Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="HarveyK400"][quote user="Samantha"] The funding problem could be resolved with two steps:  <blockquote>Discontinue the long distance trains, which bring in about 23 per cent of system revenues while chewing up more than 140 per cent of the operating expenses or 48 per cent of the federal payments required to cover Amtrak's deficits, would save more than $515 million per year.</blockquote><blockquote>Require the states to fund most of passenger rail expansion. The future for passenger rail service lies in relatively short regional corridors. The capital outlays and operating deficits should be worn by the states they serve. Unlike the federal government, most state governments are required to balance their budgets. Thus, by requiring the states to fund any expanded services, the outlays would be on a pay as you go basis as opposed to laying the burden on future generations. </blockquote>[/quote]Given the relative scales of long-distance and other trains as well as the mathematical absurdity; it's a little difficult to believe Long-distance trains chew up 140% of operating expenses.  As recently posted, most long-distance train direct costs may exceed revenue by 140% and more with the Sunset running at over 300%.  The national system:<ul><li>Provides some rural service opportunities between medium-size cities and metropolitan centers that might not otherwise warrant regional service.</li><li>Admittedly serves in part as a tourist line - I've met quite a few foreign visitors on long-distance trains.</li><li>Constitutes a political beast, giving most states a train in exchange for the investment in the NEC. </li></ul>Inter-city corridors usually are inter-state as well; and would seem to fall into the category of interstate commerce and federal responsibility.   The problem with state funding is that the economic influence of a city often extends well beyond state boundries, even in a state as large as Texas.  Illinois and Wisconsin have cooperated with the Hiawathas; but anything Michigan might desire to do to improve service from Chicago is hindered by lack of cooperation from Indiana where a disportionate burden of cost would be bourne for the derived benefits.   [/quote]For FY 2007 the operating loss for the long distance trains was $440.4 million.  The system operating loss was $309.7 million.  Divide 440.4 by 309.7 to get 142.2 per cent.  It is not mathematical magic.  It is due to the fact that the NEC trains covered their operating expenses and contributed $258.3 million to cover interest and depreciation, offset in part by the loses incurred by the other corridor trains.  The loses, by the way, were before interest and depreciation.  The national system provides once a day service to some medium size and small cities.  In many instances the train arrives in the middle of the night, and if a passenger misses it, he or she has to wait 24 hours for the next one.  Calling this a national system requires a bit of tongue in the cheek.  Most of the cities served by the so-called national system have excellent air and bus service for people who cannot or choose not to drive.If the justification for the national system is that it provides service to medium and small communities, Amtrak should provide service to every community in the U.S. with a population above XX.  Choose a number.  Of course, given the cost of doing so, it is out of the question.NARP argues that Amtrak would not be supported if a meatless bone (the national system) was not thrown to the politicians outside of the NEC states, Illinois, and California.  Never mind that there is no evidence for this assertion.  It may be appropriate for the federal government to provide some of the seed money for corridors that cross state boundaries.  But most of the funding (80 per cent), to the extent the fares do not cover the costs, should come from the states hosting the service.  After all, it is their citizens that benefit directly from it.The national airways system is a national system.  Most people in the U.S. can drive to an airport in a couple of hours, get on a plane, and fly anywhere in the country or the world.  The same concept applies to the federal highway system.  But many people, especially in the west and southwest, cannot readily use Amtrak.  Not to mention the fact that most of them don't want to use it.  It is unfair to ask the people of Milwaukee to pay for corridor rail between Austin and San Antonio.  It is equally unfair to ask people in Texas to shoulder the cost of providing rail service between New York and Washington.  These are regional transport solutions.  They are not national in any sense of the word.  And neither is the anemic national train system.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag