Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise. Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines. It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it.
National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category. They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users.
Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions.
How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed? If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change? If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail?
As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion. It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden. How did we get here?
Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost. But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate.
Amtrak is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution. Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution.
I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line. These activities are best performed by private enterprise.
Sam1 Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions.
ie. Every poll EVER conducted is flawed!
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The national debt is 17.6 trillion, Amtrak gets 1.3 billion (this year), and a trillion = a thousand billion. Therefore Amtrak will have to suspend train service for 135 centuries. (At least Mel Brooks will be around.)
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS401US402&q=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.1883...........0.hjNhVFoyRzg
Sam1 dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million. What is the source for the number of Essential Air Services Program passengers boarded in 2010.
dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million.
Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air.
And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air.
This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.)
In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks.
Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million.
What is the source for the number of Essential Air Services Program passengers boarded in 2010.
I did my EAS "research" on May 1, and my notes show no source, beyond "one writer," for the 2010 enplanements -- my bad. My memory is it was from a newspaper column or news story in the list of hits summoned by my EAS command.
The 2013 subsidy figure is from USDOT's report for FY2013 dated November 2013. I could not find a figure for enplanements in that same report.
wanswheel The national debt is 17.6 trillion, Amtrak gets 1.3 billion (this year), and a trillion = a thousand billion. Therefore Amtrak will have to suspend train service for 135 centuries. (At least Mel Brooks will be around.) https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS401US402&q=17.6+trillion+divided+by+1.3+billion&gs_l=hp....0.0.0.1883...........0.hjNhVFoyRzg
You are mixing apples and oranges. The cumulative debt of the United States Federal Government is $17.6 trillion. Amtrak's cumulative losses since its inception in 1971, as of the end of FY13, was $30.5 billion. It is embedded in the total federal debt. If Amtrak's cumulative debt were stated in constant current dollars, it would be considerably higher than $30.5 billion.
As is the case for the total federal debt, one way or the other Amtrak's cumulative losses have fallen on the taxpayers.
In FY13, the latest year for verifiable numbers, as per Amtrak's Statement of Cash Flows, it received $1.5 billion from the federal government and $130 million from federal and state capital payments.
None of this, however, was the main point of my argument. Supporters of Amtrak claim that the federal support for the company is chump change. And indeed, in many respects, it is, although chump change tends to add up over the years. This is the same argument used by supporters of public television, public radio, subsidies for crop insurance, Tricare, etc.The list goes on and on.
As long as people argue that their beneficiary, i.e. Amtrak, EAS, etc., is sacred, the nation will never get its fiscal house in order.
BaltACD Sam1 Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions. ie. Every poll EVER conducted is flawed!
Not so! Many polls are structured properly and the results are presented properly.
If by flawed you mean poll results are never absolute, although they are frequently presented that way, I agree. But if you are arguing that all polls are flawed, i.e. they don't use proper statistical research methodologies and fail to report the results properly, I disagree.
In one instance my team used the results of a properly structured statistical sampling study to show a large corporate vendor that he had over billed us to the tune of more than $8 million. The over billing had occurred over more than five years. We got the money back plus interest and penalties.
Sam1 In FY13, the latest year for verifiable numbers, as per Amtrak's Statement of Cash Flows, it received $1.5 billion from the federal government and $130 million from federal and state capital payments. None of this, however, was the main point of my argument. Supporters of Amtrak claim that the federal support for the company is chump change.
None of this, however, was the main point of my argument. Supporters of Amtrak claim that the federal support for the company is chump change.
Chump change, indeed. In the case of this boondoggle, an object that moves more slowly than the average freight train - stationary.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/07/09/3458101/f35-boondoggle-fail/
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1 dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million. Using your numbers, the average subsidy would be $244.83 per passenger. However, your numbers are mixing apples and oranges. According to Wikipedia, the EAS spend in 2011, which is the closest that I could find to 2010, was $131.5 million, which would make the average EAS subsidy $137 per passenger, assuming that the FY10 spend was not more than the FY11 spend. Comparatively, the average loss for Amtrak's long distance train passengers in FY13 was $147.14 per passenger. Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains.
Using your numbers, the average subsidy would be $244.83 per passenger. However, your numbers are mixing apples and oranges. According to Wikipedia, the EAS spend in 2011, which is the closest that I could find to 2010, was $131.5 million, which would make the average EAS subsidy $137 per passenger, assuming that the FY10 spend was not more than the FY11 spend.
Comparatively, the average loss for Amtrak's long distance train passengers in FY13 was $147.14 per passenger.
Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains.
No, "assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million," the cost per passenger (if ridership was the same as in 2010) would be Sam's first figure of $245, not only considerably more than the $147 she finds for LD Amtrak passengers but FIFTEEN (15) TIMES the federal operating subsidy for all Amtrak riders (about $16, or $500 million divided by 31 million riders).
Sam1 Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise. Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines. It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it. National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category. They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users. Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions. How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed? If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change? If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail? As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion. It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden. How did we get here? Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost. But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate. Amtrak is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution. Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution. I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line. These activities are best performed by private enterprise.
In the early years of those natural areas before the became national parks, enterprising people tried to commercialize the scenic areas, but the citizens decided the parks should stay in the public domain. Nevertheless, they have in actuality become commercialized, as the lodges, restaurants, souvenir shops, etc. are run by for-profit concessionaires. I recently went to the Grand Canyon, and the Grand Canyon RR was run by the same company who had many national park concessions.
Your statement that you don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, is not shared by the public, at least in the political process (for now). I don't know if the poll cited earlier is flawed or not, but as they say, the only poll that counts is the voting booth, and the elected politicians either support, or otherwise have not been able to get rid of Amtrak.
I don't see any point in arguing about the national debt here, as the political process can't decide on how to handle it, and even economist debate whether or not it is out of line as compared to the total economy.
MidlandMike Sam1 Amtrak is a government sponsored, commercial enterprise. Its commercial competitors include intercity bus companies and commercial airlines. It also offers an alternative transportation option to motorists, although few of them appear to take advantage of it. National parks, wilderness areas, national monuments, libraries, etc. are a different category. They are not commercial entities, and they are not expected to cover their costs directly from the users. Every poll that I have read showing Americans want passenger trains is flawed. They only include the results from people who could be contacted and responded to the pollster's questions. They do not include the results of people who could not be contacted or people who refused to answer the questions. How many of those who say they are in favor of passenger trains understand how they are financed? If they did, would their responses be the same or would they change? If they understand the impact of continuing deficits on the national debt, would they still favor running deficits to support intercity passenger rail? As of today the national debt of the United States, including inter-government debt, is $17.6 trillion. Throw in state and local debt and the debt burden jumps to $20.1 trillion. It is approximately 120 per cent of GDP, which is one measure of the seriousness of the debt burden. How did we get here? Not because of Amtrak's deficits, although it is a factor. In part it is because every interest group in the U.S., i.e. public television, public radio, the arts, subsidized crop insurance, Tricare, etc. believes the federal government should support an activity that they are not willing to cover. Clearly, there are activities that the government must perform irrespective of the cost. But how many and how widely is a legitimate debate. Amtrak is part of the problem. It needs to be part of the solution. Eliminating the long distance trains would be a meaningful albeit small contribution to the solution. I don't believe the government should be in the passenger rail business, anymore than I believe it should be operating an intercity bus line, airline, or cruise line. These activities are best performed by private enterprise. I don't see any point in arguing about the national debt here, as the political process can't decide on how to handle it, and even economist debate whether or not it is out of line as compared to the total economy.
You could do one thing to help the politicians deal with the national debt. Take pen in hand and write to your representative and senators. Tell them, as I do every six months, that you don't want any more money wasted on Amtrak's long distance passenger trains. I also tell them that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive, and the federal government should facility the enhancement of the existing corridors and develop new ones where they make sense.
My uncle was an economics professor at Penn State. As he said on more than one occasion, put two economists in a room and lock the door. In half an hour you will get three opinions whatever economics subject is up for discussion.
The Congressional Budget Office recently issued a report saying that the national debt is a serious issue and is likely to become more so unless the country develops a realistic plan to deal with it. At the current rates of growth, according to the CBO, the public debt could reach 100 per cent of GDP by 2039. Check it out at CBO.gov.
