http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/01/amtrak_profits_in_the_northeast_where_people_use_it_they_make_money.html
It's obvious to Mr. Yglesias, too. (BTW, he generally comes down on the liberal side of moderate...)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
"...trains are running in places where nobody rides them..."
There were an awful lot of "nobodys" riding those trains last time I looked. Remember, at Amtrak NEC stands for "Nothing Else Counts."
Editor Emeritus, This Week at Amtrak
D.Carleton "...trains are running in places where nobody rides them..." There were an awful lot of "nobodys" riding those trains last time I looked. Remember, at Amtrak NEC stands for "Nothing Else Counts."
Hit did bite on the "nobody rides them" urban legend. The problem is their cost - even if you ignore the hidden subsidy by the host RRs.
But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors.
oltmanndHit did bite on the "nobody rides them" urban legend. The problem is their cost - even if you ignore the hidden subsidy by the host RRs.
Don,
I think Matthew Yglesias didn't understand the Brookings Institute article he quotes from.
To put the costs in proper perspective, here are statistics from the report:
Amtrak routes of 400 or fewer miles Profit $46.6 million
400 to 750 miles Loss $16.3 million
Over 750 miles Loss $597.6 million
The early part of the report explains why Congress does not see this as a problem as you do. At first glance the problem seems to leap off the page. However, Amtrak has two purposes. One purpose is to provide rail passenger service at a profit or a minimum cost. The second purpose to to provide for a social need. It should not come as a surprise that the social need part is where we spend almost all of the money. This has been debated over and over again in the Congress and there are those members who do not agree with it. But over the years of Amtrak's existence Congress has continued to fund both the practical part and the social need part of Amtrak.
Yglesias is politically opposed to the social needs part. But he is also naïve. He fails to see what you do see. Our long distance routes are used. Whether or not that use justifies a $600 million a year subsidy is another question.
John
oltmannd But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors
But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors
63.% of the riders are from the top 10 metro areas, which include many of the shorter corridors.
from the Brookings Report: "Simply put, short-distance routes are the engines of Amtrak ridership.36 When only considering corridors of 400 miles or less—an accepted distance for optimal rail ridership—these short corridors are responsible for over 80 percent [82.9%] of all Amtrak ridership." So 17.1% of the ridership [whose growth is at less than half the rate of the under 400 mile corridor ridership] creates a loss of $613.9 mil. and thus uses all the subsidy, government-sourced = 613.9 mil. and subsidized by riders on routes under 400 miles = $46.6 mil. for a total = $660.5 mil.It is bad enough that the taxpayer has to subsidize at a heavy level 17.1% of the ridership. It is absurd that riders of Acela have to subsidize Mr. Smith on his land cruise in a sleeper on the CZ or SL or EB or SWC. Time for Amtrak to reform and pull the plug on an antique that bears no resemblance to a modern rail passenger service.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmIt is absurd that riders of Acela have to subsidize Mr. Smith on his land cruise in a sleeper on the CZ or SL or EB or SWC.
But Schlimm, we have many many subsidies in America and not just for poor people. Consider, for example, the income tax write off of mortgage interest. That is a hugh subsidy to home owners. And the fact that capital gains are taxed at a special low rate. That is a hugh subsidy to our wealthier people. Even roads that do not have bus routes are subsidies to people who can afford cars.
That sort of "But dad, everybody else gets one, so why not me?" argument is totally invalid. We are talking about Amtrak and passenger rail service and it will be judged on its merits. Amtrak receives a yearly subsidy, as it should be. The entire point of the Brookings report [and my criticisms, oltmann's and maybe Paul M's] is getting the most bang for the buck. You set up a straw man by suggesting this is about making a profit versus serving a social purpose. That distinction is a false one. Rather, a lot more people could be served (isn't that the purpose of the social component?) if the dollars were used where the people are, namely in developing corridors under 400 miles connecting metro areas. If that operating subsidy could be used for equipment and infrastructure, that would be a far better use.
John WRYglesias is politically opposed to the social needs part. But he is also naïve. He fails to see what you do see. Our long distance routes are used. Whether or not that use justifies a $600 million a year subsidy is another question.
I reject the "social need" argument because it is extremely unevenly distributed so therefore cannot be an actual need. Southern Kansas has more "social need" than South Dakota? How so?
D.Carleton oltmannd But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors The future is corridors... operated by entities other than Amtrak.
Well, not if Amtrak gets their act together....
The writer of the piece should try riding one of the trains "nobody rides." This past Monday night, I went to the Salt Lake City station to pick up the reservation I had made that morning, and I had to wait (my trip is still in the future) until all the people who had not yet bought their tickets to ride #5 that night had bought theirs; it took the agent more than an hour to take care of them.
