Who Rides Amtrak?

[eastside]

Here’s a finding which is consistent with my general observations in riding Amtrak trains. This is from the Cato Institute, which has a reputation as a free-market think-tank, which relied on data from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and Amtrak itself:

The poor are not especially heavy users of Amtrak. Three-fourths of Amtrak passengers have incomes above the national average. Travel on Amtrak by persons with incomes above $40,000 is the highest of any mode—3.5 times higher than on buses and nearly 1.5 times higher than on airlines. Nearly one-third of Amtrak passengers have household incomes of $75,000 or more, and 20 percent have incomes of $100,000 or more. Amtrak’s clientele is much more skewed toward higher incomes than the general population.

Full report

In effect, Amtrak is a subsidy to upper-income travellers and only incidentally provides transportation to the less-affluent.

[jeaton]

1. The report was written with data from the mid-1990's.
2. The poor are not especially heavy users of any form of transpotation.
3. the author is a paid hack for elements of the highway construction business.

[oltmannd]

A 1997 study? A conservative think tank trying the "class warfare" model they ususlly accuse the liberal of using? That's a good one [:D]

To lump all Amtrak riders into the same pot is silly. There was no effort to break out who is riding which trains. Half of Amtrak's riders are in the NEC where a good chunk of the benefit is elimination of greater public expense to expand highway and airport capacity. Even the most ardent anti-Amtrakers will concede the NEC is a good investment. I'll bet you that 90% of the NEC riders are over the nat'l income avg.

So, that leaves the other half, half of whom would be under the nat'l income avg. Gee, that wouldn't be a good chunk of the coach riders, would it? So, just maybe, a large majority of the coach riders on the non-NEC trains are under the nat'l avg.

So using the "class warfare" logic of the report, that EXACTLY where the subsidy should go.

[TomDiehl]

Wow, a nine year old report telling us that most of Amtrak's passengers are commuting to work to jobs that pay over $40K a year. In these cases, subsidizing Amtrak as a commuter service is a lot cheaper than the cost of upgrading roads and parking (if you can even FIND the land to do it where needed) if all those commuters drove to work.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

1. The report was written with data from the mid-1990's.
2. The poor are not especially heavy users of any form of transpotation.
3. the author is a paid hack for elements of the highway construction business.

1. Goes to show you some things don't change
2. But it's been used to justify Amtrak
3. I don't think so. According to his bio: Joseph Vranich worked to create Amtrak in 1970-71. He later served as an Amtrak press spokesman, President of the High Speed Rail Association, and a U.S. Senate appointee to Amtrak Reform Council. Could you cite your sources?

[American Morse]

Nobody rides Amtrak trains anymore, they're too crowded.[:D][:D]

[PBenham]

QUOTE: Originally posted by American Morse

Nobody rides Amtrak trains anymore, they're too crowded.[:D][:D]

That's not true here, sadly!

[ndbprr]

I don't. The last time I did was 1992. The crew was surly. The equipment was dirty and the rest room door wouldn't stay shut. The crew hearded everybody getting off between DC and Chicago into one coach so they wouldn't have as much work. Every time the train stopped they woke everybody up. I'd rather put up with airline security and Southworst for a couple of hours instead of a whole night of abuse.

[Simon Reed]

I do. Whenever I can get a week off work and my other half is occupied I fly to the States and ride Amtrak.

That does'nt satisfactorily answer the question, I accept.

This may not be the place to pontificate but I've pontificated on this forum before and I will again, moderators permitting.

I live in Europe, and I know about European passenger operations - a lot.

This is an American forum. You guys do light rail pretty well and, when you get your beaurocracy together, you're not too bad with commuter rail.

Drop the National rail entirely. Get a European operator - ie an operator who knows what they're doing - to take over Amtrak on an open access basis.

Hey presto - properly run network.

I get the impression that people would rather see Amtrak die than accept defeat or admit incompetence.

That's my loss, but it's as easy for me to fly to Canada, or South America....

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PBenham

QUOTE: Originally posted by American Morse

Nobody rides Amtrak trains anymore, they're too crowded.[:D][:D]

That's not true here, sadly!

LMAO. A real contradiction. If nobody is riding them, then who makes up the "crowd?"

[Anonymous]

I ride Amtrak. I like trains and support them to the best of my ability.

The Cato Institute is a conservative think tank which means it has a conservative bias. Generally all think tanks (conservative and liberal) are bias to a particular philosphy or set of beliefs. So I personally take the ALL think tank studies with a grain of salt.