dakotafred Sam1 dakotafred Paul Milenkovic And Essential Air Service, which gets a lot of love around here, is a kind of Amtrak in the air. This would be true if EAS boarded 31 million passengers a year, instead of the 959,867 it boarded in 2010 at a taxpayer cost for operations almost half of Amtrak's, or $235 million in FY 2013. (Sorry about the disagreeing years; best I could find.) In my state, North Dakota, this service subsidizes expense-account travelers in Devils Lake, Jamestown, Dickinson and Williston. Other travelers from those cities drive 100 miles, saving hundreds of dollars, to fly out of real airports in Bismarck, Minot, Fargo and Grand Forks. Alaska, the one state for which you could make a case for air service being "essential" for ordinary people, needed only $15 million for EAS in 2013. The Lower 48 required $220 million. Using your numbers, the average subsidy would be $244.83 per passenger. However, your numbers are mixing apples and oranges. According to Wikipedia, the EAS spend in 2011, which is the closest that I could find to 2010, was $131.5 million, which would make the average EAS subsidy $137 per passenger, assuming that the FY10 spend was not more than the FY11 spend. Comparatively, the average loss for Amtrak's long distance train passengers in FY13 was $147.14 per passenger. Assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million, which is close to what Wikipeda shows, the total loss for the EAS program was considerably less than the total loss for Amtrak's long distance trains. No, "assuming that the EAS spend in FY13 was $235 million," the cost per passenger (if ridership was the same as in 2010) would be Sam's first figure of $245, not only considerably more than the $147 she finds for LD Amtrak passengers but FIFTEEN (15) TIMES the federal operating subsidy for all Amtrak riders (about $16, or $500 million divided by 31 million riders).
The average federal operating subsidy for Amtrak's passengers in FY13 was $13.78 for all three product lines, i.e. NEC, State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains, and long distance trains. But the subsidies go beyond those to cover operations. They also cover the capital charges. Thus, after accounting for the capital charges, the average total subsidy per passenger was $36.72 before inclusion of state capital payments, which apply only to the state supported trains. These payments lowered the total average subsidy to $34.30.
The total average subsidies ranged from $11.66 for the state supported trains, $24.55 for the NEC, and $139.53 for long distance. These figures are based on an assumption that the NEC wears 90 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation and interest charges, which is just a guess. The $147 number for long distance was based on an assumption that the NEC wears 80 per cent of the capital charges and the other two product lines wear 10 per cent each. In fact, we don't know how Amtrak allocates depreciation and interest charges.
Sam1 ... They are a 1950s anachronism that should be discontinued because of their drag on Amtrak and, moreover, because they are used by less than 1/10 of one per cent of intercity travelers in the United States.
... They are a 1950s anachronism that should be discontinued because of their drag on Amtrak and, moreover, because they are used by less than 1/10 of one per cent of intercity travelers in the United States.
How can they be used by more than "1/10 of one per cent of intercity travelers", when more trains are not available? So, air and bus have so much more use.
But choose any 2 city-pairs you want -- if the only available flights (for example) were one flight, leaving or arriving in the middle of the night (well after midnight), maybe nightly, or maybe only three times per week, how high would the percentage of intercity travelers on that route be for air travel?
One can say that people choose the modes that they like best, but they can only choose from what's available. They can only "vote" from amongst the "candidates" on the "ballot".
Anachronism? Everywhere frequent, convenient rail service has been offered, it has been chosen! Look at California and the NEC. You can say "Ah, but those are corridors." But I believe that the only difference is that in certain corridors, states who care have stepped up to start the service.
If every Long Distance route had at least 2 daily trains, roughly 12 hours apart (so that every stop has at least one daytime departure), I believe usage would jump dramatically, encouraging even more service.
And before someone says "Just more losses!", I would point out that with more trains on existing routes, all of the overhead expenses could be spread over more passengers, perhaps even getting to a breakeven (or better!) situation. (But that is another thread.)
Dragoman If every Long Distance route had at least 2 daily trains, roughly 12 hours apart (so that every stop has at least one daytime departure), I believe usage would jump dramatically, encouraging even more service. And before someone says "Just more losses!", I would point out that with more trains on existing routes, all of the overhead expenses could be spread over more passengers, perhaps even getting to a breakeven (or better!) situation. (But that is another thread.)
Most of us don't like to remember this fact, but a lot of railroads were willing to tolerate passenger losses since mail and express contracts made the losses tolerable and they didn't wish to expend the political capital and public relations nightmare that were inherent in public discontinuance proceedings.
While the growth of the passenger losses began to accelerate about 1958 (introduction of the DC-8 and 707), the mass cancellation of RPO contracts beginning in about 1967 went a long way in making passenger losses intolerable.
dakotafred Excellent post! Recalling that the railroads, pre-Amtrak, really began to bleed money on passengers when their entries were whittled down to only a handful of trains that had to bear the expense of stations, commissaries, laundries, etc., all by themselves. The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog.
Not quite. ATK was not so stupid as to believe theii own publicity. They cut about half the train miles perviously operated by the "evil" railroads on day one. Check your history.
