In my view essential air service money should be repurposed and spent on providing passenger rail and bus service to rural communities and communities which have lost service.
Railroad to Freedom
I AGREE, AND BUSES CAN DO THE JOB IN THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE MANNER IN MOST SITUATIONS. WHEN THERE ARE ECONOMIES OF SCALE BECAUSE OF DOVETAILING WITH EXISTING PASSENGER RAIL, THEN RAIL IS THE BETTER OPTION.
IN MANY INSTANCES, ESSENTIAL AIR MONEY IS PORK.
The San Joaquins, Pacific Surfliners and Capitol Corridor are an excellent example of co-ordinated rail-bus service in the short-to-medium-haul market.
Perhaps more coordinated feeder buses could work in some western states as well. But most folks who want to travel from Missoula to Chicago, for example, would still fly. The time factor (up to 6 hours) or when distances are over 500 miles becomes critical.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CSSHEGEWISCH The San Joaquins, Pacific Surfliners and Capitol Corridor are an excellent example of co-ordinated rail-bus service in the short-to-medium-haul market.
blue streak 1 CSSHEGEWISCH The San Joaquins, Pacific Surfliners and Capitol Corridor are an excellent example of co-ordinated rail-bus service in the short-to-medium-haul market. Agree. When traveling to LAX during the planning for the system I felt that it would never work. Thought that the auto centric persons would not go even in small numbers to the proposed rail system. Had only a very limited understanding of how the bus feeders would be set up. What a peasant surprize. ! Of course the ability of travelers and commuters to now do work while using these facilities may also be a big factor ?
But those trains have little to do with the EAS question.
in 2011 and 2012 Congress passed several reforms that look more like phasing out EAS. No new communities can be given EAS who do not now have it. Communities that do have it must maintain at least 10 passengers per day. At present 163 communities have EAS which is not really very many. However, as far as I know when a community has its EAS yanked or, if it is not an EAS community, commercial airlines pull out there is no provision for providing any other service. This is yet another example of Congress turning its pack on the needs of Americans in rural areas.
"Most would fly?" Buses can connect with major airports that don't need EAS as well as with railroad stations.
AND A JOYOUS 4TH!!!
Missoula airport: by departures:
Allegiant1 Salt Lake City, UT64,430
Delta2 Seattle, WA62,730
Alaska3 Denver, CO51,820
United4 Minneapolis, MN43,350
Delta5 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ18,430
Allegiant6 Los Angeles, CA17,750
Allegiant7 Las Vegas, NV15,790
Allegiant8 Oakland, CA6,400
Allegiant9 San Francisco, CA6,230
United10 Chicago O’Hare, IL5,700United
Amtrak doesn't serve Missoula but the EB does serve Whitefish, the busiest station in MT. It had 66,614 boardings and detrainings, so dividing by 2 means 33.307, far less than the number who chose to fly from Missoula just to Seattle alone.
A better comparison is Glacier, as it is served by air and Amtrak:
Amtrak reports 14,886 at East Glacier (open only May-Oct) and at 6,175 West Glacier. Again dividing by 2 = 10,530. This means that given the choice to fly or take a train, people flying out of the Glacier area choose to fly. Not sure about the bus.
What is the nearest airport to these two locations that does not require a subsidy, and how long would a bus ride be to that airport?
How many of these fliers would fly if ticket prices reflected the cost of service and were not subsidized?
Does Wilmington, DE, have a subsidized commercial airport, when travelers can make an easy connection to Philadelphia's?
Neither the Missoula nor Glacier airports are subsidized by EAS and both are close to the towns. If they receive other subsidies, I do not know. Sometimes local communities offer incentives (bribes) to airlines to offer services, but the two in Montana seem to do a large volume of commercial service. I do know that the EB receives a very large subsidy. No airport in Delaware receives an EAS subsidy.Missoula International Airport (MSO) participates in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program. This program uses revenues derived from a per-passenger charge to fund capital improvements at MSO.
PFC's are essentially a user tax paid on airfares from Missoula International Airport. The PFC program was created by Congress in the 1990 Aviation Safety and Capacity Act (ASCA) to offer a new funding source for airport capital projects. It is intended to assist airports in funding major infrastructure development and is charged to enplaning passengers only. Collected PFC's are designated to fund very specific capital projects that are formally approved by the FAA. They can be used to secure and pay financing for FAA approved projects. Currently, MSO collects a fee of $4.50, minus an 11-cent handling fee to the collecting airline.
daveklepperDoes Wilmington, DE, have a subsidized commercial airport, when travelers can make an easy connection to Philadelphia's?