[DaveBr]

OK You guys'I ride Amtrak twice a year from LA to Portland .It's better then flying,you don't see any sceanery up there do you?If you think flying is better then taking the train,that's because your probably in a hurry,right.When your up there your probably taking that nap and you don't see the world anyway.
Now even when the train is late I see the sceanery that I never saw.There are
some who don't care to take the train and then again there are some who
don't care to fly.No matter how we go,I think we all make that choice and
we all enjoy it. Dave Br

[nssr9169]

QUOTE: Originally posted by American Morse

Nobody rides Amtrak trains anymore, they're too crowded.[:D][:D]

Well if the D*** goverment funded the trains mabey they would not be so crowded.

[METRO]

QUOTE: Originally posted by American Morse

Nobody rides Amtrak trains anymore, they're too crowded.[:D][:D]

That's true here in Milwaukee, if you want a seat on the morning or afternoon Hiawatha, you better show up early to the station. I ride that train, along with many many other University Of Wisconsin-Milwaukee students, at least twice a month to get down to Chicago.

It may be a commuter line, but for those of us who are urban citizens without cars, we depend on it.

As for the report, well it's the Cato Institiute, enough said. They would be against anything that's not in line with a free-market style of Lassé-fare economic theory, let alone a government subsidized system of passenger rail travel.

The Cato Institute may be a sacred cow for Libertarians and supply-side Republicans, but I'll tell you as a Canadian, a little government help isn't always a bad thing, within reason. Amtrak has some lines it could drop, that's true. However nixing the whole system is counterproductive to the national economy. With gas prices at $3 a gallon and everyone saying it's only going to get higher, trains look pretty good. Last time I checked, a job paying over 40 grand a year was what made someone middle class in America (depending on where one lives it could still be quite poor actually) and what's wrong with Uncle Sam helping out the average working American? Trust me with things like health care costs, gas prices and all the other financial matters, the working guy could use a hand every now and then, especially when it's such a small fraction of the federal budget.

That's a big reason I'm behind Amtrak, it's the big powerful federal government bending over a little bit to help the everyman. I think it should be fit and trim of course, so I'd love to see politicians stop using Amtrak as a political football and apply some of that which I think is far too lacking in the capitol these days: common sense.

Cheers!
~METRO

[Anonymous]

When I've ridden Amtrak the other riders tend to be predominantly city dwellers who have no compelling reason to own a car. Or they are people visiting relatives in a city and have no compelling reason to bring their car. The distances traveled tend to be between two and six hours, somewhat impractical for a flight.

I travel predominantly on the Northeast Corridor or south of DC. It may be different on other lines.

[espeefoamer]

I ride Amtrak as often as possible.Mostly short trips on the San Diegan line.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by American Morse

Nobody rides Amtrak trains anymore, they're too crowded.[:D][:D]

There Crowded a lot here, they over sell the train all time[:0][:0] I ride Amtrak as much I can.

[Anonymous]

I ride the NEC every couple months usually, and the trains are always crowded, with very few exceptions. (thank god for the quiet car!!) [8D] Generally the cars have always been pretty clean, crew is nice and friendly, and no complaints. They do tend to ask people to come to the front of the train at aberdeen, where I often stop, but it's just because it's such a small station. Amtrak beats the bus any day of the week, and I hate flying, and never would if I didn't have to every once in a while...

[Anonymous]

I ride the Capitol Corridor several times a year to visit friends. I have been doing this since 2000, and the crew members have always been nice and answered any questions I've had, except for one conductor who was a grouch, but that was a few years ago. Whenever the train stops to wait for a sister train or UP they usualy let you know. The California Cars are always pretty clean. Even though it is a 3 1/2 hour ride to Sacramento from San Jose (1 hour by car if there is no traffic) it still beats driving. Plus the parts of the trip where you go along the San Pablo bay and through the Suisun and Alviso wetlands helps make it a worthy ride. If I had any complaints at all it would be sometimes the cars can get really cold inside.

[eastside]

So far I haven’t seen anything to refute the OP:

1. Rather than serving those with few travel options, Amtrak tends to serve middle- and upper-middle-class passengers, those who can afford options
2. Buses and even the airlines are the more preferred of travel for low-income travellers

Impugning the source’s motives or political agenda, as some here have, does not refute the arguments, only other facts and arguments can.

Apparently, no one here seems especially bothered that the taxes a poor African-American who lives in a Bronx tenement or a Hispanic living in the L.A. barrio, neither of whom would seem to use Amtrak frequently, would in part subsidize my business and recreational travels.

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed
Drop the National rail entirely. Get a European operator - ie an operator who knows what they're doing - to take over Amtrak on an open access basis.

