.
I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would. If a person chooses to live in a small town in the middle of nowhere, the taxpayers do not have an obligation to provide them with passenger rail or so-called essential air service.
I participate in these forums because I enjoy reading and agreeing with or disputing the views of others. I like the disputing part as much as anything. But I don't take it all that serious.
The people, who have the greatest impact in determining Amtrak's mission, as well as other rail programs, are U.S. Congress persons, state legislators, county commissioners, and city council persons. Amtrak management and its board of directors, has an important say. Some public officials may listen to the advocacy community. So when I really feel strongly about an issue, I bend my elected representative's ear on why my view makes sense.
---at least the EB is not outfitted with Viewliners, which are an example of the US potty obsession carried to extreme. Forget noise pollution--the glaring illuminated "WARNING DON'T STEP HERE" sign kept me from sleeping on the Crescent. Well, the view out the window and cramped toes contributed also...
Room F rules as far as I'm concerned. There's navigable floor space and a comfortable seat with the lower unfolded, windows on both sides, and the door and shower are just a few steps away... I prefer NOT having the toilet in my room anyway.
Sam1 I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would.
I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would.
VerMontanan Sam1 I don't believe Amtrak has a lifeline obligation. If it did not serve outback areas in Montana, New Mexico, or Texas, as examples, there is a pretty good chance Greyhound, TNM&O, Jefferson Lines, etc. would. It'd be nice if that was the case, but there's no such evidence. In August of 1960, when there still was abundant rail passenger service, Russell's Official Bus Guide (containing the schedules of most intercity bus service in the U.S. and Canada) was 928 pages. By Amtrak Day in May of 1971, the number of privately-run intercity passenger trains had dropped dramatically, but that didn't create an increase in bus service. The May, 1971 bus guide was 912 pages. Following the onset of Amtrak, and the elimination of two-thirds of the passenger trains, Russell's May 1975 Guide dropped to 856 pages. The amount of intercity bus service decreased slowly through 1988, when the July guide had 744 pages. When buses started losing out to UPS and FedEx handing small package shipments, the bottom fell out with regard to U.S. Intercity bus service. The December 2006 Russell's Guide has about 260 pages. Intercity bus service is but a shadow of itself, and is mostly confined to Interstate Highway routes. In addition, many stops have been eliminated. Greyhound's route from Salina, KS to Denver, CO, which also has no passenger train, has but two stops in that 435 miles. Alternate bus routes in the area where Greyhound and Continental Trailways once ran, have no service at all. Were Amtrak long distance trains discontinued, no bus lines would step in, just like they didn't in 1971 and ever since. That's also why states like Oregon and Minnesota choose to subsidize bus routes, or all public transportation would be lost. --Mark Meyer
It'd be nice if that was the case, but there's no such evidence.
The decline in intercity bus service has been concomitant with the increase in better highways and a dramatic increase in the ownership of automobiles. Most Americans, irrespective where they live, drive for intercity travel. It is the car that did in the long distance train; it is the car that has done in the bus companies in many markets, and it is the car that has made short haul air service marginal at best.
Whether an intercity busy company would step in if the long distance trains were discontinued is unknown. If there is a viable market, i.e. an operator can cover his costs and earn a return for the shareholder, they would fill the void. But if they cannot cover their costs, they will not do it. Neither will an air carrier. Which raises an interesting question?
Why should the federal government hoist a train across the northern tier of the United States, or anywhere for that matter, if the market for it is so weak that it cannot even cover its operating costs? That is to say, if the people won't pay the fares required to cover its cost, why should the taxpayer's pick-up the slack? Yes, I am opposed to the Essential Air Services Program.
Sorry, but I don't think that trains are lifelines, and I don't think they are national heritages that have a call on the national treasury. They are commercial carriers, and they should compete just like every other commercial carrier or they should go out of business. This was the original ideal when Amtrak was founded. Unfortunately, it quickly fell by the wayside, as is the case with many well intention government programs.
To sam1: I would assume, for the sake of consistency, that you believe that the Essential Air Service program should also be discontinued. Long live the infallible marketplace!
CSSHEGEWISCH To sam1: I would assume, for the sake of consistency, that you believe that the Essential Air Service program should also be discontinued. Long live the infallible marketplace!
You bet! That's what I said at the end of the third paragraph of my post. If you look at the program, in many instances the EASP serves airports that are less than a two hour drive to a major airport, or they serve communities that have acceptable alternative commercial service.
My birth town, Altoona, Pennsylvania, has EASP. So does Johnstown, Pennsylvania, which is approximately 40 miles west of Altoona. It takes about two hours to drive from Altoona to Pittsburgh Greater Airport. It takes less than an hour to drive there from Johnstown. There is no commercial justification for EASP at either location.
If a business gets it wrong in the market, it goes out of business and stops wasting scarce resources. A government entity (Amtrak) seldom has serious consequences if it gets it wrong. It just asks it political supporters for more money. Amtrak has failed to achieve its initiating financial objective for more than 38 years. It still gets more than $1.4 billion from the federal and state governments.
Long live the infallible marketplace!
Amtrak has failed to achieve its initiating financial objective for more than 38 years. It still gets more than $1.4 billion from the federal and state governments.
I guess people might call me a political moderate, or at least I believe in moderation in most things political. I don't believe in an infallible marketplace or infallible government or infallible members of the train advocacy community either.
I mean what is the marketplace? It is essentially you, me, and millions of others making decisions about how we want to live life, interact with other people, and do the things we want to do. It is also essentially about millions of people making decisions based on their preferences and life experiences. It is also about money, but at its root, money is about making choices -- what do I choose to spend what limited amount of money I have? Do I choose to spend it now or do I save some money to make choices about things I want or want to do later on?
The marketplace is certainly not the only way to make choices. There is perhaps a utilitarian reason and a philosophical reason to favor the marketplace. The utilitarian reason is that practical experience shows that it works better than top down planning according to some metrics. The philosophical reason is that there is an impulse in the human spirit to exercise individual choices rather than have them made for you. The utilitarian and the practical reasons are linked -- it is understood that the reason markets in many cases produce a good social outcome as that they give free expression to the yearning we each have to exercise individual choice.
The science of economics is repleat with many examples of market failure. To find the many instances of where the marketplace is not deemed infallible, one only need read any number of books on why things are not the way they ought to be, and to many of us in the advocacy community, the lack of trains compared to Europe or Japan is certainly evidence that life is out of balance.
For example, our esteemed friend who depended on the Empire Builder to care for his parents may have been willing to pay a much higher fare given the degree to which he found the train of value, but if the fares were that high, no one would ride the train and the whole service would collapse, and our friend could not ride the train at any price. On the other hand, that fares and subsidies have to be what they are to get ridership on the Empire Builder may suggest that others may not assign the same high value to it.
The classic example of market failure is that roads and airlines received some manner of help from government intervention if not outright subsidy, and this drove the railroads and especially passenger trains out of business. The point about Amtrak is that some form of subsidy was needed to "level the playing field" to "keep trains in play."
Well Amtrak gets its subsidy, and one group of people is complaining that 1.4 billion/year is a pittance in absolute dollar terms to the budgets of the FAA, the Federal highway program, and the state and local contribution to roads and airports. A smaller group of people is saying that the Amtrak appropriation is small relative to those other things, but on a per passenger mile basis, the Amtrak subsidy is 10 times what can be ascribed to the other modes, and the playing field is more than level.
A sarcasm such as "Long live the infallible marketplace!" is not atypical of what I hear in the online and bricks and morter advocacy communities. It seems that the advocacy community has linked itself to some form of a non-marketplace solution when we commonly speak of "Amtrak reform" and "glidepath to profitability" in mocking tones, when we complain about the small Amtrak appropriation without considering the high rate of subsidy per passenger miles, and regard people to don't see the needs for high rates of subsidy for all trains in all forms as "idiots."
But even Socialism requires some kind of marketplace in carrying out the decisions made by elite intellectual decision makers forming the vanguard of the working man and woman. It was asked how Soviet Russia attached prices to goods and raw materials exchanged among the Eastern Block countries, and the response was that they used prices from the capitalist world. Asked, "Well if you believe in Scientific Socialism and its historical inevitablity, how are you going to price things when every country is Socialist?" The response allegedly was "we will keep on capitalist country around so we can determine the correct prices."
Yes, even if we accept that some public funding of Amtrak and all other modes of transportation is a modern inevitability, Amtrak along with those other modes are still subject to at least a political marketplace. Yes, we are spending billions more on bailing out some automakers than we would dream of spending on Amtrak, but the auto bailout is not automatic and there are many voters unhappy with it.
I have been lumped in with the class of people "who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" because I suggest cost-saving reforms that would cheapen it. But what is the value of Amtrak service? The passengers are not valuing it enough in relation to what they are willing to pay in fares otherwise it would not require so much subsidy. The subsidy does not wave a magic want and remove Amtrak from the marketplace, it only adds another stakeholder -- the voter.
I do not see the public at large assigning much value to what Amtrak does in relation to its subsidy -- otherwise you would see broader support for higher levels of subsidy. We can't cover what we want to do with Amtrak out of the farebox so we resort to subsidy. We, the advocacy community, can't get what we want out of Amtrak with the level of subsidy we can get out of the political system, so we, I don't know, we agitate I guess, we call people who deviate from the advocacy party line "idiots", we pronounce shame on our fellow citizens that people are not forthcoming we more public money for trains.
I would like to see more trains, but politically we haven't gotten off dead center in nearly 40 years. If Amtrak can deliver value for both the fare and the subsidy dollar, I think we can get someplace.
I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums? Their message seems to be one of pure marketplace capitalism: If the endeavor isn't profitable, i.e., more than covers costs and provides a return on capitalization, it should never be unertaken or if existing, be allowed to fail. Of course it begs the question of how to allocate resources, such as $. The marketplace is only one of many mechanisms, hardly the universal answer. It is very efficient in certain fields, but not in others. In the case iof transportation, it does/can not take into account a number of other factors, including social utility, environmental values, land use, etc. So in many cases, the market approach simply is not weighing the appropriate social needs and costs. Additionally, that group keeps insisting that Americans overwhelming prefer autos. Of course, THEY DO, but perhaps only NOW, since a real rail transport sxystem does not exist. If it did, I suspect we would see very different statistics.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm I rather wonder why folks like sam1 participate in these forums? Their message seems to be one of pure marketplace capitalism: If the endeavor isn't profitable, i.e., more than covers costs and provides a return on capitalization, it should never be unertaken or if existing, be allowed to fail. Of course it begs the question of how to allocate resources, such as $. The marketplace is only one of many mechanisms, hardly the universal answer. It is very efficient in certain fields, but not in others. In the case iof transportation, it does/can not take into account a number of other factors, including social utility, environmental values, land use, etc. So in many cases, the market approach simply is not weighing the appropriate social needs and costs. Additionally, that group keeps insisting that Americans overwhelming prefer autos. Of course, THEY DO, but perhaps only NOW, since a real rail transport sxystem does not exist. If it did, I suspect we would see very different statistics.
If the purpose of this forum is to rant about how passenger rail gets the short end of things, I guess Sam1 doesn't belong on this forum. If the purpose of this forum is as a kind of virtual train advocacy group, in my opinion Sam1's comments are among the most useful remarks around.
I guess there is universal agreement that Amtrak or intercity passenger trains have failed in the marketplace economy. There was a line of thought at the inception of Amtrak that a small level of subsidy was what was needed to kick start passenger trains into paying their way, and that line of thought is pretty widely subject to ridicule around here. So taking trains out of the marketplace economy, they are now in the political realm of justifying levels of appropriation, and they have been failing at that. Sure Amtrak looks to get the 8 billion in ARRA money, but these things run in cycles, and the 8 billion dollar question is how that money will be spent and whether the return on that money will boost Amtrak's long term outlook.
Amtrak I suppose cannot compete in the marketplace economy, but it has to compete someplace, and if it is to compete among the many demands on public money, compete it has to do, and we can't sit around complaining about levels of military or Medicare or even highway spending. Or are you suggesting that the political system does not weigh the social needs and costs any better than the marketplace? And with what are you going to replace the political system, Plato's Foamer-Philosopher Kings?
Paul:
I'm only saying that reiterating the arguments against any passenger rail system on the basis of marketplace economics, profit and loss and CURRENT ridership statistics over and over does not advance the outlook for passenger rail. And by passenger rail, I am not wedded to a solely Amtrak-based system. However, I thought this was a forum for advancing ideas of HOW to have a decent passenger rail net, not whether or NOT to have one. All we ever hear from Sam1 and others is a lot of nice statistics designed to dress up the argument of why we shouldn't have a comprehensive transit and HSR system in the US in a manner like most other industialized nations of the world. It is obvious that we do not and also obvious that other nations seem to have the money and will to pay for one.
BTW, I don't think your concluding bit of facitious sarcasm advances any position.
schlimm All we ever hear from Sam1 and others is a lot of nice statistics designed to dress up the argument of why we shouldn't have a comprehensive transit and HSR system in the US in a manner like most other industialized nations of the world.
That is an erroneous interpretation of Sam1's postion on passenger rail and rail transit. I will admit that Sam1 has a rather rigid view of how to measure the efficacy of the service provided against the cost, informed by Sam1's professional background,
But, you are misstating Sam1's position badly, I think.
I agree with Schlimm, that the question is not "why or why not" but "how and when?" In all other parts of the world, and through most of our history, passenger trains have been an accepted, money-losing part of life. We just got a little behind in the past fifty years, and need to do some catch-up.
I have been re-reading my history of the L& N with an eye to information on sustainability of passenger transportation. Obviously, there was pride in the passenger trains (at least over 50 years ago)., They were always outfitted with the best available equipment and afforded expedited dispatching.
A comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters. The social benefits and improved freedom of mobility are priceless. We need more Empire Builders!
MaglevA comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters
How about a comfortable, first class, overnight train from NY to Chicago on a 16 hour schedule, designed for businnessmen?
oltmannd MaglevA comfortable, overnight or all-day train that goes down-town to down-town would be helpful to families, business people, students, and even commuters How about a comfortable, first class, overnight train from NY to Chicago on a 16 hour schedule, designed for businnessmen?
Having been chastised for engaging in facetious sarcasm, I should not be the person to ask, but . .
Um, Don, are you serious about bringing back the Broadway Limited to serve business travellers, or are you engaged in more facetious sarcasm?
Paul, et al:
Sorry about criticizing your comment on "philosopher kings." It just seemed a bit off key compared with the rest of your illuminating writing. I'm sorry if I don't find that Sam1's usual litany (nicely presented statistical reasons of why passenger trains do not and cannot make any sense from his not-so-free market perspective) adds anything to a discussion of how and when and where to bring the US up-to-date in an important area of transportation infrastructure.
I rather doubt that an EB or even BL are in the cards, although I do recall riding a 15 1/2 hr. all Pullman Broadway in 1967 (as well as a one hour 55 min Panama from Central Station, Chicago to Champaign in 1965). Those were pretty good times 40+ years ago on corridor and LD routes. So in a number of cases, it would be considerable "progress" to regress to some of the routes of 40-50 years ago, not just for speed, but also the all-important frequency of service.
Paul MilenkovicUm, Don, are you serious about bringing back the Broadway Limited to serve business travellers, or are you engaged in more facetious sarcasm?
The latter.
If the Broadway and 20th Century failed against high fare, slow, propeller driven aircraft and relatively crude and expensive to own and operate, hard to drive cars operating on an incomplete toll highway system, how could we expect it to succeed today?
Both trains were dead on their feet by the mid 50's. There was an article in Trains a few years back about how the Broadway would often have only a couple dozen passengers in the mid 50s.
These trains died despite both RRs equipping them with the very best equipment and service. Despite attempts at faster trips. The schedules for both were shaved back to 15-1/2 hours at one point.
I doubt there are any business travellers other than railfans who would even think of considering an overnight train when they can fly and be in their own bed at night. The notion of overnight trains for business travel is DOA.
The only thing that kept the Broadway, 20th Century and the Empire Builder going from the 1950s into the 1960s was corporate pride.
Other routes with some pretty fast speeds suffered the same fate. The IC has some pretty fast track. ACL was trying to get their NY-Miami times down to 24 hours by upgrading their mainline to 100 mph.
None of it worked.
As a railfan, I wish there was more and better and faster overnight train service so I could use it. But, that just ain't the world we live in.....
Here's some thoughts on the Broadway Limited...
I traveled at least a couple times a year betwen Pittsburgh and Chicago between 1984 and 2002. I mostly flew because I could write my own free tickets, I took the Broadway once, and the Capitol several times. And one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." They ran to the bathroom upon arrival to tidy up, then scrambled to their commodity exchanges or whatever. Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival.
I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation. A national rail network can improve commerce, bring families together, and allow students more options for research. Our commerce, social unity, and higher education all suffer due to poor transportation infrastructure.
(I rode the Broadway several times, but only once in a sleeper between Chicago and Greensburg. We had taken the California Zephyr from San Francisco. Our "heritage" bedroom on the Broadway was downright scary: even the severe brown and tan decor could not hide the all the stains of misfortune. The Dinette car was clean and comfortable, but the food was not very good.)
Maglev ...one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." ..... Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival. I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation
...one time only, I rode a bus. It was non-stop from Cleveland to Chicago, and most of the passengers were "businessmen." ..... Amtrak was not an option for them, primarily because the trains arrive too late in the morning and are notorious for delay. I can only guess that flying was too expensive or inconvenient. Driving is expensive, slow, and not conducive to conducting business upon arrival.
I actually believe that Americans have a right to comfortable, convenient, low-pollution transportation
Sounds like they found it...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.