Subsidy Comparisons Rail vs Hwy and Air

[garr]

A recent study by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics cited in todays (2/10/05, page A12) Wall Street Journal shows the federal subsidies breakdown of each mode based on per thousand passenger miles:

Amtrak ...................$186.35

Urban Transit .......$118.26

Airlines .......................$6.00

Highways ................--$1.91


Data was gathered on federal subsidies for all four modes from 1990-2002. The total for each mode had its pertinent users fees deducted and was then divided by that mode's number of passenger miles. The aim was to "to show the amount of subsidy relative to the level of use." Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation says this is as close as you can get to an apples to apples comparison.

In a number of other threads the people posting have wondered how the federal subsidies compare between transportation modes. I thought this might answer some of these questions. I am not familiar with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or the Reason Foundation but assume they are valid since the Wall Street Journal saw fit to use them as sources. And yes, as far as federal subsidies are concerned, that is a negative $1.91 for highways.

Jay

PS Google search "Bureau of Transportation Statistics subsidy comparisons" or check out www.transtats.bts.gov for some interesting info.

[CSXrules4eva]

That is really interesting that the government only subsidised an average of $ 1.91 (negitive at that!!!!!) I thought most of the government's money in the transportation sector went to highway comissions for reconstruction, or building projects. Thats real puzeling to me. I see highway reconstruction projects 24 / 7 around me here in PA. One of the major highway projects going on now is the 309 construction. They are going to widen the road, construct new interchanges, rebuild overpasses, re pave the enire road, and put in new K-rails. That's a mulit million dollar project you can't tell me the government isn't paying for that. I can't imagine a privite company paying for all that. LOL

You know what I think these numbers don't apply to freight transportation government subsidies. This may be a reason why the numbers are strange to me. But, I would still think the government would spend more on highways since there are more cars out there than airplanes and trains.

[Anonymous]

think of it this way though. how often is an amtrak train full? outside of a select few, hardly ever. i'm sure if the trains operated at capacity ALL the time the number would be a lot lower. highways are always packed, planes are usually packed, commuter anything is usually packed.

[garr]

CSXrules,

I wondered about that highway number also. I haven't had enough time to check the data myself (and would probably have a hard time with the raw numbers), but, if what is stated in the WSJ is correct, these are federal subsidy numbers only.

I can see how they obtained the user fees for highways fairly easy--just look at the fuel tax #'s and maybe a few other figures. The total passenger miles for highways is probably more art than science. Maybe the BTS multiplied average fuel economy by total gallons sold, however they still have to basically guess the # of people in the vehicle and for how many miles that # of people is in the car. Figures for intercity bus passengers would, I assume, also be included in this --$1.91 number.

Jay

[jeffhergert]

I remember a quote I read once. It may not be complete, but it went something like, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
If you look long enough, I'm sure you can find numbers to support your views. I'm not trying to say the above numbers are wrong, I don't know. I do know that a reporter writing a story is going to find numbers to support their story.
I'm sure a reporter wanting to support rail could find numbers to support their story.
Jeff

[Jack_S]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garr

A recent study by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics cited in todays (2/10/05, page A12) Wall Street Journal shows the federal subsidies breakdown of each mode based on per thousand passenger miles:

Amtrak ...................$186.35

Urban Transit .......$118.26

Airlines .......................$6.00

Highways ................--$1.91


Data was gathered on federal subsidies for all four modes from 1990-2002. The total for each mode had its pertinent users fees deducted and was then divided by that mode's number of passenger miles. The aim was to "to show the amount of subsidy relative to the level of use." Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation says this is as close as you can get to an apples to apples comparison.

In a number of other threads the people posting have wondered how the federal subsidies compare between transportation modes. I thought this might answer some of these questions. I am not familiar with the Bureau of Transportation Statistics or the Reason Foundation but assume they are valid since the Wall Street Journal saw fit to use them as sources. And yes, as far as federal subsidies are concerned, that is a negative $1.91 for highways.