An entirely reasonable idea to consider. Apparently, you’re one of the few people to have read the article or are at least familiar with the author’s ideas, which

“argues Amtrak's end needn't mean the end of passenger train service. In fact, 40 million passengers already ride trains in the United States operated by private companies in partnership with public agencies in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, San Jose and Dallas-Fort Worth. And the book outlines how 55 nations are doing away with their versions of Amtrak by privatizing, franchising, regionalizing and devolving train services to competitive, private operators. Stunning traffic growth has resulted in Great Britain, where privatized railways last year carried more than 1.1 billion passengers – the most in almost 60 years. The United States successfully privatized and devolved federally owned railroads, Conrail and the Alaska Railroad. Those experiences can be replicated with Amtrak.”

Not the words of a demagogue, as some here think.

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

1. The report was written with data from the mid-1990's.
2. The poor are not especially heavy users of any form of transpotation.
3. the author is a paid hack for elements of the highway construction business.

My bad. Number three is a mistake and I retract the assertion.

[jeaton]

Poor people paying taxes?

Privatization is private companies "in partnership" with public agencies?

The history of privatizing freight railroads establishes a process for dealing with the market for moving people?

Explain, please?

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Poor people paying taxes?

If you still have your 1040 tax instructions from a few days ago, just look at the tax tables for those making $40k or less. You'll find they pay plenty of taxes. You also have to include state and local income and sales taxes. Where I live these are substantial.

QUOTE:
Privatization is private companies "in partnership" with public agencies?
Explain, please?

An example would be a public entity, such as Metra, outsourcing the operation of commuter trains to a private carrier such as the Union Pacific.

[jchnhtfd]

Bad science, or at least bad statistics; not too surprising, really. And thus doesn't prove anything at all. Here in the northeast, the vast majority of folks who ride Amtrak have incomes well over the national average (up to 100 times -- that's one hundred -- the national average); over on the left coast the same thing is true. These people form the vast majority of Amtrak riders in any part of the country. The poor and lower middle class don't ride Amtrak. In fact, they don't ride anything much, since they can't afford to go anywhere except to work, and they can't afford to live in the suburbs which are served by Amtrak. So where does that leave you? Someone should have checked the incomes of the other modes of transportation IN THE SAME MARKETS to see what the situation really was, but of course they don't want to do that...

I do get annoyed by bad statistics.

Here's another one for you, in case you want to wave it around: approximately 90% of the people who drink the water in New York City will die in the next 70 years. Therefore, don't drink New York City water?

[jeaton]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Poor people paying taxes?

If you still have your 1040 tax instructions from a few days ago, just look at the tax tables for those making $40k or less. You'll find they pay plenty of taxes. You also have to include state and local income and sales taxes. Where I live these are substantial.

QUOTE:
Privatization is private companies "in partnership" with public agencies?
Explain, please?

An example would be a public entity, such as Metra, outsourcing the operation of commuter trains to a private carrier such as the Union Pacific.

Is it OK if I use the software my company used to prepare over 1,000 tax returns?


$40,000 income subject to federal income tax. Standard deduction.

Single, no dependents. $4865
Married, filing jointly, no dependents $2810
Married, filing jointly, 2 dependents $1850
Married, filing jointly, 2 dependent children age 16 or under $0 plus $150 added to refund for Child Tax Credit.

Get the married couple with two dependent children with taxable income in the mid-twenties and the taxes will be zero with refundable credits around $4000.

If, under what is surely a cost plus contract, the UP is any more efficient at providing the services than Metra would be doing the whole in house, I will be more than happy to suggest to my federal representatives to vote for the UP to takeover Amtrak.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Here in the northeast, the vast majority of folks who ride Amtrak have incomes well over the national average (up to 100 times -- that's one hundred -- the national average); over on the left coast the same thing is true. These people form the vast majority of Amtrak riders in any part of the country.

If Amtrak wasn't being propped-up by the government your observation wouldn't bother me at all, but you unselfconsciously help my argument by highlighting a troubling aspect of Amtrak.

QUOTE:
The poor and lower middle class don't ride Amtrak. In fact, they don't ride anything much, since they can't afford to go anywhere except to work, and they can't afford to live in the suburbs which are served by Amtrak.

That's right, but to the extent that they do travel you can measure the relative effectiveness of the modes in meeting the travel needs of the public and that must include the poor.

QUOTE:
So where does that leave you?

Where I was at the beginning, questioning the probity of spending tax dollars subsidizing middle-class and upper-middle-class travel for people who have options and need it less than the poor and lower-middle classes, who could be helped relatively more by those tax dollars. Again, apparently few here seem to be bothered by that.

QUOTE:
Someone should have checked the incomes of the other modes of transportation IN THE SAME MARKETS to see what the situation really was, but of course they don't want to do that...

Possibly it wasn't done because it would be irrelevant. The analysis implicitly covers long-distance travel (airplanes), that is travel between markets. What it shows is that Amtrak performs poorly with respect to the other modes in serving the lower-classes.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Here in the northeast, the vast majority of folks who ride Amtrak have incomes well over the national average (up to 100 times -- that's one hundred -- the national average); over on the left coast the same thing is true. These people form the vast majority of Amtrak riders in any part of the country.

