Who Rides Amtrak?

[daveklepper]

1. Automobile transportation is not self-supporting even though DOT figures say it is. This is because DOT figures do not include LAND USE. This is not just a matter of the highway transportation not paying real estate taxes on land occupied by highways, especially the Interstates, but also land that would otherwise generate income for housing, agriculture, or industry. Railroads are far and away the most efficient use of land for both freight and passenger GROUND transportation.

Amtrak has two distinct markets, both are absolutely necessary for a civilized America, and are mutually supportive in equipment, schedules, and management.

1. Corridors, where reasonably fast trains now, and really fast trains in the future, can eliminate the need for extremely expensive or impossible highway and airport expansion and remove the threat of gridlock that would make that expansion absolutely necessary.

2. Long Distance, which brings added income to the USA from tourism, serves as an emergency backup for all kinds of emergencies, and provides access to the whole country for the millions (still only one percent of the population, but still millions) who cannot drive long distances or fly. Like the handicapped access and hard of hearing sound systems in your house of worship and theatres and concert halls and libraries.

Both deserve a subsidy to equalize the subsidy highway transportation gets and to presesrve a civilized USA.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Maybe you should read the Preamble. The one that's being used to justify the government's spending on the transportaion infrastructure is "promote the general welfare." In fact, the line "provide for the common defense" was oft quoted as the justification for the Interstate Highway system.

[Paul Milenkovic]

You can have monopoly or you can have competition, and you can have services provided by the government, and you can have services provided by free enterprise. All four of the models have advantages and disadvantages and have some role in our society.

Normally you think of monopoly as bad, all bad. On the other hand, monopoly allows for maximum economy of scale in a particular market. While monopoly profits are much larger than perfect competition profits and monopoly prices are higher, monopoly prices are not so high that the monopoly doesn't provide any goods and services, just less than the economic optimum. Even in perfect competition, you will have a range of providers -- a low cost provider with dominant market share making big profits down to the marginal producer making tiny profit. Is the large profit of the efficient producer an economic windfall?

While private enterprise and a free economy is regarded as being more efficient than the government, there are a variety of hybrid government/private enterprise schemes. The gas tax may have some of the bad aspects attributed to government in terms that there is wasteful road construction, but by and large, the users of highway service pay of the construction of highways.

Suppose that by an large people thought that even if they didn't ride Amtrak, it would be good to have around -- for a city evacuation, in case they wanted to take that trip they were thinking about, etc. Some people may put a high value on simply having Amtrak there when they needed it -- those people who are near Amtrak, like trains, cannot fly for medical reasons, and find a bus too cramped, would probably willingly pay a hundred dollars a year to have an Amtrak. Other people might put up 10 dollars a year just to have Amtrak around, just in case they want to use. Other die-hard Bush-voting SUV-driving natural-resource-consuming types would put up zero dollars a year.

So let's set the price of the Amtrak subsidy -- kind of like the annual membership for Sam's Club -- at $10 per person. One proposal is that we have an income tax checkoff for that. The problem arises is, do we have a checkoff for Amtrak, for NASA, for the War in Iraq, for sewage treatment plants, and on down the list, and depending on what checkoff we had, people would not mark the checkoff but then use the service. We have a constitutional democracy, we elect leaders, the leaders vote appropriations for public spending, we petition those leaders, they stick their fingers in the wind to determine the mood of the public -- flaws or not, that is our system. Anyway, the political process charges $10/person for Amtrak. Actually, they were going to pare that back to $3/person but may have increased that to $5/person.

To most of us foamers, Amtrak is worth a lot more than a $5 head tax, for being a citizen or alien within our borders and being able to ride an Amtrak train. To many other NASCAR-attending SUV-driving beer-swilling highway-loving folks, Amtrak is not even worth $5/head. So a political process has decided to send 1-1.5 billion to Amtrak depending on the outcome of an appropriation negotiation -- for some of us that is way underfunded, but for some, it is $5 too much. In a democracy, majority rules but that means as many as half of everybody doesn't get what they want, but at least it is a process to set the subsidy between zero and say $100 billion, the fantasy of replacing our cars with a train system.