Jay

PS Google search "Bureau of Transportation Statistics subsidy comparisons" or check out www.transtats.bts.gov for some interesting info.

By using "$ per passenger miles" as the criteria this subsidy comparison favors the higher speed forms of transportation and ignores several other analyses that could be seen as equally valid. These would produce different quite interesting results. Like

$ per vehicle mile
$ per passenger trip
$ per vehicle trip
$ per passenger hour
$ per vehicle hour

and, perhaps most interesting in a era of shortening oil supplies:

$ per KW of energy expended per vehicle trip
$ per KW of energy expended per passenger trip
$ per KW of energy expended per vehicle hour
$ per KW of energy expended per passenger trip

A subsidy analysis is not complete until you look at ALL the relationships. And bringing in a prefessional Statistician would probably unearth some more good comparisons.

[mudchicken]

Pretty sorry grade of apple, especially if that negative figure is for just people in regulated bus haul.

[Anonymous]

(Mud's right. Jack_S, not sure you read it, but your reasoning strikes me as sound. BTS pretty much said the same thing.)

Before y'all go off half-cocked, you might want to read this thing? Unless you'd prefer to have the Wall Street Journal give you its finely varnished opinion because it confirms what you already believe. 'Tis a shame to corrupt a firmly held belief with a fact or two.

Here's the direct link to the report in question.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

Mud, you might want to leapfrog to these rather interesting disclaimers:

http://www.bts.gov/programs/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/html/
normalization_metrics.html

I've used BTS reports for more than 10 years. They are scrupulous about not overstating their data, and they didn' t this time, either. As for Mr. Robert Poole of the Reason Foundation, I can with confidence recommend him on for advice on astrological matters.

Hint: check out the way "subsidy" is defined.

Now I'm going to step back and enjoy the fun while forum members more ambitious than I extrapolate from this report conclusions it never reached.

OS

[DSchmitt]

Thankyou Jay[8D]

I am not surprised by the numbers.

Note the numbers are for Federal subsidies.

If the State level was looked at the the numbers would of course be different, but I an sure would still show a very low, if any, subsidy for highways. Most states use part of their highway user fee funds for other purposes , but may also use non-user fee funds for highways.

Local streets and roads, on the other hand, are mainly financed by means other than user fees. These would include, but not necessairly be limited to, property taxes (primairly for maintenance and developer fees (for new construction and upgrades). I contend that it would be wrong to call property taxes and developer fees subsidies. The local road system is necessary, it provides direct benefits to property, the developers are mitigating for the increased traffic their developments cause.

[Anonymous]

That negative $1.91 for highway passenger subsidy does suggest that passenger autos are paying for a portion of the trucker's share for highway construction and maintenance. However, as compared to the other modes it is relatively insignificant, so when someone says "truckers don't pay their fair share of highway funds" they are right but by the same token they should not exaggerate the truckers' deficit.

The other thing that isn't clear is if the BTS differentiates between Amtrak's/transit's operational subsidies vs Amtrak/transit ROW subsidies, and the other modes ROW vs operational subsidies. Other than the airline's 9-11 bailout which went straight to the carriers, the private carriers receive no direct operational subsidies. How much of the private modes (airline/auto/bus) were subsidized via non-user fee ROW funding?

[daveklepper]

Again, a lot depends on what constitutes a subsidy. Obviously, the subsidization of highway and air transportation by taking valuable real estate off the tax roles and giving the infrastructure a free ride as far as real estate taxes is not included in these subsidy figures, and there are other examples.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, a lot depends on what constitutes a subsidy. Obviously, the subsidization of highway and air transportation by taking valuable real estate off the tax roles and giving the infrastructure a free ride as far as real estate taxes is not included in these subsidy figures, and there are other examples.

True the highway right of way does not contribute to property taxes, but the while it might be difficult to quantify, the property served by the highway is more economically valuable than it would be if there were no highway. This often results in higher tax revenue, not lower.

