Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
Joe Boardman at the Midwest HSR Association

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="John WR"] [quote user="Sam1"]In FY12 Amtrak lost 18.21 cents per passenger mile.[/quote] Yes.  But we need to bear in mind that is an average figure.  Some lines lost more and some lines lost less.  Based on how you figure it, Acela lost very little and may have even made a profit.   It is no secret that Amtrak looses the most on its long distance trains.  Yet so far Congress still is willing to spend it.  [/quote] It is an average.  And the losses vary per product or service line.   Amtrak has three service lines, i.e. NEC, State Supported and Other Short Distance Corridor Trains, and Long  Distance Trains.  In FY12 the NEC had an operating profit of $281.9 million whist the State Supported..trains had an operating loss of $183.8 million and the Long Distance Trains had an operating loss of $600.9 million. Within the NEC the Acela trains had an operating profit of $206.5 million. And three of the State Supporte trains had a small operating profit. Assuming that the NEC wears 80 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges, the NEC lost $337.7 million after allocation of these charges. Even if the NEC only wears 70 per cent of these charges, the loss would have been $183 million. The losses would have been mitigated slightly by the state capital payments, but they are only 1.42 per cent of route revenues. As I pointed out in a previous post, if one spreads the losses over the estimated 2012  federal income tax payers, they are very small per taxpayer. The typical taxpayer, I suspect, is not even aware of the federal subsidies for Amtrak or at least the amount. But small items can add up. If one rounds the losses on the long distance trains and calculates an opportunity cost associated with their continuance, the numbers become impressive.  For example, assuming the current U.S. Treasury long bond interest rate, the opportunity cost of the long distance trains over 25 years would be $27.8 billion.  For 30 years it would be $37.2 billion whilst 35 years would come in at $48.5 billion and 40 years could see $62.1 billion.  The last number is pretty close to the estimated cost of the California High Speed Rail Project before inclusion of finance charges.  These numbers do not include an accretion in the long distance train subsidies attributable to inflation, which historically averages approximately three per cent a year over the long run.  Depending on the inflation in the out years, it could have a dramatic impact on the numbers. So it depends on which case you want to make.  If you support the long distance trains, you cite the small amount of federal and state subsidies per taxpayer.  It is even smaller than the numbers for federal income tax payers when all taxpayers are taken into consideration.  If you don't believe the long distance trains are a high priority, you cite the compounded opportunity costs over time.
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