The importance of Amtrak to Montana

[MichaelSol]

Way to make friends Michael.

If you want to see that this is someone who routinely goes on the attack on this topic, simply review this thread:

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/7/37936/ShowPost.aspx#37936

I did not participate, but the thread will sound identical to this one, complete with bus line analysis and data dumps. Indeed, it is mostly copied from there. However, there, you will see the highly personalized name-calling for anyone who disagrees about the Empire Builder -- that anyone will be subject to the same kind of gratuitous, ad hominem personal attacks, if they dare speak ill of the train; complete with the meaningless out-of-context data dumps. This guy is far beyond a reasonable discussion of passenger train economics. It's personal, he makes it personal, and he wants you to know its personal.

 

[selector]

Okay, guys....let's take a deep breath, look at each other with a jaundiced eye if needs be, but get back to the less personal history, please.    

[trans logis]

Mark Vernmontanan--

Good job.  Enjoyed your analysis, especially bus line comparisons, and thought your data was interesting.  I gather you're a active  in proctecting rail service in N. Montana.  Keep up the good work.

[Dakguy201]

Recent federal legislation mandated Amtrak conduct a feasibility study of service across the southern Montana route without disturbing the route of the current Empire Builder.  Is that even a remote possibility?  Is the track layout, current freight traffic pattern and signaling such that it could be done with minimum infrastructure improvement? 

I suspect I already know the answer, but someone on the ground there would be in a far better position to answer than I am.

 

[JSGreen]

Well, the BNSF operates over the MRL from Helena to Sand point, ID.

Looks like the local effort to build a southern route is making headway...

I think the ultimate plan is to split the Empire Builder at Sand Point, ID or Spokane, WA, and rejoin somewhere to the east...

the entire route is covered in this article from Billings...

THat is, if Montana doesn's secceed from the Union...aparrently, the right for individuals to bear arms was included in the agreement  for  statehood, and if the Current supreme court decides that the 2nd admendment only applies to militias, the deal is off...

Then again, Montana could be more likely to get Foreign Aid than increased Amtrak funding, anyway... 

[Awesome!]

That one of Amtrak best trains. I love riding the Builder to Seattle.

How's is the food in the train?

[shawnee]

What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.

One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.

Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.

How many airports are there in Montana that have FAA facilities or underwriting?  It would be interesting to see the federal subsidy per passenger on the flights into Montana.

The reality is that the entire national transportation system is subsidized.

 

 

[MichaelSol]

What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.

One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.

Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.

How many airports are there in Montana that have FAA facilities or underwriting?  It would be interesting to see the federal subsidy per passenger on the flights into Montana.

The reality is that the entire national transportation system is subsidized.

What do the quoted remarks have to do with Montana?

And who said the national transportation system wasn't subsidized?

 

 

[nanaimo73]

How's is the food in the train?

Awesome!, are you ChefJavier?

[shawnee]

What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.

One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.

Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.

How many airports are there in Montana that have FAA facilities or underwriting?  It would be interesting to see the federal subsidy per passenger on the flights into Montana.

The reality is that the entire national transportation system is subsidized.

What do the quoted remarks have to do with Montana?

And who said the national transportation system wasn't subsidized?

 

 

If the question is the subsidization of passenger rail in Montana.  And there is little doubt that passenger rail has it's subsidization far more scrutinized that, say, airlines.

[MichaelSol]

What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.

One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.

Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.

How many airports are there in Montana that have FAA facilities or underwriting?  It would be interesting to see the federal subsidy per passenger on the flights into Montana.

The reality is that the entire national transportation system is subsidized.

What do the quoted remarks have to do with Montana?

And who said the national transportation system wasn't subsidized?

If the question is the subsidization of passenger rail in Montana.  And there is little doubt that passenger rail has it's subsidization far more scrutinized that, say, airlines.

Over 70% of the passengers of the Empire Builder neither get on nor get off in Montana, so I don't think "Montana" has that much to do with the Empire Builder one way or the other in terms of the enormous relative subsidy received by the Empire Builder.

"There is little doubt that passenger rail" is more scrutinized? Perhaps you only read passenger rail related comments? I'd bet that's the case.

However, your concern may be well founded in general when people see the difference in subsidy amounts nationally:

Air: $17/passenger

Rail: $48/passenger

I'm not quite sure why you singled out Montana. According the most recent figures I can find, 32 Montana airports receive federal funding, and the numbers look like this:

Air (Montana): $12.57/passenger, Federal subsidy

Empire Builder (Route): $69.05/passenger, Federal subsidy

As I mentioned, the comments you quoted didn't have anything in particular to do with Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, or any other individual state. Was there something you wished to point out in particular about Montana that is distinctive regarding those remarks? What prompted the Montana reference?

 

[Murphy Siding]

How's is the food in the train?

Awesome!, are you ChefJavier?

  Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

[CopCarSS]

How's is the food in the train?

Awesome!, are you ChefJavier?

  Ding! Ding! We have a winner.

We have multiple users with alter egos, now? Is Trainfinder/Kissmycaboose/Brooklyntrolleydodger/Raymondtylicki/etc. going to like competition?

[nanaimo73]

We have multiple users with alter egos, now? Is Trainfinder/Kissmycaboose/Brooklyntrolleydodger/Raymondtylicki/etc. going to like competition?

I believe Awesome joined so he could give several Chef threads on the locomotive forum 5 stars, and has now left.

We also have Antigates with 3 other names.

[shawnee]

What are talk about the Empire Builder is one of Amtrak money making trains carried more than 500,000 people last year in 2007 and going up every year. What are you drinking MichaelSol.

One of the odd conundrums of rail passenger service is that, if the service is subsidized to the extent of the passenger paying for 90 cents of each dollar of cost for the service provided, and the government paying the other ten cents in the form of subsidy, each additional passenger carried increases the total loss incurred, increasing the total dollar amount of subsidy required.

Unless something changes, the more passengers, the greater the loss.

How many airports are there in Montana that have FAA facilities or underwriting?  It would be interesting to see the federal subsidy per passenger on the flights into Montana.

The reality is that the entire national transportation system is subsidized.

What do the quoted remarks have to do with Montana?

And who said the national transportation system wasn't subsidized?

If the question is the subsidization of passenger rail in Montana.  And there is little doubt that passenger rail has it's subsidization far more scrutinized that, say, airlines.

Over 70% of the passengers of the Empire Builder neither get on nor get off in Montana, so I don't think "Montana" has that much to do with the Empire Builder one way or the other in terms of the enormous relative subsidy received by the Empire Builder.

"There is little doubt that passenger rail" is more scrutinized? Perhaps you only read passenger rail related comments? I'd bet that's the case.

However, your concern may be well founded in general when people see the difference in subsidy amounts nationally:

Air: $17/passenger

Rail: $48/passenger

I'm not quite sure why you singled out Montana. According the most recent figures I can find, 32 Montana airports receive federal funding, and the numbers look like this:

Air (Montana): $12.57/passenger, Federal subsidy

Empire Builder (Route): $69.05/passenger, Federal subsidy

As I mentioned, the comments you quoted didn't have anything in particular to do with Montana, Idaho, Minnesota, or any other individual state. Was there something you wished to point out in particular about Montana that is distinctive regarding those remarks? What prompted the Montana reference?

 

So do tell, what goes into those subsidy amounts for airports?   I'd be interested in seeing what that includes, out of curiousity...plus have a quick reference to where you got those figures.  Of course I'm sure your research is right, but it's alsways nice to reference.  It's information that I'd be interested to look at.

From what I can see and read - which is bit more comprehensive than you imagine - I do believe that the Amtrak goes under more questioning about the basic validity of its service, and its subsidy, than does, say, the airline industry.

Not that I think Amtrak doesn't have its issues - clearly it does -  but  yes, I am a believer in passenger rail and its importance to the states, Montana included.  Which I think was the original post.  In any case, I'll leave the ever descending circle of tedium to you now.  You win!

[MichaelSol]

Not that I think Amtrak doesn't have its issues - clearly it does -  but  yes, I am a believer in passenger rail and its importance to the states, Montana included.  Which I think was the original post.  In any case, I'll leave the ever descending circle of tedium to you now.  You win!

Win what? I'm still just trying to figure out who you think was arguing that transportation was not subsidized. Looked to me like you made something up just so you could shoot it down.

And what does Montana specifically and distinctively have to do with either the idea of airline passenger subsidies or rail passenger subsidies? And who said rail passenger service wasn't important to states like Montana? What's with the string of false premises?

What was the point?

[traindude001]

I don't ride Amtrak all that much, But when I do ride it, I am depending more on the eastern seabord and Boston-Hartford-New Haven-New York-Baltimore-Washington routes. Sorry to hear about the Montana situation.

[shawnee]

Not that I think Amtrak doesn't have its issues - clearly it does -  but  yes, I am a believer in passenger rail and its importance to the states, Montana included.  Which I think was the original post.  In any case, I'll leave the ever descending circle of tedium to you now.  You win!

Win what? I'm still just trying to figure out who you think was arguing that transportation was not subsidized. Looked to me like you made something up just so you could shoot it down.

And what does Montana specifically and distinctively have to do with either the idea of airline passenger subsidies or rail passenger subsidies? And who said rail passenger service wasn't important to states like Montana? What's with the string of false premises?

What was the point?

Precisely...you win "what?".  What's with you?  Do you always shoot in every direction?

[MichaelSol]

Not that I think Amtrak doesn't have its issues - clearly it does -  but  yes, I am a believer in passenger rail and its importance to the states, Montana included.  Which I think was the original post.  In any case, I'll leave the ever descending circle of tedium to you now.  You win!

Win what? I'm still just trying to figure out who you think was arguing that transportation was not subsidized. Looked to me like you made something up just so you could shoot it down.

And what does Montana specifically and distinctively have to do with either the idea of airline passenger subsidies or rail passenger subsidies? And who said rail passenger service wasn't important to states like Montana? What's with the string of false premises?

What was the point?

Precisely...you win "what?".  What's with you?  Do you always shoot in every direction?

No, You seemed to have a point about Montana, and subsidies. I tried to find out what it was, and found only false premises that apparently had no point at all. Is there some purpose in announcing that all transportation receives subsidies, when no one said it didn't, and implying by some odd remark about Montana a negative correlation with air subsidy when, it appears, in fact you had not done any homework on the issue? I will say, trying to elucidate from you what the point of your remarks was, to obtain a genuine viewpoint, and to try and determine if you knew anything at all about the object of your comments, was a complete waste of everyone's time, and I apologize for the wasted effort. What is it with "believers"?

 

[shawnee]

Not that I think Amtrak doesn't have its issues - clearly it does -  but  yes, I am a believer in passenger rail and its importance to the states, Montana included.  Which I think was the original post.  In any case, I'll leave the ever descending circle of tedium to you now.  You win!

Win what? I'm still just trying to figure out who you think was arguing that transportation was not subsidized. Looked to me like you made something up just so you could shoot it down.

And what does Montana specifically and distinctively have to do with either the idea of airline passenger subsidies or rail passenger subsidies? And who said rail passenger service wasn't important to states like Montana? What's with the string of false premises?

What was the point?

Precisely...you win "what?".  What's with you?  Do you always shoot in every direction?

No, You seemed to have a point about Montana, and subsidies. I tried to find out what it was, and found only false premises that apparently had no point at all. Is there some purpose in announcing that all transportation receives subsidies, when no one said it didn't, and implying by some odd remark about Montana a negative correlation with air subsidy when, it appears, in fact you had not done any homework on the issue? I will say, trying to elucidate from you what the point of your remarks was, to obtain a genuine viewpoint, and to try and determine if you knew anything at all about the object of your comments, was a complete waste of everyone's time, and I apologize for the wasted effort. What is it with "believers"?

 

Michael, it's over.  It's time to go take your pill now...

[MichaelSol]

Michael, it's over.  It's time to go take your pill now...

You felt a need to post a series of false premises and non-sequiturs, and then couldn't answer the simple request to explain your point. I think it was a fair request.

I regret you had to bring the conversation to an exchange of insults rather than simply answer the question. I guess that's clever. If you had something to say, I still cannot tell what it was. Perhaps I was simply wrong in the assumption.

 

[CNW 6000]

Michael I think you hit the nail square on the head.

[VerMontanan]

Well, the BNSF operates over the MRL from Helena to Sand point, ID.

Looks like the local effort to build a southern route is making headway...

I think the ultimate plan is to split the Empire Builder at Sand Point, ID or Spokane, WA, and rejoin somewhere to the east...

the entire route is covered in this article from Billings...