So when one doesn't get what one wants through a democratic process, the conspiratorial though process kicks in. GM did in the Big Red Cars (well, what if they did, people at the time were OK with the outcome), the highway lobby hates trains even though they could bid on rail infrastructure, Congress is in the hip pockets of the airlines. Failing that, people starting at the top with Secretary Mineta down through the pesky electorate are "just plain stupid." Well, we need to make them unstupid through persuasion, not by being unhappy that the political climate doesn't favor trains.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area.

And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic.

And forget the interstates. I can tell you from first hand experience "gridlock" is, on most days, an understatement.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.

The difference is that right now, in the US, Amtrak IS rail passenger service. The reason that it operates on the freight railroads is because when Amtrak was formed, for the freight railroads to get the government to take over the passenger traffic, they had to agree to allow Amtrak access. If Amtrak is disolved, there'll be a valid argument on the part of the freight railroads that this agreement is disolved as well.

[Paul Milenkovic]

All modes of transportation get subsidies. That is a given starting point of any discussion.

A car supposedly pays its way through the gas tax, but for an initial reference point, assume that half of all road building is gas tax and the other half is property-tax based -- like having a road to get to your house. At 50 cents a gallon gas tax, 25 MPG in intercity driving, the gas tax is 2 cents/mile so let us say that in bulk, driving is subsidized at 2 cents/mile.

The conventional wisdom based on Amtrak's perhaps flawed accounting is that LD coach travel is subsidized at 20 cents/mile and that sleeper service may be subsidized at as much as 40 cents/mile. So on average and in bulk, Amtrak is subsidized at 10 times the rate as cars.

So tell me where I am wrong in this analysis? Does Amtrak has such a large fixed cost that if they got more subsidy to run more trains their subsidy rate would go down? What level would we need to fund Amtrak to get the subsidy down to 2 cents/mile?

URPA argues that LD trains operate break-even on their direct operating costs and that the big money pit is the NEC. So maybe Amtrak trains are not subsidized at 20 cents/passenger-mile. URPA is thin on hard numbers for this. Anyone else have better numbers than Amtrak accounting?

Maybe I am thinking about this wrong. Suppose Amtrak is subsidized at 20 cents/mile and driving at 2 cents/mile -- what is the social externality that supports the 18 cent/mile differential? Maybe there is a high-cost urban freeway project that will cost 50 cents/vehicle mile while a corridor train alternative would require only 10 cents/mile subsidy? OK, were is that freeway?

The path we are on since the 1960s is that

"passenger rail is a money-loser" to which we say
"losses are all accounting smoke-and-mirrors from the railroads" after which Amtrak and
"this thing should pay its way" to which we say
"all modes of transportation are subsidized" to which they say
"Amtrak is subsidized at 10 times the rate as cars" to which all we are able to say is
"Randall O'Toole/I.G. Kenneth Meade/Secretary Mineta are all shills for the highway lobby" at which point we lose the argument and lose the trains.

This is serious business because we have had Amtrak for 35 years, and if not with the Bush Administration, with the administration that follows or the one after that we might lose everything. We've been making the same arguments for 35 years -- balanced transportation, accomodation of those unable or unwilling to fly, drive, or take, the bus, that the Amtrak subsidy is a small amount of money that no one will notice it on their tax bill, trains can relieve transportation congestion, but we absolutely have to back up these arguments quantitatively because there are not enough railfans for a 100,000 member rally in downtown L.A..

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Maybe you should read the Preamble. The one that's being used to justify the government's spending on the transportaion infrastructure is "promote the general welfare." In fact, the line "provide for the common defense" was oft quoted as the justification for the Interstate Highway system.

I have and "general welfare" doesn't explicitly mean including railroad travel. What comes under "general welfare" is a part of the political process. Justice and defence are core responsibilities, what comes under "general welfare" are not. I also take general to include the lower-classes and poor. By your own words, Amtrak doesn't serve them, it serves the middle and upper-middle-classes. Something no one here has yet refuted. That was what the original post was about.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area.

You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above.

QUOTE:
And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic.

The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

Maybe you should read the Preamble. The one that's being used to justify the government's spending on the transportaion infrastructure is "promote the general welfare." In fact, the line "provide for the common defense" was oft quoted as the justification for the Interstate Highway system.