Johnny
Deggesty The writer of the piece should try riding one of the trains "nobody rides." This past Monday night, I went to the Salt Lake City station to pick up the reservation I had made that morning, and I had to wait (my trip is still in the future) until all the people who had not yet bought their tickets to ride #5 that night had bought theirs; it took the agent more than an hour to take care of them.
Lining up at the trough. That is a great example of what is wrong with Amtrak.
schlimm You set up a straw man by suggesting this is about making a profit versus serving a social purpose.
Schlimm,
I don't suggest profit vs social need. I suggest prolfit and social need is the historical reason for long distance routes.
You argue that the money spent on long distance routes could be better spent to serve more people. That argument is fair enough. But what does it have to do with the reason that Congress mandated long distance routes back in 1970? And while Congress no longer mandates long distance routes it has clearly said it wants Amtrak to continue these routes.
It is true that you and others disagree with Congress's decision that it wants long distance routes maintained. But that does not alter the reason these routes were set up in the first place.
oltmannd D.Carleton oltmannd But, it's pretty clear the future is in corridors The future is corridors... operated by entities other than Amtrak. Well, not if Amtrak gets their act together....
oltmanndI reject the "social need" argument because it is extremely unevenly distributed so therefore cannot be an actual need. Southern Kansas has more "social need" than South Dakota? How so?
Do you mean that the social need is evenly distributed but unevenly served? That Amtrak meets a social need in southern Kansas but does not meet that same need in South Dakota?
Certainly it can be argued that Amtrak should not meet any social needs at all. And it can be argued that Amtrak should meed all social needs for transportation equally. But what Amtrak seems to me to be doing with its long distance routes is to meet social needs to the extent its budget will allow. In our society it is very common for social needs legislation to help some people while ignoring the equally valid needs of other people but that does not lead to a conclusion that social needs do not exist.
Time and time again we keep rehashing passenger trains, Amtrak, profits, loses, political postures and trains. We have yet to bring it all into the perspective of defining the purpose of the passenger train, defining the specifics of operating a passenger train or all passenger trains, balancing it all against other modes, and tying it all together as a total service in relation each other. We either have to weigh each train and track one by one or lump them all together as a service feeding upon itself or adding the service as a whole to the transportation system as a whole. We can pick apart everything to the point it all costs too much per unit, per train or bus or car or mile. Does a coast to coast Route 80 make sense when one drives only across the G.W. Bridge or halfway across the state of NJ? But Route 80 stretches to the Pacific coast, too. Do we dump the interstate highway routes because there are stretches in some places that don't have more than two an hour? What I am saying is that we have to look at our transportation system with all forms of transportation included, figure out what we need and what we want, and what we want to pay for all of it. Or none of it.
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.
schlimm Deggesty The writer of the piece should try riding one of the trains "nobody rides." This past Monday night, I went to the Salt Lake City station to pick up the reservation I had made that morning, and I had to wait (my trip is still in the future) until all the people who had not yet bought their tickets to ride #5 that night had bought theirs; it took the agent more than an hour to take care of them. Lining up at the trough. That is a great example of what is wrong with Amtrak.
Quite often, when people buy transportation, they have to visit an agent to obtain the proof that they have paid for it.
Deggesty schlimm Deggesty The writer of the piece should try riding one of the trains "nobody rides." This past Monday night, I went to the Salt Lake City station to pick up the reservation I had made that morning, and I had to wait (my trip is still in the future) until all the people who had not yet bought their tickets to ride #5 that night had bought theirs; it took the agent more than an hour to take care of them. Lining up at the trough. That is a great example of what is wrong with Amtrak. SCHLIMM, can you please explain your comment? Quite often, when people buy transportation, they have to visit an agent to obtain the proof that they have paid for it.
On Friday we experienced lines of people waiting for transportation every where we went: lines for tickets and lines to board. This included Amtrak, NJT trains and buses, SEPTA transit, trolleys, and trains. Public transportation....get in line, pay your fare, get aboard. If that didn't happen, then getting rid of the trains, buses, trolley cars and subways would be an easy decision. You gotta end up at the station to board...so I don't understand the comment which seems to misunderstand how life works.
henry6 Deggesty schlimm Deggesty The writer of the piece should try riding one of the trains "nobody rides." This past Monday night, I went to the Salt Lake City station to pick up the reservation I had made that morning, and I had to wait (my trip is still in the future) until all the people who had not yet bought their tickets to ride #5 that night had bought theirs; it took the agent more than an hour to take care of them. Lining up at the trough. That is a great example of what is wrong with Amtrak. SCHLIMM, can you please explain your comment? Quite often, when people buy transportation, they have to visit an agent to obtain the proof that they have paid for it. On Friday we experienced lines of people waiting for transportation every where we went: lines for tickets and lines to board. This included Amtrak, NJT trains and buses, SEPTA transit, trolleys, and trains. Public transportation....get in line, pay your fare, get aboard. If that didn't happen, then getting rid of the trains, buses, trolley cars and subways would be an easy decision. You gotta end up at the station to board...so I don't understand the comment which seems to misunderstand how life works.