Here's a more recent article about a meeting of the Montana group at the end of February:   http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/2008/03/13/news/news03.txt   The current plan is not to split the Empire Builder anywhere, or for the proposed train to meet the Empire Builder west and east of Montana (such as in Spokane or Fargo, which wouldn't work anyway really, since the Empire Builder route is hours faster).  The current plan as proposed by the Montana Association of Railroad Passengers is some kind of "corridor" service between Billings and Missoula and maybe on to Spokane.   The reason that these articles always mention that the proposed route through Southern Montana would not be designed to compete with the Empire Builder is because in 2004 (coinciding with the 75th anniversary of the Empire Builder, America's second-longest running continuously operated passenger train), the Montana Association of Railroad Passengers decided they'd participate in the celebration (there were numerous gatherings commemorating the train's anniversary all along the route) by touting their plan to split the Empire Builder at Fargo and run half the train on the current route to Portland, and the other half through Southern Montana to Seattle.  In addition to operational things such as no place to switch at Fargo and that a whole extra set of equipment would be required on the Southern Montana leg (because the running time is so much longer, it couldn't turn the same day in Seattle as the Empire Builder does now), the main thing that got everyone along the Empire Builder route in an uproar was that their train would lose half its capacity, and through service to Seattle would be lost; in other words, it didn't go over too well that a group, made up largely of Southern Montanans who have access to most of the state's air service, bus service, and interstate highways, wanted rail service too, but the only way they could figure out to get it was to take it from the Northern part of the state, where Amtrak for the most part is the primary means of public transportation.  So, they got a bit of a black eye for this proposal, and it probably didn't help their cause with the governor being from Havre, and in 2006 a new senator from Big Sandy was elected.   I personally would rather see a long distance train through Southern Montana rather than what they're proposing, but of course Amtrak has no extra equipment, and obtaining it would be very costly, along with reopening (or constructing, as the case may be) station facilities.  Such a train would probably take about 4 hours longer between Fargo and Spokane than the Empire Builder (without upgrading the track), so any combination with the Empire Builder at Fargo and Spokane would make the Empire Builder all the slower, and would be similarly unpopular with those along the Empire Builder route.

But, they're right in that they have to start somewhere.

 

[VerMontanan]

It's interesting how many consider funding of Amtrak to be a "subsidy" but government monies for highways, waterways, and airports as "investments." 

Who, for instance? Identify just one single person who has said this. Just one would make the comment credible.

Would you settle for more than just one single person?

.

By comparison, this makes federal assistance to Amtrak of molecular size. Yet, highway subsidies are quoted in annual amounts and referred to as "federal investments," while Amtrak subsidies are always compounded for its entire life. Although this 35-year sum is still much smaller than annual highway subsidies, Amtrak is continuously criticized as "near-bankrupt," "inefficient" and "heavily subsidized by tax-payers."

Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D.
UPS Foundation Professor of
Transportation Systems Engineering
Professor of City & Regional Planning
University of Pennsylvania

*

The NARP's Capon says "a tremendous double standard" is at work. Government support for Amtrak is deemed a "subsidy," while spending on aviation and highways is thought of as "investment" and decoupled from a need to break even. "They never talk about the money-losing highway system," says Capon.

The Railroading of Amtrak:Trains, planes and automobiles held to different standards
by Christopher Ott in the Fairness and Accuracy reporting website

*

Sometimes governments made direct investments. At other times, the governments simply provided guarantees or incentives for private investments in projects that could not have been undertaken otherwise. The Channel Tunnel ("Chunnel") between France and England is probably the most significant civil engineering accomplishment of the 20^th century and a prime example of the latter type of project.

Americans who traveled to these countries saw and understood the possibilities of modern passenger trains.

Of course the fast intercity trains of Europe and Japan are not the only passenger trains of those countries. Much wider and far-reaching networks of more basic passenger trains act as feeders to the high-speed networks as well as simply providing regional and local connections, including carrying daily commuters.

At the same time, in the United States, Amtrak is continually tarred with the "S" word. Hardly a story appears about Amtrak that does not include the word "subsidy" or the indication that Amtrak is America's government-subsidized passenger railroad.

Strangely, the word subsidy almost never appears in discussions of the interstate highway system, air traffic control, or coastal port and inland waterway projects. Yet, these other modes of transportation all receive tax moneys in support of projects deemed in the public interest-just as is the case with Amtrak.

Ernest H. Robl

 

[MichaelSol]

It's interesting how many consider funding of Amtrak to be a "subsidy" but government monies for highways, waterways, and airports as "investments." 

Who, for instance? Identify just one single person who has said this. Just one would make the comment credible.

Would you settle for more than just one single person?

By comparison, this makes federal assistance to Amtrak of molecular size. Yet, highway subsidies are quoted in annual amounts and referred to as "federal investments," while Amtrak subsidies are always compounded for its entire life. Although this 35-year sum is still much smaller than annual highway subsidies, Amtrak is continuously criticized as "near-bankrupt," "inefficient" and "heavily subsidized by tax-payers."

Vukan R. Vuchic, Ph.D.
UPS Foundation Professor of
Transportation Systems Engineering
Professor of City & Regional Planning
University of Pennsylvania

They don't say anything. They say the same thing you do. I am repeating myself. "Highway subsidies are quoted ..." but doesn't seem to be able to actually say where or by who. Same with the rest of your quotes -- this is the standard debate sleight of hand: fabricate a false presumption, then prove it wrong.