Wilmington, DE does have a small airport. It is actually in New Castle. There is a local bus to the Wilmington Amtrak Station which provides SEPTA trains to Philadelphia and from there trains to Philadelphia Airport. A bus and 2 trains is not the easiest of connections but it is possible. Wilmington Airport and Philadelphia Airport are 26 miles apart according to the internet.
PFC's--passenger facility charges--are not hugh. However, the are hidden costs of air travel which can make a difference, especially on short flights. The ones I found are:
U. S. Excise tax: 7.5 per cent.
Federal Flight Segment tax: $3.00 per flight segment on domestic flights within the 48 states. Other states are higher and international flights higher still.
Federal Security Segment tax: $5.00 per flight segment.
Passenger Facilities charges: $4.50.
This adds up to at least $12.50 plus 7.5 per cent. However, with one change of planes it is $20.50 plus 7.5 per cent. And of course for a round trip flight you have to double everything. So what may seem like a real bargain may not be such a bargain if you need to add in $41.00 plus 7.5 per cent.
Airline baggage fees vary considerably. The lowest are $0 for 2 check bags (Southwest).
The highest are $30 per carry on bag, $45 for first bag checked in at the gate and $55 for the second (Spirit Airways). Total $130. Here is a website with more information:
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/3801089/airline-baggage-fees-chart-updated/
John WR daveklepperDoes Wilmington, DE, have a subsidized commercial airport, when travelers can make an easy connection to Philadelphia's? Wilmington, DE does have a small airport. It is actually in New Castle. There is a local bus to the Wilmington Amtrak Station which provides SEPTA trains to Philadelphia and from there trains to Philadelphia Airport. A bus and 2 trains is not the easiest of connections but it is possible. Wilmington Airport and Philadelphia Airport are 26 miles apart according to the internet.
If you look for fares on Expedia or Orbitz, which are the two big airline search engines, the price is total. It includes the basic fare, plus taxes and the other user fees. There are no "hidden" fees if you search and book in that manner. The only additional fee would be for checked baggage, if any.
John WR PFC's--passenger facility charges--are not hugh. However, the are hidden costs of air travel which can make a difference, especially on short flights. The ones I found are: U. S. Excise tax: 7.5 per cent. Federal Flight Segment tax: $3.00 per flight segment on domestic flights within the 48 states. Other states are higher and international flights higher still. Federal Security Segment tax: $5.00 per flight segment. Passenger Facilities charges: $4.50. This adds up to at least $12.50 plus 7.5 per cent. However, with one change of planes it is $20.50 plus 7.5 per cent. And of course for a round trip flight you have to double everything. So what may seem like a real bargain may not be such a bargain if you need to add in $41.00 plus 7.5 per cent. Airline baggage fees vary considerably. The lowest are $0 for 2 check bags (Southwest). The highest are $30 per carry on bag, $45 for first bag checked in at the gate and $55 for the second (Spirit Airways). Total $130. Here is a website with more information: http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/3801089/airline-baggage-fees-chart-updated/
All of the fees you referred to above, with the exception of the baggage fees, change fees, etc., are disclosed in the quoted price by law. They are paid by the user. Moreover, only the most inexperienced air travelers probably are unaware of the checked baggage fees, change fees, etc. The airline websites that I use regularly (Southwest, American, United, and Qantas) make it crystal clear that you may be billed for checked baggage, itinerary changes, etc.
What does this have to do with Amtrak? Or EAS since the fees referred to apply to all airlines? The EAS subsidies are paid only to a relatively small number of regional or commuter air operators that serve EAS supported routes.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, the EAS program is shrinking. It is currently available to 121 communities, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, down from the 480 originally eligible communities.
The average per passenger subsidy in 2011 ranged from $6.26 (Joplin, MO) to $1,904.79 (Lewistown, MT). The average program subsidy was $233.78 whilst the median was $139.61. The numbers for the fourth quartile, which are generated by some high end (EAS subsidy) airports in the west, skews the results significantly. If the top quartile results are eliminated from the mix, the median program subsidy drops to $110.96.
The average federal subsidy per passenger mile for the long distance train rider in 2010 was 23.1 cents. The average subsidy per passenger was $144.15. These numbers assume that Amtrak's long distance trains wear 10 per cent of the depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. By the same token, the averages for Amtrak's long distance trains are skewed because of two or three really poor performers, i.e. Sunset Limited and Cardinal, but the skewing does not appear to be as great as that for EAS.
The Essential Air Services Program should be terminated. That is not to say that I believe the monies saved should be used to subsidize an alternative mode of transport.