Land you can not get to has low economic value and thus pays lower taxes. Even highways where adjoining properties have no access rights (freeways and expressways) result in increased economic value due to "dread" developmemt nearby.

Of course, there are other types of value besides economic.

[Jack_S]

O.S.;

Thanks for the link to the BTS site. It's good to see that they even think about generating other ways of looking at the various subsidies.

Jack

[Anonymous]

There are a number of flaws in this comparison.
Most, important, the study only counts federal income and expense, but the vast majority of road mileage is built by state and local governments, subdividers and home owners. I am told that the biggest subsidy to the automobile is free parking, not usually covered by federal dollars.
Also, the study addresses personal transportation, omitting freight haulers on the interstates.
Finally, the study acknowledges that it fails to address "externalities" which are the costs imposed by a mode of transportation on the rest of societysuch as crash costs, adverse health consequences of tailpipe emissions, and sprawl inducement. These costs have been measured by various analysts and while there is some divergence of results it seems wrong to imply they can safely be ignored.
The real bottom line of the study is that the federal government keeps some of the gas tax receipts, so that not all of the money collected is sent back to the states.

[Anonymous]

I dont ever trust any infomation that comes out of those Neocon think tanks such as Reason or Cato or Heritage. Heck even Liberal Think tanks such as Brookings have been known to fib a little to pu***here agendas

[oltmannd]

The biggie that's missing from the highway calculation, at least for passenger transport, is the cost of the vehicle and operator. Those are directly paid for by the user but the user never really reimburses himself for his time lost driving nor considers anything more than his out-of-pocket costs.

[Anonymous]

Now, Don, there you go again. Injecting fact into a perfectly good discussion.

OS

[Anonymous]

Actually, another real biggie historically, at least as far as ATK is concerned, is that their subsidy as reported in the various statistical monographs, studies, reports and diatribes also inevitably includes corporate G+A & overhead, depreciation of equipment (an accounting convenience that's mythological for most ATK equipment which was bought with direct Federal grants and will be replaced with same, if replaced), cross-subsidies for operation of non-ATK transit agency train movements in the NEC segments controlled by ATK (a little bennie guaranteed by a rep from NJ who chaired HR Trans at the time), contributions to RR retirement, FELA claims, as well as direct capital and maintenance expenditures for vehicles (ditto on that one for transit, rail or not). In contrast, in all the years I've watched these numbers, I've yet to see the corporate cost for operating FHWA and the state DOTs/highway depts factored into the highway subsidy number that is compared to the other modes which do contain such numbers. In this business, apples are rarely apples and oranges are rarely oranges.

With regard to statistics used in politics, never, EVER forget the immortal words of Humpty Dumpty to Alice: "Words mean what I want them to".

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The biggie that's missing from the highway calculation, at least for passenger transport, is the cost of the vehicle and operator. Those are directly paid for by the user but the user never really reimburses himself for his time lost driving nor considers anything more than his out-of-pocket costs.

True the highway user rarely considers the value of his "lost" time, but is his time any less valuable sitting on a bus or train.

I know some people work while commuting on public transit (but most don't) others may read a newspaper or book (but most don't). Besides its hard to do anything productive while hanging from onto the overhead bar in a BART car or bus. In your own auto you can at least listen to what you want on the radio. Something often frowned upon on public transit.

On public transit you must travel when the service is provided and on the service providers schedule. On the highway you can, within broad limits, determine your own schedule.

Also real trips aren't between public transit stops. A person who considers travel time wasted will want to take the fastest mode of transportation, be that auto, train, or air.
There are of course other factors.

When I lived in Los Angeles I took the bus to work downtown. While the bus trip took 30 minutes and driving myself only 10 minutes, the cost and inconvienance of parking downtown overrode the speed factor. When I worked in Eagle Rock, I drove to work. The car trip was only 10 minutes and I had free parking at my work location. The bus trip was over 1-1/2 hour , required one transfer, and the nearest bus stop was 3 block from work.