Mac McCulloch
dakotafred The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog.
PNWRMNM dakotafred Excellent post! Recalling that the railroads, pre-Amtrak, really began to bleed money on passengers when their entries were whittled down to only a handful of trains that had to bear the expense of stations, commissaries, laundries, etc., all by themselves. The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog. Not quite. ATK was not so stupid as to believe theii own publicity. They cut about half the train miles perviously operated by the "evil" railroads on day one. Check your history. Mac McCulloch
Sam1 ... You could do one thing to help the politicians deal with the national debt. Take pen in hand and write to your representative and senators. Tell them, as I do every six months, that you don't want any more money wasted on Amtrak's long distance passenger trains. I also tell them that passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors, where the cost to expand the airways and highways is prohibitive, and the federal government should facility the enhancement of the existing corridors and develop new ones where they make sense. ...
...
Having Amtrak concentrate in hi-dense corridors might sound like good business sense, but passenger rail would not be politically sustainable without the long distance network. The corridors are mainly a state responsibility, and if you want to see the future of corridors look at Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, and even Wisconsin. And since state routes can still get significant federal help, (eg. Michigan got lots of fed $ to help purchase 100+ miles of DET-CHI corridor from NS) that funding could dry up as pork-barrel.
If every other developed country can support a national network, then I think we can figure it out here too.
There are some potential corridors west of the Mississippi besides the NW, Cali and TX. The problem with the LD trains that take 40 hours to endpoints is time. The are undependable, stop in some intermediate cities at useless hours in the night and simply take too much time to be use as transportation. Instead they are used as the equivalent of a cruise. Amtrak is perpetuating 1940's technology to run trains that few use and which is not consistent with its charter mission of providing a transportation service.
As the CBO puts it "Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt." not due to discretionary spending. Currently 80% of Federal spending is for autopilot benefits programs, of which about $200 Billion a year goes to the disability programs. Uncompensated automobile accidents are a very large cause of this type of disability, yet I bet no letters are going out on that topic.
Now, consider trip lengths. First, fully 60% of residents don't report making any long distance trips of any type, which is a bit surprising for those of us with internet access. But of those who do, the trip lengths are broken out as follows from this analysis of the 2001 NHTS in Table 8.21 (the link at the bottom of linked page).
Adding up the 500 mile to 1999 mile round trip passenger miles (180.7+178.6 = 359.3B-PSGM) (though you could argue that it would be the average of the two) , and using just NRPC (no long commuter runs) of say 5.5 B-PSGM (back dated to the 2001 era). I get 1.5% of the addressable passenger miles (Air, Auto, Bus, & Rail) on NRPC . This from a network with single frequencies on so many routes. This goes to the point that so little of actual travel on the often compared Interstates is actually interstate.
schlimm There are some potential corridors west of the Mississippi besides the NW, Cali and TX. The problem with the LD trains that take 40 hours to endpoints is time. The are undependable, stop in some intermediate cities at useless hours in the night and simply take too much time to be use as transportation. Instead they are used as the equivalent of a cruise. Amtrak is perpetuating 1940's technology to run trains that few use and which is not consistent with its charter mission of providing a transportation service.
Western LD trains tend to have twice as many cars as the average state-sponsored corridor train. I don't see how anyone can say that few use them. While some of the people in the sleepers may be on a rail cruse, I doubt many people sitting up in the coaches overnight probably think they are on anything resembling a luxury liner. And many of those small towns who take pride in maintaining their stations, even though the stop is in the wee hours, don't consider the service useless.
blue streak 1 dakotafred The service had lost all economy of scale. Which is where Amtrak found itself on Day One on most routes -- exactly where the private railroads had left off! Little wonder it's been a slog. Wonder if anyone can provide the station costs per passenger for the European medium and LD stations per passenger and compare it to Amtrak ? Also other fixed costs per passenger ? How about Japan and China ?
MidlandMikeWestern LD trains tend to have twice as many cars as the average state-sponsored corridor train. I don't see how anyone can say that few use them. While some of the people in the sleepers may be on a rail cruse, I doubt many people sitting up in the coaches overnight probably think they are on anything resembling a luxury liner. And many of those small towns who take pride in maintaining their stations, even though the stop is in the wee hours, don't consider the service useless.
The western LD trains carry a small percentage of Amtrak's total passengers (which is the mission) and a large majority of the deficit. The short corridors are new and/or developing and have a much smaller deficit but carry more passengers. To anybody but railfans, it makes no sense.