Well, that was the whole point about how buying your fare online was supposed to improve how life works. You show up at the boarding point, hand over or scan the item QUICKLY, and get aboard.
Having to run your receipt past bored human eyes at the end of the one open line, or having to produce secondary ID or swipe the credit card used for the original order at the one open kiosk that everyone else is using to pay for and buy their tickets and passes, destroys the whole point of the exercise.
If that can't be integrated into the fare system -- you need a better systems integrator.
RME
If Amtrak didn't have it's act together - it would have ceased to exist many years ago. Amtrak's act is securing operating and capital funds from Congress - services to a paying public are a secondary concern to the primary one of continuing to get funds from Congress.
Until Congress sets up a long term sustainable funding source, Amtrak can only pay lip service to getting its 'act together' in other areas of it's operation as all those areas have a political voice that can hurt Amtrak in the short term with Congressional appropriations.
The Amtrak is the family that can barely keep the 'important' bills paid every month as the live paycheck to paycheck, being criticised for not having lawn care, fresh paint on the siding, new carpeting and all the other things the neighbors think they should have as well as a 401K and IRA's for their retirement. The family can barely keep heat and lights on and food on the table with their income from all sources and we expect them to have the 'Life Styles of the Rich and Famous'.
Can Amtrak do better - Yes. Any organization can do better than their present performance - all it takes is ideas and the resources to implement the ideas. One without the other gets you nowhere.
You cannot have someone on a starvation diet for their entire existence and expect them to grow into a 360 pound NFL lineman that runs a 4.6 second 40 yard time and bench presses 500 pounds multiple times.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
OvermodIf that can't be integrated into the fare system -- you need a better systems integrator.
Actually picking up an Amtrak ticket, as it was explained to me when I did so, has nothing to do with Amtrak ticketing systems. Rather, Homeland Security now requires people to present a picture id (like a drivers license or passport) before being given their ticket. I think we all know that since the World Trade Center was destroyed there are a lot of security regulations that did not exist before that happened. Amtrak does not get a free pass from these new regulations.
John WR Actually picking up an Amtrak ticket, as it was explained to me when I did so, has nothing to do with Amtrak ticketing systems. Rather, Homeland Security now requires people to present a picture id (like a drivers license or passport) before being given their ticket. I think we all know that since the World Trade Center was destroyed there are a lot of security regulations that did not exist before that happened. Amtrak does not get a free pass from these new regulations.
I don't doubt that is what you were told, but it makes little sense. For one thing, at many stations those who have reservations may purchase the ticket using a Quik-Trak machine rather than a live person.
Secondly, ID verification serves no useful purpose unless the passenger list is cross referenced against a "do not train" list. Does such a list exist?
Finally, there must be hundreds of thousands of individuals who use commuter rail on monthly passes. Why should security be different for commuters than for Amtrak passengers?
I agree that if you purchase an Amtrak ticket from a live person you must furnish ID. However, as nearly as I can determine, it is just another meaningless exercise in security theatre.
BaltACDAmtrak's act is securing operating and capital funds from Congress - services to a paying public are a secondary concern to the primary one of continuing to get funds from Congress.
Yup. Wrong mission.
BaltACDThe Amtrak is the family that can barely keep the 'important' bills paid every month as the live paycheck to paycheck, being criticised for not having lawn care, fresh paint on the siding, new carpeting and all the other things the neighbors think they should have as well as a 401K and IRA's for their retirement. The family can barely keep heat and lights on and food on the table with their income from all sources and we expect them to have the 'Life Styles of the Rich and Famous'.
Meanwhile, housing everyone's favorite Uncle Charlie in the master bedroom. He keeps the heat set at 74 and the AC set at 68 and eats the household cupboard bare. But, he does toss in $100 a week from his 16 hours of work each week at the typewriter repair shop.
oltmannd BaltACDAmtrak's act is securing operating and capital funds from Congress - services to a paying public are a secondary concern to the primary one of continuing to get funds from Congress. Yup. Wrong mission. BaltACDThe Amtrak is the family that can barely keep the 'important' bills paid every month as the live paycheck to paycheck, being criticised for not having lawn care, fresh paint on the siding, new carpeting and all the other things the neighbors think they should have as well as a 401K and IRA's for their retirement. The family can barely keep heat and lights on and food on the table with their income from all sources and we expect them to have the 'Life Styles of the Rich and Famous'. Meanwhile, housing everyone's favorite Uncle Charlie in the master bedroom. He keeps the heat set at 74 and the AC set at 68 and eats the household cupboard bare. But, he does toss in $100 a week from his 16 hours of work each week at the typewriter repair shop.
