Right, but ridership figures distort the picture. In my book the person who uses Amtrak twice going and coming on vacation is just as important as the corridor user who has a daily commute. And the annual subsdidy for the vacationer is obviously a lot smaller than an Amtrak daily commuter.
But I will agree, corridors are for transportation, long distance trains are for Americam civilization, like National Parks and Public Libraries. And they are just as important.
Providing an opportunity for heart-warming anecdotes, as inspiring as they are, cannot be the basis for running a passenger train service. Whether run by the government or by private enterprise, serving large numbers of people is the essential criterion.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This greatest number of users is a lot of nonsence. The school kid who once in a lifetime crosses the USA by rail and thus gets to the country first hand at an early age is just as important as the daily Baltimore to Washington commuter who works for the Federal Government and saves money by not using his car. Ditto the wounded veteran with his yearly trip Alber=querque - Dallas via Chicago. Much of this discussion has been purely done from an accountants point of view with complete lack of understanding of exactly what long distance trains really mean to the USA today.
schlimm Sam1: Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business. That really puts things in perspective. I don't think Amtrak necessarily needs to look like a business, but it does need to efficiently serve the greatest number of people in ways that make sense. That means serving the NEC and other short corridors, including others to be developed, not wasting large somes of money on running LD trains that serve few.
Sam1: Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business.
Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business.
That really puts things in perspective. I don't think Amtrak necessarily needs to look like a business, but it does need to efficiently serve the greatest number of people in ways that make sense. That means serving the NEC and other short corridors, including others to be developed, not wasting large somes of money on running LD trains that serve few.
Did anyone read the Trains blurb (http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2011/12/Amtraks%20management%20buyouts%20take%20effect.aspx) a few days ago about their layoffs? Mostly, it went on about how they needed to back fill safety related jobs. It used the Cal Zephyr's road foreman as an example. What struck me was that there were THREE road foreman's jobs just between Chicago and Salt Lake City! Three of them - for 1600 route miles, one train a day. That's 2 road train crew starts per road foreman per day. As a benchmark, NS has more than 6 times the road crew starts per day per road foreman - and that's not counting locals the guys also have to supervise!
Why are the LD trains such losers? This is just another small example....
Solutions? Make the Road Foreman jobs travelling jobs and have them cover more territory. How about one road foreman for Chicago to Denver and Chicago to Havre. All BNSF. That would get the total close to the NS average. It's more for them to know, but, hey, they are getting paid a good nickel.
Or, pay the BNSF to handle the road foreman work on a contract basis.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1 Moreover, if Amtrak had increased its average ticket price by $12.95 for its short corridor services, or $7.41 spread across the NEC and short corridor services, it would have broken even before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, assuming application of the NEC operating profit to the short corridor losses. And Amtrak would have begun to look like a real business.
Libraries do compete with commercial book stores that sell and rent books and with profit-making internet suppliers. I think the comparison of long distance Amtrak trains with libraries is a useful comparison that makes sense. It does not make sense to compare with a horse and buggy, because the horse and buggy could not provide a comfortable and civilized way of learning about the geography and population of the USA, which Amtrak long distance trains can and do. The horse and buggy might better be compared with the book store before Guttenberg invented the printing press!
I visit our local public library two or three times a week. A better name for it would be public information center, since many of the people who go there use the library's computers or other information sources as opposed to checking out a book.
If Amtrak had not operated its long distance passenger trains in FY2010, it would have had avoidable cost of $575.5 million before depreciation and interest. Outside of the NEC Amtrak's depreciation and embedded interest is relatively low. These items apply only to its equipment, which in most instances is fully depreciation or nearly so. The savings during the first year of discontinuance would be less than the potential savings because of severance packages and associated discontinuance costs.
Sam1 A public library is not a commercial enterprise. Most of its clients cannot afford to buy books from Amazon or Barnes & Noble or whoever.
A public library is not a commercial enterprise. Most of its clients cannot afford to buy books from Amazon or Barnes & Noble or whoever.