I have to say I strongly disagree with you, and when you say more passengers, you mean more passenger trips. The typical corridor passenger is a multi-ride person. He may use the service anywhere from weekly to daily, but very few are one-time riders. The average long-distance rider, on the other hand, rides once a year round trip or one every few months. Thus the long distance trains serve a proportionally much greater percentage of USA citizens than comparing rides would indicate. And the few trips the long distance rider takes are as important in his or her mind as the many trips the corridor rider takes.
Too much of the thinking on this Forum has shown too much of acountant's mentality in total rather than thinking about what real needs are. If I were to pick one long distance train that is as essential as any of the corridor trains, including the NEC, it would be the much distressed Empire Builder. Next in line would the Florida trains.
But the real solution for many of the LD routes is to develop them into extended corridors, which has been discussed with respect to the Lake Shore, There it is certainly practical, also for the Florida service, the Crescent, and the CZ. In other words Reno - Sacramento should have frequent fast service along with Omaha - Lincoln. Jacksonville - Savanna along with Florence - Petersburg. Birmingham - Atlanta along with Charlotte - Greenboro
daveklepper seems to denigrate the business traveler because he is a multiple rider compared to the long-distance rider who travels maybe once a year. The business traveler may be one person, but he is a repeat customer who probably contributes more in ticket sales than the once-a-year long distance traveler.
When you hear that a former politician has gone to work at a "Think Tank", what do you suppose the average American believes his new job to be? Do they picture lots of smart people sitting around "thinking"? I wonder if they realize that it is just a propaganda mill?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
According to the CBO's infographic for 2013, the federal spend was approximately $3.5 trillion, of which $2.0 trillion was for mandatory programs, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, etc. This translates into 57 per cent of the federal spend in FY13. If the interest on the debt is included as a mandatory spend, which it is, since failure to pay the interest would throw the United States into default ala Argentina, the total mandatory spend is 62.8 per cent of total outlays.
Table S-4 of OMB's FY15 budget data, which includes actual numbers for FY13, shows a mandatory spend of $2.1 trillion or 60 per cent of total outlays of $3.5 trillion. Again, adding in the interest on the national debt raises the percentage of the mandatory spend, from my point of view, to 66.7 per cent of total outlays.
During FY 13, according to the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's report, the spend for the Disability Insurance Program, which is the federal government's primary disability insurance program that draws on taxpayer dollars, was $143.4 billion. This was for all disability payments, which cover all qualified disabilities, not just those stemming from vehicle accidents.
What is the source of the claim that automobile accidents are a major driver of disability costs that are uninsured? And what does any of this have to do with passenger rail?
I believe that a significant percentage of Amtrak's corridor passengers are multi-trip riders, i.e. they take numerous trips during the year. I also believe that the majority of long distance train riders are at least round trippers. But I don't really know. And neither does anyone else posting to these forums, at least as far as I know.
I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to Amtrak's Inspector General asking for the number of customers, as opposed to riders, for each of Amtrak's product lines, i.e. NEC, State Supported and Other Short Distance Trains, and Long Distance Trains. I have been waiting more than two months for a reply. I suspect I need to be very patient.
daveklepper I have to say I strongly disagree with you, and when you say more passengers, you mean more passenger trips. The typical corridor passenger is a multi-ride person. He may use the service anywhere from weekly to daily, but very few are one-time riders. The average long-distance rider, on the other hand, rides once a year round trip or one every few months. Thus the long distance trains serve a proportionally much greater percentage of USA citizens than comparing rides would indicate. And the few trips the long distance rider takes are as important in his or her mind as the many trips the corridor rider takes. Too much of the thinking on this Forum has shown too much of acountant's mentality in total rather than thinking about what real needs are.
Too much of the thinking on this Forum has shown too much of acountant's mentality in total rather than thinking about what real needs are.
I think you are missing my point. I am not concerned with trains making profits. What I am concerned with is using resources wisely. Amtrak's mission as a subsidized, quasi-government agency is to provide for transportation, not once-in-lifetime explorations, or land cruises or gratify some preferences of older riders or international visitors (the latter two make up a sizable component of the Amtrak LD patronage). The very nature of LD trains in terms of distance, time and ticket costs means it is not transportation to get to a place over 1000 miles away for most people: those individuals and families for whom distance and time is relevant (business and vacations); those individuals and families on budgets.
Why are the few patrons of LD trains worth spending so much of Amtrak's limited budget on when there are so many riders on the corridors who get by on far less?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.