Why don't Congress give Amtrak 1 Billion Dollars from the Airlines and the Highway Trust Fund, so that 2 Billion in fresh money every year? Back in 1997 they was a bill to give Amtrak 1 cent of the gas tax, but it was ever Vote on or pass in Congress. If that pass in 1997 Amtrak would be rolling in the money by Now 2011.
Congress designed Amtrak to fail and intends to see that their design accomplishes it's purpose. The fact that Amtrak has survived 40 years despite the best efforts of Congress is a embarrassment.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD
No rational person should have expected ATK to be self supporting when it was founded. The railroads were loosing several hundred millions of dollars per year on passenger trains. That is why they were pulling them off as fast as the government would let them. True, a few congressmen claimed it would be self supporting but they were either ignorant of the facts or told that tale to justify their vote for it. Congress has kept ATK alive for 40 years by continuing to fund it.
The embarassment is that ATK survives. It is my #1 nomination to be eliminated if we are ever to get spending under control.
Mac
conrailman Why don't Congress give Amtrak 1 Billion Dollars from the Airlines and the Highway Trust Fund, so that 2 Billion in fresh money every year? Back in 1997 they was a bill to give Amtrak 1 cent of the gas tax, but it was ever Vote on or pass in Congress. If that pass in 1997 Amtrak would be rolling in the money by Now 2011.
Subsidies distort cost and price mechanisms, thereby leading to suboptimum policy decisions and distorted use. Hidden cross subsidies are even worse. Moreover, they are unfair. Why should a passenger on Greyhound or American Airlines, who is paying a price sufficient to cover the cost of transporting him via a private company that must earn a profit or go out of business, subsidize a rail passenger?
Federal fuel tax monies are currently diverted from the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Of this amount, two cents goes to the Mass Transit Fund and four cents goes to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction. This is the major reason why $14.7 billion had to be transferred from the General Fund to the HTF in 2010 to cover federal highway construction and maintenance needs. Transferring addition funds to Amtrak would make the situation worse.
All transport subsidies should be eliminated, and the full cost of each transport mode should be reflected at the price point, i.e. ticket counter, pump, etc. If this happened, conventional passenger rail, irrespective of who operates it, could be viable in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the airway and highway systems is prohibitive.
The issue is not saving Amtrak. It is developing passenger rail where it makes commercial sense. There is no logical reason why Amtrak should have a monopoly on intercity passenger rail. Other wannabes should be allowed to compete for the passenger rail markets, although they are not likely to do so unless the economics change substantially.
Assuming Amtrak will be the only game in town for the foreseeable future, it should be rationalized. Operations should be confined to corridors where it can cover its operating costs under the present regulatory environment and its capital costs if the government were to adopt a no transport subsidy policy.
The first step toward the rationalization of Amtrak would be to discontinue the long distance trains and use the savings to promote enhanced corridor services. This would eliminate the need for baggage, lounge, and sleeping cars, thereby resulting in significant capital and operating savings.
Another step would be to use technology to improve productivity. This would reduce some of the labor intensity associated with passenger trains. Assuming passenger rail operates only in high density corridors, Amtrak or any operator could install passenger access systems similar to those found on the Washington METRO, BART, etc., thereby eliminating the cost of collecting tickets on the trains. Ticket taking on the train is a 19th century practice that needs to go the way of the horse and buggy.
A third step would be to eliminate the administrative paper work associated with Amtrak. For example, Amtrak still sends me a paper ticket every time I take the Texas Eagle from Taylor, Texas. I don't need it. The conductor could carry a device similar to the smart meters carried by utility meter readers. When a passenger boards the train, he could show his identification, and the conductor could check instantly to determine whether he had bought and paid for his transportation.
Numerous other steps could be taken that would make it possible for Amtrak or other operators to cover their operating costs where trains make sense. Moreover, if governments stopped subsidizing other modes of transport, or made their true cost transparent through its pricing mechanisms, passenger rail probably could stand on its own in the markets described above.