Although I agree with you and Paul M. concerning the lack of wisdom in continuing long distance passenger rail services, your comment about public libraries displays a lack of knowledge suggesting you are out of touch with that aspect of American life.
daveklepper I think the comparison with the local library is useful and informative . A transcontinental train trip for those who have not done it already is quite an education in the geography, economy, and even the population of the United States. an education that can also be had with far greater discomfort by a transcontinental bus trip. or possibly as a passenger, but not a driver, on a transcontinental auto trip. And, continuing the comparison, only a minority of the people in a given location use the public library, actually a very small minority. (Geting to know the population is helped by friendly conversations with new friends in the dining and lounge cars.) Further, is the public library really necessary with Google and the Internet and Wikepedia? I think it is. And most people in a neighborhood would agree: I may never use it but I would fight to keep it open.
I think the comparison with the local library is useful and informative . A transcontinental train trip for those who have not done it already is quite an education in the geography, economy, and even the population of the United States. an education that can also be had with far greater discomfort by a transcontinental bus trip. or possibly as a passenger, but not a driver, on a transcontinental auto trip. And, continuing the comparison, only a minority of the people in a given location use the public library, actually a very small minority. (Geting to know the population is helped by friendly conversations with new friends in the dining and lounge cars.) Further, is the public library really necessary with Google and the Internet and Wikepedia? I think it is. And most people in a neighborhood would agree:
I may never use it but I would fight to keep it open.
A public library is not a commercial enterprise. It does not sell (commercialize) information, i.e. books, music, internet services, etc. as a regular line of business. Amtrak is a commercial enterprise. It competes with airlines, bus companies, personal vehicles, etc. Comparing the two is to compare apples and oranges.
It is in the "public interest" is used by every proponent of an activity or cause that cannot sustain itself in the market place. If the users won't pay for it, lets fob it off on the taxpayers. Whether its Amtrak, subsidized crop insurance, public power, symphony orchestras, etc., it is only a little bit more money and it is in the public interest is the clarion call of those seeking to raid the public trough.
Amtrak is not the worst example. The owners of the professional sports teams in Texas, at least, have used the public interest argument to wring billions of dollars out of local taxpayers to build sports venues. Many of the taxpayers cannot afford to attend the sporting events played in the public interest venues or have no interest in doing so.
It is in the public interest is one of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, why the U.S. national debt is more than $15 trillion. This figure does not include massive unfunded federal liabilities or state and local debt.
Paul Milenkovic As to the role of Amtrak in serving the disabled, to personalize the argument and say "I am a disabled person benefiting from Amtrak and the airlines are unable to accomodate me", I guess that puts an end to any discussion. Who doesn't want persons with whatever manner of disability, impairment, or difficulty from enjoying a comfortable travel experience? On the other hand, if the billion plus spent on Amtrak is fundamentally about persons with disability, maybe a government subsidy of some kind of Jet Shares thing, where persons get shared rides on small jets with the kind of cabin arrangement to allow a disabled person to travel without the suffering of commercial air travel might be the thing? Maybe a subsidy to have the disabled ride in first class seats might be the way to go? Yes there is that equalization of cabin pressure issue, but mountain railroading (or the Japan Bullet train, which is also mountain railroading) has some of the same thing. What I am asking is whether trains are the only solution to our transportation problems or if they are a solution that we like that is in search for a rationale?
As to the role of Amtrak in serving the disabled, to personalize the argument and say "I am a disabled person benefiting from Amtrak and the airlines are unable to accomodate me", I guess that puts an end to any discussion. Who doesn't want persons with whatever manner of disability, impairment, or difficulty from enjoying a comfortable travel experience?
On the other hand, if the billion plus spent on Amtrak is fundamentally about persons with disability, maybe a government subsidy of some kind of Jet Shares thing, where persons get shared rides on small jets with the kind of cabin arrangement to allow a disabled person to travel without the suffering of commercial air travel might be the thing? Maybe a subsidy to have the disabled ride in first class seats might be the way to go? Yes there is that equalization of cabin pressure issue, but mountain railroading (or the Japan Bullet train, which is also mountain railroading) has some of the same thing. What I am asking is whether trains are the only solution to our transportation problems or if they are a solution that we like that is in search for a rationale?