If Amtrak wasn't being propped-up by the government your observation wouldn't bother me at all, but you unselfconsciously help my argument by highlighting a troubling aspect of Amtrak.

That may be true, but the government financially supports all forms of transportation. The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities. As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd
So where does that leave you?

Where I was at the beginning, questioning the probity of spending tax dollars subsidizing middle-class and upper-middle-class travel for people who have options and need it less than the poor and lower-middle classes, who could be helped relatively more by those tax dollars. Again, apparently few here seem to be bothered by that.

And again you ignore the fact that if these people weren't riding Amtrak, they'd be driving, or flying. Along the Northeast Corridor, for example, there isn't even enough land available, especially near the major metro areas, to expand roads and parking, or expand or build new airports. The rail infrastructure is already there. So the choice is between: 1. Pay to subsidize Amtrak 2. Pay to build and maintain new roads between and parking facilities in major metro areas 3. Pay to expand or build and maintain airports and ground transportation support for them. The people in this income class WILL travel, and the modes are all government supported.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton
$40,000 income subject to federal income tax. Standard deduction.

Single, no dependents. $4865
Married, filing jointly, no dependents $2810
Married, filing jointly, 2 dependents $1850
Married, filing jointly, 2 dependent children age 16 or under $0 plus $150 added to refund for Child Tax Credit.

Get the married couple with two dependent children with taxable income in the mid-twenties and the taxes will be zero with refundable credits around $4000.

In fact, according to the CBO, the average effective tax rate for the quintile that $40k is in is about 5.4%, or $2160. You also forgot FICA (15.3%), that would be $6120. If the state and local sales tax is 8% and the family spends $20,000 (probably on the low side) on taxable items that's an additional $1600. Just for the additional items, total: $7720, a pretty substantial proportion in my book. Then there are real estate taxes, state income taxes, etc.

QUOTE:
If, under what is surely a cost plus contract, the UP is any more efficient at providing the services than Metra would be doing the whole in house, I will be more than happy to suggest to my federal representatives to vote for the UP to takeover Amtrak.

As I understand it, the railroads already own Amtrak's common stock! They've all essentially written the value of the stock down to zero. What you mean is taking over Amtrak's operations. I'm sure the politicians would be deliriously happy if someone were willing to take its operations. The trick is finding the right price.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
That may be true, but the government financially supports all forms of transportation.

Just because the government supports some forms of transportation, doesn't mean it should support all, let alone any. There's nothing in the Constitution that dictates that it must support transportation modes, and certainly nothing to what extent they must be supported. AFAIK, defence and the judicial system are the only core responsibilities mentioned.

QUOTE:
The cost to build up the highway system, or the air traffic system in either of these areas would be many times the cost of subsidizing Amtrak. And that also assumes the land would even be available for the new airports, or new roads and parking facilities.

For example, I travel between New York and Chicago, the most heavily travelled air corridor in the U.S., several times a year. Currently Chicago O'Hare has 2 east-west runways in addition to 5 other runways. Despite your advice of the cost effectiveness rail transport, O'Hare is adding 4 east-west runways. Whatever the traffic levels become, it's hard to believe that Amtrak could ever seriously present itself as a competitive alternative on this route. I'd bet that Amtrak carries a nearly infinitesimal proportion of the total traffic between the two cities and will continue to do so. Then how about NY to LA? No way.

All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare.

QUOTE:
As far as being "propped up" that term can be applied to both the highway or air traffic systems, as well as Amtrak. Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations.

Surely you can't mean Amtrak's ROI in financial terms because it's hugely negative -- the reason it's so controversial in the first place. There's a difference between being propped-up, living and propped-up, zombie. IMO, aside from political issues, the government could sell-off or privatize both the interstate highway system and air traffic control system and make big bucks because both could be going enterprises. On the other hand, the government could not give Amtrak away. It would have to be totally reorganized first, with the government eating its huge liabilities. From what I've read, merely winding up the labor contracts would cost about $11 billion. In addition, any buyer would demand ongoing operating subsidies.

QUOTE:
And again you ignore the fact that if these people weren't riding Amtrak, they'd be driving, or flying. Along the Northeast Corridor, for example, there isn't even enough land available, especially near the major metro areas, to expand roads and parking, or expand or build new airports. The rail infrastructure is already there. So the choice is between: 1. Pay to subsidize Amtrak 2. Pay to build and maintain new roads between and parking facilities in major metro areas 3. Pay to expand or build and maintain airports and ground transportation support for them.

If you had read the article, the author is criticising Amtrak, not rail travel, an important distinction you don't make. He would have said instead 1. Pay to subsidize rail service.