I wrote this as part of a discussion on a email list that I belong to. For the record, i'm a conservative, but I do believe we are going to need more trains in the future. - Warren
For those who keep saying there is little or no subsidy of air travel, this is from this morning's paper:
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has proposed an amendment to an aviation bill pending before the Senate in order to eliminate the $200 million annual essential air service program. The program pays airlines to provide scheduled service to about 150 communities, from Muscle Shoals, Ala., to Pelican, Alaska.
In the House, the Republican Study Committee -- a group of conservative lawmakers -- has also proposed killing the program.
Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged as high as $5,223 in Ely, Nev., to as low as $9.21 in Thief River Falls, Minn., according to Transportation Department data for the lower 48 states.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
The improvement that will have to be made for High-Speed Rail Travel is a dedicated line for Passenger that is elevated, trenched, or tunneled to keep the tracks free of people on foot, automobiles, and animals. There are too many collisions on rail lines at the current speeds. They will increase the collisions greatly if they use the same tracks in the same place.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Phoebe Vet For those who keep saying there is little or no subsidy of air travel, this is from this morning's paper: WASHINGTON — A program that subsidizes air service to small airports, often in remote communities, is shaping up as an early test in the new Congress of conservatives' zeal for shrinking the federal government. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has proposed an amendment to an aviation bill pending before the Senate in order to eliminate the $200 million annual essential air service program. The program pays airlines to provide scheduled service to about 150 communities, from Muscle Shoals, Ala., to Pelican, Alaska. In the House, the Republican Study Committee -- a group of conservative lawmakers -- has also proposed killing the program. Subsidies per airline passenger as of June 1, 2010, ranged as high as $5,223 in Ely, Nev., to as low as $9.21 in Thief River Falls, Minn., according to Transportation Department data for the lower 48 states.
I agree that air travel is far more subsidized than many realize. However, if the GOP is willing to cut the small $200 mil. for the EAS program, doesn't that make it more likely that they will drastically cut or eliminate Amtrak's $2.2 bil. federal subsidy?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Yes, I do. I never doubted that they would. On the other hand, people want the deficits reduced but they don't want their own favorite project touched. I believe that time will show that every cut the new legislature makes will alienate another segment of voters.
Politicians, GOP included, are very calculating. They will cut programs that benefit voters and regions that are not likely to vote for them in 2012. In the case of Amtrak, the only portions of its route structure that are heavily used are in the Northeast and to a lesser degree, in Midwestern states like Illinois that the GOP does not count on winning. The long distance routes do serve areas in which the GOP is strong, but since the ridership is so small, it has no impact on outcome.
C'mon people. If you are pointing out "Look, Essential Air Services gets 200 mil", you are setting us up for "OK, Amtrak gets 200 mil." Bad move politically to even bring this up.
The other bad thing to bring up about those bad, bad Republicans wanting to stick it to the liberal opposition where it hurts, the reason Essential Air Services gets 200 mil and Amtrak gets its 1500 mil is that those levels of funding are considered "modem line noise" in the 3 million mil (3 tril) or whatever it has grown to Federal budget.
Look, when we are put in the corner with our backs to the wall over arguments that the proposed rail projects (Madison-Milwaukee) are not cost effective, our fallback position from inside the advocacy bunker is always, "But what Amtrak gets is such a pittance compared to all of the money (wasted) elsewhere in the budget" and we keen "Why are they picking on us?"
In a way, that was the argument behind the Vision Report, that you could probably increase Amtrak 10-fold to about the 10-15 billion/year range and have the Amtrak budget fit within the cracks, but increasing it to the 30-40 billion/year range to bring it to a full par with what they do in Europe would put it even with the highway budget. There are many in the advocacy community who believe that passenger rail should be funded at the same level of the highway budget, out of some sense of fairness or equity or the Europeans do it or if highways get X dollars why don't we get the same. But that level of funding would attract significant scrutiny and you couldn't say we are the poor step child getting budget crumbs.
But when there is a major budget crunch, everything gets scrutinized, even the "line noise" expenditures, and one has pretty much lost the argument on rail that the argument for rail is that it is such a minor expenditure. The reason it is such a minor expenditure is that we could never get more support for it when times were good.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Your argument can be equally applied to the act of vilifying opponents by associating them with a fictitious adversarial organization called the "Advocacy Community" as if individual opinions do not exist.
There is one argument in favor of high Amtrak (or transit) subsidies that I had heard from someone in our local advocacy group, and it goes something like this.
Automobile is actually a high cost mode of transportation. In intercity travel, a modern auto should get 30 MPG that works out to about 10 cents/mile, the cost of the auto plus major repairs over 200,000 miles is about $30000 or 15 cents a mile, lets throw in another 5 cents a mile for un(gas tax) funded road work and 5 cents for insurance, etc, we are talking about 35 cents/mile. IRS allows much more, but consider 35 cents/mile as a baseline for auto operations.
I think there is a good reason to believe that train operating expenses are in the 30-40 cents/mile range. In places where the fares are that high (NEC), Amtrak breaks even on the above-the-contact-patch expenses. On long-distances runs where the fares per mile are lower, not so much.
Airlines, for their packed-in full flights, I saw a number mentioned around here of a 10 cent/mile operating cost.
If you are comparing autos and Amtrak, you could say they are in rough round numbers about equal cost. The reason Amtrak "needs" the big subsidy is that people only figure their gas when comparing a car trip to Amtrak, but by subsidizing Amtrak, you are only leveling the playing field against people not putting a cents/mile meter on the dash of their car.
Yes, but, if you are comparing Amtrak to air, airlines by far "blow away" Amtrak at the expense of offering a more rapid trip, but with the patdown, the cramped seats, the crowds. Perhaps in some short-haul corridors where planes are charging 30-40 cents/mile or more and Amtrak can charge that amount and break even (the low cost of planes may be biased towards longer trips), Amtrak can break even.
Then the argument "Know the cost of everything and the value of nothing" gets wheeled out if its carbarn. You see, the lower cost airline travel is so miserable, you see, whereas the high-cost Amtrak trip is so Frimbo-esquely civilized where we are lavishing tips on car attendents (are you supposed to tip flight attendents, say, in First Class where you do get a lot of personal attention?), Amtrak needs to be subsidized so that those among us who appreciate Amtrak are able to afford to ride it?
Phoebe Vet Your argument can be equally applied to the act of vilifying opponents by associating them with a fictitious adversarial organization called the "Advocacy Community" as if individual opinions do not exist.
Where am I villifying anyone? Simply say, "I part company with what your consider to be the mainstream position because of . . . " or "I support what you consider to bet the mainstream advocacy position and here is why."
Villifying?
I am suggesting that if you or anyone you know decides to lay into Essential Air Services, that is probably on a tactical level a bad move, if you want to keep Amtrak around (the thread is still Why Amtrak is worth continuing and improving), and I am villifying people?
Paul M.: I agree with most of your post. However, I think the basis for Phoebe Vet's suggestion you were "vilifying" (an overly strong term, IMO), was your phrase, "position from inside the advocacy bunker."
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.