On my recent flight from BWI to Austin, Southwest Airlines boarded eight wheel chair passengers. One of them was on supplemental oxygen support. Most disabled people can be accommodated by the nation's airlines.
For those who severally disabled and cannot be carried on a normal flight, they have several choices. They can try to catch a ride on a corporate jet. Yep, its true. Many corporations will take an ambulatory passenger on one of its airplanes if there is room, and its going where the person needs to go. And more often times than not there is room. We frequently did it on our corporate jets. Persons needing this emergency transport can contact a national coordinator for help.
American Airlines will fly sick children to world class medical centers with the help of its frequent flyers. Those frequent flyer program participants who want to help contribute their points to the program. American matches the points, and flys the children to the locations where they need to go to get their special medical services. The children usually ride on one of American's scheduled flights, but the airline has gone to extraordinary steps to accommodate the sickest of children. How's that for a greedy capitalist organization? I have contributed hundreds of thousands of points to the program. Now is your chance, if you are an American Airlines Frequent Flyer program participant, meaning all of those who participate in these forums, to contribute and help a child get critical medical care.
If transporting ambulatory passengers from A to B is a national imperative, the government could subsidize the use of general aviation operators with the equipment needed to carry ambulatory passengers. It would be a lot cheaper, in all probability, than the cost of Amtrak's long distance passenger trains.
If the argument that the country needs the long distance trains to carry disabled people who cannot be carried in any other conveyance is valid, then the long distance train network should be extended to every community in the United States with a population of more than 10,000. Lets see, in Texas that would mean passenger trains for Midland, Odessa, Brownsville, Mercedes, McAllen, Pharr, Paris, Amarillo, Lubbock, etc. Get the point? The argument does not wash.
Interesting you mention horse and buggy. I have actually competed as a "footman" or "navigator" in Carriage Driving Events. I don't own a horse or a competition carriage or know much about the gear to hitch a horse to the carriage or how to drive. But I have signed the liability waivers to assist as a crew member and put to use my private airplane pilot training -- mainly memorizing the routes through the obstacle portions of the course as a backup to the driver making a mistake and not being freaked by high-G maneuvering. I am really skittish about horses and they may feel the same way about me, but I have even lifted the tail on the horse for the vet-check, which I was told was one of my duties.
Carriage Driving Events have a lot to recommend them, and for those of you who cannot afford a horse and its upkeep, there are plenty of opportunities for volunteers, But I don't see horse and carriage as being a mainstream transportation option anymore or receiving high levels of subsidy. It is a rich-person's sport and hobby along with that rich person who exhibited a Russian MiG-21 fighter jet at Oshkosh some years back.
As to "How does your local library do as far as breaking even?", dunno, that approach to passenger train advocacy is starting to sound snarky to me. The public financing of the local library and the public financing of trains is a complete apples-and-oranges comparison that I am not so sure advances the cause.
Yes, the local library is partly about entertainment for those who enjoy reading. But reading is so essential to so many things that we do in our lives and especially our livelihoods. The idea is that you make books available to the masses and especially children to encourage reading as a supplement to the public school system. The idea is that there is a high correlation between illiteracy and poverty and even a life of crime. Whether the library is effective in preventing crime and social misery I suppose is a matter of faith just as the intrinsic social goodness of railroad passenger trains seen through the eyes of the faithful. But to put funding for trains, and especially funding for sleeping cars on long-distance trains on the same level as the public library hurts both causes.