To my mind, Sam, the USA without air travel is unthinkable. We have it and we will have it regardless of cost. However, because it is so bound up with our culture there are a lot of things that are difficult or impossible to quantify. At least I don't know how to.
9/11 was a real catastrophe for the whole airline industry. The only way out of it was for the government to come in and help and the government did that with many grants and many loans. In addition there was insurance. Costs of airline insurance for acts of war skyrocketed to the point where companies simply could not afford it. The answer was a government subsidized plan to keep premiums reasonable. What this means, of course, is that you and I and all the rest of the taxpayers are really assuming the risk. Some airlines have gone out of business and their pensions are in trouble. The costs are picked up by the U. S. Pension Guarantee Corporation, a government agency. That means you, me and other taxpayers. Finally, airlines today have a lot of pressure to reduce costs. One thing they do is to contract out services wherever possible. This means that the people who perform those services get such low pay that they qualify for government aid from programs for the working poor. Again, the taxpayers pay the bill.
My own airport is Newark Liberty. Each time I go there I have to use my gps to get out. That is because ever since 9/11 there have been safety related projects to rebuild and redirect roads and today they are still going on; I never leave the same way twice. Some are on interstate highways, some are on state highways and some are on airport roads. I don't know where all the money comes from but it sure is a lot.
And I don't really know the answer to all of this. Clearly, though, air travel will continue to be a public private partnership. Part will be paid by users, part by airlines and part by the taxpayers. We have to have air transportation and it will not be cheap for any of us.
John
Subsidies for airports, airlines, FAA, etc. have noting to do with what the nation should spend on Amtrak and passenger rail.
If passenger rail is a good investment, which it is in some corridors, the monies will be found for it. If it had the potential to generate a return, private investors would put up the money. They have for bus companies, airlines, cruise ship lines, freight railroads, trucking companies, etc.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a quasi-government insurance company. It collects insurance premiums from the participants. When a company terminates its qualified pension plan, it is simply cashing in its insurance policy. I reviewed PBGC's financial statements about a year ago. It had not used taxpayer monies to cover its liabilities at that time, although it is underfunded. If it cannot make up the difference, the taxpayers could be on the hook for the variance, but it is unlikely.
Where is the evidence that outsourced work performed by the airlines is done by workers whose compensation packages place them below the poverty line?
A number of studies have shown that air travel today, when adjusted for inflation, is less expensive than was the case before the airlines were deregulated.
Where the money comes from can be traced for any legitimate activity via an audit trail. This is true for Amtrak, FAA, Aviation Trust Fund, Highway Trust Fund, etc. It is more difficult in the case of fraud, but in most of these instances forensic auditors (investigators) will find it. There is nothing mysterious about it if one knows where to look for the data and takes the time to do so.
Determining whether costs have been accounted for properly is another matter. All cost accounting models involved some allocations, as per another post, and allocations frequently give rise to disagreements.
Sam1Subsidies for airports, airlines, FAA, etc. have noting to do with what the nation should spend on Amtrak and passenger rail.
Do you really believe this, Sam? From other posts you have made I though that you believe in order to make true economic decisions about transportation (or anything else) the price has to be equal to the true cost of providing the service. When anything is subsidized then the use of it becomes distorted because it seems to cost less than it really does. A classic example is the commons fallacy.
Of course when we deal with transportation there is no way that it is possible to pay the true cost. I don't think we can even know the true cost of our spaghetti bowl system of highways. But that is the culture we all live in. But certainly the subsidies for any transportation have to do with the use of other kinds of transportation.
I'm sure sam1 could discuss it in detail as a numbers person, but a cursory examination of the FAA budget shows about $9.8 bil, FY2012 for operations: air traffic control, and safety safety programs. Grants to airport authorities adds another $5.5 bil. Facilities adds another $3.3 bil.., with a grand total of $18.657 bil. Now that seems like a lot, compared to Amtrak, but it includes a lot of funding for services beyond the airlines. Much of its revenue is from the various taxes and fees, i.e., user fees. And the FAA does serve 735.5 million passengers annually, which is 23.5 times Amtrak's 31.2 million passengers. Amtrak receives a subsidy of $1.365 bil. to cover its operating deficit and capital improvements and debt service. Even if one simply compared the total FAA budget (inaccurate because at least 1/2 their budget is not for covering the airlines)with Amtrak's appropriation (subsidy) it is only 13.7 times as much. more realistically it is 1/2 that or only 6.8 times the Amtrak subsidy. So pretty clearly, Amtrak is not pulling its weight and would be wise to seek permission from Congress to dump its perpetual money hole, the legacy LD services, in order to avoid having Congress eliminate it altogether.