I really don't think my situations were unusual.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

The biggie that's missing from the highway calculation, at least for passenger transport, is the cost of the vehicle and operator. Those are directly paid for by the user but the user never really reimburses himself for his time lost driving nor considers anything more than his out-of-pocket costs.

True the highway user rarely considers the value of his "lost" time, but is his time any less valuable sitting on a bus or train.

I know some people work while commuting on public transit (but most don't) others may read a newspaper or book (but most don't). Besides its hard to do anything productive while hanging from onto the overhead bar in a BART car or bus. In your own auto you can at least listen to what you want on the radio. Something often frowned upon on public transit.

On public transit you must travel when the service is provided and on the service providers schedule. On the highway you can, within broad limits, determine your own schedule.

Also real trips aren't between public transit stops. A person who considers travel time wasted will want to take the fastest mode of transportation, be that auto, train, or air.
There are of course other factors.

When I lived in Los Angeles I took the bus to work downtown. While the bus trip took 30 minutes and driving myself only 10 minutes, the cost and inconvienance of parking downtown overrode the speed factor. When I worked in Eagle Rock, I drove to work. The car trip was only 10 minutes and I had free parking at my work location. The bus trip was over 1-1/2 hour , required one transfer, and the nearest bus stop was 3 block from work.

I really don't think my situations were unusual.

I'll beg to differ.....

I've commuted just about every way possible over the past 25 years. SEPTA suburban svc. NJT express busses. PATCO high speed transit line. And, in the last 6 years, I've driven. In each case, my commute by transit only "cost" me 5 or 10 minutes on a 45-55 minute commute. (My evening commute on SEPTA used to save me about 10 minutes - often covering 17 miles in 17 minutes - leaving me just a 10 minute trip from the station home!)

First of all, suburban transit only works if the door to door trip times are competitive and you have a seat. Urban transit is a whole 'nother thing we'll not be dicsussing here!

Secondly, in this day and age of personal stereos, iPods, et. al. there is no shortage of audio entertainment available to the transit rider. Add to that the ability to work or play on a laptop PC, read or even take a cat nap plus never having to devote any attention to traffic and the quality of life for the suburban transit rider is much higher that of the auto commuter.

As the local transit agency adds suburban express bus routes around here, they are finding no shortage of takers. There are several in my office who have recently switched and rave about "getting some of their life back" - even tho' they have a 5 block walk to the bus stop.

[DSchmitt]

When I worked in San Francisco (admittedly 30 years ago, I'm sure traffic is worse now) my 60 mile commute was consistently 60-70 minutes by car, morning or evening (including some stop & go traffic on I-80).

The morning commute using BART (including driving to the BART station was over 1-1/2 hour (but at least in the morning I got a seat on BART)

The evening commute was 2 hours minimum and I had to stand for at least half of the ride on BART.

I solved my commute problem though, I moved to an apartment 3 blocks from work. Although the rent was higher than my previous apartment, it was less expensive than commuting. I believe in living close to work, but against forcing other people to do so.

_______________________________
Actually I am not against public transit.

I have seen figures that indicate that the cost per passenger mile of transit is actually overall higher than for the one occupant automobile. This is due to high fixed costs for infrastructure and personel and the many hours a day when transit is running well below capacity. However, a transit system that only runs during peak hours does not provide good service.

During the peak hours the passenger mile costs are lower than for the automoble. The problem is the public perception of worth. People do not realize the value of transit and are not willing to directly pay what it is worth.

There is a need for rail transit in metropolitian areas, but it is not a national need. Local and regional transit should be funded locally and regionally.

As far a transit funding goes the automobile is the goose that lays golden eggs. In order to really build and sustain transit, riders must be convinced to pay a higher percentage of the of the cost.


As for Amtrak:

This is not 1900. The national passenger train system system has been replaced by modes of transportation (highway and air) that work better for the vast majority of the people.

It would be nice if their were a good national system for tourists/vacationers to use. They should pay for it though.