Whenever the discussion turns to "forgotten pleasures" or "a train being the only civilized way to travel", we are talking about more than a way to get from Point A to Point B. And if the train is something like the National Parks, that especially the Long Distance train is a national heritage experience, maybe we should be like Canada, where they have a skeleton long-distance network to serve that need and otherwise concentrate on their fast trains in the Montreal-Windsor corridor, achieve some economy of scale by running very long consists, achieve economy of capital of using the equipment that Amtrak cast off and managing to maintain it, and maintain what I have heard is a very first-class high level of service and also charge fares in line with what is being offered.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Some time ago I posted that it costs every citizen $1.25 a year to subsidize Amtrak. A later post raised that to $4.20, but I believe that is the cost to every taxpayer, not every citizen. The quote:
"I regard Amtrak like my church. I may never go inside but I'll fight to keep it open." had typicfied the feelings of most Americans at the time of Amtrak's start, and I think it still does today.
Most Americans do want this bit of nostagia transportation to continue. Unlike the horse and buggy or stagecoach. Now why aren't most railfans happy with that fact instead just looking the money angle?
I think depriving one war-injured vet who uses the handicapped Superliner room from Alberquerque to Chicaog and the Chicago to Dallas and returns the same way once a year to see his extended family is one of many reasons.
How does your local library do as far as breaking even?
I'm looking forward to my first LD train experience in over 15 years. I ride a lot between Bloomington and Chicago, but in about a month I'm going from Chicago to Lamy, NM on #3 and back a week later on #4. I have been all the way to the West Coast and back twice on Amtrak, so I'm interesting in comparing the upcoming trip with my memories.
From my observation there are no staff on freight trains providing food nor turning down the beds nor assisting handicapped passengers with meal service in their rooms nor access on or off of the trains.
Staff costs on LD trains are high ... Pullman Service was also expensive at the time it was offered ...
High ridership commuter trains offer the minimum of staff costs to the railroad and the liability costs of any passenger operation must also be taken into effect.
Very few car loads of wheat have come to me to complain about an hours delay while waiting for clearance signals to proceed ... but, many passengers have asked, "Why are we stopped here?" after a very brief delay.
Two issues:
1) is it the role of government to provide transportation services to all segments of the population?
2) is rail the most efficient way to provide mass transit (both short and long distance)?
I think we have decide the answer to #1 is yes as we spend massive dollars on bus, auto, rail and air transportation. Transportation is important to commerce, education and general well being of the population so we must allow people to move around.
Now #2 is true in densely populated places like Europe and the Northeast. Can we expanc that model to the large distances out west? The only way this willl work is to upgrade all of the infrastructure (like the Sunset Route double tracking.) If we pull out of LD Amtrak, there will be little political pressure to do this. Amtrak is expensive, but it also is part of the push to upgrade all lines.
Any other ideas on how these questions might be answered in "fly-over" land?
And deprive the elderly and handicapped access to the country and the ability to visit distant relatives, and throw much of the tourist business away, and eliminate backup possibilities in case long distance aircraft are grounded, and reduce capabilities of handling emergencies like Katrina, and make the individual corredors compete with each other for upgrading and subidization rather than being part of one system.
Amtrak has a point. The average commuter and rail transit system gets funded on operating costs 50% from the farebox, some better, some much worse. Amtrak's is 85%. Possibliy with enough investment, including providing some really delux equpment on certqin of its long distance trains for really well-heeled toursits willing to spend big bucks to ride in style, and possibly at the same time finding ways to get college students off of Bolt Bus and onto equipment that would otherwise be idle (like providing more overnight Boston - NY service, bare bones coach at low fare using equipment normally idle), that 15% might be reduced.
I understand that in Zurich, Switzerland, public transportation is now free. Anyone can ride anytime they want anywhere within the city. They say it is cost effective for reducing the greater expenses otherwise associated with private autos inside the city.
Pretty much supports what you and others have long been saying: At a minimum, scrap sleepers on LD services, convert to coaches and run them on the shorter corridors where possible. Prune the LD routes to essential services, i.e., where there is no alternative.
oltmannd Paul of Covington: As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc. As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services? There is a GAO report from a few years ago with some of this information in it. I'll see if I can find it.
Paul of Covington: As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc. As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services?
As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc.
As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services?
There is a GAO report from a few years ago with some of this information in it. I'll see if I can find it.