Looking at these budgets is a real eye opener, but it helps put things in perspective.
The key question is what should the nation invest in passenger rail? What it invests or has invested in other modes of transport is irrelevant. It is a sunk cost.
If passenger rail was a potentially productive investment, investors would fall all over themselves to get a piece of the action irrespective of what the other guys invest in commercial air, highways, etc. That is how markets work!
Price is just one of the transport mode determinants. To the extent that it is influenced by subsidies, it can influence choice. But it is not the only determinant. Comfort, convenience, my space vs. communal space, technical superiority, etc. are all important factors in choosing a mode of transport.
Proponents of Amtrak should project a low profile on this subject. It is the only intercity commercial mode that gets a direct cash subsidy from the federal and state governments. The other modes (commercial air, buses, cruise ships, etc.) don't receive a direct cash payment from any government, as far as I can determine, although they may realize an indirect benefit to the extent that their user fees don't pay the fully allocated cost of the infrastructure that they use. This is a widely debated subject that we have beat to death in these forums.
In 2002 Daniel Kahneman was awared the Nobel Peace Prize in Economic Sciences. What made his award unusual is that Dr. Kahneman is a psychologist. His research, as well as that of others, has shown that people's decisions are not as rationale as economists had thought. Their research suggests strongly that many factors drive people's choices. Price is just one of the economic variables.
Most people in Texas, at least, will still go for personal vehicles, as long as they can afford them, irrespective of the comparative costs, before they will jump on a train or bus. As the nation and Texas become more congested, the cost dynamic will change, I believe, in favor of a more balanced transport system. As more and more people find driving or flying a hassle, they would look to quick, convenient, comfortable, affordable trains if they are available. Sadly, by the time it happens in Texas, I will be gone.
The cost of roadways is knownable. Most highways in the United States are built by contractors. They bill the cost of the work to the authorizing agency. The billings must be supported properly. The documents are kept for decades. Accordingly, it would be possible to trace the cost of every mile of the interstate highway system, although it would be a laborious task. And probably not worth doing.
Back to the EAS program and its funding, clearly Missoula, Glacier, and Wilmington are not good examples, because the are not EAS programs.
Regarding the tangent topic about the "money loosing oversubsidized long distance trains," again there are hidden subsidies in both air and highway transport that have not been tallied in this thread but on others devotged specifically to the LDT topic. Again, I believe LDTs are needed to preserve the level of American civiilizaion, and explained many times just why, and have not gotten any answer on this trread (or any other) that makes any sense. But I certainly agree they should be more cost-effective, and radically restructuring meal service is, I believe, one important sep. Amtrak should follow the lead of airlines in this area, and you can read the appropriate thread as to why and how.
Sam1As the nation and Texas become more congested, the cost dynamic will change, I believe, in favor of a more balanced transport system.
You put your finger on a key issue here, Sam. By the time the highways become so congested the cost dynamic changes it is too late because highways have already taken up the space. This is exactly what has happened between Boston and New York. The current Shore Line, most of which was laid out before the Civil War, cannot now be straightened out because there is no room to do so. That is why an inland route is propose. The the cost is staggering.
For the case in Georgia. Macon , Ga. has a $1.3M per year subsidity for a trip to ATL airport. Average patronage is about 2 per flight at a very high fare. Unable to get it o the web site. Instead a luxury bus from down town Macon to ATL airport and then 2 - 4 trips continuing to the Amtrak station at scheduled train times. A return trip from the station to airport to Macon that would have to be flexible due to someetimes late train arrivals. OOPs wait a minute this would be some co-ordinated type of service. Probably never happen.
John WR Sam1As the nation and Texas become more congested, the cost dynamic will change, I believe, in favor of a more balanced transport system. You put your finger on a key issue here, Sam. By the time the highways become so congested the cost dynamic changes it is too late because highways have already taken up the space. This is exactly what has happened between Boston and New York. The current Shore Line, most of which was laid out before the Civil War, cannot now be straightened out because there is no room to do so. That is why an inland route is propose. The the cost is staggering.
If Amtrak already has the lion's share of air/rail traffic between Boston and New York, as well as New York and Washington, why should the taxpayers put up billions of dollars to build a new railroad between New York and Boston? To deal with capacity constraints is the only argument that I have heard? Is this the only alternative to dealing with the capacity constraints?
If the argument is to be competitive on the Washington to Boston run, the airlines can handle any foreseeable expansion (larger airplanes, improved air traffic systems, etc.) required to meet an increased market demand.
Where the money will come from is a particularly demanding question for a nation that is more than $20 trillion in government debt (federal, state, and local), with unfunded liabilities of more than $46 trillion to boot, and no clear path out of the debt conundrum.