I have and "general welfare" doesn't explicitly mean including railroad travel. What comes under "general welfare" is a part of the political process. Justice and defence are core responsibilities, what comes under "general welfare" are not. I also take general to include the lower-classes and poor. By your own words, Amtrak doesn't serve them, it serves the middle and upper-middle-classes. Something no one here has yet refuted. That was what the original post was about.

The Constitution didn't include rail travel because at the time, it didn't exist. Neither did air travel, or highway travel. All overland travel was by horse or walking. The word "general" includes ALL classes and does not make a distinction. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all government supported programs should support people of all economic classes. They don't. How much benefit do lower-classes and poor receive from all the subsidies to the airlines? Or the highways? The original post was flawed because it didn't state how much other forms of transport were used by the poor in comparison to other economic classes. It's like saying that people in the 1800's weren't using air travel without stating that it didn't exist in that time period. There was nothing to refute because the original post was incomplete.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Part of the supposed "data" you keep talking about is in the news all the time. A new highway being built for ? billion dollars. Do they ever state how many years of income from the motor fuel tax and license fees it will take to pay for building this piece of road? And that doesn't take into consideration the maintenance costs and interest charges on the money (if borrowed) during the time it will take to pay for the initial construction.

Using the term "ROI" in relation to any government supported program is so much smoke and mirrors. You don't have the right to "invest" in these programs or not, or decide which ones to invest in. You pay taxes. And the spending decision (not investment) is made by our elected officials with helpful input from the lobbyists.

And I'm glad you agree with me on the point that privatizing the highways and air traffic system and airports would give us a true picture of what these forms of transport are actually costing us. Not buried under the "paid from income tax" heading with thousands of other expenditures. We could suggest, for example, that the government charge the airlines the true cost of the airports and air traffic control system, but I don't think the lobbyists would approve of that.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area.

You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above.

QUOTE:
And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic.

The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors.

If you're comparing strictly on the travel time factor, then no, trains do not compete with air travel in long distance corridors. However, these trains are still carrying thousands of passengers a month, even with the minimal rail passenger system we have now for long distance. Not many people travelling the long distance trains take them from one end to the other of the trip (railfans on this form excluded). Why do you suppose that is?

By the way you're talking, the buyers of those "thousands of microjets" won't be much help to the congestion problem. As you stated, you travel between NYC and Chicago. Airports at both ends of that trip are heavily congested, and I believe that Chicago's O'Hare Airport is the most congested in the country. It doesn't sound like they'll be much help to you on your journeys. These airports are congested because that's where people want to go or leave from. These microjets are going to be serving a niche market and won't be much help to relieving congestion.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area.

You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above.

QUOTE:
And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic.

The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors.

If you're comparing strictly on the travel time factor, then no, trains do not compete with air travel in long distance corridors. However, these trains are still carrying thousands of passengers a month, even with the minimal rail passenger system we have now for long distance. Not many people travelling the long distance trains take them from one end to the other of the trip (railfans on this form excluded). Why do you suppose that is?

When it comes to long distance travel, not only does Amtrak not compete well in time, but it also doesn't compete very well in price and frequency either, a triple whammy.

QUOTE:
By the way you're talking, the buyers of those "thousands of microjets" won't be much help to the congestion problem. As you stated, you travel between NYC and Chicago. Airports at both ends of that trip are heavily congested, and I believe that Chicago's O'Hare Airport is the most congested in the country. It doesn't sound like they'll be much help to you on your journeys. These airports are congested because that's where people want to go or leave from. These microjets are going to be serving a niche market and won't be much help to relieving congestion.

I didn't say microjets would relieve congestion between hubs such as between New York and Chicago. I mentioned them as a potential threat to Amtrak, which serves small-town America poorly, e.g. Cedar Rapids, Ia to Gulfport, Ms. Those air taxi operators expect to fly directly between small city airports most of which are small and uncongested, not the large metropolitan areas. Since I'm into the potential effect of microjets on the air traffic system, however, they will drain passengers who take the hub and spoke system airlines because they can now fly direct. This will reduce hub flight traffic, e.g. Chicago - NYC, thereby reducing congestion. Other markets will be served which haven't been served at all. Third, Amtrak is bound to lose some small-town traffic. One of the smallest manufacturers, Eclipse, already has 2300 orders for its product:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=924&Itemid=348
Then there's Cessna, etc.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.