But Uncle Charlie controls those that control the income. No Uncle Charlie, no income, no business. If Congress would set up a 'sustainable funding mechanism' that Uncle Charlie's whims didn't affect they could change their mission - but Congress wants Amtrak to come on bended knee every year and beg, so Congress can feel 'All Powerful' in making Amtrak dance to their toon tune.
BaltACD oltmannd BaltACDAmtrak's act is securing operating and capital funds from Congress - services to a paying public are a secondary concern to the primary one of continuing to get funds from Congress. Yup. Wrong mission. BaltACDThe Amtrak is the family that can barely keep the 'important' bills paid every month as the live paycheck to paycheck, being criticised for not having lawn care, fresh paint on the siding, new carpeting and all the other things the neighbors think they should have as well as a 401K and IRA's for their retirement. The family can barely keep heat and lights on and food on the table with their income from all sources and we expect them to have the 'Life Styles of the Rich and Famous'. Meanwhile, housing everyone's favorite Uncle Charlie in the master bedroom. He keeps the heat set at 74 and the AC set at 68 and eats the household cupboard bare. But, he does toss in $100 a week from his 16 hours of work each week at the typewriter repair shop. But Uncle Charlie controls those that control the income. No Uncle Charlie, no income, no business. If Congress would set up a 'sustainable funding mechanism' that Uncle Charlie's whims didn't affect they could change their mission - but Congress wants Amtrak to come on bended knee every year and beg, so Congress can feel 'All Powerful' in making Amtrak dance to their toon tune.
"Uncle Charlie" is the long distance trains. Everybody likes him. He's been around so long, no one questions what he's doing there even though he consumes "mass quantities" and doesn't pay his share.
Dakota,
What I know is that in the past I've purchased a ticket on line and got a bar code to scan on Amtrak's machine. The last time there was no bar code, nothing to scan, so I had to go to the ticket window to get my ticket and produce my id. The ticket clerk explained about the Homeland Security regulations. That is what in fact happened to me and what I do know.
oltmannd"Uncle Charlie" is the long distance trains. Everybody likes him. He's been around so long, no one questions what he's doing there even though he consumes "mass quantities" and doesn't pay his share.
What we have here is an allegation. And the allegation fails to consider subsidy to all American transportation except for the subsidy to Amtrak. It is hard for me to see any reason to single out one kind of transportation; the principal should be applied to all transportation or to none at all.
John WR oltmannd"Uncle Charlie" is the long distance trains. Everybody likes him. He's been around so long, no one questions what he's doing there even though he consumes "mass quantities" and doesn't pay his share. Don, What we have here is an allegation. And the allegation fails to consider subsidy to all American transportation except for the subsidy to Amtrak. It is hard for me to see any reason to single out one kind of transportation; the principal should be applied to all transportation or to none at all. John
It is very easy to see why one form of subsidized transportation has a "target on its back" that no other subsidized form of transportation has.
One can draw different boundaries around things or invoke various manners of indirect subsidy or withdraw to claiming that subsidy is "complicated" that it cannot be quantified, or invoke some manner of "allegation." But that one form of subsidized transportation is subsidized at a much higher rate is a consistent outcome of these exercises.
Yes, it is unfair that Amtrak gets picked upon whereas the other modes of transportation "get a free pass", except that they don't inasmuch that public spending on anything and everything gets subject to scrutiny and even opposition these days. It is unfair that "people don't listen to us" that every mode of transportation is subsidized and that somehow and in some way the level of subsidy cannot be quantified even though there are these people who add up numbers and add up government appropriations and come up with numbers.
It is also an unhappy state of affairs that people commenting on this Web site of train enthusiasts cannot be relied upon to be in agreement that all of this is unfair. But the question is whether a person values harmony in discussions or values getting to the bottom of why things in the "big world out there" are the way they are.
This thread (I guess) was about the Slate columnist expressing what many of us regard as a "naive" view of passenger trains and their cost effectiveness, and some of us have responded like a NARP Press Release intended to "straighten him out", as if our straightening-out on these matters has had much impact over the last 40 years.
Instead of trying to straighten out the Slate commentator, maybe we would do better to understand the Slate commentator so as to build a bigger political movement in support of trains.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I just want to reform Uncle Charlie to the level of the other "boarders" in our house.
henry6Time and time again we keep rehashing passenger trains,
Henry,
I generally agree with what you say. It also strikes me that if our western transcontinental Amtrak trains serve the fewest people probably that same section of our Defense and Interstate Highway System also serves the fewest people. If we have a coherent transportation policy and we eliminate one we logically should eliminate the other too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.