I believe in best using what we have. Capacity NY-Washington be increase as follows:
1. 4 tracks NY-Newark,, with the two new tunnels.
2. Electrification Newark - West Trenton and upgrading the CSX-SEPTA-NJT Newark - Philadelphia to Amtrak corridor standards. NY - Harrisburg and NY - Pittsburgh trains serving downtown Philadelphia
3. Three and four (where possible) tracks Baltimore - Washington
4. Flyovers east of New Rochelle station, use of track 5 (6?) in the station for most trains to and from Penn.
5. Use of the NYW&B RofW Portchester or New Rochelle - E. Bronxl
6. As a last step, the White Train, NY&NE route New Haven - Readville. Choke points remaining would then be New Rochelle - New Haven and Willmington - Baltimore. Four tracks would help in these areas, and in most areas the roadbed exist for a restoration.
Sam1If Amtrak already has the lion's share of air/rail traffic between Boston and New York, as well as New York and Washington, why should the taxpayers put up billions of dollars to build a new railroad between New York and Boston?
Actually, Sam, the right of ways already exist and have been used in the past. The White Train was actually express service. See Dave's post just before this one.
But I do think your point is well taken. It would still be extremely expensive to put in a new inland route. At the very least we should maximize the use of what we have, the Shoreline Route, before we look to build something new.
However, there is a problem in using planes. Here in the northeast our airspace is very crowded. As time goes on we tend to get more flights. If we can get more people on the trains between Boston and Washington we can give more flying space to planes going to Europe or the west coast or places similarly far away.
Sam1 If Amtrak already has the lion's share of air/rail traffic between Boston and New York, as well as New York and Washington, why should the taxpayers put up billions of dollars to build a new railroad between New York and Boston? To deal with capacity constraints is the only argument that I have heard? Is this the only alternative to dealing with the capacity constraints? where the money will come from is a particularly demanding question for a nation that is more than $20 trillion in government debt (federal, state, and local), with unfunded liabilities of more than $46 trillion to boot, and no clear path out of the debt conundrum.
where the money will come from is a particularly demanding question for a nation that is more than $20 trillion in government debt (federal, state, and local), with unfunded liabilities of more than $46 trillion to boot, and no clear path out of the debt conundrum.
blue streak 1 Sam1 If Amtrak already has the lion's share of air/rail traffic between Boston and New York, as well as New York and Washington, why should the taxpayers put up billions of dollars to build a new railroad between New York and Boston? To deal with capacity constraints is the only argument that I have heard? Is this the only alternative to dealing with the capacity constraints? where the money will come from is a particularly demanding question for a nation that is more than $20 trillion in government debt (federal, state, and local), with unfunded liabilities of more than $46 trillion to boot, and no clear path out of the debt conundrum. It appears that the above statement is assuming a fact that may not be true. What is the travel option that the increase in future growth will cover ? The population growth in the whole Maine - Richmond mega metropolis has very little room to grow automobile traffic. NYC - BOS is hellish at times especially NYC - New Haven. Beyond NH the I-91 takes some of the traffic off I-95 to / from BOS. It has taken me 3 Hrs from the GW bridge to NH although 2 -- 2-1/2 hrs is more the norm. Many of us can remember the traffic nightmare when the Myannis ( SP? ) bridge collasped. Connecticut has one of the largest percentage of road bridges that are substandard. IMHO it is important not to put all our eggs into one basket . That basket being the shore line route. At least if I-95 is closed for whatever reason the Tapppan Zee bridge is a fair road alternate. Now addressing NYC _ WASH. Roads on that route have many obstacles for any expansion. In northern NJ the addition of 2 lanes to the NJ Turnpike is costing what ? ( $1.0B + ? ) At the Delewae -- NJ border the last expansion of the long suspension bridge took $2 -3 B ? Then we have the bridge between Delaware & Maryland ( one of my least favorite bridge --- why I do not know ) Very high and not easy to expand again. Then there is Baltimore. Very difficult to put another tunnel parallel to the I-95 tunnel ( name cannot remember ) The east outer loop ( I-695 ? ) can get another expensive bridge. Then on to WASH . Now by 4 tracking NYP - WASH capacity can be expanded for both Amtrak and the various commuter outfits. That will take some of the expanded traffic demand. As well the NYC - BOS needs another route so to not put all eggs in one basket. NYP - WASH as well needs an alternate route as well. IMHO for the proposal for the West Trenton line is useable and the old B&O PHL _ WASH can be used as it was for the most part 4 track at one time.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.