Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="KCSfan"] [quote user="Sam1"] The reason to question the subsidies paid to Amtrak is because of the amount per passenger mile. They are the highest transport subsidies by as much as 20 times those for other modes of transport. That's in my spread sheets. [/quote] My first reaction was to doubt the 20 times figure but as I thought more about it, it began to pass my "smell test". Common sense suggests that there's a relationship between usage and the subsidy per passenger mile. The higher the usage, the lower the subsidy and conversely, as in the case of Amtrak, the lower the usage, the greater the subsidy per passenger mile. Since you've already done the analysis, would you consider sharing with us what your spread sheets show to be the subsidy per passenger mile for the different modes of transport? These data should put to rest many of the arguments (my own included) presented on this and the other locked thread which are based on emotion and snippets of knowledge. [quote user="Sam1"] Amtrak runs long distance trains that carry less than one per cent of intercity travelers, which is not the best allocation of the country's resources. [/quote] Few passengers ride LD trains their entire route from from one end point terminal to the other (NEC excepted). The vast majority ride between intermediate stops or from an intermediate stop and an end point terminal. This suggest to me that perhaps we should think of LD trains as being akin to Essential Air Service (EAS). My knowledge of EAS is limited to its objective which I believe is to establish or maintain air transport to smaller cites that might otherwise be neglected by the airlines in favor of their more densely travelled and therefore more profitable routes. If the data is available it would be interesting to see a comparison of the subsidy per passenger mile paid for EAS vs that paid for LD Amtrak service. [quote user="Sam1"] Since its inception Amtrak has lost more than $28 billion. This information can be found in the Amtrak FY11 financials if you want to verify it. [/quote]  After adjustments for inflation doesn't the data show a reduction in yearly Amtrak losses that corresponds with the increases in ridership in recent years? [quote user="Sam1"] The key question is where does passenger rail make sense?  What should it look like and how should it be funded? [/quote] I totally agree!! This should be the basis for any further discussions. As always, thank you, Sam, for your insightful comments and for the work you have done to develop the information on which they are based.  Any comments on the points I have brought up in this reply would likewise be appreciated. Mark [/quote] I am updating my data to take into consideration several items that I have not considered as federal subsidies for highways, i.e. the interest associated with the Cash for Clunkers Program and the on-going credits for alternative fueled vehicles. When I get it done (I have other priorities now), I'll share them, which I have done. I am a bit tired of the subsidies argument:  Nothing is going to unwind the country's investments in airways, highways, and waterways.  Furthermore government subsidies paid to competing modes of transport are irrelevant since it is not a matter of slicing up a fixed size pie at the federal level, which is the major source of passenger railroad funding in the United States. If passenger rail is a good investment, the federal government can print the money it needs to fund it. If Amtrak's annual loses were restated in 2011 constant dollars, they probably would show a higher loss per passenger mile, especially during the formative years. It would take a lot of work to get there, i.e. each year would have to be calculated, and I don't have the time or inclination to do it.  Moreover, given the information given the public by Amtrak, I could only work with averages.   Amtrak's accumulated losses tell a simple story. Amtrak is a failed business. The cost of the Essential Air Services Program is in the neighborhood of $175 million per year. I don't know the cost per passenger mile, but it is probably very high.   My long held view is that all transport subsidies should be eliminated over a reasonable period of time. They distort pricing and result in wasteful behaviors. I would nix the Essential Air Services Program. However, as I have stated in other posts, subsidies are not going away because of politics. The politicians are not going to give up this cookie jar.  Moreover, beyond the financial implications of subsidies, there are social and economic justifications for some subsidized commercial services.
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