Found it. An OIG of the DOT report: http://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/dot/files/pdfdocs/CR-2005-068.pdf
schlimm daveklepper: The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use. You could start with this bit from the ARTBA (a highway lobby): "There are currently 8,443,338 lane miles of road in the lower 48 states. The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,590 square miles of land. If shoulders, driveways and parking lots were added, the total would still be less than one percent of the nation's land area." One could get a very rough estimate the amount of tax not collected on this land by using some average tax per sq. ft. paid by the railroads on their track.
daveklepper: The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use.
The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use.
You could start with this bit from the ARTBA (a highway lobby): "There are currently 8,443,338 lane miles of road in the lower 48 states. The average width of a highway lane is 11 feet. This means roads cover 17,590 square miles of land. If shoulders, driveways and parking lots were added, the total would still be less than one percent of the nation's land area." One could get a very rough estimate the amount of tax not collected on this land by using some average tax per sq. ft. paid by the railroads on their track.
Getting a realistic appraisal value of the land for the nation's streets, county roads, state highways, and federal highways probably is out of the question. I have never heard of anyone even trying it.
As I pointed out in a previous post, to the extent that roadways have been taken off the tax rolls, the taxes of the in-service property have been adjusted to reflect the so-called loss of the land for revenue purposes, which means that most motorists, because they pay property taxes directly or indirectly, pay the higher rates.
As I pointed out, which Mr. Klepper has conveniently overlooked, the same notion would apply to railroads, airports, waterways, etc. The freight railroads pay property taxes, except they don't. The taxes are paid by the people who buy the goods and services shipped on the railroads. Moreover, whether the taxes paid by the railroads reflect the alternate value of the property is questionable. Moreover, Amtrak does not pay any taxes. It does not even reimburse its hoist carriers for any pass through taxes because the federal legislation prohibits it.
There are approximately 205 million licensed motorists in the United States. Most of them pay taxes. By contrast, the number of people traveling on Amtrak is unknown. Or at least the information is not available through public documents. What is know is the number of passengers, which was roughly 30 million in FY11. But one person on Amtrak, or the airlines or buses for that matter, can be one person traveling once a year, which would be analogous to a licensed motorist, or it could be one person traveling 52 times a year or it could be me with eight trips on Amtrak in FY11. I rang the Amtrak passenger bell eight times during the year, but I am just one taxpayer.
The users of the nation's roadways and airways pay for the system primarily through fuel taxes, vehicle fees, tickets taxes, etc., or they pay for them indirectly through general funds and transfers. Because there are so many of them compared to the relatively few people who ride Amtrak, they pay for the system, although the indirect payments are difficult but not impossible to trace. I do it frequently, at least for the big bucks, which I have described in previous posts. They result in some cost shifting, i.e. wealthier users pay more in taxes while lower income motorists pay disproportionately lower taxes or in some instances none at all. Also, most of Amtrak's passengers pay taxes. But there are not enough of them to off-set the large subsidies required by passenger rail.
At the end of the day the discussion about subsidies is dysfunctional. It does not matter whether the highways or airways or whatever have been given preferences or whether the railroads have compounded preferences that exceed anything given to the highways and airways. The key question is this: Where does passenger rail make sense for the United States, how much of it can we afford, and how will we pay for it?
daveklepper The greatest part of the subsidy for intercity highway transportation is land use.
You are just making an off the wall claim with no supporting data.
I have a report that you referred me to several years ago. It is DOT report Number CR-2005-068, dated July 22, 2005, issued by the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation. The reference is JA-50. This may be the report that you have in mind.
Paul of Covington As usual, any discussion of passenger trains evolves into a discussion of subsidies, and as much as I like trains, I'll agree that it's hard to justify the high level of subsidy for passenger trains, but Paul Milenkovic hit on an idea that makes sense. Subsidise the coach seat so that basic transportation is available at a reasonable rate, but let the luxury services pay most of their own way. Sleeping accommodations take up considerably more space per passenger along with the extra services of attendants, etc. As I wrote this it occurred to me that I really don't know the level of subsidy the sleeping accommodations receive relative to basic coach. Is there a breakdown of costs and subsidies of the different services?