Undoubtedly, some will respond by claiming that the government has treated Amtrak unfairly by giving vastly greater sums to air and motor transport. This overlooks the fact that the subsidy per passenger mile for Amtrak is many times greater than that for other modes of transport. In any case, it is irrelevant. Those actions are history. They cannot be reversed any more than the support given to the railroads under the Pacific Railroad Acts can be reversed. The key question is how do we go forward? What passenger transport problem is the nation addressing? And what is the best solution for the United States. Not France! Not China! Not Japan! The United States!
Sam1 Assuming Amtrak will be the only game in town for the foreseeable future, it should be rationalized. Operations should be confined to corridors where it can cover its operating costs under the present regulatory environment and its capital costs if the government were to adopt a no transport subsidy policy.
Yet the House of Rep has proposed to eliminate all support to state supported rail. That IMHO will lead to the death of Amtrak. The states will not implement new services that can be proven [ex. Lynchburg ] . If the state supported service end then Amtrak will slowly end.
The Corridors trains feed people into LD trains in Chicago or NYP. You lose them people too.
blue streak 1 Sam1: Assuming Amtrak will be the only game in town for the foreseeable future, it should be rationalized. Operations should be confined to corridors where it can cover its operating costs under the present regulatory environment and its capital costs if the government were to adopt a no transport subsidy policy. Yet the House of Rep has proposed to eliminate all support to state supported rail. That IMHO will lead to the death of Amtrak. The states will not implement new services that can be proven [ex. Lynchburg ] . If the state supported service end then Amtrak will slowly end.
Sam1: Assuming Amtrak will be the only game in town for the foreseeable future, it should be rationalized. Operations should be confined to corridors where it can cover its operating costs under the present regulatory environment and its capital costs if the government were to adopt a no transport subsidy policy.
I tried to make clear in my post that there is no logical reason why Amtrak needs to be the sole passenger rail player. If it were rationalized; that is to say streamlined and turned into a modern organization, I believe that it could at least cover its operating costs in the NEC.
If the states want to sponsor passenger rail, as they do, there is no reason why Amtrak has to operate it. Put it up for competitive bids. The results might be surprising.
I agree with the GOP proposal to stop supporting state sponsored corridors with federal money. If these corridors are critical to meet the needs of the sponsoring states, let them pony up the difference.
As another poster to this thread has put it, it is time for all of us, irrespective of our interests and favored projects, to accept the fact that the United States has a serious financial problem. And it is not going to solved by telling the other guy to cut his perks. It will only be solved when everyone takes a hit.
conrailman The Corridors trains feed people into LD trains in Chicago or NYP. You lose them people too.
The percentage of people transferring from corridor trains to long distance trains or vice versa is minuscule. If the long distance trains were discontinued, there is no reason to believe that the viable corridors would be impacted seriously.
Long distance passengers account for approximately 15 per cent of Amtrak's passengers, with sleeping car passengers accounting for less than 3 per cent of its passengers. A significant percentage of them get on or off the train where there are no connecting corridor trains.
Why can't Amtrak charge a 10 roundtrip fee for Tickets to save Amtrak?
conrailman Why can't Amtrak charge a 10 roundtrip fee for Tickets to save Amtrak?
What does this mean? Do you mean why doesn't ATK raise prices by a factor of ten? Do you mean send every household in the country a bill for some amount of money?
And on it goes, over and over with a couple of new wrinkles now and then. There are the folks who want no rail passenger service that has any subsidy. At the other extreme are folks who want long distance trains continued, even though they serve almost nobody and are a huge money loser/waster. And then somewhere in between are those who want to see a rational corridor system built up, using federal money for capitalization. The discussion recycles over and over to no end.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
IMHO if either LD or corridor or state supported trains are curtailed then the whole system will fail. I beg to differ the corridor and LD do noot overlap. every trip I have taken with the exception on 2 have been connections. Harrisburg;, Hartford;, springfield il; springfield mo; capitol corridor,; San Diego all have been connections 1 way or the other.
If Amtrak can provide any support for state supported trains how does operating into Amtrak owned stations work.? That certainly is providing both station support and track rights.
1. Boston South stn
2. NYP - Pennsylvanian, EMPIRE SERVICE,
2a. Albany --, Buffalo route
3. 30th st.
4. Wash
5. Harrisburg
6. Chicago
6a. Michiigan SERVICES
6b. Hiawathas
7. San diego - Do not know who owns it
8. Anyone know of others? ex TriRail stations WPB, FLL, HOLLYWOOD???
PNWRMNM conrailman: Why can't Amtrak charge a 10 roundtrip fee for Tickets to save Amtrak? What does this mean? Do you mean why doesn't ATK raise prices by a factor of ten? Do you mean send every household in the country a bill for some amount of money?
conrailman: Why can't Amtrak charge a 10 roundtrip fee for Tickets to save Amtrak?
Anyone who buys a roundtrip ticket will be charge extra $10.00 to help Amtrak out, just like the Airlines do charge a ticket tax.
One can advance all manner of reasons of why "people hate trains" or all manner of conspiracy theories regarding "the death of Amtrak." We have been at the conspiracy theory explanation for so many decades that I don't think that anyone advancing them should be taken seriously anymore.
So, why don't we simply give more money to Amtrak and get more trains. Why not indeed? I think the real reason is that cars and planes give "more bang for the subsidy buck."
The Vision Report, which is a document that is hailed as "why aren't we doing this" by the passenger train advocacy community, advocates a 10-fold increase in Amtrak funding to get a 10-fold increase in passenger miles, bringing Amtrak from 1/100 as much as the airlines to 1/10 as much. Thus, spending about as much on trains as we do on the FAA would get us only one tenth the passenger miles of airlines.
What about economy of scale, when we get more trains and more people riding them, won't it be cheaper per passenger mile. No, not really, or at least if you believe the projections of the Vision Report, which is based on the experience in Europe where trains are at a much larger scale than in the U.S..
That is why I believe that conspiracy-theory mongering and sitting around complaining that "Congress won't give us more money" is a profound misapplication of passenger advocacy resources, especially this late in the game as it were. A better direction for advocacy efforts is a twin-pronged effort along 1) why are passenger trains as expensive as they are, and would could be done to make them more cost effective, and 2) to the extent that passenger trains are a high-cost way to supplying passenger miles, what routes and markets are there where the road or airline alternatives, especially adding incremental capacity, would be even more expensive?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic conrailman: Why don't Congress give Amtrak 1 Billion Dollars from the Airlines and the Highway Trust Fund, so that 2 Billion in fresh money every year? Back in 1997 they was a bill to give Amtrak 1 cent of the gas tax, but it was ever Vote on or pass in Congress. If that pass in 1997 Amtrak would be rolling in the money by Now 2011. One can advance all manner of reasons of why "people hate trains" or all manner of conspiracy theories regarding "the death of Amtrak." We have been at the conspiracy theory explanation for so many decades that I don't think that anyone advancing them should be taken seriously anymore. So, why don't we simply give more money to Amtrak and get more trains. Why not indeed? I think the real reason is that cars and planes give "more bang for the subsidy buck." The Vision Report, which is a document that is hailed as "why aren't we doing this" by the passenger train advocacy community, advocates a 10-fold increase in Amtrak funding to get a 10-fold increase in passenger miles, bringing Amtrak from 1/100 as much as the airlines to 1/10 as much. Thus, spending about as much on trains as we do on the FAA would get us only one tenth the passenger miles of airlines. What about economy of scale, when we get more trains and more people riding them, won't it be cheaper per passenger mile. No, not really, or at least if you believe the projections of the Vision Report, which is based on the experience in Europe where trains are at a much larger scale than in the U.S.. That is why I believe that conspiracy-theory mongering and sitting around complaining that "Congress won't give us more money" is a profound misapplication of passenger advocacy resources, especially this late in the game as it were. A better direction for advocacy efforts is a twin-pronged effort along 1) why are passenger trains as expensive as they are, and would could be done to make them more cost effective, and 2) to the extent that passenger trains are a high-cost way to supplying passenger miles, what routes and markets are there where the road or airline alternatives, especially adding incremental capacity, would be even more expensive?
conrailman: Why don't Congress give Amtrak 1 Billion Dollars from the Airlines and the Highway Trust Fund, so that 2 Billion in fresh money every year? Back in 1997 they was a bill to give Amtrak 1 cent of the gas tax, but it was ever Vote on or pass in Congress. If that pass in 1997 Amtrak would be rolling in the money by Now 2011.
Spot on! Good analysis!