Admittedly, I don't get the playground stuff: wah wah, they are referring to my poor train as subsidized, but not the highways, AND ITS JUST NOT FAIR! For people who understand the enormous substantive difference in subsidy amounts and the poor passenger efficiency of Amtrak in regard to its subsidies, this perceived and possibly invented injustice just isn't the problem.

 

 

 

[cordon]

Here are a couple of quotes on "investments."

CBO Testimony, Statement of Donald B. Marron, Acting Director, Financing Investment in the Air Traffric control System........, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7597/09-27-AirTraffic.pdf

Investment Criteria for Airport Surveillance Radar, Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System, and Automated Radar Terminal System (ASR/ATCRBS/ARTS), http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA144495

America's Long History of Subsidizing Transportation, http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

The third document has some very interesting reading on the relative amounts of funding given to the various modes of transportation. 

You asked for just one, but if you use Google a bit, you can find dozens.  I think the use of the word "investment" or the word "subsidy" is more an indicator of the writer/speaker's stance on political and social issues than anything else.  Obviously, the words are strongly charged.  Most of us think of an "investment" as an expenditure that we will eventually get back in dollars, plus some more.  OTOH, we think of a subsidy as a sunk cost, and we think of the benefits we get from the subsidy not in terms of dollars, but in terms of less accountable, less tangible, returns.  Or, more bluntly, "investment" is good because you can count the benefits (dollars), while "subsidy" is bad because you can get lost arguing about the subjective evaluations of the benefits.

Personally, I don't see where anyone receives any money back from "investment" in highways or air traffic control facilities.  I, and the rest of us, receive significant benefit from them, however, and I don't care what we call the expenditures.  I think that's a nitpick.  And I think that these discussions about intercity rail service in Montana have degraded to the point where I see too much nitpicking.  I would enjoy the discussion more if you would back off from the nitpicking and related arguments that don't really speak to the point.

 

[MichaelSol]

Here are a couple of quotes on "investments."

CBO Testimony, Statement of Donald B. Marron, Acting Director, Financing Investment in the Air Traffric control System........, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/75xx/doc7597/09-27-AirTraffic.pdf

...

You asked for just one, but if you use Google a bit, you can find dozens.  I think the use of the word "investment" or the word "subsidy" is more an indicator of the writer/speaker's stance on political and social issues than anything else. 

Or, it might be that the writer is using a technical term properly but the usage has nothing to do with the reader's personal agenda, and therefore the reader reads a context that exists only for the reader.

The problem is Googling and not understanding the context. The link provided is a discussion of "capital investment" spending on the air traffic control system. The link states, quite directly, "Broadly speaking, taxpayers or users of such services will pay for the new system."

It doesn't matter what your political stance is, for accounting purposes capital expenditures are routinely called capital "investments". Because that's what they are called. It's an accounting term.

Even if the money comes from a subsidy. Even on Amtrak.  Amtrak itself explicitly uses the term for those kinds of expenditures: http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/ink/AmtrakInk-032207.pdf, "Capital Investment in Bridge ...".

It does underscore that discussions about highways and airports would use the term in reference to what they do: provide infrastructure which is almost entirely capital investment -- whereas the users directly pay for gas, equipment, drivers, food services, motels, cars, trucks themselves.

Amtrak is something else again: for LD trains, private enterprise pays for the infrastructure; the government pays for the train, the employees, the food, the "housing", the fuel, the rolling stock maintenance --there is very little investment compared to the direct subsidy of operation for all the things that are ordinarily paid for privately on the Highway System or air traffic system.

One dollar of highway funds typically builds or supports an infrastructure lasting 30 or more years serving all the people that will ever use it. One dollar of Amtrak funds gets Joe Schmoe two miles closer to Shelby.

One is, in fact, an investment. The other is, in fact, a direct subsidy. Because one serves an investment function as defined by accounting standards and the other does not.

And that is why a perfectly normal conversation using standard accounting terminology has a considerably different effect comparing the Highway System vs. Amtrak.

That's why, if you Google a bit, "you can find dozens."  But, what you find there has nothing to do with the original poster's contention that the use of such terms indicates a "bias" but it does underscore my intermittent observation that his frequent forays into accounting and finance are usually doomed by his complete lack of background and experience in them. But, this is a good example of looking for what you want to find, and finding -- in the technical language of experienced people familiar with the language -- something that is not there.

It is when proponents of Amtrak or particular trains try to politicize the conversation with uncomprehending references to "bias" in terminology, when they don't understand the terminology, is perhaps part of the reason Amtrak has a difficult time presenting its case effectively. As is often the case, zealots are often their own worst enemies.

 

[Awesome!]

Good information to the point!