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul Milenkovic Why are trains and especially long-distance trains so expensive to operate on an everything-above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch basis? That is the question we should be asking rather than dismissing the concern over subsidies with "yes, everyone else is getting them."
Why are trains and especially long-distance trains so expensive to operate on an everything-above-the-wheel-rail-contact-patch basis? That is the question we should be asking rather than dismissing the concern over subsidies with "yes, everyone else is getting them."
It is a great question when you examine the high expenses of Amtrak (I think we would find that maintenance is very high) aside from direct operating expenses. Labor (Salaries, wages, and benefits) represented $1.79 bil.of Amtrak's total expenses of $3.72 bil. in FY 2010, 48%. Fuel was $299.7 mil. By comparison, on the UP, labor was $4.31 bil. out of a total of $11.98 bil., 36%. Fuel was $2.49 bil. So while on Amtrak, the ration of labor to fuel was almost 6:1, on the UP it was only 1.7:1.
PNWRMNM Dakota, If your arguement is correct, not that I think it is, then should the NPS not be running stage coaches between Independence MO and Sacramento plus steamboats on the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Sacramento, and Columbia Rivers? How about the misquito fleet on Puget Sound? Dont forget the Commodore's boats going everywhere out of New York City! I guess that would not be in the filthy lucre category, like any other government exenditure, but in sainted public service of the NPS. Mac
Dakota,
If your arguement is correct, not that I think it is, then should the NPS not be running stage coaches between Independence MO and Sacramento plus steamboats on the Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Sacramento, and Columbia Rivers? How about the misquito fleet on Puget Sound? Dont forget the Commodore's boats going everywhere out of New York City!
I guess that would not be in the filthy lucre category, like any other government exenditure, but in sainted public service of the NPS.
Mac
The NPS does this already! It's what the Steamtown excursions are about - at least on the rail side of things. It's about preserving and experiencing history. It's not about transportation.
I think it's perfectly okay to run trains everywhere with nobody on them as long as a majority of the public a) wants it, and b) know what it's costing them.
I think we might have condition "a", but no way do we have condition "b". Most people don't know or don't care to know or both.
The best quote I saw about Amtrak's LD trains was by Jim McClellan. It's was in a talk he gave to the "Sandhouse Gang" a couple of years ago. It was the LD train are irrelevant. They will remain in the future, but will remain irrelevant.
daveklepper I ahve discussed the hidden subsidies for highway transportation at great length on this website already and do not need to repeat. They are enormous, beleive me.
I ahve discussed the hidden subsidies for highway transportation at great length on this website already and do not need to repeat. They are enormous, beleive me.
In my opinion, this is a big sticking point for advancing the cause of passenger trains. The roads are being subsidized so we don't want to hear any talk about train subsidies. We have been saying that repeatedly since 1971, and apart from the NEC and the California trains, it has barely allowed us to hang on to the trains we have.
Does the rate of subsidy, the bang-for-the-buck, the amount of service received for a given level of subsidy matter to anyone? Or do trains have such inherent goodness that whatever subsidy money it takes it shall be?
Even things funded by the government, while not subject to the harsh discipline of the marketplace of many privately funded ventures, even government spending is subject to cost-benefit tradeoffs at some point. Take the F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Please! Even the proponents of high levels of Defense spending are grudgingly accepting that the high price tag has moved that project into the Boondoggle category.
As to highway transportation receiving enormous hidden subsidy, no, I do not believe it. Why? Simple. Amtrak is subsidized at about 20 cents/passenger mile. For the approximately 4-5 trillion passenger miles in autos per year, that works out to about a trillion dollars per year in subsidy, hidden or otherwise, to automobile transportation. I simply do not see where one comes up with a trillion dollars in hidden subsidy to cars, unless one puts the entire defense budget into the auto ledger because of the war-for-oil justification. If Amtrak is the standard for "enormous subsidy", I do not see where equally enormous subsidy is going into cars.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.