Paul Milenkovic 1) why are passenger trains as expensive as they are, and would could be done to make them more cost effective?
1) why are passenger trains as expensive as they are, and would could be done to make them more cost effective?
@Paul: I know and I'm pretty sure you do too, that the answer to that is the 900# gorilla in the room. The other analysis that would be of interest would be determining the operating costs per train mile for the various routes: NEC, other corridors and LD. I don't know, but I suspect the costs on at least some of the corridors are considerably less than LD. Those are the routes that should be developed/improved while the others are eliminated. Sometimes you have to lose a limb to save the patient; in this case, Amtrak.
Sam1 is correct that "the United States has a serious financial problem", but misleading in implying that the problem is too much spending. We have cut taxes to their lowest level in 60 years relative to GDP (you can look it up.) If we were paying taxes at the same rate the greatest generation did in the decade after they returned from World War II, we might be able to afford to give our next generation some of the things (transportation, parks, water systems, low-cost college education) that the greatest generation bequeathed to us. It's also misleading to blame transit for the shortfall in the highway trust fund. The fund spends about $50B per year; about $10B goes to transit; but the 2010 bailout was almost $20B. A more important cause is that while the cost of building and maintaining highways rises with inflation and the number of miles driven, the gas tax rate hasn't kept up with inflation or the increasing MPG of vehicles. Adjusted for inflation, the gas tax rate has fallen by 2/3 since 1961 (you can look that up, too.) The average MPG increased (this graph) by more than 50% since 1970, so the gas tax rate has fallen even faster in cents per mile. The only salvation would be for gas prices to increase faster than overall inflation, but if you ignore the 2006-8 spike, inflation-adjusted prices were about the same in 2010 as in 1961. Meanwhile, the miles driven per capita per year went up by 2.5x from 1961 to 2007 (see this graph.) The rationale for diverting money to transit is that the solution of paving ever more land for ever more motor vehicle miles has reached its limit, and scaling it up to meet future needs is going to be horrifically expensive, requiring either something like PTC for automobiles or confiscation of private property without compensation. You can either wait for the system to crash, or try to get out in front of the problem by providing alternatives. The principle of not subsidizing anything sounds wonderfully fair, but at this point it's analogous to stepping into the middle of a fistfight after one party has a black eye and a bloody nose and declaring with high-minded impartiality that he mustn't punch back because henceforth there shall be no more fighting.
Sam1 is correct that "the United States has a serious financial problem", but misleading in implying that the problem is too much spending. We have cut taxes to their lowest level in 60 years relative to GDP (you can look it up.) If we were paying taxes at the same rate the greatest generation did in the decade after they returned from World War II, we might be able to afford to give our next generation some of the things (transportation, parks, water systems, low-cost college education) that the greatest generation bequeathed to us.
It's also misleading to blame transit for the shortfall in the highway trust fund. The fund spends about $50B per year; about $10B goes to transit; but the 2010 bailout was almost $20B. A more important cause is that while the cost of building and maintaining highways rises with inflation and the number of miles driven, the gas tax rate hasn't kept up with inflation or the increasing MPG of vehicles. Adjusted for inflation, the gas tax rate has fallen by 2/3 since 1961 (you can look that up, too.) The average MPG increased (this graph) by more than 50% since 1970, so the gas tax rate has fallen even faster in cents per mile. The only salvation would be for gas prices to increase faster than overall inflation, but if you ignore the 2006-8 spike, inflation-adjusted prices were about the same in 2010 as in 1961. Meanwhile, the miles driven per capita per year went up by 2.5x from 1961 to 2007 (see this graph.)
The rationale for diverting money to transit is that the solution of paving ever more land for ever more motor vehicle miles has reached its limit, and scaling it up to meet future needs is going to be horrifically expensive, requiring either something like PTC for automobiles or confiscation of private property without compensation. You can either wait for the system to crash, or try to get out in front of the problem by providing alternatives.
The principle of not subsidizing anything sounds wonderfully fair, but at this point it's analogous to stepping into the middle of a fistfight after one party has a black eye and a bloody nose and declaring with high-minded impartiality that he mustn't punch back because henceforth there shall be no more fighting.
if we did this, Amtrak would only be running on the east and west coast!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.