You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

To take a more appropriate example, the three busiest stations on the Amtrak map are 1. Penn(sylvania) Station in New York City, 2. Union Station in Washington DC, and 3. 30th Street Station in Philadelphia. All three of these are in a section known as the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak carries 50% of the passenger traffic in the air/rail market between Washington DC and New York City, and 39% between Boston and New York City. If you're under the mistaken impression that there is enough land available close to any of these cities to expand the airports, or build new ones to take this much traffic, let alone the cost of building and maintaing them, you are sadly out of touch with the situation in this area.

You're talking about short distance travel. I agree that trains are an appropriate answer. My example above, concerns long distance travel, however. Again, I'd challenge anyone to come with a plausible scenario where trains compete successfully with air travel on long-haul routes, as you seem to argue above.

QUOTE:
And the air taxi point is moot in this area for the same reason. The air corridor, as well as the airports are already near or at capacity with the current flight traffic.

The buyers of those thousands of microjets would disagree. The air traffic system may be congested at some of the major metropolitan areas, but that's not their intended market. Indeed, changes in navigation technology seem to leading to direct flights between destinations, obviating the need for corridors.

If you're comparing strictly on the travel time factor, then no, trains do not compete with air travel in long distance corridors. However, these trains are still carrying thousands of passengers a month, even with the minimal rail passenger system we have now for long distance. Not many people travelling the long distance trains take them from one end to the other of the trip (railfans on this form excluded). Why do you suppose that is?

When it comes to long distance travel, not only does Amtrak not compete well in time, but it also doesn't compete very well in price and frequency either, a triple whammy.

QUOTE:
By the way you're talking, the buyers of those "thousands of microjets" won't be much help to the congestion problem. As you stated, you travel between NYC and Chicago. Airports at both ends of that trip are heavily congested, and I believe that Chicago's O'Hare Airport is the most congested in the country. It doesn't sound like they'll be much help to you on your journeys. These airports are congested because that's where people want to go or leave from. These microjets are going to be serving a niche market and won't be much help to relieving congestion.

I didn't say microjets would relieve congestion between hubs such as between New York and Chicago. I mentioned them as a potential threat to Amtrak, which serves small-town America poorly, e.g. Cedar Rapids, Ia to Gulfport, Ms. Those air taxi operators expect to fly directly between small city airports most of which are small and uncongested, not the large metropolitan areas. Since I'm into the potential effect of microjets on the air traffic system, however, they will drain passengers who take the hub and spoke system airlines because they can now fly direct. This will reduce hub flight traffic, e.g. Chicago - NYC, thereby reducing congestion. Other markets will be served which haven't been served at all. Third, Amtrak is bound to lose some small-town traffic. One of the smallest manufacturers, Eclipse, already has 2300 orders for its product:
http://www.eclipseaviation.com/index.php?option=com_newsroom&task=viewpr&id=924&Itemid=348
Then there's Cessna, etc.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. I still fail to see how these will help you, and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.

You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up.

It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside
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.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.

No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think.

QUOTE:
I still fail to see how these will help you,

I never claimed that microjets will "help" me.

QUOTE:
... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.

You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up.

It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread.

You're partly right. The first mention of investment returns is in the article you linked in the first post on this thread.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

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.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.

No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think.

QUOTE:
I still fail to see how these will help you,

I never claimed that microjets will "help" me.

QUOTE:
... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.

You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up.

It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread.

You're partly right. The first mention of investment returns is in the article you linked in the first post on this thread.

The link is there to cite the source of the quotation, it's not a part of my point, as should be obvious. I document my facts. In addition, I fail to find anything in the article discussing comparative ROIs. ROI is an issue you raised, not me, in trying to support your contention of the relative efficacy of rail travel, and you've gone nowhere with it. Rather than arguing about where it first appears, I suggest you abandon this fruitless line of argument.

[wallyworld]

Congressional testimony by The National Association of Railroad Passengers discusses demographics of Amtrak ridership.

http://www.narprail.org/test11.htm

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
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.

And again, the ROI on highways and airports is a huge negative, as well. Sure, they could sell off the Interstate Highway system, and/or the Air Traffic Control System. Let's take it a step further and make airlines pay the actual cost of operating the airports. How much do you think that airline ticket will cost you to fly from Washington to Chicago? Or how much is the toll going to be for you to drive the Toll Roads that used to be free Interstate Highways? Once privatized, the owning companies will charge these users (airlines, drivers, etc) enough to cover their operating and maintenacne costs, plus a profit for the company, and guess who will be paying this?

The bottom line is that the subsidy paid to Amtrak is no different than the subsidies paid to the airlines, in terms of the use of airports and air traffic control system; or the drivers, in terms of the costs to build and maintain the highway and road systems. THIS is where the ROI needs to be evaluated.

Your reasoning makes no sense to me whatever. You're saying all three modes have negative rates of return, and then proceed to compare them on the basis of negative ROIs! Most financial analysts would say a negative ROI is a red flag that a project isn't worth undertaking or continuing. If I saw three projects with huge negative ROIs I'd be strongly inclined to not undertake any of them, let alone compare them. You're going to have to produce data rather than argument to convince me.

As for privatizing and paying for highway and air traffic control services, that's as it should be, the beneficiaries of the service should be the ones paying for it.

I'm not saying that is proper and right to pay subsidies to airlines and roads either.

Your first two sentences answer your own question. No financial analyst is going to try to figure the ROI of a federal program because there is no way to separate the income from the specific taxes from the general tax rates. Too many states, and the feds, use the old "General Fund" heading for all taxes coming in.

Please re-read the thread. You're the one who raised ROI analysis in support of one of your arguments. First you say compare the ROIs, now you say you can't do it because you can't separate out the components used in calculating them.

You're the one who needs to do some rereading. Start with page 2 post 9 by you. This is the first place that the term "ROI" shows up.

It's part of your post on page 2 posting 6 "Amtrak gives a better return on investment than the others in these situations" the first mention of ROI anywhere in the thread.

You're partly right. The first mention of investment returns is in the article you linked in the first post on this thread.

The link is there to cite the source of the quotation, it's not a part of my point, as should be obvious. I document my facts. In addition, I fail to find anything in the article discussing comparative ROIs. ROI is an issue you raised, not me, in trying to support your contention of the relative efficacy of rail travel, and you've gone nowhere with it. Rather than arguing about where it first appears, I suggest you abandon this fruitless line of argument.

After you repeatedly ignored several other posters here telling you how flawed the research on the part of the article writer is, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside
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.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.

No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I still fail to see how these will help you,

I never claimed that microjets will "help" me.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.

The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak.

It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
And by "others more knowledgable," do you mean like the ones running Delta Airlines?

I mean the taxi and charter operators who have ordered the microjets, not the large airlines. But it's interesting that you mention Delta (who AFAIK haven't ordered any) because, as a hub and spoke operator, they stand to lose more passengers, thereby worsening their already dire situation.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside
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.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.

No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I still fail to see how these will help you,

I never claimed that microjets will "help" me.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.

The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak.

It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency.

Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.

[solzrules]

Wow. Pretty intensive discussion here. I just wanted to sign on and say that I ride Amtrak when I hate driving on the freeway. Since a coach ticket is roughly comparable to the price of gas for where I am going, I find that although it takes a little bit longer to get there, the scenery is nice and you can even catch a quick nap along the way! And, there is always that nice beer in the lounge car. Always a treat.

[Anonymous]

Frequently during the summer the Amtrak LD Trains by me are close to if not sold out and they don't even add extra cars due to lack of cars. Sad State but this wil prorably continue until they can get it back into a State of Good Repair.

[eastside]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside
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.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.

No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I still fail to see how these will help you,

I never claimed that microjets will "help" me.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.

The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak.

It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency.

Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.

If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be!

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside
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.

You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.

No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
I still fail to see how these will help you,

I never claimed that microjets will "help" me.

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl
... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.

Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.

The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak.

It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency.

Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.

If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be!

As was said before, you based your argument on a single article that several users pointed out how flawed it was. For example, just to take the part you cut-and-pasted, it didn't state that the poor were especially heavy users of any other form of transportation, either.